What is a trademark?

A trademark is defined as a recognizable word or phrase that signifies a specific product and legally separates it from other, similar products and entities.  Trademarks are vital to businesses for a multitude of reasons including that they can assist in establishing brand distinguishability, make it easier to expand and market the brand, and most importantly, helps protect the brand from those wishing to copy it.  Not only this, but they never expire, so it makes sense for companies to make an investment into one if they expect their brand to do well. It is quite easy to determine whether or not a product is trademarked. They are usually denoted by the registered trademark symbol, which I have attached to the left below. This shows that the trademark has been registered correctly with the government and is not to be confused with (but commonly is) the unregistered trademark symbol to the right.

 

Starbucks’s Frappuccinos

To better make sense of how trademarking works, I will be focusing on a specific example: Starbucks. Starbucks famously trademarked the frappuccino, an iced, blended coffee drink that comes in multiple flavors and is made with a variety of ingredients. According to Starbucks itself, the frappuccino was born over 20 years ago in the summer of 1995, and it was trademarked that year. However, Starbucks was not the first to trademark the word, as it was originally done so by George Howell of the Coffee Connection in 1992. According to Howell, the name was inspired by mixing two words frequently used in the coffee industry: frozen and cappuccino. Starbucks ultimately liked the word, bought it from Howell, and started marketing frappuccinos under their own, original recipe– something they still do to this day.

As you can see above, the word “frappuccino” is followed by the registered trade mark symbol, which means that only the Starbucks company is allowed to market any product as a frappuccino as long as they are active in the market. This is why you see so many knock offs of the beverages, but they are never referred to by the full name “frappuccino”. Rather, they are normally called “frappes”. This is because Starbucks does not have “frappe” trademarked. According to Medium, the word already existed and is too similar to a commonly marketed word, so companies are unable to claim it as there own. With this said, anybody can use it as long as they are producing a product that is similar but not entirely the same as Starbucks’s frappuccino. Many companies have already done this, including McDonald’s, Burger King, and Cold Stone Creamery because the item is profitable; however, each have their own, unique recipes.

Ultimately, while trademarks may seem insignificant in the gist of things, they are more than a tiny symbol. In fact, they are incredibly important to intellectual property law as they help to protect both the consumer and the company.

On June 12th, 1994, O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman were found stabbed to death outside of her home in Brentwood, California.  This led to one of the most controversial court cases in American history: the O.J. Simpson murder trial, formally known as the People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson.  The trial took place from January 25th, 1995 to October 2nd, 1995, and Simpson pleaded a confident “absolutely, 100 percent not guilty” during his arraignment.  Despite an overwhelming amount of DNA evidence against Simpson, it took the criminal court jury less than four hours to find him not guilty on October 3rd, 1995.  However, the Goldman family brought a civil case against Simpson, and in 1997 the jury in the civil case ruled him as “liable” for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman and decided that he must pay $33.5 million in punitive award to the victims’ families.

With this particular case in mind, how could O.J. Simpson be not guilty of any criminal charges yet liable for both deaths?  The answers lies in the many differences between criminal and civil law.

1. There are different parties in criminal and civil law.

A major factor that we used to differentiate between criminal and civil law is the parties involved.  In criminal law, the parties are the defendant (the person accused of committing a crime) and the state or federal government.  The government is more involved in this type of law because the defendant has broken a crime that was established by the government, such as murder or theft.  However, civil law is more private; it deals with disputes between individuals and entities including defamation, divorce, and negligence.  This distinction can be seen in O.J. Simpson’s trials as in his criminal case, he was prosecuted for murder by the People of the State of California, while the Goldman family chose to press charges on him in his civil case.

2. There are different sanctions in criminal and civil law.

The sanctions, often referred to as “punishments” also differ in both types of law.  Criminal sanctions can be in the form of community service, rehabilitation, or jail sentence and can be as serious as life in prison or the death penalty.  On the other hand, the penalties in a civil law case are often monetary such as paying a sum of money or damages to the other party or a restraining order.  While O.J. Simpson did not face any criminal sanctions, he was given a hefty monetary sanction in the civil court.

3. There are different ways of handling evidence in criminal and civil law.

This final difference between criminal and civil law is exactly why O.J. Simpson was not indicted for murder yet was held responsible for his victims’ deaths.  In criminal cases, there is the burden of proof.  This means that the defendant must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in order for them to be charged with a criminal offense.  Simpson was not able to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because his defense lawyers argued against the credibility of the Los Angeles Police Department, saying that they possessed contaminated evidence and held biases against O.J. Not only this, but the glove believed to be worn by Simpson during the crime was too small and “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”.  However, in civil law, there is the preponderance of evidence, which is only “50 percent plus a feather”.  There was enough evidence in the O.J. Simpson civil trial to fulfill this requirement, so he was held accountable for the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

In conclusion, knowing the many distinctions in criminal and civil law can make it easier to interpret the outcome of confusing and controversial cases such as O.J. Simpson’s.