Comments and Reactions

  • I suspect that Nestle is less worried about their logo getting coopted to symbolize environmental damage, and more concerned about applying best legal practices for protecting their trademarks.

    It's generally held within Intellectual Property expert circles that if a company knowingly allows others to take and use its marks without permission, they risk losing the mark entirely since it could be considered abandoned and part of the public domain.

    I don't know for a fact that this has happened in the Nestle case, but I do know that this is a far more important reason for them to enforce use limits on their mark than concern that it could be used as a symbol of environmental misuse. The latter concern just adds to the main reason they'd try to stop people from adopting the logo.

  • I think Nestle added fuel to the firestorm by pointing out logo misuse. Companies cannot separate their social image from their popular brand image. If you are taking a beating in the real word, you will likely take an even greater beating in social media. It's much easier for mildly disgruntled people to take action online, especially if they feel they are part of a larger group.

  • I agree with Richard. If they didn't point it out, no one would make a fuss about it. On the other hand, I do see that why they don't want they trademark to be miss-used. But social media is always a two way sword – you need to be careful not to ignite a negative wave about your brand.

    Interesting post, Beirut. Keep it up :)

  • Pingback: Trippy, Tragic, Triumphant | Words For Hire()

  • Pingback: Social Media, a tactic for branding and participation | Rhuey46()

Latest pingbacks