Timbuk2 and Target

A friend alerted me to this story: Timbuk2 announced plans this summer to make custom messenger bags by laminating recycled advertising material such as posters, billboards, and shopping bags. Timbuk2 advertised images of these Lamitron bags bearing the Target logo. Target responded with a cease-and-desist letter expressing “concern[] that [Timbuk2’s] use of [Target’s] famous Bullseye Design mark could give the impression that these bags originate from, or are somehow sponsored by, or are otherwise affiliated with Target . . . we request that you cease use of TBI’s Bullseye Design mark on your Lamitron bags.”

This dispute is the trademark law equivalent of a remix or mash-up of a copyrighted song and exists on the cusp between traditional trademark law and 21st century marketing. The lawyer in me understands why Target sent the cease-and-desist letter. Trademark law places the onus of trademark protection on the mark’s owner, who must guard against unauthorized use of the mark, whether infringing (likely to cause confusion about the source of a product) or dilutive (weakening the identity of the mark in ways that are not infringing). To a lawyer this is a classic slippery-slope problem. It Target lets Timbuk2’s use go unchallenged then the next unauthorized use becomes harder to challenge and, at some point, the Bullseye Design loses its association with Target and becomes another piece of worthless iconic flotsam on the sea of advertising images.

Idea City, a marketing and advertising blog, argues the other side: “Shame on you, Target. This is a new era . . . Timbuk2 may be another “company” rather than a “customer”, but what they offer you is a way to keep the Target brand relevant, fresh, and at the cutting edge of fashion and design. Why in the world would you ask Timbuk2 to remove your logo from their bags?” The lawyer’s retort is “because (1) Target, not you, gets to decide how to keep its brand relevant and fresh, (2) unauthorized use of the Bullseye Design will weaken its relevance and freshness, a result that does not harm you but harms Target deeply, and (3) allowing your use would be the first big push down the slippery slope.”

Trademark law shapes the environment in which the parties confront this issue, but its concerns are not the only ones. Creativity builds on the creations of others. Danger Mouse remixes The Beatles’ White Album and Jay-Z’s Black Album to create the Gray Album. Tom Stoppard takes two minor characters from Hamlet to create Rosencranz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Alice Randall reimagines Margaret Mitchell’s Gone With the Wind through the eyes of a slave in The Wind Done Gone. Timbuk2 takes found advertising images and places them in a different context by incorporating them into its Lamitron bags. Is Timbuk2 picking stuff at random from the cultural stream and giving it new meaning, or trading on the value of Target’s property? We know what the lawyers say and what the creative types say. Is there satisfactory middle ground?

4 thoughts on “Timbuk2 and Target”

  1. It seems that Idea City hasn’t taken something into account. Had Target allowed Timbuk2 to usethe bullseye logo, or not taken steps to prevent the use, then had Timbuk2’s reputation been hurt for some reason (e.g. scam, lawsuit, etc.) then Target is more than likely to experience some of heat. Customers will more than likely assume that Target had something to do with Timbuk2 due to the fact that the Target’s trademark, the bullseye, is on Timbuk2’s Lamitron bag.

    Therefore, it seems dumb that Target would allow Timbuk2 to use it’s trademark unless a business contract that would be MUTUALLY beneficial could be drawn up.

  2. I understand why Target would file a motion against Timbuk2 in this situation. Although Timbuk2 may argue that they are giving Target free publicity by selling bags with the Target logo on it, the logo does belong to Target and Target should have the exclusive right to produce items with its logo on it.

    The bag could also have negative publicity implications for Target. As the last poster pointed out, customers who see this product will likely assume there was an agreement between Target and Timbuk2. If Timbuk2 does something wrong –for example if they overcharge customers or provide poor customer service or make low quality products, customers will likely associate these wrongdoings with both Timbuk2 and Target—although they have nothing to do with the product.

    I think the music example mentioned is an interesting trademark study, but I think it is different than the bag. Timbuk2 is simply reprinting the Target logo—they aren’t building off of it to make something new or better—as was the case with the music.

  3. Attractive part of content. I just stumbled upon your weblog and in accession capital to say that
    I acquire in fact loved account your blog posts. Anyway I’ll
    be subscribing to your augment or even I fulfillment you access consistently fast.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *