Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Attorney Needed Course in P.R.

OK, tell me this isn't just a perfect example of how lawyers must not be thinking (but ought to) about public relations while they do their jobs. Yesterday Legal Blog Watch reported on the dismay of an Alaskan artist whose "Got Breastmilk?" t-shirts and onesies promoted infant health, when she received a cease and desist order from the California Milk Processors Board's law firm pointing out the potential infringement of the "Got Milk?" slogan.

The woman had sold six items. Couple of years ago. Lord only knows how the Board found out, maybe someone saw a t-shirt recently on a local street or beach. Maybe the lawyer took it as another opportunity to prove his value-add when, on sighting the shirt, he managed to find out who had manufactured it and how to contact that person. Seems like that must have taken a bit of effort, after all, two years had gone by since the original painted lettering of the clothing. Was the corollary information about the sales too much of a step to take? Was the principal of health promotion too difficult to see as a valid public interest? Was it too hard to get the joke?

Working in the interests of a client requires lawyers operate with a wide view of the world, without blinders. Every act of imitation has its own context. Is this a company deliberately stealing the intellectual property of the CMPB for its own profit and gain? Write the letter and pursue the claim. Is this a gentle parody for the sake of nursing an interest in healthy motherhood and babies? A thank you note would be appropriate.

Doesn't take a lot of effort to imagine the public relations benefit of that.

2 comments:

Thorne said...

This reminds me a bit of the story of IBM v. The Big Blue Diner*. This occured many moons ago.

IBM brought suit against the diner, which had been around for quite some time, for trademark infringement. The diner was forced to change its name.

It sounds cold-hearted, but there are these rules regarding trademarks, and if a company doesn't defend its trademark, it runs the risk of its competitors using it. That's the law.

Now, if I were the marketing director for IBM (and it's a good thing for IBM that I'm not), I might suggest doing something creative, like making the diner a subsidiary of IBM, or some such thing -- and doing it just so the company didn't seem like a big mean machine. But then some lawyer would probably tell me that -- while creative -- the idea was really stupid (because of X, Y and Z).

PR is one thing and lawyering is quite another. We don't expect marketeers to be litigators, and we shouldn't expect litigators to be marketeers. Should we?

*The Big Blue Diner

CherylBame said...

What we need to remind the attorneys is that they should not be making decisions about PR without the help of the PR professional. Would we make legal decisions without contacting the lawyers?

While PR may not be the first thing a lawyer thinks about when helping a client make a decision, but it should be at least on the short list of things to consider. In some cases, it may cause more damage than bag legal judgement.