It has been over a year since SA's third mobile operator Cell C's new logo caused a stir due to its resemblance to the copyright symbol, and the company is still embroiled in legal processes.
ITWeb reported in August last year that the Registrar of Trademarks had provisionally refused the registration of Cell C's new logo. At the time, no reasons were cited for the refusal, but legal experts attributed this to the prevalence of what resembles the official symbol for copyright in the logo.
Launched in 2001, Cell C's initial logo featured a series of red dots that formed the last “C” in the operator's name. The new logo, introduced in August last year, includes a black and white symbol depicting a “C” within a solid circle.
While this appears to be a replica of the legally required copyright symbol, Cell C CEO Lars Reichelt said the new logo reflected the company's vision of understanding its customers and tailoring solutions around them. The white space between the black “C” and solid circle, he said, was symbolic of the customer.
Cell C marketing executive Simon Camerer said at the time: “There is no significance in the Cell C logo resembling the copyright symbol. Primarily, the 'C' in the centre represents Cell C putting the customer at the centre of everything it does. The logo is not designed to look like the copyright symbol.”
Cell C said it welcomed the debate surrounding its logo, but categorically stated the logo itself had not been rejected. “Cell C's application to register its logo as a trademark has been provisionally refused. The provisional refusal of trademark applications is not uncommon.”
Protracted procedure
The operator added that Cell C had taken legal advice from experts in the trademark field and followed all the necessary and relevant procedures in applying for the registration of the trademark.
Reichelt maintained that, based on legal advice, the company had covered any potential legal issues in its 12-month corporate identity turnaround strategy. He said Cell C had considered all angles and made the obligatory applications to register its new logos and payoff lines as trademarks. “This process can take up to two years to be finalised.”
Cell C yesterday confirmed it was still embroiled in the extensive process of making submissions to the Registrar of Trademarks. “The intellectual property legal process is quite lengthy.”
The company said it was not prevented from using its logo and that it would “continue to do so”.
Appeal upheld
In another recent marketing-related debate, Cell C this month won an appeal against a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that arraigned Cell C for disparaging a competitor's rebranding campaign.
SA's first cellphone operator, Vodacom, launched its new “red” campaign in April. As a subsidiary of UK-based Vodafone, the local provider's rebranding moved it towards closer affiliation with its parent company.
Cell C soon afterwards responded with a satirical television advertisement featuring South African comedian Trevor Noah as Cell C's “CEO” or “customer experience officer” as he was introduced, with the new logo in August last year.
The commercial features Noah standing next to a blue Nissan Skyline car that has been partially spray-painted red. While standing there, he says: “Recently, a 17-year-old cell network changed their colours. Nice”. He then walks over to a black sports car and says: “But what's actually under the hood?” The advert ends with Noah pointing to the black car and saying: “'Cause it takes more than a lick of paint to be SA's number one network, don't you think?”
Vodacom lodged a complaint with ASA, claiming the commercial discredited it either directly or indirectly. Vodacom argued the commercial implied its network was old-fashioned, and that it was feebly attempting to use colour to modernise it. “The commercial communicated that, while Vodacom was changing its colours, there was no substance under its 'hood'. This was not only discrediting, but also factually incorrect. The advertisement was accordingly in breach of Clauses 6 and 7.1.6 of Section II of the Code.”
An appeal by Cell C refuted the advert was disparaging, and stated its claim saying: “...the commercial does not state that Vodacom is outdated and old-fashioned, or that there was no substance under Vodacom's hood.”
According to the ASA report, Cell C admitted it was having a light-hearted dig at Vodacom's re-branding campaign, but the primary message of the advert was Cell C's benefits to the consumer. Cell C said it was in any event permissible to have a “dig” at a competitor as a secondary communication in an advertisement.
The ASA has upheld the appeal, saying: “We have considered the materials and submissions before us. We agree with Vodacom that the procedural point should be rejected and find that the directorate was entitled to consider the matter. We, however, uphold Cell C's appeal on the merits.”
Based on the merits, ASA states, it does not believe Vodacom established that Cell C's advertisement disparages its advertising campaign as such.
The Cell C advert, however, will not continue to be used in its original form as the ASA found it to contain “unsubstantiated claims”.
Share