The mashup of the iconic Nike swoosh and the stylized SKIMS word mark that was rolled out on Tuesday ahead of the debut of the two companies’ impending collaboration is the latest example of companies combining their branding in furtherance of co-branded collections. The NikeSKIMS venture, which is being teased as a new brand coming this spring for the body obsessed … Designed to sculpt and engineered to perform,” comes amid an established rise of co-branded collaborations. While fashion collaborations – and even co-branded ones – are not new by any means, what continues to prove interesting is the willingness of companies to combine elements of their distinct brands to develop new assets and create buzz that breaks through the noise of the market.
Against this background, the commingling of trademarks (and in certain instances, copyrights, too) goes beyond Nike and Kim Kardashian’s SKIMS bran, and has been seen in tie-ups between Coach and Champion, Sacai and APC, Kanye West and Gap, Kering-owned brands Gucci and Balenciaga, rivals-turned-collaborators Versace and Fendi, and longtime partners Tiffany & Co. and Patek Philippe, the latter of which debuted a limited edition watch with Tiffany’s name and famous blue inserted onto the source-identifying face of Patek’s Nautilus watch back in 2021.
This enduring trend is intriguing from a branding perspective, as high fashion and luxury brands have traditionally been hesitant to play with their trademarks too much (or at all). Rebrands – and presumably, co-brands – can be risky (although, as Rowan Forster argues here, trademarks are much more flexible than we tend to give them credit for) when companies have spent significant time and resources to establish strong branding and corresponding goodwill that resonates with consumers, and thus, is synonymous with their products, ethos, and business operations as a whole.
Nonetheless, it seems that brands are proving increasingly willing to take a more fluid approach to their branding when it comes to collaborations, as they aim to inject a sense of novelty largely by way of the branding at play. After all, these more fluid uses of trademarks as part of heavily-hyped collaborative efforts allow companies to position themselves to benefit from a more viral effect than the traditional uses of their marks may achieve.
The Significance of a Single Source
The trademark filings in these instances appear to be relatively uncomplicated; Gap and West’s corporate entity Mascotte, for example, jointly filed to register the blue-and-white YZY mark, seemingly indicating joint ownership of the asset. Balenciaga and Gucci similarly filed trademark applications for registration for one of their collaborative marks, which was created by swapping in “BB” for Gucci’s well-known “GG” monogram, listing both Kering-owned companies as owners of the mark.
On the other hand, Fendi filed two trademark applications for registration for the “Fendace” word mark for use on apparel, leather goods, and eyewear, in connection with its 2022 tie-up with Versace, which may indicate that it, alone, assumed rights in the IP assets that were created in connection with the collab.
With logistical concerns out of the way, the more interesting issue centers on the function of trademarks, themselves, with word marks, logos, etc. traditionally operating as trademarks by virtue of the fact that they indicate a single source of goods/services – in other words, one company. This is not the case when it comes to co-branded collaborations, at least not on its face, as there are trademark-bearing products at play that are coming from two different companies. Nike and SKIMS, for instance, are two distinct entities.
In situations like this, NikeSKIMS can operate as a trademark that differs from Nike, alone and/or SKIMS, alone, because the goods (whatever they may prove to be) are being presented as coming from a unified combination of Nike and SKIMS. And two or more companies may jointly own a trademark if they operate as a unified source, such as through a joint venture or partnership, ensuring consumers associate the mark with a single, cohesive entity: the collab-centric partnership.
As for what is driving these continued tie-ups, as we asserted on the heels of the Gucci x Balenciaga co-branding venture, now appears to be an opportune time for companies to assess the breadth of the assets in their portfolio and try to monetize their brands in ways that go beyond their current uses.
Share
