2nd dec, 2012

Get your facts right when communicating about IPR

Today I read an article in Danish newspaper Politiken about the Pussy Riot brand. The article is interesting and examines the branding strategy of Pussy Riot. The interesting part was ruined however because all I could focus on was the fact that the IPR part of the article was wrong.
The journalist consequently used the term “patent” about the trademark which is annoying to the specialist and helps to confuse the ordinary reader. It’s like writing an article about a guy running a person over with his bicycle when in fact the vehicle used was a car.
Finding the source for the Danish article in a Russian newspaper only enhanced the annoyed feeling. The Moscow Times which has the original story has got it right, using the terms “Brand” and “Trademark” – never patent. So all there was to do was to translate the words correctly – even Google Translate gets it right.
Other than that the Russian article is an interesting article about an alternative strategy where there is a decision not to commercialize the value of the brand. A decision that probably makes the brand more effective and valuable (in non-commercial terms).

Leave a response

Your response: