Trouble Down Under For Krispy Kreme
By: Ainsley Brown
I have been wanting to do an Australian themed story for a long time, not least because of the global mandate of the site but also I am just a big fan of the land of Auz – I guess it´s just the rugby player in me but truth be told I am a bigger fan of New Zealand. However, I digress.
This story at its simplest can be boiled done to the difference between a Vo-Vo and just plain old Vo? What indeed?
A Vo-Vo, what on earth is a Vo-Vo or a Vo for that matter? Well for my non-Australian readers, the Australian ones I am sure know what I am talking about – that is if I have any Australian readers left after my rugby confession – a Vo-Vo is a popular Australian cookie. The strips of pink icing and jam sprinkled coconut of the Vo-Vo is much beloved by Australians, you could even go as far as saying it has cultural significance as evidenced by it garnering a mention in the victory speech of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Now given the iconic status of the Vo-Vo, to say nothing of the commercial value of the brand to the Sydney based Arnott´s Biscuit´s it would come has little surprise that they would fiercely defend their intellectual property. Arnott´s after all has put a lot of time, human capital and money in the branding and marketing of the Vo-Vo, as demonstrated by its success. The Vo-Vo has been with Arnott´s very long time, it has held the registered trademarks to the Vo-Vo, Iced Vo-Vo and Iced Vo Vo names since 1906.
Here enters the American doughnut shop icon, Krispy Kreme, with their Vo. Yes a Vo. The Krispy Kreme Vo, instead of being a cookie is a doughnut that is, and get this, filled with raspberry jam and topped with pink icing and coconut. As far as Krispy Kreme is concerned the public can easily tell the difference between a cookie and a doughnut and is not violating any laws.
Given the similarity, despite Krispy Kreme´s claim´s to the contrary, Arnott´s has told the American based company to stop violating its intellectual property rights or else it will be forced to take legal action to protect those rights. And I say rightfully so. Krispy Kreme can fool itself all it wants, the truth is that is was trying to cash in on the iconic status of the Vo-Vo without asking or having to pay the rightful owners for such a right. I if were representing Krispy Kreme I would take the out offer by Arnott´s and simply just stop making the Vo rather than risk going to court.
Krispy Kreme now finds itself in a lose, lose, lose situation. Before I go any further let me confess that I am not versed in Australian law nor am I well versed in common law based intellectual property law but I do know a little and I also know a little about the commercial consequences of legal action. As the site´s tag line exclaims Commercial Awareness Is Global.
Why a lose, lose, lose situation? Well, if it ends up in court Arnott´s stands a very good chance of proving its case, the Krispy Kreme Vo is, despite it being a doughnut, is far too close in name and substance to the Vo-Vo and violates Arnott´s rights. In this situation not only would Krispy Kreme have to pay over damages to Arnott´s it would also have to endure the spectacle of a public trail with its ensuing damage to its commercial reputation. Now even if it wins, you just never know which is why litigation is such a risky proposition at times, it still loses. It may not be liable for damages but it still would have suffered damage to its commercial reputation. It has take on an Australian icon, now even if Australians don’t readily associate Vo-Vo, Vo, Iced Vo or whatever else you want to call it, with Arnott´s, the do proclaim the name to be theirs .Now through the use of legal tricks an outsider – an American company – has come to our country and stolen our name – a part of Australia. Am I over playing it a bit, maybe, but it seems to me that the Australia people are a very proud people and guard what they deem to be their heritage very jealously.
Lastly, and incidentally the best situation for Krispy Kreme – though it still represents a loss – is to take up Arnott´s offer and just stop making the Vo. This could quickly, as outlined above, turn into Australia vs. Krispy Kreme rather than an Arnott´s vs. Krispy Kreme.
Krispy Kreme should just admit that it got caught with its hand in the cookie jar and move on. It would be far better for it.
Great Article Mr. Bolt!
Leave it to the american company to pull a shameless marketing tactic such as that mentioned!
With that being said, which way to the closest Krispy Kreme factory?