November 19, 2021

It seems great marketers think alike... Almost!

Article Headline Image (6)

We recently ran an advertising campaign using the theme of a well-known British spy to help educate customers on our brand protection services, and today we are honoured to see that the World Intellectual Property Organization has decided to use a very similar theme. 

It seems that great marketers do think alike!


However, there is one significant difference between our ‘agent 100’ campaign and the infographics that the World Intellectual Property Organisation has released on their LinkedIn today, and that is the use of the 007 trade mark.

During the consideration phase of our spy-themed marketing campaign, our brand protection team advised against the use of the 007 trade mark, due to the use of the mark potentially amounting to trade mark infringement.


Hence, we re-branded our campaign to ‘agent 100’, highlighting our 100% success rate in UDRP cases, with more information on this here.

On their website, the World Intellectual Property Organization states that it is the world's number one source for global intellectual property (patents, industrial designs, copyright, trademarks, etc.) information and resources. Thus, we were surprised to see that the world’s leading organization on intellectual property had used the 007 trade mark within their marketing collateral.

The big question with their use of the trade mark in this manner is whether it has been used for educational or commercial purposes. Should it be viewed that the logo has been solely used for educational purposes then it may not be considered an infringement of the 007 trade mark. However, should it be used for commercial purposes, would it potentially amount to trade mark infringement?

The information that is provided within the themed post is certainly educational and breaks down key intellectual property information in an engaging way, although, one potential area for commercial gain, is that the post contains a link to the organization’s website, from which they provide paid courses and services.

Do you think that this amounts to trade mark infringement from the World Intellectual Property Organisation? 

Or was this just a well themed educational example of intellectual property?