Home 
ZWM Law Firm Site 
In a move sure to please natural mom’s groups worldwide, the California Milk Processor Board (CMPB), who created and owns the “got milk?” tagline, has agreed to license the mark to La Leche League International. The new tagline is, naturally, “got breastmilk?” The ad campaign writes itself.
The CMPB is a trade organization, and recognizes the value of protecting their trademarks. They registered the “got breastmilk” mark two years ago because it is so similar to the “GOT MILK” slogan. The rising notoriety and, dare I say, ferocity, of various breastfeeding groups and individuals undoubtedly played a role as well. This is particularly notable because the CMPB has worked hard to protect its valuable trademark.
Isn’t this a conflict for the CMPB? They sell cow’s milk, not human milk (so far). Won’t milk sales decline if more moms choose to breastfeed? The
I'm waiting for the coozie.
CMPB’s executive director doesn’t think so. He recently said, “GOT MILK? and La Leche League . . . believe that breastfeeding is the most natural and effective way of satisfying the needs of the baby. And as the baby gets older, cow’s milk is the other best natural source of food for children.”
Moms that disagree should feel free to begin a comment war below. I welcome it.
Some “go breastmilk?” items such as buttons and postcards are ready for sale on the La Leche League website. Other branded items are sure to follow, and the CMPB will give 50 % of royalties from sales to La Leche.
Got milk? has been ripped off many times before, but let’s be clear. This isn’t a ripoff, it’s strategic licensing. On the other hand, the ripoffs are every bit as entertaining as the real thing. My favorites tend to appeal to my avuncularity: Got hair? Got teeth? and Got wrinkles? But CMPB doesn’t mind — they love it (they say that each use helps them sell more milk). You could say it was viral marketing before viral marketing.
Le Leche was founded in 1956 by seven suburban women. They named the group for the Spanish word for milk so meeting notices could be printed in newspapers “without offending anyone.” I don’t understand what’s offensive about the word “milk” though. Maybe they should’ve called it the Le Leche del Pecha League.
In what is shaping up to be quite a month, I have now managed to get the words “footlong” and “breast” into consecutive titles of my posts.
Comments
Posted On
Feb 24, 2011Posted By
PatrickSorry, but I wouldn’t have paid a dime to license a registered trademark for got breastmilk? from a trade organization of cow milk producers.
Perhaps a license is needed to get around a confusion/dilution issue over the got milk? mark, but the “breastmilk” registration is almost certainly unenforceable due to inequitable conduct …
That is, unless CMPB can show a bona fide intent to use the “breastmilk” mark in association with goods and services, presumably in a manner that wouldn’t be deceptively misdescriptive. (I think I’ll stop there, but I think you know where I’m headed.)
I’m not sure that registering a mark, even on an intent to use basis, solely for the purpose of preventing someone else from registering the mark is appropriate.
Posted On
Feb 25, 2011Posted By
Scott NymanPatrick,
My thoughts on this seem to follow yours. Minus a licensing agreement, the only Trademark cause of action I could think of may involve dilution for blurring of the mark.
Also, I would think that registering a mark as “intent to use,” lacking any intent to use, whatsoever, would be the definition of registration by fraud on the trademark office. And, since intent to commit fraud on the trademark office is the requirement for invalidation of a mark, a trademark registered this way would never stand.
I imagine this sort of conduct may open the fraudulent registrant to state causes of action, as well, such as Deceptive and Unfair Business Practices laws, as defined by each state’s statutes.
Posted On
Feb 25, 2011Posted By
HeatherIt would seem that “got breastmilk?” would sell less milk… but considering breastfeeding heavily stimulates the mother’s appetite, and infants can’t yet drink straight milk, it’s actually a chance for them to sell MORE.
If you are thinking that formula is milk based, you are kind-of right. It’s mostly comprised of dairy processing waste products and plant-based oils (dairy fat is too expensive to add to formula, and when it’s turned into a dried product and/or processed with high heat levels, it’s hard to digest.) Here are the ingredients in formula:
“Enzymatically hydrolyzed reduced minerals, whey protein concentrate, palm olein, soy, coconut, high-oleic safflower oils, lactose, maltodextrin, patoassium citrate, calcium phosphate, calcium chloride, salt, potassium chloride, magnesium chloride, ferrous sulfate, zinc sulfate, copper sulfate, manganese sulfate, potassium iodide, soy lecithin, mono and diglycerides, inositol, choline bitartrate
sodium ascorbate, alpha tocophyeryl acetate, naicinamide, calcum pantothenate, riboflavin, pyridoxine hydrochloride, thiamine mononitrate, folic acid, phylloquinone, biotin, vitamin D3, vitamin B12, taurine,
L-carnitine”
Posted On
Feb 25, 2011Posted By
Aaron ThalwitzerI think most of those are yummy yummy vitamins, which I think are mostly snake oil unless you have an actual deficiency.
Posted On
Feb 25, 2011Posted By
PatrickPossibly another topic for another post, but I wonder if intent to commit fraud on one trademark could “infect” another mark.
Follow me here … a hypothetical company Headread acquires the trademark application for “Head” to neutralize a potential future threat, rather than based on any intent to use the mark “Head” (separate from “read”).
When the “Head” application was filed, by someone else let’s assume there was a bona fide intent to use … but what about now?
From Headread’s perspective, who cares? If they never had any intent to use the mark “Head” then they’re not really afraid of having that registration invalidated due to inequitable conduct, so there’s really no deterrent effect.
But what if Headread’s conduct on the Head application could infect its own registrations?
Posted On
Feb 25, 2011Posted By
Aaron ThalwitzerYou’ve given me an idea for a future post. Let’s just say it involves Bank of America’s oh-so-ethical activities.
Posted On
Feb 25, 2011Posted By
Scott NymanThat is a good question, Patrick. I will have to think on that one and provide the answer in a follow-up article. (If Aaron doesn’t take it first)