.jpg){kind=logo}
Did you catch this article in the Wall Street Journal? Charity Brawl: Nonprofits Aren’t So Generous When a Name’s at Stake
Boy, do I have some opinions on this. My guess is you do too. In a nutshell: SAD! Rather than go on a tirade, I have pasted the entire article below and made brief notes in bold regarding my thoughts on the Susan G. Komen for the Cure section of the article from many different perspectives:
– A PR professional who understands the importance of branding
– A PR professional now working in the non profit world
– A cancer advocate (Including breast cancer)
– A lung cancer advocate
– NOT an attorney
– A regular Joe
Wall Street Journal
AUGUST 5, 2010
Charity Brawl: Nonprofits Aren’t So Generous When a Name’s at Stake
By CLIFFORD M. MARKS
As the leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen For the Cure helped make “for the cure” a staple of the fund-raising vernacular.
The slogan is so popular that dozens of groups have sought to trademark names incorporating the phrase. Among them are “Juggling for a Cure,” “Bark for the Cure,” and “Blondes for the Cure.”
The slogan is popular because that’s what groups are aiming for: A cure! JW
Charity event Kites for a Cure refused a name change request from Susan G. Komen For the Cure, which held the event.
Way to go!!! JW
Komen sees this as imitation, and it’s not flattered. Instead, it’s launching a not-so-friendly legal battle against kite fliers, kayakers and dozens of other themed fund-raisers that it contends are poaching its name. And it’s sternly warning charities against dabbling with pink, its signature hue.
Major BOO! JW
“It is startling to us that Komen thinks they own pink,” says Mary Ann Tighe, who tangled with the breast-cancer charity over the color for her “Kites for a Cure” lung-cancer fund-raiser. “We cannot allow ourselves to be bullied to no purpose.”
Amen sister! JW
Komen’s general counsel, Jonathan Blum, said in an email: “We see it as responsible stewardship of our donor’s funds.”
Legitimate answer. Yes, we all need to be responsible stewards of our donor’s funds, but this is going a bit overboard. JW
Trademark turf battles characteristic of sharp-elbowed corporations are erupting across the typically amicable world of nonprofits. Charities raising money for the same cause are getting into dust-ups over fonts, logo designs and other branding minutia.
Yes, it’s cut-throat, unfortunately. But just like for profit businesses, non profits have to create a strong brand presence in order to be successful. JW
Nonprofits say the details are no small matter. Some groups contend they have lost sizeable donations when donors mistakenly wrote checks to another charity with a similar name.
This does happen and is a concern. JW
Last year, Ms. Tighe’s Uniting Against Lung Cancer got a letter from Komen requesting it change the name of the charity’s “Kites for a Cure” fund-raiser, a beach event featuring hand-decorated kites, to “Kites for a Cause,” or another name. Komen later warned her against any use of pink in conjunction with “cure.”
Absolutely ridiculous. AND, it’s for a completely different cause: Lung cancer. JW
Ms. Tighe dug in her heels. She refused to change her group’s name or declare pink off limits even though, she says, her group hadn’t used the color. “We don’t want to be the color police,” says Ms. Tighe, who didn’t feel she was poaching Komen’s slogan.
But as the legal battle ensued, her group agreed to a truce where it would limit the use of the event name to lung-cancer activities, and it promised to stay away from the pink ribbons made popular by Komen. Mr. Blum characterized the negotiations as “cordial and productive.”
Sure, let’s tie all of our efforts in the legal system, where time and money could be much better spent working towards “the cure,” or “a cure, ” or “whatever I can say about a cure without getting a nasty letter.” JW
Ms. Tighe didn’t see it the same way. “It’s just silly,” she says. Some charities, such as “Juggling for a Cure,” say they weren’t aware Komen used a similar slogan. Others, including “Kayak for a Cure,” say they were aware of Komen’s name.
“The days are probably over when nonprofits just said, ‘We’ll just get along with anybody who’s a nonprofit because we’re all trying to do good here,’” said Andrew Price, a trademark attorney at Venable LLP in Washington.
Ummm….yeah. Those days are long gone. JW
More than two years ago, Cheryl Colleluori set out to trademark “HEADstrong,” the moniker of her blood-cancer charity. She says her son Nicholas, who had non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, came up with the name before he died in 2006. His nickname was “Head.”
Ms. Colleluori ran into trouble with the Lance Armstrong Foundation, the advocacy group of the cyclist and cancer survivor. Its logo on its website is “LIVESTRONG,” in black against a yellow background, with “strong” in bold.
In an email reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Armstrong’s foundation told Ms. Colleluori’s group that “strong” should never be bolded or colored differently to emphasize it vis-a-vis “head.” It added that the color yellow shouldn’t appear in connection with “HEADstrong.”
“Your client’s use of the color gold is of great concern to LAF because it appears to be very close to the color yellow,” the Lance Armstrong Foundation wrote in an email to Ms. Colleluori’s attorney.
Ms. Colleluori, who says the family was vaguely aware of Mr. Armstrong’s brand when it dubbed its charity, is reluctantly considering a name change. “I just can’t stand the stress and anxiety and the wasted effort,” she says.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Armstrong’s foundation pointed out that the name is legally trademarked, and that the foundation relies on the strength of its brand to effectively serve people fighting cancer. She declined to discuss the case.
Other charities say they must aggressively pursue look-alikes because brand confusion costs them sizable donations. A pair of charities dedicated to helping injured veterans has been locked in a three-year court battle over $2.2 million in donations to the website woundedwarriors.org.
Wounded Warriors Inc., an Omaha charity, owned the site. But the Wounded Warrior Project of Jacksonville, Fla., a larger group, contends that scores of its supporters donated money to the site thinking it was going to the Florida charity. In court filings, the Wounded Warrior Project says celebrity endorsements for its group created publicity that prompted donors to mistakenly contribute to the other charity’s website.
Wounded Warriors Inc. founder John Folsom says he made a good-faith effort to return erroneous donations. “I’m absolutely bewildered by the whole thing,” he says.
That effort didn’t go far enough. An attorney for the rival charity Wounded Warrior Project says the group took the matter to court to prevent damage to its reputation.
In July 2008, a federal court in Nebraska blocked Mr. Folsom’s group from using the site. His group changed its name to Wounded Warriors Family Support, and in September 2009, a jury awarded the Wounded Warrior Project about $1.7 million. Mr. Folsom’s group currently is appealing the ruling.
Faelin Klein, founder of the Sunshine Kids Club of California, says she was shocked to receive a cease-and-desist letter last year from the Sunshine Kids Foundation, a Texas charity for children with cancer. She started her group to help children like her daughter, who has cerebral palsy.
Sunshine Kids Foundation was irked because one of its donors had mistakenly written checks to Ms Klein’s group, says G.W. Bailey, the Texas group’s executive director.
As an olive branch, an attorney for Ms. Klein’s group offered to reference the Sunshine Kids Foundation on its website to dispel confusion.
The Sunshine Kids Foundation rained on that idea, saying it “would be clearly remiss in its stewardship if it permitted dilution, tarnishment, blurring, destruction, or weakening of its marks,” according to a court filing.
Now Ms. Klein is preparing to change her group’s name to Sunshine Club. “It’s a lot of work to rebrand yourself,” she says.
——-
So, what are your thoughts? Don’t be shy!
Related posts:
