I am a bit fascinated by Jenny Sanford, first lady of South Carolina. After her husband disappeared on the “Appalachian Trail,” code for visiting his Argentinian soul-mate, she separated and launched her own career: trademarking her name to sell household wares, writing a memoir, and being interviewed by Barbara Walters as one of “10 most fascinating people of 2009.”

My favorite quote is this absurd political writer’s take on how Jenny is moving from first lady to political/business career woman: “She was always the driving force behind Mark Sanford, the engine that powers the car. Now the car broke down, and she’s on her own.”

Article 13 (Replacement of representatives, etc.)

(1) When the Commissioner of the Patent Office or the chief trial examiner finds that a person undertaking procedures is not competent or suitable for undertaking such procedures, the official may order the person to undertake the procedures through a representative.

(2) When the Commissioner of the Patent Office or the chief trial examiner finds that a representative acting for a person undertaking procedures is not competent or suitable for undertaking such procedures, the official may order that the representative be replaced.

(3) In the case of the preceding two paragraphs, the Commissioner of the Patent Office or the chief trial examiner may order that a patent attorney be the representative.

(4) The Commissioner of the Patent Office or the chief trial examiner may, after the issuance of an order under paragraph (1) or (2), dismiss the procedures before the Patent Office undertaken by the person undertaking procedures under paragraph (1) or the representative under paragraph (2).

Tsubaki Patent Law Firm in Japan

While at UDS a mention was made about a new policy for the Ubuntu trademark which will seek to protect the Ubuntu trade dress as well as the mark (logo and name). This change it’s hoped will protect the Ubuntu logo and style from misuse and unfortunately trademarks are one of those legal measures where if you don’t protect them, you loose them.

So, some parts of the Ubuntu OS /style/ will fall under the trademark policy.

I’m going to be keeping an eye open for our unofficial, unblessed derivatives community, because they will have to make sure of not just removing the Ubuntu trademark, but also any of the styles used, such as the white blury logo at boot or some of the other designs.

There is also a focus in design methodology to limit the amount of customisation that can be done to various new components. There is one singular vision and anyone with a different style or aesthetic ideal may not be allowed to contribute to the project. I’m going to blog about this in a few days, because the rationale is basically to keep bike shed painting to a minimum, but is going little too far.

The unintended consequence is that taken together these two facets may conflict for unofficial derivatives, forcing them to take packages out of their distribution or do a lot of work to fork the project to restyle it. It may be that the trade dress protections don’t scale all the way to gdm2 or osd-notify, I certainly hope so, but I can’t really find a good definition of what it covers.

It’s very unlikely that anything will come out of this problem, but it’s one of those interesting dialectical conflicts that I figure the rest of the community may be interested in knowing about.

Man pleads guilty to selling fake chips to US Navy

Feds seize $643k in counterfeit goods in MN

Lawmen seize counterfeit items in raids on two businesses (NC)

Roseburg Man Arrested For Possession Of Counterfeit Music CDs (OR)

Internet Service Providers Earned $1.7 million from Piracy

Why Movie Piracy IS Bad (And What To Do About It)

780,000 pirated DVDs shredded in police raids (AU)

Counterfeit towels seized at North Weald market given to animal charities (UK)

Jedi Lawyer Uses Mind Tricks to Watch Over Star Wars Empire

La registrazione del marchio è una delle primarie operazioni con cui si protegge e si assicura lo sviluppo economico ed imprenditoriale di chi opera sul mercato.

Può capitare, però, che il marchio sia stato già registrato da altri.

Recentemente è stata messa on-line la verione beta di TMview, un software web-based che consente di accedere liberamente a oltre 5 milioni di marchi registrati in diversi Paesi, compreso l’Italia, interrogando simultaneamente le banche dati dei diversi uffici.

Il software è utilizzabile on-line attraverso l’uso di un normale browser, all’indirizzo www.tmview.europa.eu

Il sistema prevede anche la possibilità di effettuare una ricerca avanzata.

Il servizio (molto intuitivo, ma del quale vengono offerti anche i Tutorials) nasce dalla collaborazione tra UAMI, WIPO e gli Uffici IP di diversi Stati, quali il Benelux, la Repubblica Ceca, la Danimarca, l’Italia, il Portogallo ed il Regno Unito. Tra fine 2009 e inizio 2010 si aggiungeranno altri otto Uffici IP, di altrettanti Paesi. A seguire, nel futuro, è prevista la connessione di molti altri Paesi, nella prospettiva di una interconnessione globale delle banche dati sui marchi registrati.

Dai risultati dell’interrogazione si ottengono non solo tutte le informazioni relative ai marchi, ma anche la visualizzazione del marchio depositato.

Fabio Bravo

www.fabiobravo.it

It’s just two little words on the Yahoo! front page: ping pong. Add a hyphen and ping-pong would still be wrong. Capitalize the two Ps and Ping-Pong would still be wrong:

Why? Because Ping-Pong is a registered trademark; table tennis is the sport. It’s not the first time the Yahoo! editors have gotten it wrong.

More Coverage of Historic Los Angeles Raid

Pair jailed over scam on eBay (UK)

Intellectual Property Protection Increasingly Critical for All Business Centers, ABCN Says

Treasury secretary defends government’s online piracy plans (UK)

$105,000 Counterfeit Goods Seized at Anderson, SC Jockey Lot

RCMP, Border Services join international effort to eradicate fake drug trade

Fake hairstyling irons pop up in Regina

What’s being done to combat online piracy

Spanish Police Seize 6,000,000 Counterfeit Viagra Pills in “Operation Woody Woodpecker” (SATIRE)

Sale of fake festival wristbands could boom in 2010

Man arrested in Calhoun for alleged trademark counterfeiting

Counterfeit DVDs and CDs seized

OECD confirms Canada among lowest sources of counterfeiting

After luxury bags, counterfeit luxury wines

Yekalon and Unilin are engaged in a patent dispute

Chinese building materials provider Yekalon Industry Inc says it will take legal action “at any cost” to defend its self-developed locking technology for laminate and wood floorings.

The private company, based in the southern boom city of Shenzhen adjacent to Hong Kong, was charged by its much stronger competitor Unilin, a subsidiary of the US-listed Mohawk and located in Belgium, with patent infringement at a world fair in Germany in January.

“We have hired top-notch lawyers in Germany and will appear at the court of Hamburg on Wednesday,” said Wilson He Yixin, chairman of Yekalon. “We will never surrender to these groundless allegations.”

The focus of the case lies in a glueless locking technology for laminate and wood floorings. Unilin has owned patents since 1996 for the method and duopolized the market with another European company, Valinge.

However, the Chinese company invented a new locking method in 2005 which can connect the flooring by vertically tapping in the edges of the planks instead of the established technique of angling and snapping horizontally, according to He.

“Our locking technology is completely self-developed. It works theoretically different from that of Unilin. How can we infringe its patents?” he asked, adding that Yekalon has applied for international patents for the invention under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and will soon complete the process.

It is the second big clash between Yekalon and Unilin.

In July 2006, 18 Chinese flooring exporters, including Yekalon, were put under a Section 337 investigation by the US International Trade Commission (USITC) for patent infringement by Unilin and its subsidiaries.

Yekalon was the only company in the group that was not condemned by the investigation because the USITC found that its locking technology did not infringe the patent claims asserted.

The other Chinese companies who were using Unilin’s locking technology were ordered to pay $100,000 to $120,000 in royalties and $0.65 in royalties per cubic meter to the patent owner, or they would not be allowed to export their glueless laminate flooring panels to the US market.

It’s estimated that both Unilin and Valinge could earn more than $1 billion in royalties and licensing fees from flooring companies around the world.

Source:  China Daily

S&F Law

RE/MAX scored a major legal victory earlier this fall when a federal judge ruled against an independent Texas brokerage for using red-over-white-over-blue yard signs that look too much like the trademarked RE/MAX design.

The decision resolved the biggest question in a two-year trademark suit brought by RE/MAX International against Trend Setter Realty, a 700-agent brokerage in Houston and San Antonio. The court held that Trend Setter’s sign is trademark infringement under both federal and Texas law.

“In addition to the victory in this case, the judge’s ruling will serve as a very important precedent for us to use against future infringements of our red-over-white-over-blue bar design,” says RE/MAX Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer Geoff Lewis. “We made many attempts to get Trend Setter to settle with us and to change their sign before the case proceeded too far, but they refused.”

As part of its argument on the trademark issue, RE/MAX International commissioned a consumer survey to determine if the Trend Setter sign was confusing to the public. Some 225 adults were shown a photo of a Trend Setter sign and then asked whose sign it was, or who the company was affiliated with. More than a quarter of the participants associated the sign with RE/MAX.

In its ruling, the court quoted several survey respondents who, when asked why the tied the sign to RE/MAX, said, “Because it’s their sign; they are the only ones that I know of that have this color of sign,” and “It looks exactly like a RE/MAX sign.” This occurred despite the fact that Trend Setter’s sign contains no balloon and has a white bar modified into the shape of a roofline.

“This is more than just a victory for our brand,” said RE/MAX of Texas CEO Richard Filip. “This is a validation of the years of quality service, professionalism and integrity that RE/MAX agents have worked hard to provide to clients worldwide. The brand represents every RE/MAX agent and their efforts. They are the ones who built it into the powerful symbol it is today.”

The court rejected claims that the RE/MAX bar design is generic. It also cited the network’s diligence in policing its marks, noting that strict enforcement of Trademark & Graphic Standards significantly strengthens RE/MAX ownership of its brand and marks.

TrendSetter forced to change their signs due to similarity to RE/MAX

China’s National Working Group of Eliminating Pornography and Illegal Publications has announced achievements that it has made since campaigns were launched earlier this year against illegal online and mobile phone publications. NWGEPIP stated on October 20 that since the special campaigns were launched to crack down on vulgar online and mobile phone content, China had seized 1414 illegal online literary works, closed 20 websites that were found spreading pornographic information, and deleted a total of more than 30,000 links to illegal web pages. Meanwhile, NWGEPIP has also issued a special circular which asks each region around China to make efforts to stop the spread of vulgar novels online and remove unhealthy content from websites. In addition, NWGEPIP also states operators of websites publishing pornographic publications will be severely punished. A representative from General Administration of Press and Publication stated that in the first nine months of this year, various measures were taken to monitor online publications and up to 50,000 literary works of more than 4000 websites were monitored. GAPP will continue to focus on four areas: making relevant regulations, speeding up the construction of online publication monitoring system, establishing a GAPP online publication monitoring center, and promoting the construction of Chinese online literary publication platform. News about these closures comes days after Chinese authors rallied online against Google’s plans to start a digital Chinese library service. Chinawriter.com.cn has posted a message allegedly from Google which states that the American search engine will compensate Chinese writers USD60 for each book of each writer who agrees to allow Google to use the book online. The search engine stated in the announcement that it would pay at least USD60 to each writer for each book if the writer agrees to reconcile with Google, and the writer can receive 63% of the revenue from readers’ online downloading of the book in the future. Many writers have refused to accept the reconciliation agreement and have spurned Google’s take-it-or-leave-it attitude. The authors state they plan to continue to fight Google’s plans.

Source: Shanghai Daily

S&F Law

Vasz Books, has rolled out their new company logo for the first time to the media. We are excited because we understand, that this logo will be Vasz Books’s trademark in the industry. The designers took their professional ideas and created something extraordinary that will have an impact in our company’s branding. The logo and name, “Vasz Books“,  represents, the shorten last name of our founder and his passion to books. At Vasz Books, we know that a new era of the publishing business is awaiting us to be conquered. The passion Vasz Books has for the industry is unrivaled to any other in the business. Our vision is wide open and we know that the sky’s the limit! Please comment and give us your thoughts regarding our new logo, we appreciated it!

Thank you,

Vasz Books Team

Improve Buyer Response with Better Brands and Trademarks

By Andrew R. Spriegel

November 21, 2009

Almost everyone knows valuable brands and trademarks like: Nike, Pepsi, Xerox, Kodak and others.  The companies that own those brands spent millions or billions building value and “customer good will” into those brands/marks.  Listed below are a few of the top trademarks in 2006.

You may be asking yourself how can you obtain name exposure if you are a start-up or have limited resources.  Hopefully this story will both entertain you and help you to understand that with creative marketing you can grow your brand and business presence very quickly.

I took a Trademark class from Professor Jeff Samuels at Akron Law.   Professor Samuels served as the assistant commissioner of patents and trademarks of the United States Patent and Trademark Office from November 1987 to January 1993.  During one class Professor Samuels handed out an article on “Mr. Happy Crack”, yes that’s correct “Mr. Happy Crack”.

In late 2001, Mr. Kodner and son Bob Kodner were in the basement foundation repair business in St. Louis.  The company was already named, Crack Team USA Inc., when Bob approached his dad about a new marketing campaign.  His father was not all that enamored with his son’s idea of a cartoon like “cement block man” and the phrase or tag line “A Dry Crack is a Happy Crack!”  Un-relented by his father’s reaction, Bob had 34 buses in St. Louis outfitted with signage showing a logo (Mr. Happy Crack) and the tag line “A Dry Crack is a Happy Crack!”  The phones started ringing with requests for t-shirts and hats and those requests continue today.

The Crack Team sells T-shirts, boxer shorts, bobble head dolls, women’s underwear, baby clothes and golf balls branded with the logo.  The Mr. Happy Crack mascot spreads the company message at all sorts of events.  The company now posts revenues in the millions and is now a large franchise business. 

Take time and think about how you can create a brand and tag line that can grow you business almost overnight.

The defendants in the Burt Hill, Inc. v. Hassan et al (Case No. 2:2009cv01285) unfair competition, trademark infringement, and misappropriation of trade secrets case (in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania) filed a countersuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges the following:
1. Breach of contract;
2. Violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law;
3. Wrongful termination;
4. Defamation;
5. Abuse of process;
6. Intentional infliction of emotional distress;
7. Breach of fiduciary duty of a director and officer.

- Katie Cooper

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal from a group of Native Americans asking the court to cancel registration of the Washington Redskins trademark due to its derogatory nature. The court’s rejection means the Washington Redskins retain federal protection for the Redskin mark and may continue to use the name. You may recall the USPTO’s infamous decision to grant protection for the mark “Redskins” a term many feel is derogatory towards Native Americans.

* It is important to note this legal battle never affected the Washington’s ability to use the Redskin name, but instead was limited to whether the Redskins mark would retain federal trademark registration and protection.

While the case may have received its proverbial nail in the coffin, it does shed light into an often misunderstood area of trademark law.

Absolute Bar to Registration

Federal trademark law bars registration of marks comprised of immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter. This provision of the current Lanham Act of 1946, which governs trademark law today, is a carry over from the original Trademark Act of 1905.  While the issue is addressed on a case by case basis and examples of what is and is not permissible vary greatly, in general, the Act barsmarks that are shocking to the sense of truth, decency, or propriety; disgraceful; offensive; disreputable; and give offense to the conscience or moral feelings.

According to the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, all examiners must provide sufficient evidence to support their decision to deny trademark registration due to immoral or scandalous matter. This evidence may come in the form of dictionary definitions, relevant articles, and even internet websites. This evidentiary standard does not exist in a vacuum, however, and is somewhat flexible. Courts have ruled the examining attorney must make this determination not in isolation, but in the context of the goods in the marketplace and in view of contemporary attitudes.

Some have criticized this evidentiary standard as too flexible and gray. There are some marks that on their face seem scandalous or immoral but have nevertheless earned federal registration. In 2007, a mark containing a derogatory term for a lesbian was approved by the USPTO after it was previously rejected. Attorneys for the applicant argued that the mark was a source of honor and pride, and not considered derogatory by a substantial portion of the gay and lesbian community. The attorneys stressed the applicant’s intent was not to disparage, discriminate, or otherwise offend the gay community through the use of the mark. Even so, the examining attorney rejected the mark stating, “we’re looking out for the sensitivities of the general public more than that of a specific applicant.” However, four years after the initial application was filed, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board allowed registration of the mark after considerable amounts of testimony was given on the empowering nature of the questionable term contained in the trademark.

So how does one seemingly offensive mark earn protection when another is rejected?

When determining whether a mark is scandalous or immoral an examiner must consider the context of the applicable marketplace for the goods or services identified in the trademark application. In the aforementioned case, the applicant’s mark earned protection mainly because the marketplace for the goods associated with the mark was the gay community who did not find the mark disparaging. Also factoring into the decision to register the mark is the requirement for examiners to consider the nature of the mark in light of contemporary standards.

This leads me to wonder what would happen if the Washington Redskins applied for the mark in today’s society. Do you think a substantial composite of the general public find the term “Redskin” disparaging, barring it from registration?

I would love to hear your comments on this post.

Investigative Consultants, a California-based detective agency helmed by Kris Buckner, worked with brand owners, Beaverton (OR) Police and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept. to nab what is being called the largest bust of its kind ever.  Details of the story can be read in these articles:

Knock-Off Viagra Among Goods Seized in Raids

Raid of LA counterfeit distributors stemmed from OR inquiry

Beaverton counterfeit ring leads to raids in L.A. that net $18M in pirated loot

IACC Applauds Joint Criminal Enforcement in California and Oregon Targeting Counterfeiters

Gotta love that Steve Jobs. He never was one to hold back, and even now, when he’s the CEO of the Universe (or something like that), he won’t be found spouting corporate speak.

CrunchGear tells the story of a small software development company called The Little App Factory. It made an app for the Mac called iPodRip, one of those tools for transferring music from an iPod to a computer. A law firm representing Apple sent The Little App Factory a letter, informing the company it had violated some of Apple’s trademarks, and instructed it to stop using the “iPod” bit in the app’s name.

iPodRip has been around for nearly seven years and CrunchGear’s Daniel Brusilovsky says it has been downloaded more than five million times. You’d think Apple’s legal sniffer hounds, Baker & McKenzie, might have acted a tad sooner…

Anyway, iPodRip developer and The Little App Factory CEO John Devor felt this was all rather unfair, so he wrote directly to El Jobso himself. Here’s a little excerpt from his impassioned plea for special treatment sanity (edited by me for brevity, but you can read the whole thing here);

Dear Mr. Jobs,

I doubt you’re aware but we recently received a letter from a law firm working on Apple’s behalf instructing us that we had violated several of Apple’s trademarks in our application iPodRip and asking us to cease using the name and Apple trademarks in our icons.

It is quite obvious that we mean Apple no harm with the use of the name iPodRip, or of the inclusion of trademarked items in our icons… …we are quite aware that Apple support and store staff have recommended our software on numerous occasions as far back as 2004 so we have felt that we were doing something right!

With this in mind, we are in desperate need of some assistance and we beseech you to help us to protect our product and our shareware company, I myself dropped out of school recently to pursue a path in the Mac software industry, and you yourself have been a consistent inspiration for me.

If there is anything at all you can do with regards to this matter, we would be most grateful.

Best,
John Devor

Poor fellow. Obviously he has poured his heart and soul into his company, and he has worked hard this last half-decade building a strong brand and large customer base. He wants to protect his investment, and why not? Apple has, it seems, been aware of the product, to some degree, for an awfully long time, so why slap him with a C&D letter now?

So Steve Jobs gets the email and thinks about this, right? He considers the years of service this guy and his company have provided for iTunes users around the world. He considers carefully the late-in-the-game complaint from Baker & McKenzie. He feels a swell of pride at the obvious passion of those in the Mac development community who so loyally support his products and strive to make the Mac ecosystem a bigger, brighter and more worthwhile place to be. Right?

Of course not. He’s Steve Jobs, people! This is his reply:

Change your apps name. Not that big of a deal.

Steve

Sent from my iPhone

I nearly fell off my chair in laughter when I saw that. I’m not sure I agree with him that’s it’s “not that big of a deal” (after all, this company has invested many years in their brand and built a considerable customer base) but I admire Steve’s no-nonsense attitude. He says exactly what’s on his mind, no PR-spin, and sends it straight from his iPhone, typos-and-all.

The Little App Factory acquiesced (what else could it do?) and renamed the app iRip. It also changed the app’s icon. Perhaps this whole affair was a thorn in the side, but I don’t feel too sorry for them, the tech press is giving them a lot of attention right now, and that’s gotta be good for business, right?

Hallo Zusammen,

heute nur kurz und knapp. Ein Tool mit dem man sehr schnell die Verfügbarkeit von Usernamen, Markennamen, Firmennamen, Benutzernamen, Domains oder was auch immer überprüfen kann.

ud.com namecheck – Check Availability of Social Usernames, Domain Names and Trademarks..

There is an interesting situation brewing in New Jersey.  An established law firm in NJ called Levinson Axelrod LLC (levinsonaxelrod.com) employed a lawyer by the name Edward Heyburn.  Edward didn’t like his job.  According to his website he didn’t like the people he worked for, either.  So once he was fired, he set up a website: levinsonaxelrod.net.  On this website Mr. Heyburn is griping about his former employer in a way that has attracted national attention.  According to a NJ.com article:

He said he launched his website . . . because “(the firm’s partners) have such an elitist attitude . . . .  I thought this was a very nice way to pull them out of the clouds,” Heyburn said.

But what interests me is the trademark and domain name issue behind it.  Is this cybersquatting? Is the company name ‘Levinson Axelrod’ a trademark?

First lets see if this is cybersquatting.  According to the Federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125 (d)) (paraphrased) a person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark if that person has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that:

• in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
• in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark; or
• is a trademark

So, my guess is (and I haven’t read any case law and I’m a law student and not a lawyer) that since Mr. Heyburn isn’t intending to profiting from his use of the .net domain name he probably won’t be liable for cybersquatting.  He’s just in it for the pleasure of ripping his old bosses.  Does he have bad faith?  Certainly.  According to the above cited statute the cybersquatter must intend to “divert consumers from the mark owner’s online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site.”

Well, is ‘Levinson Axelrod’ a trademark?  I went browsing for the federal trademark law and pulled Trademark Law from the US Patent and Trademark Office.  That is a big document that I’m gonna have to tackle another time.  My guess is that Levinson Axelrod is a trademark, but its past midnight and I’m delirious.  Cheers.

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear an appeal of the Washington federal appeals court decision that ruled that the Native American appellants had waited too long to claim that the Redskins trademark was racist. This decision is expected to allow the Redskins to retain trademark protection for their team name. Seventeen years ago, seven activists filed papers to have the Redskins stripped of trademark protection because, in their view, the name is racist and offensive. The activists had success early in the process but lost at the two highest levels. Further attempts with possibly different appellants are expected.

Smithsonian Linguist Emeritus Ives Goddard spent several months researching the term “redskins” and found it had a benign origin. He found that the term was coined long ago by American Indians to differentiate themselves from white and black people. The offensive meaning claimed by the activists appears to have been coined in the 1960s.

The Boston NFL team was renamed Redskins in 1933 to honor its new head coach, Lone Star Dietz. Dietz’s central role in this controversy has brought his heritage to come under much scrutiny decades after his death.

A civil/criminal infringement action should be brought before the Court of First Instance. The case will be transferred to Civil or Commercial or Commercial-criminal Courts (according to the subject matter). It may take upto one year till a judgment is issued.

The decision of First Instance Court can be challenged before the Court of Appeals within one month from the date of decision of First Instance Court. The Appeal judgement is obtained usually within 6-8 months of filing the appeal.

The decision of Court of Appeals can be challenged before Court of Cassation within thirty days from the date of Appeal Court Judgement. An aggrieved party may approach the Court of Cassation against the decision of Court of Appeals on grounds that the contested judgment was in violation of law or there was error in the application or interpretation of law or that there were invalid procedures which influenced the judgment.

É talvez a vaca mais conhecido do mundo.

A marca “La vache qui rit”,(A vaca que ri), foi criada a 16 de Abril de 1921, por Léon Bell.

Segundo a marca, são consumidos mais de 10 milhões de porções de queijo da Vaca que ri, ou seja, são cerca de 125 porções por segundo.

A Vaca que Ri está presente em mais de 90 países.

Esta marca é diferente da maioria, também porque tem um nome diferente em cada país do mundo, consoante a língua.

Por exemplo, em Portugal é “A Vaca que ri”, na Inglaterra e nos EUA “The Laughing Cow”, na Polónia “Krowka Smieszka”, na Ucrânia “Vecena Kropibka”, na França “La Vache qui rit”, na República Checa “Veselá Kravá” e para terminar sem alongar demasiado, na Alemanha e Áustria é “Die Lachende ku”…

E com isto aprenderam a dizer “vaca que ri” em 7 linguas diferentes.