𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝟳 𝗚𝗢 𝗩𝗦 𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗠 𝟳 𝗠𝗢𝗩𝗘: 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗗𝗢𝗘𝗦 𝗕𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗦𝗜𝗠𝗜𝗟𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗬 𝗕𝗘𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗘 𝗕𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗟𝗢𝗜𝗧𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡?

The biggest compliment to a successful brand may also become its biggest headache: someone else wanting to look, sound or be associated with it.

That is what makes the controversy between two Nigerian fast-food brands, 𝗜𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝟳 𝗚𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝟳 𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗲, particularly interesting.

As reported by 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝘂𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝗢𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝟭𝟱, 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲, 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝘄𝗼 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

But beyond the legal arguments lies a bigger marketing question: 𝗖𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻?

𝗜𝗻 𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮, 𝗜𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝟳 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝘆𝗻𝗼𝗻𝘆𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝗱, 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀. 𝗜𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘃𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱.

However, 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁.

Apple does not own the fruit. Shell does not own the seashell. Yet both have developed distinctive brands with enormous commercial value.

𝗦𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗼𝘄𝗻𝘀 𝗜𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝟳, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹, 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁.

Interestingly, Nigeria has a relevant legal precedent.

𝗜𝗻 𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗟𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘃. 𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝘀 & 𝗗.𝗞. 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗻 (𝟭𝟵𝟲𝟭) 𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝗡.𝗟.𝗥. 𝟭𝟴𝟬, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲.

The lesson? You don’t necessarily have to copy another company’s logo to create a misleading commercial association.

𝗛𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿, 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.

Item 7 Go and Item 7 Move have visually different logos, colours and typography. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗚𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

Could consumers assume they are connected? That question requires evidence, not speculation.

For marketers and entrepreneurs, the lesson goes beyond these two businesses.

Competition is healthy. Inspiration is legitimate. But deliberately riding on another brand’s established reputation is an entirely different proposition.

𝗔 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆, 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁. 𝗜𝘁𝘀 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲.

And that reputation can become attractive to others seeking quicker market acceptance.

𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗵𝗮𝗽𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵, 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗶𝘁, 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝟳 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗲. Protecting what makes it distinctive is another.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸? 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘄𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗶𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻?