Start here
The Zest

A Collaboration Drop With a Retailer: Who Owns the Name on the Box

Written by

In a collaboration drop, each side keeps its own mark, each side licenses that mark to the other for the drop, and the agreement decides who, if anyone, owns a combined name. If the drop creates a new name you both want to keep using, one party should own it and license it to the other, with real quality control. Settle that on paper before the first unit is made, because a collab is a lot of money, a short window and two brands' reputations on one box.

I covered the fashion version in the fashion collaboration article. This one is for every other kind of drop: a coffee roaster and a grocery chain, a candle maker and a boutique hotel, a sauce brand and a restaurant group, a toy brand and a big-box store.

Three names, three different owners

Most drops put three names in front of the shopper. Your brand. Their brand. And, often, a new combined name: "Brand by Store," "Store x Brand," or a capsule name that lives only for this launch.

Your brand stays yours and theirs stays theirs. Nothing about selling together changes that. What changes is that each of you is now using the other's mark, on packaging, in ads, on the retailer's shelf tags and in your own social posts. That's a license, whether or not the word appears in the deal, and the law has an opinion about licenses.

Licensing each other's marks without weakening them

Under 15 U.S.C. 1055, use of a mark by a related company "shall inure to the benefit of the registrant or applicant," provided the mark "is not used in such manner as to deceive the public." A related company, under the statute's definitions, is "any person whose use of a mark is controlled by the owner of the mark." The USPTO's manual says "the essence of related-company use is the control exercised over the nature and quality of the goods or services," and a trademark owner who fails to exercise sufficient control can lose rights.

In plain terms: if a retailer uses your name on a product you didn't approve, or you use the retailer's name in a way they didn't sign off on, that's use outside the owner's control. The fix is simple to write and easy to skip. Each side approves the product, the packaging and the marketing that carries its mark, and keeps that approval right for the life of the drop. The licensing and quality control article explains why a license without control can cost you the mark.

The same manual section makes the point about priority: "a mere licensee cannot rely on use of the mark by the licensor." If the retailer is the only one using your name on the drop product, that use counts for you only because you're the owner controlling it. Make sure the paperwork says you are.

The combined name: file it, or don't, but decide

A combined name is where collabs get messy. Two options work. A third is a trap.

One party owns it and licenses it. Usually the brand whose name is the first word, or whichever side plans to keep running the line. That party files the application, controls quality, and licenses the other side for the drop. Clean. The USPTO's manual says a licensor is the proper applicant in a licensed arrangement.

Nobody files it. For a one-week capsule that will never return, a federal application may not be worth $350 per class to the USPTO plus the attorney fee. The two underlying brands are what's protected, and they already are, if you've registered them. If you haven't, that's the filing to make before the drop, not the combined name. The first retail order article covers that timing.

Both parties file as joint owners. The USPTO allows joint applicants, and its manual says "joint applicants enjoy rights of ownership to the same extent as any other" owner. The problem isn't the filing, it's the aftermath. Joint owners each need the other to agree on renewals, on licensing to a third party, on enforcement and on what happens when the drop ends and one of you wants to keep the name. Collaborations end. Joint registrations don't, unless someone files to fix them. I'd rather see one owner and a clear license than two owners and an argument in year three.

And one trap inside the trap: get the applicant right. The manual's list of non-correctable errors includes a filing in the name of one party when the mark is actually owned jointly, and a filing in a joint venturer's name when the joint venture owns the mark. "If the applicant does not own the mark on the application filing date, the application is void," and that "cannot be cured by amendment or assignment." Pick the owner before you file, not after.

Using the other brand's name in your marketing

Once the drop is live, both of you will post about it. You can name a partner in connection with a real collaboration, which is exactly what this is. The trouble starts when the posts outlive the deal, or when one side's marketing implies the other endorses products that weren't part of the drop. The article on using other brands' names in marketing explains where that line sits. In the agreement, give each side a defined period to use the other's name and a date by which the collab marketing comes down.

What the agreement should settle

I'm not drafting your deal here, and I'd push back on signing a retailer's one-page "partnership terms" for a drop of any size. These are the points I'd want in writing.

Who owns what: your mark, their mark, the combined name, the product design and the artwork. Who files the combined name, if anyone, and who pays the USPTO. Each side's approval right over product, packaging and marketing that carries its mark, and how fast approvals have to come back. Who can sell the drop product and where, and whether either side can reorder after the window closes. What happens to leftover inventory, and whether it can be discounted, rebranded or destroyed. When collab marketing comes down. Who watches for copycats of the drop, who pays to stop them, and who signs the cease and desist. The contracts page covers the agreements we draft for these.

An invented example: "Harbor Lantern," a candle maker, and "the Cordelia Hotel," a boutique hotel, run a scented candle drop sold in the hotel's shop. Harbor Lantern owns its name, the hotel owns its name, the hotel approves every use of its name on the box, Harbor Lantern approves the hotel's photos of the product, nobody files "Harbor Lantern for the Cordelia," and when the drop ends in ninety days the hotel can sell through what's left but can't reorder. Four sentences, and most of the ways a collab goes wrong are closed off.

Before the drop goes live

Register your own brand first, if you haven't. Search any new combined name before it goes on packaging, since a combined name can conflict with someone else's registration just like any other name. Decide who owns it. Write the approval rights in. Then make the product.

Seed is a $650 clearance search with a written opinion. Grove is $2,600: the search, the opinion and the federal application, with procedural Office Actions included. USPTO fees are separate, $350 per class.

Questions about your name? Email us at hello@citrus.legal, or book a paid 30-minute consultation (opens in a new tab) for advice on your specific situation.

Sources

This article is general information, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.

When you are ready to own it

One mark. One flat fee. One attorney.

The search, the written opinion, the federal application and procedural Office Actions, for $2,600 or three payments of $950. Nothing is filed until you approve the search. If I call your mark low risk and the USPTO refuses it, I file again at no attorney fee.

Start hereProtecting more than one mark? See every price

Not open yet? Start with the startups page.

Start here