This cracked me up about the Black Chrome M-A

[Capuccino-Muffin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leica proprietary font. 

the Square “LEICA” is a valid Logo just as much as the usual “Leica” we see on the M2 for example.

Both are logos. It’s just that for some, the square proprietary font is hard to grasp as proprietary. 
 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Capuccino-Muffin]

12 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Marketing, lol. 🤡 Figures.

“Working in advertising”. As if the Leica people who work in advertising weren’t working in advertising... eh?

[hdmesa]

37 minutes ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

“Working in advertising”. As if the Leica people who work in advertising weren’t working in advertising... eh?

If marketing thought  L E I C A  M–A  was a logo, they would have insisted it be 5x bigger.

Let's narrow this down to the art department then.

Thanks for pointing out that saying "advertising" was too wide a net.

Edited August 22, 2022 by hdmesa

[hdmesa]

57 minutes ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

The Leica proprietary font. 

the Square “LEICA” is a valid Logo just as much as the usual “Leica” we see on the M2 for example.

Both are logos. It’s just that for some, the square proprietary font is hard to grasp as proprietary. 
 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

A product name written in a proprietary font does not necessarily constitute a logo. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by hdmesa

[hdmesa]

The closest you're going to come to  L E I C A  M–A  being something other than a product name typed a proprietary font would be to argue it was an "emblem" or a "badge". But considering that  L E I C A  M–A   is given the same real estate and positioning on the camera as the serial number, I think that would be quite a leap.

Edited August 22, 2022 by hdmesa

[hdmesa]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To bring it home:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Capuccino-Muffin]

You are wrong.

How can the word Leica be a logo with their proprietary font while, at the same time, NOT BE A LOGO with their other proprietary font?

Read that again.

[Capuccino-Muffin]

My last post on this simple, basic topic.

Below, a bunch of different logos. They are either ALL logos, or NONE. There is no “yeah but”.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[hdmesa]

7 minutes ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

My last post on this simple, basic topic.

Below, a bunch of different logos. They are either ALL logos, or NONE. There is no “yeah but”.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I would agree that LEICA in this case as a stand-alone word on apparel is being used as a logo. I simply disagree that it’s a logo as used on the hotshoe, just like the LEITZ WETZLAR GERMANY is not a logo when written on the lens hood of the 50 Lux BC. 

Not sure how to make this any more clear to you, but “logo” is not as general as you think it is. It’s like “God” versus “gods”.

Anyway, cheers, lol. Enjoy your M-A with its logo, and I’ll enjoy my M-A without one.

[hdmesa]

53 minutes ago, Capuccino-Muffin said:

You are wrong.

How can the word Leica be a logo with their proprietary font while, at the same time, NOT BE A LOGO with their other proprietary font?

Read that again.

Use case and context. Just like “LEITZ” on the top of my M4-P is being used as a logo but not when written out as “LEITZ WETZLAR…” on a lens.

[hdmesa]

"LEICA" in all-caps font used as a logo:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

"LEICA" in all-caps used as a product identifier and not as a logo:

Another non-logo use of "LEICA" as a designation of manufacture/origin:

Edited August 22, 2022 by hdmesa

[aesop]

On 8/22/2022 at 3:58 PM, hdmesa said:

I would agree that LEICA in this case as a stand-alone word on apparel is being used as a logo. I simply disagree that it’s a logo as used on the hotshoe, just like the LEITZ WETZLAR GERMANY is not a logo when written on the lens hood of the 50 Lux BC. 

Not sure how to make this any more clear to you, but “logo” is not as general as you think it is. It’s like “God” versus “gods”.

Anyway, cheers, lol. Enjoy your M-A with its logo, and I’ll enjoy my M-A without one.

 

    …it would appear this light-hearted discourse is actually steeped in intellectual property, not in advertising nor marketing.

I’ll try to quickly summarise my take on the relevant bits (per English law, that is - I cannot comment on other jurisdictions):

• “LEICA” is a registered trademark.
• “NOCTILUX”, “SUMMILUX”, “SUMMICRON”, etc, are registered trademarks.
• “LEICA MP”, “LEICA M-A”, etc, are registered trademarks.
• The red dot (incorporating the “Leica” script) is a logo, and is a registered trademark.

Simply put, a logo in this instance is a type of registered trademark. Typically, it is a recognisable sign or symbol used to identify particular products. Leica’s proprietary typeface is recognisable and, as far as I’m aware, would be subject to copyright (another type of IP) in England. In other words, external parties would require a licence from Leica to use the typeface - the same would apply to the brand names listed above.

I therefore take the view that a brand name (such as “LEICA M-A”) in a proprietary typeface would be tantamount to a logo.

What fun, eh?

 

 

 

[ianman]

3 minutes ago, aesop said:

The red dot (incorporating the “Leica” script) is a logo, and is a registered trademark.

And IIRC not registered by Leica Camera but they use it under license from Leica Microsystems. Which is why black dots are not allowed.

[hdmesa]

9 minutes ago, aesop said:

 

    …it would appear this light-hearted discourse is actually steeped in intellectual property, not in advertising nor marketing.

I’ll try to quickly summarise my take on the relevant bits (per English law, that is - I cannot comment on other jurisdictions):

• “LEICA” is a registered trademark.
• “NOCTILUX”, “SUMMILUX”, “SUMMICRON”, etc, are registered trademarks.
• “LEICA MP”, “LEICA M-A”, etc, are registered trademarks.
• The red dot (incorporating the “Leica” script) is a logo, and is a registered trademark.

Simply put, a logo in this instance is a type of registered trademark. Typically, it is a recognisable sign or symbol used to identify particular products. Leica’s proprietary typeface is recognisable and, as far as I’m aware, would be subject to copyright (another type of IP) in England. In other words, external parties would require a licence from Leica to use the typeface - the same would apply to the brand names listed above.

I therefore take the view that a brand name (such as “LEICA M-A”) in a proprietary typeface would be tantamount to a logo.

What fun, eh?

 

 

 

“LEICA” is the brand name. “LEICA M–A” is the product name.

Trademark is a legal protection status, not a determinate of “brand logo” versus “product logo” versus “product name used in a non-logo context” as it is used on the hotshoe.

“LEICA M–A” as used on the camera is simply the product identifier, just like the serial number is the identifier of the specific M–A it is written on. If “LEICA M–A” on the hotshoe is a “product logo”, then the serial number is “my Leica M–A’s specific logo”, which it is not. Put “M–A” in a large font on the front of the camera similar to “M6”, and now we have a “product logo”, yes. But not on the hotshoe with equal font and footing to the serial number.

 

[aesop]

9 hours ago, hdmesa said:

“LEICA” is the brand name. “LEICA M–A” is the product name.

Trademark is a legal protection status, not a determinate of “brand logo” versus “product logo” versus “product name used in a non-logo context” as it is used on the hotshoe.

“LEICA M–A” as used on the camera is simply the product identifier, just like the serial number is the identifier of the specific M–A it is written on. If “LEICA M–A” on the hotshoe is a “product logo”, then the serial number is “my Leica M–A’s specific logo”, which it is not. Put “M–A” in a large font on the front of the camera similar to “M6”, and now we have a “product logo”, yes. But not on the hotshoe with equal font and footing to the serial number.

 

 

      ...interesting points. Informative too. However, the problem with this position is that the product name "LEICA M-A" is registrable while serial numbers, as far as I am aware, are not. My previous points stand and, as usual, I remain open to education.

 

[Anbaric]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[hdmesa]

8 hours ago, aesop said:

 

      ...interesting points. Informative too. However, the problem with this position is that the product name "LEICA M-A" is registrable while serial numbers, as far as I am aware, are not. My previous points stand and, as usual, I remain open to education.

 

I was illustrating that what is considered a logo sometimes has to rely on context. Leica obviously agrees with you and others here since they call it a logo. Funny, because as a former AD and graphic designer, we would have these conversations with clients if they ever came into the art department and talked with us. But usually at an agency, a logo is whatever the client thinks a logo is. The agency can bill more for logos, too, so clients rarely get helpful feedback about the terms they use to describe their own branding.

On a side note, I don't see Leica using any kind of legal marks on their product names ©®™, etc. anywhere on their website. They simply disclaim that all brand logos and product names are covered by copyright. Maybe that's an American obsession to slap those marks on everything 😁