Inside Trademarks Trademark Analytics, Research & Strategy

The Bling Bling Trademark – Would’ve, Could’ve, Should’ve

How often have you heard the term “bling bling” used over the past decade?

Chances are you’ve heard the term a lot over the past decade, unless of course you don’t buy or care about jewelry, and you never pay attention to celebrities, pop culture or listen to hip hop music.

Christopher Dorsey, (a.k.a.  B.G., B. Gizzle or Baby Gangsta), a rap artist from New Orleans, Louisiana is credited by many as having “coined” the term “bling-bling”. B Gizzle’s first major-label debut album with Universal Records, Chopper City in the Ghetto, released in the fall of 1999 and contained the track “Bling Bling”.  This song quickly became a major hit in the US and throughout the world.  “Bling Bling” became a popular slang term for expensive jewelry, luxury vehicles and other forms of material excess.  Use of the term “bling bling” became so widespread that the Oxford English Dictionary added the term “bling bling” by 2003.

Unfortunately for B Gizzle, neither he or his “advisors” at the time sought to trademark the term “bling bling”.  It would have been a great brand name for a line of jewelry, watches, high-end clothing, automotive accessories (or other luxury goods) that B Gizzle could have easily marketed.  After all, he was widely known to sport multiple Rolex watches and insanely expensive jewelry.

In 2005, perhaps realizing that the “bling” was gone, B Gizzle was quoted as saying ”I just wished that I had trademarked [bling bling]…so I that didn’t have to work anymore.”

So at this point, you may wonder, if B Gizzle didn’t trademark “bling bling” and cash in on it, who did?

We looked into this, and the answer is - a lot of people – especially in the jewelry industry.

Here’s some of what we found:

• Over 500 trademark applications containing the term “bling bling” were filed just in the U.S. alone after the fall of 1999.
• Nearly 1/2 of those filings relate in some way to jewelry, precious metals and gemstones.
• Many of the other 1/2 relate in some way to high-end luxury goods such as clothing, cosmetics, fragrances or auto accessories.
• Arguably, the majority of these filings were “inspired” by the popular usage of the term “bling bling”.
• Even a major toy company, Mattel Inc., got in on the action in 2005 with a L’Bling trademark filing for a toy luxury vehicle.
• If B Gizzle filed to protect the trademark ”bling bling” in connection with jewelry (or other goods such as luxury vehicles, accessories or clothing) at the time of, or just after the release of his hit album, he would have had rights far senior to the majority of these 500 or so other “bling bling” wannabees.

So, not only would’ve B Gizzle been in a position to demand license payments from the “bling bling” wannabees (including many using the domain online), but he could’ve been in position to further leverage or co-market a “Bling Bling” line of jewelry with a major jewelry retailer, or with various luxury good makers; and he should’ve have been retired and not “have to work any more” thanks to all the residual income generated from the “Bling Bling” trademark licensing program.

Lessons Learned:

1. Would’ve, Could’ve, Should’ve is not fun.

2. No trademark filing + no trademark strategy = no money

3. Trademark registration + trademark strategy = “not have to work” money