Not so innocent

Interesting 'David versus Goliath' story in the latest edition of Marketing Week.

Dawn Reid, a single mother of two, spotted a gap in the market and launched her own range of child-friendly vitamins in July 2010.

Good on her.

By January 2011, she had them stocked in no less a place than Waitrose.

Impressive stuff.

Trouble is, of all the names she could've chosen, she opted to use Innocent. That's right, as in the smoothie manufacturer 58% owned by the mighty Coca-Cola. Well, if you're going to pick a fight, you might as well make it a big one.

Worse still, not only has Reid used the same name, she's also chosen a similar logo (sans-serif font, all lower-case). Alarmingly similar ethos too, if you scan her website.

Given the original Innocent's diversification into juices and snack pots, it surely wouldn't be inconceivable that they would branch out into the similarly healthy world of vitamins. Yet Reid insists that consumers won't confuse the two brands... despite her using a look-alike logo. She's also concerned that a larger company can seek ownership of a commonplace word such as 'innocent' - but what she fails to realise is that branding goes way, way, way beyond a name.

I usually root for the underdog, but, sorry, in this case I think the hound's completely in the wrong. You could say that it's barking up the wrong tree.