Archive for August, 2006
« Older Entries |Branding Canada: Official Marks
Thursday, August 31st, 2006
Noting an August 15th post on the Strategic Name Development Blog, which comments that Canada is a great brand but it needs marketing.
While we appreciate that trade-mark registration is only a small part of an overall branding and marketing campaign, it appears from the Canadian Trade-mark Register that the government organizations responsible for promoting tourism in Canada and its provinces and territories are taking steps towards developing a brand. For example, Tourism BC has a number of marks on the Canadian Trade-mark Register, including a number of variations of SUPER NATURAL BRITISH COLUMBIA. The Greater Vancouver Convention and Visitors Bureau has obtained 100 DAYS OF SUMMER, along with a number of other marks.
Other favourites include: Nunavut’s UNTAMED UNSPOILED UNDISCOVERED (which is not on the Trade-mark Register, however); Saskatchewan’s LAND OF LIVING SKIES; and Quebec’s PROVIDING EMOTIONS SINCE 1534 (FOURNISSEUR D’ÉMOTIONS DEPUIS 1534, if you prefer the French).
With the exception of UNTAMED UNSPOILED AND UNDISCOVERED, all these marks are registered as “Official Marks” under section 9(1)(n)(iii) of Canada’s Trade-marks Act, a provision that gives these “public authorities” an advantage over the average commercial enterprise seeking to register trade-marks. Registration of such marks does not involve an opposition process and does not require renewal. There are no fees to pay and no provisions regarding cancellation. The public authority may prohibit others from using the mark with all goods and services and not just those in respect of which the public authority can establish use. (For more details on official marks generally see this.) Government entities do not always resort to section 9(1)(n)(iii). The Canadian Tourism Commission has obtained Official Mark status for PURE CANADA and CANADA PUR, but has registered THE WORLD NEEDS MORE CANADA & Design as an ordinary trade-mark.
Given section 9, it is perhaps surprising that Canadians, and more particularly their public authorities, are not more aggressive about establishing brands, or at least trade-marks. We are still waiting for something as provocative as Australia’s SO WHERE THE BLOODY HELL ARE YOU?, or better yet, Las Vegas’ WHAT HAPPENS HERE, STAYS HERE.
Posted in Branding | No Comments »
Taco Time takes bite out of Vancouver restaurant
Monday, August 28th, 2006
A Vancouver restaurant has received media coverage regarding its alleged trade-mark infringement and its fight against a major fast food chain. Apparently, the restaurant has been using the phrase “Taco Tuesday” for a promotion during the last year. Taco Time Canada Inc. is the registered owner in Canada of the trade-mark TACO TUESDAY and, not surprisingly, instructed its lawyers to send a cease and desist letter to the restaurant owners.
Trade-mark registration confers the exclusive right to the registered owner to use the mark throughout Canada in association with the wares or services claimed in the registration. In this case, Taco Time Canada Inc. registered its mark for use in association with restaurant services – about as clear a case of infringement as you’ll see. Although the media report once again portrays this as a “little guy” versus big corporation story, this is simply another example of a registered trade-mark owner policing use of its mark and its rights – as it must do.
Posted in Protection & Enforcement | 1 Comment »
Only in Canada? .CA Whois Policy will create more uncertainty for Trade-mark owners
Tuesday, August 22nd, 2006
Still catching up on press releases received over the last few weeks. The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (“CIRA”) is pushing ahead with implementation of its new Whois Policy despite resistance from trade-mark owners and other IP rights holders. Once implemented (likely in late fall of 2006), an individual Registrant of a .CA domain name will be able to cloak their identity unless they opt to disclose it. This is so, even if the .CA domain name links to a commercial website. Disclosure can be forced only in certain limited circumstances, pursuant to a court order, search warrant and the like.
Trade-mark or other IP rights owners who believe an individual Registrant is cybersquatting or otherwise infringing their rights will have no way to find out who that individual is, to contact them directly to try to work out a settlement or to properly assess the likelihood of a successful dispute resolution proceeding (called a CDRP proceeding). CIRA have rejected their own Consultant’s recommendation that CDRP Complainants should have access to the identity of an individual Registrant, subject to various safeguards. CIRA’s suggested solution is to permit a Complainant to file rebuttal evidence on the issue of legitimate interest, in response to the evidence, if any, filed by an individual Registrant on that issue. Filing additional evidence on the issue of bad faith will require permission of the dispute resolution panel.
A potential Complainant under this new system will have a risky and expensive decision to make – whether to commence a CDRP proceeding without a crucial piece of information – the identity of the individual Registrant – and risk finding out only after the Registrant files his or her evidence (this requires that the Complainant first submit its Complaint and evidence and incur the fees inherent in doing so) that he or she indeed has a legitimate interest in the domain name – which if the Complainant had known from the outset, the CDRP might have been avoided altogether.
Interesting to note that CIRA’s new Whois policy doesn’t contain the commercial purpose exception that applies to .co.uk domain names, which permits Nominet to release the Whois details even if the Registrant is an individual – not to mention that it’s also an opt out system.
In a related development, CIRA is currently seeking public input on how to implement its new Whois policy and is seeking to hire a consultant to complete a review of the CDRP process and recommend options for change.
Posted in Domain Name Disputes, Protection & Enforcement | 5 Comments »