• You are currently browsing the Canadian Trademark Blog blog archives for March, 2009.

  • Archive for March, 2009

    « Older Entries |

    Dust Up in the Art World – Canadian Trademark Registrations for PAINTERS 11 and PAINTERS ELEVEN

    Wednesday, March 18th, 2009

    According to a Globe & Mail story, art dealer Lynda Shearer obtained registration for the trademarks PAINTERS ELEVEN and PAINTERS 11 in 2008.  The registrations each claim use of the marks in association with the wares “paintings, sculpture and drawings” and the services “purchase, appraisal, research, consultation, auction, consignment of paintings, sculpture and drawings“.

    The term Painters Eleven was used by a group of Canadian artists who organized themselves as a collective to exhibit abstract art.  This group was formed in 1953 and disbanded in 1960.

    Apparently, many in the Canadian art world are surprised and upset that Lynda Shearer obtained registrations for these marks, as the terms are viewed as descriptive, likened to terms such as the Impressionists and the Automatistes in describing a particular school or art movement.

    The news story reports that Canadian Art Group – a partnership made up of Lynda Shearer and her husband John – sent letters to two individuals alleging the infringement of the above trademarks. One individual who received a letter is a writer of a book about the Painters 11 group; the other is a private dealer who has bought and sold works of the Painters 11 group.

    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in Protection & Enforcement | 3 Comments »

    Trademark Statistics: Another Year in Review

    Tuesday, March 17th, 2009

    The Canadian Intellectual Property Office released its 2007-8 Annual Report a few weeks back.  A few highlights:

    • over 47,500 applications were filed in the twelve month period ending March 31, 2008, reflecting nearly a 5% increase over the previous year
    • Canada remains the most common country of applicant origin, with over 20,000 applications filed; the US placed second, with over 15,400 applications, while applicants from Germany, the United Kingdom and France rounded out the top 5
    • despite the addition of 24 new Examiners, turn-around times between filing and first exam increased by approximately 1.6 months per application, with the average turn-around time being 6.8 months
    • the number of Statements of Opposition filed increased by 25%, reversing declines seen in the previous three years
    • in contrast, the number of Section 45 (cancellation) notices issued fell to its lowest point in three years
    • interestingly, there was a 41% increase in the total number of trademark assignments filed with the Office.

    Further details can be found in the full report, available here.

    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

    Yee Shall Seek… Declaratory Judgment

    Monday, March 9th, 2009

    Updating our previous post on the ROYAL CHINET trademark, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in CKF Inc v. Huhtamaki Americas Inc. has confirmed “that declaratory relief is specifically available in the context of intellectual property disputes”, notwithstanding that such relief is not expressly provided for in the applicable act. In this case, the Plaintiff launched an action in Nova Scotia seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that it as an unconditional owner of certain trademarks in Canada. The Defendant, which commenced its own actions against CKF with respect to the same trademarks in Ontario and Maine, applied to strike CKF’s action on several bases, including that the Court could not grant CKF the declaratory relief it was seeking.

    Finding that it had inherent jurisdiction to make the declaratory judgment sought, and that the declaration was not purely “hypothetical” or “speculative” since it related to an actual dispute between parties, and was practically necessary for the resolution of this dispute, the Court refused the Defendant’s application to strike.

    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in Case Law, Domain Name Disputes, Protection & Enforcement, Trade-mark Oppositions | No Comments »

    « Older Entries |