Archive for the ‘Famous Marks’ Category
« Older Entries |VANOC Seeing Red over Marketing Campaign
Thursday, January 14th, 2010
Another marketing campaign has attracted criticism from the Vancouver Organizing Committe for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games (VANOC). A story today reports that Scotiabank’s new “Show Your Colours” campaign, launched yesterday in Vancouver, has drawn VANOC’s ire. The bank’s campaign, appealing to Canadians’ sense of patriotism, asks Canadians to upload photos “that show Canada’s unique spirit”. The launch included an appearance by former womens’ hockey Olympian Cassie Campbell, who signed autographs and shared photos.
According to the story, VANOC “has serious concerns of the public being misled into believing there is an association between the 2010 Winter Games and [Scotiabank's] campaign”, though it is unclear as to the specific issues upon which VANOC’s concerns are based.
As evidenced by VANOC’s previous complaints about Lululemon’s winter marketing campaign, VANOC clearly remains concerned about ambush marketing, and is focused on protecting its sponsors. The Royal Bank of Canada, one of Scotiabank’s competitors, is an official sponsor of the 2010 Games.
Posted in Famous Marks, Protection & Enforcement | No Comments »
GLAMOUR’s Appeal Denied
Sunday, January 3rd, 2010
The Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. with respect to the Federal Court’s earlier finding in Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Farelyco Marketing Inc. As readers of this blog may recall from our earlier post on this topic, the Federal Court had found no likelihood of confusion between the Farleyco mark GHOULISH GLAMOUR for Halloween cosmetics and eyelash accessories and the Advance mark GLAMOUR used in association with magazines and related products and services.
The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the finding of the lower court judge that there was “no factual foundation for the proposition that the appellant has expanded the scope of its GLAMOUR mark by having licensed this mark to third parties”, since the third parties were merely using Advance’s GLAMOUR magazine and website to advertise their own products.
Posted in Case Law, Famous Marks | No Comments »
VANOC Gets Sour Taste From Lululemon
Thursday, December 17th, 2009
Vancouver based yoga wear retailing phenom Lululemon Atletica has tweaked the nose of the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games (VANOC), with a new line of clothing. A story yesterday reported that Lululemon has introduced a new line of clothing named “Cool Sporting Event That Takes Place in British Columbia Between 2009 & 2011 Edition”. VANOC reportedly is upset that Lululemon has only complied with the letter and not the spirit of the laws in Canada that protect the various trademarks used to promote the Olympic Games generally, and the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games specifically.
The clothing line in question features various items in the national colours of Canada, the U.S., Sweden and Germany. Notably, the Canadian hoodies feature gold zippers while the zippers in the colours of other countries have silver zippers. Lululemon lost out to the Hudson’s Bay Company in its bid to be the official apparel supplier to the Canadian Olympic team for the Summer and Winter Games during the period from 2006 to 2012.
Readers of the Knowledge Bytes newsletter will be aware of the legislative hammers that are at VANOC’s disposal to enforce its trademark rights against both would-be infringers and ambush marketers alike. These include the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, which contains lists of specific words that either can’t be used at all, or that can’t be used in combination with other specific words–for example the combination of “Vancouver” and “2010″.
Posted in Domain Names, Famous Marks, Protection & Enforcement, Trade-mark Oppositions | No Comments »