Archive for the ‘Famous Marks’ Category
« Older Entries | Newer Entries »Bonhomme, Maclean’s “meilleurs amis”
Monday, November 8th, 2010
In an update to a story we shared with you a few weeks ago, a report today that the organizers of the Quebec Winter Carnival and Maclean’s magazine have reached a settlement regarding Maclean’s use of the image of Bonhomme – mascot of the Carnival – as part of a cover image promoting an article on corruption in Quebec. While Carnival organizers confirmed the settlement and advised that they were “pleased”, specific terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
Posted in Famous Marks, Protection & Enforcement | No Comments »
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 »