Archive for the ‘Famous Marks’ Category
« Older Entries | Newer Entries »Trademark Clearinghouse To Help Combat Cybersquatting?
Friday, July 17th, 2009
A story earlier this week reported that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) – the organization charged with oversight of the Internet, including the creation of new generic top level domains (gTLD’s) – is considering setting up a centralized database of trademarks to help combat cybersquatting and other negative domain name registration practices. The proposed IP Clearinghouse would be a depository for trademarks and provide unified rules for trademark holders to block domain name registrations that include use of such trademarks, unless the applicant can prove that its proposed use will be legitimate.
This proposal will be closely monitored by the trademark community as ICANN continues to move forward with its controversial proposal to exponentially expand the number of gTLDs. The concern of trademark holders is that the task of protecting their brands online, which is already difficult enough with the existing gTLDs, will become prohibitively expensive.
The idea of the IP Clearinghouse was one of the recommendations outlined in the Final Report on Trademark Protection of ICANN’s Implementation Recommendation Team (IRT). At the recent ICANN meeting in Sydney, the IRT presented its report. The IRT Final Report was open for public comment until June 29, 2009. ICANN might not make a final decision on the idea until late 2009, at which time it could potentially decide on a variation of the IP Clearinghouse, depending on the public comments that it receives.
Though it appears to be a moving target at the moment, the launch of the new gTLDs could potentially take place as early as February or March of 2010.
Posted in Domain Name Disputes, Domain Names, Famous Marks, Protection & Enforcement | No Comments »
PETA Clubs Olympics for Anti-Sealing Campaign
Friday, June 12th, 2009
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has launched a new “spoof” website in its stated bid to convince the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) that it should help in the campaign to end the Canadian seal hunt.
It will be interesting to see what response VANOC has to this, presumably unauthorized, use of its trademarks and copyright protected images by PETA. Both the Copyright Act and the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act contain provisions permitting use of protected trademarks and works for purposes of criticism, however, in this case the criticism is of something seemingly unrelated to the 2010 Winter Olympic Games.
The PETA spoof website has already attracted criticism from the leader of the national Inuit organization in Canada.
Posted in Famous Marks | 1 Comment »
GLAMOUR Mark Fails to Dazzle Federal Court
Thursday, May 7th, 2009
The Federal Court recently handed down its decision in Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Farleyco Marketing Inc., an appeal from an earlier decision by the Registrar of Trade-marks that 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. New evidence was filed that went significantly beyond that which had been considered by the Registrar, so the Court considered the matter afresh.
The Court found that both marks were inherently weak as both were suggestive of their wares and services but considered whether Advance’s GLAMOUR mark had “an acquired distinctiveness through use and promotion… sufficient to warrant a wide scope of protection”.
The Court determined that while the GLAMOUR mark was well known in Canada in association with magazines (and thus had acquired distinctiveness), it was not associated with all wares and services that make up the glamour industry. Advance argued that the wares of both parties belonged to the same general class of goods, namely cosmetic, fashion and beauty, but the Court found: “Just because cosmetic products are advertised, discussed, or otherwise featured in Advance’s magazine and related wares does not mean… that any acquired distinctiveness of the GLAMOUR mark should extend to cover such products.”
Posted in Branding, Case Law, Famous Marks, Trade-mark Oppositions | No Comments »