Archive for the ‘Protection & Enforcement’ Category
« Older Entries | Newer Entries »Stanley Cup Playoffs Spark Trademark Activity
Monday, May 30th, 2011
The final round of the NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs is about to kick off here in Vancouver, with the hometown Canucks facing off for the first time ever in the playoffs against the storied Boston Bruins. Perhaps not surprisingly, local businesses in Vancouver are looking to capitalize on this historic event in different ways.
For example, the Vancouver Province is reporting that the Boston Pizza chain has temporarily (and wisely) rebranded itself as Vancouver Pizza, for the duration of the series.
Earlier in the playoffs, a local automobile dealership that was using the phrase “Go Canucks Go” and the team’s logo on the window of the dealership premises, received a cease and desist letter from the offices of the National Hockey League, demanding that the references to the CANUCKS word mark and logo be removed from their window.
No doubt as the series cranks up, other local businesses will find equally creative ways to get in on the action.
Posted in Branding, Protection & Enforcement | No Comments »
PETA’s Use Of Canadian Club Trademark Gets Whacked
Thursday, March 31st, 2011
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is in the news again for its cheeky ad campaigns, which sometimes use well known trademarks of other parties to garner exposure for its views on Canada’s seal hunt. We previously blogged about the use by PETA of an ad featuring the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games mascots.
A recent Globe & Mail article reports that PETA had been distributing postcards in a number of bars in Toronto, with plans to roll out the campaign across the country. The postcards pictured on one side, a cartoon featuring a seal sitting at a bar and asking the bartender for “Anything but a Canadian Club”. The other side of the postcard featured a photograph of a hunter about to club a seal.
The North American distributor of Canadian Club Whisky didn’t see the humour in PETA’s cartoon and sent a cease and desist letter, claiming that the publication had caused degradation of Canadian Club’s corporate image and damage to its brand and trademark.
In response to the demand letter PETA agreed not to send out more postcards and to remove the cartoon from its website. Notwithstanding its compliance with the demand, a spokesperson for PETA argued that it had the doctrine of fair use on its side, to permit the use of trademarks for parody or satire. Unfortunately for PETA, fair use is a U.S. doctrine that doesn’t apply in Canada in the context of either copyright or trademarks.
Posted in Case Law, Protection & Enforcement | No Comments »
Off-colour Trademark Decision Leaves Glaxo Purple With Frustration
Thursday, February 3rd, 2011
In reasons issued late last year, the Federal Court of Appeal has upheld a decision to expunge a trademark registration obtained by Glaxo Group Limited (“Glaxo”) for two-tones of the colour purple as applied to the visible surface of an asthma inhaler. The decision raises interesting questions both about primary and secondary marks, and about the amount of evidence necessary to support a finding that a mark is distinctive.
By way of background, Glaxo registered its mark (depicted right, below) in May of 2007. A collection of generic drug manufacturers brought a Federal Court application to expunge the mark about 6 months later, alleging that the mark was not distinctive.
In its decision, the Federal Court concluded that for the mark to be distinctive the constituency of consumers for the inhaler (including physicians, pharmacists and patients) must relate the trade-mark to a single source, and thereby use the mark to make their prescribing, dispensing
and purchasing choices. In market sectors where purchasing decisions are made by or on the advice of professionals, commercial distinctiveness of such marks will be inherently more difficult to establish: such persons will make purchasing or prescription decisions based on the specific properties of the product, and not on the packaging or marks associated with those products.
Posted in Case Law, Protection & Enforcement, Registration | No Comments »