Branding

Olympic Trademark Legislation

By In Branding, Protection & Enforcement

The Canadian government has now come forward with new legislation to prevent unauthorized persons from marketing their wares and services in association the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. As noted in an earlier blog, similar legislation has been introduced prior to other Games, including legislation introduced by Italy prior to the 2006 Turin Winter Games.

The Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act (Bill C-47) received a first reading in the House of Commons on Friday, March 2, 2007. Most importantly, section 3 of the Act prohibits any person from adopting or using in connection with a business, as a trademark or otherwise, an Olympic or Paralympic mark or a mark that resembles an Olympic or Parlympic mark. Note the reference to “in connection with a business”. Schedules 1 and 2 of the Act set out lists of the Olympic and Paralympic trademarks.

There are exceptions to this prohibition, including, of course, use by the Canadian Olympic Committee and Canadian Paralympic Committee and persons acting with their consent, but also excused are owners or licensees of marks that were being used prior to March 2, 2007.

Section 3(5) of the Act specifically allows for use of the Olympic trademarks in news reports and “for purposes of criticism”.

Section 4 of the Act prohibits anyone from promoting or otherwise directing public attention to a business in such manner as to lead the public into believing that there is a connection with the COC or CPC. A court must take into consideration the use of a combination of the expressions set out in Part 1 of Schedule 3 of the Act (Games, 2010, Twenty-ten, 21st, Twenty-first, XXIst, 10th, Tenth, Xth, Medals) or a combination of an expression in Part 1 of Schedule 3 with any of the expressions in Part 2 of Schedule 3 (Winter, Gold, Silver, Bronze, Sponsor, Vancouver, Whistler).

Potential remedies include injunctions (in respect of which irreparable harm need not be proved), damages, punitive damages, publication of corrective advertisements and destruction of wares.

The Act includes a “sunset clause” such that Schedule 2 is repealed on December 31, 2010. In the interim, and assuming the legislation is passed, it will be interesting to monitor just how effective the legislation proves to be.

Creating an Effective Brand

By In Branding

Vitamin.com posted an interesting article by Mike McDerment of freshbooks.com on how to create an effective brand.

One thing the article didn’t deal with, however, was the role of trademark due diligence in the brand creation process. Before committing to any new brand, appropriate clearance searches should be conducted. The best new brand in the world may not be of much use if it’s infringing on the rights of a competitor – at the very least, the cost of launching the brand could go up significantly – Apple’s launch of its iPhone brand is a classic example. Apple is fortunate enough to have the legal budget to fight those battles. Many businesses don’t.

iPhone Gets Its First Busy Signal

By In Branding, Protection & Enforcement

It didn’t take long for Cisco Systems to take a run at Apple, Inc.’s newly unveiled iPhone. Cisco owns a U.S. Trademark Registration for IPHONE in association with “computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks”. Cisco has filed a lawsuit against Apple in the U.S. alleging trademark infringement among other things. Cisco alleges that up to the night before Apple’s introduction of the iPhone on Tuesday of this week at Macworld Expo, Apple and Cisco were negotiating the terms of an agreement that would have permitted Apple to use the mark.

There appear to be other entities using the iPhone mark for VoIP services, some of which have also filed applications to register the mark in association with such services. Cisco, in its lawsuit, alleges that Apple is applying to register the iPhone mark in the U.S. via a related or alter ego company called Ocean Telecom Services LLC. of 2004 on a proposed use basis.

Apple filed an application to register the mark iPhone in Canada in October of 2004 on a proposed use basis. That application is currently being opposed by Comwave Telecom Inc. Comwave  filed its own application for the mark iPhone in Canada, claiming use of that mark in Canada since June of 2004 for use in association with VoIP services.

The Source Once Again A Source of Trademark Problems

By In Branding, Protection & Enforcement

Circuit City continues to encounter trademark problems in Canada with its chain of retail consumer electronics stores. When Circuit City purchased the chain of 870 plus stores from Radio Shack 18 months ago, it was forced to incur substantial costs to re-brand them as The Source by Circuit City. Now, a smaller chain of photo shops called Foto-Source Canada Inc. has applied to the Federal Court of Canada seeking an order that Circuit City cease using The Source as part of its name.

Foto-Source contends that it adopted the slogan “Get it right, from the source” in 1994. Both parties have filed applications to register their respective trademarks in Canada but neither application has been published for opposition yet.

Scotch Distilleries Protest Use Of Glen With Canadian Whisky

By In Branding, Protection & Enforcement, Trademark Oppositions

The Scotch Whisky Association is battling a Cape Breton distiller of whisky over its use of the word Glen in its trademark. The Association, which represents the owners of well known brands such as Glenfiddich, Glenlivet and Glenmorangie, is concerned that consumers will assume that Glen Breton Rare single malt whisky, produced by Glenora Distillery, is a scotch whisky.

The Association argues that the word “Glen” is too closely linked to scotch whisky for anyone other than Scottish producers to use.  “Scotch Whisky” itself is a designation that is protected under the federal Trade-marks Act for use only with whisky produced in Scotland.

The Canadian distillery, which has applied to register the mark GLEN BRETON, argues that Cape Breton, where it is based, has very strong Scottish roots because it was settled by the Scottish over 200 years ago. The region is riddled with towns and villages that contain the word “Glen”, which means a place at the base of highlands or mountains. The Association has opposed the GLEN BRETON trademark application. Lawyers for both sides recently presented oral arguments and a decision of the Opposition Board is still months away.

RIM Battles Samsung Over Use of BlackJack

By In Branding, Famous Marks, Protection & Enforcement

Canadian based Research in Motion is suing Samsung over its use of the mark BlackJack in association with a recently launched smart phone device. The Samsung smart phone competes directly with RIM’s BlackBerry Pearl smart phone. In the lawsuit, filed in California, RIM argues that the BlackJack name will cause confusion with consumers who are familiar with the established BlackBerry brand, as well as constituting false designation of origin, unfair competition and trademark dilution.  Interestingly, both devices are offered on Cingular’s network in the U.S.