In an update to our previous posts on this topic, the federal Liberal party has apparently settled the dispute surrounding its use of the mark THE GREEN SHIFT, just in time for this fall’s recently called election race to begin in earnest. According to a story in the Canadian Press and the Liberals’ own website, the Liberals have reached an out of court settlement with Green Shift Inc., whereby the Liberals now have a license to use the mark THE GREEN SHIFT in association with their environmental policy. As is typical in such matters, terms of the settlement were not made public.

In an update to an earlier post, the battle between the Liberal Party of Canada and Green Shift Inc., over the trademark GREEN SHIFT, continues, with the Liberals having recently filed their Statement of Defence in the Court case.

In a Vancouver Sun story, the Liberals claim they never intended to intended or desired to trade off any reputation or goodwill established by Green Shift Inc. Green Shift Inc. owner Jennifer Wright disagrees strongly, citing the receipt by her company of numerous emails apparently intended for the Liberal party, seeking further information about and both panning and praising the proposed initiative, as well as Liberal party members themselves giving out incorrect references to Green Shift Inc.’s website in the House of Commons. Apparently, out of Court settlement discussions are still taking place.

Adidas AG et al v. 2690942 Canada Inc. c.o.b. Campea will be of interest to litigators. Adidas commenced a claim against Campea alleging infringement of its 3-stripes trademark registration and its copyright registration covering the Euro 2004 logo. Following discoveries, the Federal Court was asked to rule on whether a series of questions required answers.

Prothonotary Morneau applied the six-part test set out in a 1998 decision, Reading & Bates Construction v. Baker Energy Resources Corp. which, stated briefly, requires a consideration of:

1. the relevance of documents, particularly whether they contain information allowing a party to advance its case;
2. the scope of the questions;
3. the relevance of questions in relation to the facts plead;
4. whether the questions advance a party’s legal position;
5. the usefulness of the information sought relative to the time and expense of obtaining it; and
6. the avoidance of fishing expeditions

Read more

The recent Federal Trial Court decision of Pharmacommunications Holdings Inc. v. Avencia International Inc. (“Avencia“) is a reminder to all lawyers that a successful claim requires proof of every element of the applicable legal test.

At issue in Avencia was whether the respondent’s trademark, PHARMACOMM, caused, or was likely to cause, confusion with the applicant’s trademark, PHARMACOMMUNICATION. Both companies provided marketing services to the pharmaceutical industry, although the degree of overlap was not agreed on. The applicant relied on s. 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act, which prohibits a person from directing “public attention to his wares, services or business in such a way as to cause or be likely to cause confusion in Canada, at the time he commenced so to direct attention to them, between his wares, services or business and the wares, services or business of another.”

The applicant sought various relief, including a declaration, a permanent injunction and delivery up of all infringing materials. The applicant focused its submissions on the issue of confusion. The respondent denied any confusion and also argued that a trademark holder cannot appropriate descriptive words, even by combining two words together. Read more