Protection & Enforcement

Whiskey War Waxes On

By In Case Law, Protection & Enforcement, Trademark Oppositions

In several earlier posts, we’ve tracked the ongoing battle between Glenora Distillers and the Scotch Whiskey Association respecting the propriety of Glenora’s use of the word GLEN in its trademark GLEN BRETON.   Most recently, the Federal Court of Appeal found that Glenora was able to use GLEN without misleading Canadian consumers into thinking its product originated in Scotland.

News today that this brouhaha may not be over quite yet: it appears that the Scotch Whiskey Association has sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Stay tuned!

Free iPhone Bike App Sparks Dispute

By In Branding, Domain Name Disputes, Protection & Enforcement

The Montreal Gazette and La Presse each recently reported on the decision by the Stationnement de Montréal (“SdM”) to assert intellectual property rights against the developer of an iPhone application which pinpoints the locations of public-use bicycles made available for rental by the SdM.

Sparko.ca developed a free iPhone application called BixiMobile, together with a supporting webpage located at www.biximobile.com, to assist online users with finding Bixi bike locations throughout Montreal. The application launched on Sunday; by Tuesday, Sparko had received a cease-and-desist letter from Stationnement de Montréal’s counsel directing the company to withdraw the application, and hand over the domain.  Perhaps more interestingly, it appears SdM have additionally directed Sparko to hand over the code that supports the iPhone application. Read more

Psion Capitulates In Netbook Battle

By In Protection & Enforcement, Registration

Following up on a story we reported earlier this year, Mississaugua, Ontario-based Psion Teklogix appears to have resolved its trademark dispute with Intel Corporation by undertaking to withdraw all of its NETBOOK trademark registrations.  As regular readers of our blog will recall, Psion’s registrations for NETBOOK were being challenged in a number of jurisdictions, including Canada, by Intel and others on the bases of non-use and non-distinctiveness.

While the Psion press release makes no specific reference to the terms of settlement, it seems likely that Intel persuaded Psion to formally abandon the NETBOOK brand by providing a cash payment to the Canadian company.  It is not clear to what extent, if any, Dell Inc. – who had joined Intel in attacking Psion’s registrations – was a formal part of any such settlement.

The news of the settlement is not particularly surprising: Psion had a long and expensive row to hoe defending the various actions in the jurisdictions in which it was under attack, let alone asserting its rights around the world to stave off allegations of non-distinctiveness / genericide.  Moreover, Intel and Dell no doubt both had more resources to apply to the case than Psion did.  Given all of that, the cost-benefit analysis pushes one to settlement pretty quickly. Read more

Breweries Battle Over Ontario

By In Case Law, Protection & Enforcement

In yet another Canadian trademark dispute involving alcoholic beverages – seems to be a bit of a trend lately – Ontario based Brick Brewing Co. Limited has issued an announcement that Labatt Brewing Company Limited has commenced an action in Canada’s Federal Court against Brick, alleging that Brick’s RED BARON trademark infringes Labatt’s BRAVA trademark.  While these marks, taken by themselves, seem quite different, the dispute focuses on the similarities between the labels and packaging used with these products, along with the similarity of the bottles.

In an interesting side bar, Labatt has a significant ownership interest in Ontario’s “The Beer Store” which is by far the largest retail channel for beer in Canada’s most populous province.  As such, Labatt indirectly receives fees from Red Brick in order to display its RED BARON lager in a lobby display program at The Beer Store, as well as fees to sort RED BARON bottles, which are non-industry standard.  Brick argues that because of the set up of The Beer Store, where more popular brands such as those sold by Labatt are featured more prominently, consumers generally have to ask for Brick’s products, such as RED BARON, by name, thereby lessening any likelihood of confusion.

Counterfeit Goods: Another Substantial Award of Damages

By In Case Law, Protection & Enforcement

This blog previously reported on Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. 486353 B.C. Ltd., which, along with Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Yang and Microsoft Corp. v. 9038-3746 Quebec Inc., evidences a recent trend toward substantial damage awards in counterfeit goods cases. The April 2009 decision in Microsoft Corp. v. PC Village Co. Ltd. follows the approach taken in these cases and appears to confirm the courts’ commitment to cracking down on the sale of counterfeit goods in Canada.

In this most recent case, Microsoft Corporation brought an action for copyright and trademark infringement against corporate defendants known as PC Village Markham and PC Village Downtown, which were computer retailers in the Greater Toronto Area. The action was also brought against two employees that worked in sales at these stores. Evidence provided by the plaintiff’s investigators showed that both retail locations engaged in selling computers with unlicensed Microsoft software loaded onto the hard drives. The individual defendants served a Statement of Claim, but did not file it and proceeded to negotiate a settlement which was never finalized. Microsoft then brought a motion for default judgment. Read more

Payless to Pay More?

By In Case Law, Famous Marks, Protection & Enforcement

Collective Brand Inc., operator of the well-known US discount shoe retailer Payless ShoeSource, is again under attack from German-based sporting apparel manufacturer adidas. In a landmark US decision last spring, adidas persuaded an Oregon jury that Payless had wilfully infringed adidas’ trade mark and trade dress in various sneaker designs, and was awarded over $300 million in damages and disgorged profits. This award represented what was thought to be the largest ever US trademark verdict. On appeal, the award was later reduced to just over $65 million – still, a significant award and an important victory for adidas.

Flush from its win against Payless in the US, adidas has elected to try to repeat its success in Canada. Earlier this month, Adidas AG and Adidas Canada Ltd. filed a claim against Collective Brand Inc. in Federal Court. In Canada, adidas’ action will hinge on Payless’ alleged infringement of the rights adidas enjoys in the well-known 3 Stripes Design, and particularly the rights afforded adidas from these three trademark registrations.

If adidas is successful, it is not likely to be awarded damages anywhere near the amounts it secured in the US; nonetheless, the case will be of interest to both trademark lawyers and sneakerheads alike. We’ll keep all of you posted on material developments.

Yee Shall Seek… Declaratory Judgment

By In Case Law, Domain Name Disputes, Protection & Enforcement, Trademark Oppositions

Updating our previous post on the ROYAL CHINET trademark, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in CKF Inc v. Huhtamaki Americas Inc. has confirmed “that declaratory relief is specifically available in the context of intellectual property disputes”, notwithstanding that such relief is not expressly provided for in the applicable act. In this case, the Plaintiff launched an action in Nova Scotia seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that it as an unconditional owner of certain trademarks in Canada. The Defendant, which commenced its own actions against CKF with respect to the same trademarks in Ontario and Maine, applied to strike CKF’s action on several bases, including that the Court could not grant CKF the declaratory relief it was seeking.

Finding that it had inherent jurisdiction to make the declaratory judgment sought, and that the declaration was not purely “hypothetical” or “speculative” since it related to an actual dispute between parties, and was practically necessary for the resolution of this dispute, the Court refused the Defendant’s application to strike.