Cease and Desist Issued to Anti-Asbestos Website

The unauthorized use of the Conservative Party of Canada's logo on a website has placed Michaela Keyserlingk, an anti-asbestos advocate, in hot water.

Ms. Keyserlingk is the widow of Robert Keyserlingk, who died in 2009 of mesothelioma, a cancer caused mainly by asbestos exposure.  She started her website (www.canadianasbestosexports.ca)  to generate awareness on the dangers of asbestos in an effort to stop the mining and export of the product from Canada and claims that the unauthorized use of the CPC logo is merely to gain the attention of the Canadian government.  Ms. Keyserlingk has made statements to indicate that she will remove the logo if a high-ranking member of the Conservative party meets with her to account for its continued support of the Asbestos industry.  To date, the logo remains on the website.

New Winnipeg Jets Logos Unveiled

True North Sports & Entertainment, owners of the Winnipeg Jets, have today released images of their new logos for the upcoming NHL season:

The logos represent a departure from the previous "Jets" logo as the team seeks to make a new identity from that of the former Winnipeg club. and an opportunity to generate additional fan enthusiasm for the return of NHL hockey to the city.

Starbucks Unveils New Logo

                                                                                                       Image Courtesy of Starbucks Corporation.

Starbucks Corporation has announced it will be rolling out a new logo in its stores in March, 2011 as part of the company's 40th anniversary.  As the evolution of the Starbucks brand (above) clearly indicates the new logo avoids referencing both "Starbucks" and "coffee" which has sparked speculation that the company is moving toward expanding the company's product focus beyond the realm of coffee, specialty beverages and related products and services.  Indeed, in an announcement on the company's website, Starbucks president and CEO Howard Shultz acknowledges the company's movement toward new products and "channels of distribution" as the 40th anniversary roll out approaches.  The customer comments on the new logo, (some of which appear on the same page as the Shultz announcement), appear mixed while some marketing professionals acknowledge the trend of certain well-known brand owners (i.e. Nike) have been moving toward removal of brand names alongside company logos.

Implications of the .xxx Domain Extension on Trademark Owners

 

The Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") announced that it is considering the submissions of the ICM Registry to develop and administer the controversial .xxx domain extension and will defer its decision until February, 2011 after several years of delay on the issue.

The .xxx extension is intended to consolidate pornographic, adult entertainment and related providers within a single domain extension thereby enabling consumers of such content (or those wishing to avoid it for filtering purposes) a simplified means of identifying adult websites. 

Trademark owners operating in trade channels entirely unrelated to the adult entertainment industry are concerned about the potential consequences of opening up the .xxx domain extension on their brands (i.e. is there a risk of a particular trademark being registered as a .xxx domain without the consent or knowledge of the brand owner).

To resolve this concern, the ICM Registry ("ICM") has indicated that the sunrise launch of the .xxx extension will include an opportunity for businesses, organizations and private individuals which do not wish to be associated with the adult industry (via the .xxx domain extension) to protect their trademarks, names, etc. through a blocking program involving a one time fee and registration.  As described by ICM, the process, developed in partnership with Valideus, is intended a departure from the traditional method of protecting brands (i.e. via defensive domain registrations) to enable rights holders to pre-emptively register their protected terms to ensure that they are not associated with the adult content associated with the .xxx domain extension.

Until contract negotiations are finalized between ICANN and ICM brand owners can take no action but would be well advised to monitor the issue via their trademark counsel to obtain any updates on the final .xxx blocking program, process, fee(s), etc.

Recognizing the Value of Trademark Registrations: Celebrity Edition

Katie Thomas of The New York Times recently wrote an article on professional athletes seeking to obtain trademark protection as a means of both protecting their personal brand and capitalizing on their fame.

A quick review of the USPTO and CIPO databases reveals trademark applications and registrations for names, slogans and catch phrases for such athletes as Chad Ochocinco (Logo), Terrell Owens ("I LOVE ME SOME ME", The TO Design, and "GETCHA POPCORN READY"), and Darrelle Revis' trademark "REVIS ISLAND" while certain sponsors such as Nike International Ltd. protect the brands associated with their own athletes (i.e. LEBRON and the Lebron Design).

Dallas Cowboys Website Disappears for Failure to Renew

Following an eventful weekend in which the Dallas Cowboys (1-7) lost in a blowout to the the Green Bay Packers (6-3) and subsequently fired head coach Wade Phillips, apparently the team forgot to renew its domain name registration for the team's official website www.dallascowboys.com.  As a result, for 48 hours the website was temporarily a generic landing page suggesting that the site was available for purchase from Network Solutions LLC.  The error was subsequently corrected November 9th as the domain name was renewed.  According to The Dallas Morning News, the administrative contacts for the domain referenced Jerry Jones Jr., the team's Executive Vice President and Chief of Sales and Marketing Officer (and son of team owner Jerry Jones) and have since changed to a contact email and mailing address care of Network Solutions, the Registrar.   Lesson learned for the team, as the domain is now renewed until November 2, 2020.

The Gap Reverses Logo Redesign

(You may have guessed that the Gaplash logo appears on the right)

Whether simply a misguided effort to reinvigorate the logo of Gap Inc. or shrewd publicity stunt to guage public sentiment for its brand, Gap Inc. distributed a press release announcing a reversal of a rebranding process commenced online less than one week ago.

The company, which attempted to utilize social media and crowd sourcing to devise, launch and monitor the public reception for the new brand last week, is now utilizing social media such as facebook, to apologize to its customers and reverse its position, stating "We've heard loud and clear that you don't like the new logo. We've learned a lot from the feedback. We only want what's best for the brand and our customers".  See Marka Hansen, President, Gap North America's Huffington Post blog post which explains the company's position here.

While some commenters (see, for example, comments to the Globe & Mail article here) have suggested the move was simply to grab media headlines and reaffirm public loyalty to the brand, perhaps the lesson that can be distilled here is that companies with established brands cannot simply disregard their consumers when engaging in changes to their imaging.  In this case, efforts at crowd sourcing feedback likely did not canvass a broad enough audience to solicit input as to  whether the effort to "modernize" the logo would be well received, etc.  Nevertheless, recent publicity over the change will likely provide little damage to the company's overall image and indeed, the additional media exposure may heighten the consumer interest in the company as the holiday shopping season approaches.

U.S. National Pork Board Receives Apology on Behalf of ThinkGeek.com

The operators of the website www.thinkgeek.com received a cease and desist letter (see ThinkGeek blog here) earlier this summer for an April Fool's advertisement for "Canned Unicorn Meat" which included the tagline "Pate is pase.  Unicorn, the new white meat" and the promise that the product is an "excellent source of sparkles". 

The tag line "The Other White Meat" is registered in the United States to the National Pork Board thereby triggering the objection and subsequent apology from Geeknet, Inc. which includes a statement from Geeknet, Inc. President and CEO Scott Kauffman that "[i]t was never our intention to cause a national crisis and misguide American citizens regarding the differences between the pig and the unicorn.  In fact, ThinkGeek's canned unicorn meat is sparkly, a bit red, and not approved by any government entity."

The cease and desist and resulting publicity relating to the unauthorized use of the tagline is a rather amusing piece of brand news considering it relates to a non-existent product along the lines of earlier April Fool's jokes including a 2008 ad for the ZapCam, which automatically uploads video clips of taser victims to YouTube, or the 2009 ad for a Tauntaun sleeping bag (which subsequently became a real product).  

CIRA Consulting on Domain Name Disputes

The Canadian Internet Registration Authority ("CIRA") is currently conducting a consultation on its Domain Name Dispute Resoultion Policy ("CDRP") to obtain feedback on the dispute process and fees. 

Anyone interested in commenting on the consultation period may participate through following this link until September 17, 2010.

 

Canada Considers Changes to Trademarks Opposition Process

Today the Trademarks Opposition Board ("TMOB") announced a consultation period from June 28th to September 20, 2010.  The amendments, largely intended to streamline the opposition process and communications between the parties and the TMOB, include:

  1. The potential for electronic transmission of evidence, provided that the submitting party maintain originals for a prescribed timeframe;
  2. Adjustment to "service" requirements to allow for service via fax for documents not exceeding 25 pages (without consent) or in any other manner, with consent, including via email;
  3. Consideration is being given to deleting "evidence in reply" (s. 43 of the Regulations) altogether and to instead offer the parties to simply file additional evidence by seeking Leave of the Registrar, where necessary;
  4. The TMOB is considering imposing a three-month window to complete cross-examination and requiring that the parties file evidence sequentially prior to opening the cross-examination period.  While this initiative is laudable (particularly when considering the impact of delays resulting from the cross-examination process and the current practice of requiring the parties to file evidence regardless of an ongoing cross-examination process), the truncated timelines are likely too abbreviated to accommodate business realities including foreign applicants and/or instructing principals, translation requirements, etc.
  5. Additional clarity may be introduced to expressly require that a party cross-examining a witness must file transcripts (as is currently the case), however, the party being examined will be required to file undertakings within a prescribed timeframe.  Current requirements were somewhat unclear in this respect (i.e. placing the onus upon the cross-examining party) and thus it is expected that such a change will be well received.
  6. The TMOB is seeking comment as to whether they can do away with the current practice of providing the parties with a written notice imposing deadlines to file Written Argument.  Instead, the TMOB is suggesting that a prescribed timeframe may be appropriate to more efficiently process opposition matters.  While the intent appears appropriate, the current notice is often received by or on behalf of Applicants and Opponents as a confirmation that the evidence period is closed.  Indeed, without such notice a party may prepare submissions based upon incomplete evidence.  Accordingly, the TMOB is considering offering the parties an opportunity to file "additional written arguments".  To the extent that the overall objective is to avoid administrative delay, introducing this additional step may not only result in confusion (i.e. as a departure from current practice) but may, in fact create additional administrative work for the TMOB.  Moreover, in view of the likelihood of administrative errors during any transition toward such a procedural change (i.e. missing deadlines), and the consequence of such errors (i.e. deemed abandonment), combined with a general lack of a reasonable a "curative" process to resolve technical or administrative errors, it would be appropriate for the TMOB and Trade-marks Branch to consider the introduction of such a curative process.  
  7. Transitional provisions are being proposed to avoid the current dual system of opposition deadlines.  In view of the many positive changes to timelines, this suggestion will likely be well received.
  8. Lastly, several miscellaneous matters are being considered to clarify the Regulations and modernize filing requirements.  The Trade-marks Branch has not offered specificity on all of the revisions under consideration and thus the Consultation Period will afford interested parties to offer suggestions to improve the application and opposition process.

Overall, many of the proposals outlined are positive and will certainly modernize the opposition process while recognizing the benefits to enabling usage of "modern" technologies for communications between the parties.  Nevertheless, offering a clear "curative" process (i.e. separate and apart from Leave of the Registrar) to address administrative errors may ease the implementation period - particularly where the consequence of a failure to file may result in the deemed abandonment of an application or opposition.

 

Consultation Period Announced Re. Priority Claims and Registration and Use Abroad

The Trade-marks Branch announced a consultation period (expiring June 26, 2010) to address two issues:

(1)  Priority Claims (s. 34):  The Trade-marks Branch has suggested that an applicant referencing a priority claim that wishes to restrict its reference to only certain wares and/or services may do so within the six month priority period but that such restriction cannot be removed subsequent to that timeframe.  Comments:  Since current practice does not require that an applicant identify the wares and/or services in reespect of which priority is claimed, the introduction of this new requirement may only complicate trademark prosecutions without offering significant value to trademark applicants or registrants.

(2)  Application and Use Abroad Claims (s.16(2)):  This proposal by and large recycles a previous proposal of the Trade-marks Branch along with a refinement in response to the a consultation period last fall.  Specifically, the proposal states that where an application is otherwise in order for approval for advertisement but contains an incomplete 16(2) claim (i.e. a claim referencing Registration and Use Abroad that does not reference a registration No. or a jurisdiction in which "use" has taken place), the application will proceed to advertisement in the Trade-marks Journal without the s.16(2) (Registration and Use Abroad) Claim.  However, an Applicant may have an opportunity to complete the claim at any point prior to the decision of the Registrar to advertise the application.   Comments:  While the refinement from the previous proposal is a positive development it is unclear what is meant by "prior to the decision of the Registrar".  For example, if the "decision of the Registrar" is the notice of approval, does this suggest that the Applicant must anticipate such approval, or can this amendment to the application be made at any point prior to the advertisement of the trademark?  Since the consequence of denying a s.16(2) claim will require submission of a Declaration of Use (thereby potentially delaying registration for years), there is perhaps very little advantage to the Trade-marks Branch which would simply be required to send repeated correspondence post-allowance rather than pre-advertisement.  At the same time, the consequence to Applicants (and perhaps to their Agents) should require that the Trade-marks Branch provide clarification to the date of the "decision of the Registrar".

E-Services Now Available in Canadian Trademark Oppositions

In a follow up to an earlier post, the Canadian Trademarks Opposition Board ("TMOB") has enabled e-services to file Statements of Opposition and to submit requests for extensions of time.  In each case, these submissions can be made by following this link and selecting from the available "E-Services". 

The TMOB has suggested that this approach will allow for faster processsing of documents and immediate confirmation that submissions have been received while providing assurance that prescribed fees have been paid in full at the time of filing.  Hopefully this is only the first step in modernize workflows at the Trademarks Branch and TMOB and we will soon have the ability to file Counter-Statements, evidentiary submissions and written arguments in the same manner while also providing electronic access to the complete record of files as is the case at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (see Trademark Trial and Appeal Board).

Trade-marks Opposition Board Announces E-Services!

The Canadian Trade-marks Opposition Board ("TMOB") recently announced the introduction of e-services to enable the filing of Statements of Opposition and Extensions of time on-line.  It is anticipated that further developments to allow for e-services will be introduced in coming months.

In anticipation of this change, the TMOB will be hosting a webinar and live interactive presentation (at the Gatineau, Quebec offices) on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 to demonstrate the e-service. 

Trademarks Office Consultation Period Opens on Three Topics

On April 20, 2010 the Trademarks Office announced a consultation period expiring May 20, 2010 to solicit feedback on the following proposals:

  • the Registrar will generally no longer require confirmation that the applicant is a "person" within the meaning of Section 2 of the Trade-marks Act;
  • clarification of the practice with respect to the description of colour claims; and
  • expediting the deemed withdrawal or abandonment of an opposition or an application

Overall, it is clear that the overall objective here is to streamline the trademark examination and opposition processes; however, the latter proposal presents potential punitive consequences for actions which may, in fact, be inadvertent or erroneous on the part of the Trademarks Office, Trademarks Opposition Board, an applicant or its agent. 

Dealing with each proposal in turn, the proposal concerning the requirement to confirm whether an applicant is a "person" essentially shifts the onus to the applicant or its agent to confirm compliance with the Act.  Since an uninformed client may seek to register a mark by referencing a company name or incorporated entity that has not yet been registered resulting in the potential invalidity of an application/registration it will be essential that all applicants are sufficiently informed as to whether they, in fact, satisfy the section 2 definition ("person" includes any lawful trade union and any lawful association engaged in trade or business or the promotion thereof, and the administrative authority of any country, state, province, municipality or other organized administrative area). 

The proposal concerning colour claims appears to anticipates the growing trend of protecting a particular colour as a trademark.  The proposal requires a description of the colour(s) referencing the colours found in Rule 28 of the Trade-marks Regulations or, where the colour is not found in Rule 28, by describing the colour code and colour reference system for each colour comprising the trademark.  

Lastly, the proposals with respect to trademark applications and oppositions each create presumptions resulting in the deemed abandonment of an application or deemed withdrawal of opposition.  In each case such deemed abandonment provides no prior notice to the Applicant or Opponent which might enable curative or corrective action and thus without providing an accompanying ability to take corrective action prior or subsequent to deemed abandonment it is doubtful that these proposals will be well received.  Indeed, the end result for applicants and opponents may simply involve re-visiting the application and/or opposition issues by filing a subsequent application and/or opposition.

In the proposal, an opposition as "abandoned" where an opponent does not submit its evidence or a statement that it does not wish to submit its evidence.  Current practice provides an opponent with a notice to confirm whether the failure to make such submissions thereby permitting the ability to remedy the issue (i.e. with leave of the Registrar) whereas the current proposal results in an apparently immediate consequence.  Without offering the ability to remedy for example, an inadvertent error or resolve a simple issue of mis-filing materials within the Trademarks Office.

Similarly, there is a further proposal to deem an application as "abandoned" for a failure to file a counter-statement, evidence or to advise that evidence will not be filed.  Again, this approach will avoid the current practice of initially advising applicants of their failure to file (thereby enabling a potential corrective action) and thus presents a punitive consequence which may effectively require that an applicant re-file an application rather than seek leave of the registrar or a retroactive extension of time.  The element of the proposal suggesting the deemed abandonment of a "proposed use" application for a failure to file a Declaration of Use is similarly punitive and appears to suggest the discontinuance of the practice of providing notice to an Applicant to take corrective action (i.e. seek a retroactive extension of time).