Canadian Supreme Court Groks Trademarks

from the that's-good dept

Fri, Jun 2nd 2006 9:42am — Mike Masnick

How disappointing is it that we actually are excited when a court has understood the proper role of trademarks? There are already too many people trying to expand the purpose of trademarks (with occasional success), that it's good to see at least some courts recognize the true purpose of trademarks. Mikester writes in to let us know that the Canadian Supreme Court has ruled against two large trademark holders, Mattel for their Barbie trademark and champaign maker Veuve Cliquot, as both tried to stop the use of their trademarked names in totally unrelated businesses. It seems that so many trademark holders want to believe that a trademark gives them all rights to whatever they trademarked, rather than just the right to prevent confusion or misleading use of the trademark in specific areas. Perhaps we should stop thinking of trademarks as being intellectual property -- because they're not. Trademarks are really about consumer protection; keeping consumers from being tricked into believing something is associated with a company that it's not. When we call it intellectual property, people automatically jump to conclusions about the level of protection the law grants -- and that leads to numerous wasteful lawsuits.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2006 @ 9:54am

Here's a story about the decision

http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060602.wscoc0602/GIStory/

Here's one decision:

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2006/2006scc22/2006scc22.html

Here is the other decision

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2006/2006scc23/2006scc23.html

A while back the court denied trademark protection for the design of Lego blocks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aaron deOliveira (profile), 2 Jun 2006 @ 9:59am

Thanks for the links
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2006 @ 10:49am

Way Off Topic
I know shouldn't post way off topic but hey who cares not like there mods to give me bad points right? You used the word GROK! That's great Stranger In A Strange Land is one of my all time favorite books. Robert Heinlein is a friggin genius! Now back to the trademark thing, bravo for Canada. Glad to see some court system out there that actually understands the law and follows it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ehrichweiss, 2 Jun 2006 @ 11:03am

Re: Way Off Topic
"Grok" has been around on the net for ages. Googling the term probably will give you about 20 million hits. I didn't know it was from that book though. Good to know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TasMot, 2 Jun 2006 @ 11:11am

Re: Re: Way Off Topic
To stay way off topic - Heinlein rocks and the book is execellent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2006 @ 11:17am

Re: Re: Re: Way Off Topic
But your spelling is atrocious.
Atrocious, a-t-r-o-c-i-o-u-s
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2006 @ 11:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Way Off Topic
Can I have the etymology, please?

(I'm not just off-topic, I'm driving drunk on the topic, veering off and back onto it with wild abandon; you just don't see that part because my headlights are blinding)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew J Cooper, 2 Jun 2006 @ 12:34pm

To Grok
To a martian in the book, water is the ultimate treasure. Rituals evolved in sharing it. To grok means literally to drink/share/be one with in spiritual and even physical sense (in the sharing of the water) very new agey stuff from the '60s when the book was written. Haven't read it about 15 years ago so its hard to remember exactly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 2 Jun 2006 @ 12:35pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way Off Topic
Grok is Martian for "to drink"

The etymology has to due with Martian Attitudes (in the context of the book, of course).

It is used for a high level of understanding. Heinlein's characters described it as becoming one with a concept or person or object, loving it and haint it with equal intensity (Sounds like Brad Pitt and Angelina Joile)

(I guess I have read the book too many times)

HTH
D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Moneyguy, 2 Jun 2006 @ 12:55pm

Off Topic and On Topic
Anonymous Coward:
Even though you're off topic, I'm glad you mentioned it. I grok.
To get back on topic:
Way to go for the Canadian Supreme Court!
Common sense seems to be running short these days when it comes to courtrooms - a notable exception is the Enron jury. Hopefully the appelate court will let the decision stand.
Now if we could get the Canadian Supreme Court to talk to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding their decision on Eminent Domain. (So much for staying on topic.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
creative mind, 2 Jun 2006 @ 1:08pm

protection for
Intellectual property, where it applies to copyright law, is widely misunderstood. By definition intellectual property refers to ideas and concepts, usually before they are produced into a finished trademark for example.

Chapter 2 of Title 17 (copyright law- check out the link for the whole thing http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ )
Intellectual property comes into play where Inital Ownership is established. But this is to protect the creatives who make the trademarks (logo, wordmarks, etc).

For example, I create a logo for company X, who says they cant afford it. They then take my idea to another (cheeper) designer and have it recreated. In this case my idea is protected by Intellectual Property laws.
For more info check out
www.creativeprofessional.net
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lazarus Long, 2 Jun 2006 @ 1:37pm

Re: Way Off Topic
Heinlein Rox!!! The only reason i read this story or came to this site was the use of that word.
(PS the book came long before the internet was even conceived - by Al Gore?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jun 2006 @ 1:39pm

Re: Off Topic and On Topic
Now if we could get the Canadian Supreme Court to talk to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding their decision on Eminent Domain.

It would not do much good. There is no constitutional protection in Canada for property rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Smith, 2 Jun 2006 @ 1:46pm

Re: Re: Way Off Topic
Heinlein Rox!!!

Starship Troopers was the first science fiction book I ever read (age fourteen) and I loved it and devoured science fiction for years after that. (I still read Keith Laumer) I went off Heinlein when I read Farnham's Freehold which I frankly thought was fascist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Moneyguy, 2 Jun 2006 @ 2:16pm

Re: Re: Off Topic and On Topic
I didn't know that about Canadian property rights. Thanks for the information. However, maybe the Canadian Supreme Court could just speak about common sense to some of our lawmakers here in the U.S.?
The few times I've been to Canada I've always been impressed with how people use common sense versus relying on lawmakers to solve problems.
Probably just a case of "the grass is always greener ..."

On the other hand, I'll take America's lower taxes and our Bill of Rights over anything else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Panic, 2 Jun 2006 @ 2:39pm

Veering off topic, towards a tree and then out of the way straight over a cliff....

Lazarus -- can we PLEASE let the Al Gore urban legend die?

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.

Status: False.

Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I, for one, 2 Jun 2006 @ 3:57pm

What about the Apple case?
And yet Apple won against Apple Records. The judgement was sound imho, but technically, on the facts, Apple (Inc) were trading as a music company. Good to see a bit of common sense on the horizon though.

OT: Yes he was a good scientist and visionary like Clarke (who predicted/invented satellites) . Heinlein predicted nuclear weapons and the cold war in 1940 (Unsatisfactory Solution - I think)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paul Pickthorne, 2 Jun 2006 @ 9:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Way Off Topic
And it isn't champaign, it's champagne.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Moneyguy, 2 Jun 2006 @ 9:33pm

Off topic: Al Gore
Who really cares what Al Gore said 7 years ago?
And I don't know if I'd classify it as an "Urban Legend."

Urban legends should be reserved for really important things such as Pop Rocks and Coca-Cola, not washed up politicians still trying desperately to hold onto their former glory.
Besides, it's a time honored tradition for politicians and the media to mislead and/or take things out of context as long as it fits into their agenda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Robert, 5 Jun 2006 @ 5:50am

re:Paul Pickthorne
I thought I was the one who noticed the misspelling of "champagne" in the original story...
[ link to this | view in thread ]