Canadian Political Party Threatens Widow For Using Its Logo In Ad Criticizing Canadian Government
from the how-do-you-spell-streisand-in-canadian dept
Canadian Michaela Keyserlingk lost her husband Robert to mesothelioma in 2009. That's the form of cancer commonly associated with exposure to asbestos. Not surprisingly, she's not particularly happy about asbestos, and she's taken to running online banner ads against asbestos as part of her response. The ads say: "Canada is the only western country that still exports deadly asbestos." And, here's the tricky part: it apparently includes the logo of the (ruling) Conservative Party in Canada. As Rob Hyndman alerts us, the Conservative Party is not at all happy. In fact, it's threatening to sue her for trademark infringement. The Globe & Mail story linked here doesn't do anything useful like show the actual banner, so we've hunted it down, and you can see it below: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
Filed Under: asbestos, canada, conservative party, mesothelioma, michaela keyserlingk, tories, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even Parody or satire ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What about when BP had that Oil Spill....
The News had a picture of the BP logo , with words about and images of the disaster.
So should BP be allowed to sue the news networks for trademark infringement ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The problem isn't the use of the logo, she can use the logo, just not in such a way as to make it look like her statement is an official statement from the conservative party. Preventing this sort of confusion is actually what trademarks are supposed to be for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As to unauthorized use ?? She is using the trademark in the proper form to identify the conservative party. So that should be OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the looks of the logo......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the looks of the logo......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the looks of the logo......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: From the looks of the logo......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: From the looks of the logo......
This kind of stupidity can lose you an election - just ask Gordon Brown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: From the looks of the logo......
Even if there wasn't, it would just be wrong, what is so FUD about it? Oooh, he thinks there could be a streisand effect when there might not be, so what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the looks of the logo......
In which you fail to even acknowledge that I claimed that Conservative party has a point, but that it's meaningless compared to the impact of this decision. This isn't IP bashing, this is reality explanation. You can join us if you'd like, or you can toss around insults and not add to the conversation. Your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: From the looks of the logo......
It's baseless FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: From the looks of the logo......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: From the looks of the logo......
See, I can type useless unsupported one-liners too (although mine happens to be, you know, correct).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the looks of the logo......
Got three yes/no questions for you:
1) Could the Conservative party in Canada pass a law banning the export of asbestos?
2) Haven't you argued that ISPs and other 3rd parties should be legally responsible for copyright infringement that they could stop?
3) Assuming you answered yes to both of those, using the same logic, isn't Canada's Conservative party responsible for thousands of death per year?
Oh, and I think the word you were actually looking for was "drivel" and not dribble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: From the looks of the logo......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: From the looks of the logo......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: From the looks of the logo......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: From the looks of the logo......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: From the looks of the logo......
Also being a political party there is a problem since the trademark is for a non-profit, political organisation and passing off for commerce will not work. Though confusion could be a problem , hence my CYA phrase for her above.
No matter what, this has now placed the Asbestos debate in an even worse situation politically since I don't see any statements to the effect by the Political party that the banner's message is not true and factual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It'll probably get her to stop using their mark, which is the whole point. Funny how you don't acknowledge that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They are asking her. They sent her an email asking her to stop, and they if she doesn't, it "may result in further action." Mike is pointing out the "Streisand Effect." Of course, there is no analysis of how great that effect would be compared to the harm if she continues to use their mark. They analyzed the situation and decided that sending an email was the best course of action. Mike is implying that it's not, but of course, there is no actual analysis or argument to back it up. Typical nonsense from techdirt. He saw a trademark story and felt the need to FUD it out. Snore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, that's not the point. First, she's said she won't stop using the mark, so you're wrong. Second, the "whole point" is that no one was paying attention to this until the party made a big deal out of it. So you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't think I'm doing anything more than usual. At least I haven't noticed anything. Sometimes it's fun to smack down people who clearly have no clue what they're talking about. And folks like the commenter above make it so easy because he's so wrong and so uninformed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why don't we wait and see whether she stops using the mark. I know you're not bothered by facts when drawing your conclusions, but it's hard for me to be "wrong" when it hasn't happened yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Cause widows and people faced with legal threats never lie, put up a tough exterior, or change their minds? C'mon man.
"Second, the "whole point" is that no one was paying attention to this until the party made a big deal out of it. So you're wrong."
And now that everyone is paying attention to it, they know that it's not actually a message from the Conservative party. So...how is he wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
At any rate, you really seem to be going off on an unrelated tangent. The other AC said the point of the Conservative action was to get her to stop using the mark. I'm not sure what her intent has to do with whether their email will do that.
I think the other poster may be right that the email will ultimately get her to remove the Conservative logo. But that was not my point (the opposite of "how have you shown he is wrong?" is not "he is right.").
My points were: (1) that simply because the widow said she would not remove the mark does not mean that she will not do so eventually, and (2) media attention to this dispute helps dispel any confusion regarding Conservative sponsorship of the message, so I fail to see how that is contrary to the Conservatives' goal here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It seems that her Husband died from direct exposure to asbestos, which in nearly every country (except the ones Canada sells it too) is classified as a highly toxic and illegal substance for construction (and other) usage?
They sent her a nastygram, as you are fully aware it is just a piece of paper that holds no weight other than the implied threat of legal action at some unspecified date, and if action undertaken shows to a court that some sort of ADR was initiated. Big Wally Woop Woop!
From reading her site it seems she is not one to be easily intimidated, especially by wanna-be political parties who are basically by this threatening behaviour biting their own foot off.
I'd be very surprised if she has not already been contacted by Canadian and Internationally qualified solicitors/barristers in Trademark law to offer their expertise pro bono.
As for suing her and she stops using the mark? What's the worst that could happen to her that a civil court can do if she refuses to stop using the mark? Contempt her? that will take lots of time and be politically unsound, not to mention the banner would be taken up and used by anti-asbestos organisations world wide in protest.
No matter what though, whether to comply, or not with some politicians opinion on whether or not a breach of trademark has occurred, is her decision alone to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon Stewart on the Subject
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-12-2011/ored-to-death
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jon Stewart on the Subject
A popular Techdirt issue within a Techdirt issue. So meta.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wow, just wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So you are suggesting what type of punishment for the company that produces the product that caused her husbands terminal illness?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
because it could seem that the canadian conservative party is part of a campaign against the asbestos industry. They aren't, they are all bar two fully supportive of it.
Most people would think of them favourably if they were misled by the graphic, it is nice of them to draw peoples attention to the fact that they are not actually opposed to it and therefore gain unfavourable attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Surely you meant "and" rather than "or".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No kidding
Well, can you blame them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Exempt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's Exempt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's Exempt
There is nothing wrong with making an example of someone via a legal charge, but it is a good idea to pick your victim carefully, otherwise you may end up sending out the wrong message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The Conservatives, meanwhile, have steadfastly defended asbestos exports and insist they're safe when handled properly."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not trying to cause confusion in the market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]