In our third and final commentary on the subject of Feuds over Family Name as a Brand, we revisit Miranda v. Miranda. Brand management like a good lawn requires constant maintenance.
OLLIPNovember 23, 2020
The famous Canadian children’s author Robert Munsch wrote “This is kindergarten! In kindergarten, we share! We share everything!” Families, like children in kindergarten, proudly share, share their names. However, sharing the family name
as a brand with family members is the antithesis of branding.In last month’s issue as part of Brand Family Feuds series, we discussed the importance of ensuring that a family name adopted
as a business brand be used in a way which makes it a brand. This month we look the case of CIBC v Stenner which illustrates another key issue family businesses must keep in mind when claiming a family name as a brand.
OLLIPNovember 12, 2020
“A person’s name is to him or her the sweetest and most important sound in any language” So said Dale Carnegie. However, when used as a brand name, it can be bittersweet. Over the next three issues, we will be looking at steps businesses with family names should take or avoid with the family brand. As these businesses mature and involve other family members, there are changes and inevitably disagreements. The case of Miranda v. Miranda before the Federal Court of Appeal illustrates a key principle to bear in mind when establishing a family name as the brand for a business.
OLLIPAugust 6, 2020
During the current public health crisis, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) remains open for business as usual. Canada acceded to the Madrid Protocol on June 17, 2019. As of May 4, 2020 CIPO began sending to the World Intellectual Property Office (“WIPO’) notification of possible opposition (“NPO”) against the first extensions of International Registrations into Canada (“Protocol Applications”). This means that the granting of protection for these Protocol Applications may be subject to opposition beyond the 18-month time limit for notifying WIPO of refusal of protection in Canada under the Madrid Protocol.
OLLIPAugust 6, 2020
During the current public health crisis, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) remains open for business as usual. When CIPO receives a designation, it issues a courtesy letter to the World Intellectual Property Office (“WIPO”) representative that further correspondence regarding the Protocol application will be directly with the applicant or the appointed Canadian agent. Unlike in other jurisdictions, a Protocol Applicant without Canadian agent, will receive and CIPO will send to WIPO only a limited set of correspondence.
OLLIPAugust 6, 2020
Every brand owner wants a uniform approach to protecting its marks around the world. The Madrid Protocol helps make that happen. But in Canada, unlike in many other jurisdictions, consent from the owner of a confusing mark will not overcome a confusion objection to registering a mark. That is the lesson from the Federal Court in Holding Benjamin et Edmond de Rothschild v. Canada (Attorney General). In Edmond de Rothschild, the Court found the consent to be incomplete and therefore too vague and unspecific.
OLLIPNovember 12, 2019
Every brand owner wants a uniform approach to describing its goods and services around the world. The Madrid Protocol helps make that happen. But under Canadian trademark practice, uniformity can cost you a registration.The case of Supershuttle International, Inc. warns of this risk.
OLLIPMay 1, 2018
