Newsletters

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.

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.

“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.