Trade-marks & the Internet: Protecting Brands on the Internet and in Social Media

2,227 views

Published on

A guest lecture for the trade-mark law class at Queen’s University’s Faculty of Law on protecting trade-marks on the Internet and in social media. Includes recommendations for brand protection best practices.

0 Comments
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,227
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
14
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Trade-marks & the Internet: Protecting Brands on the Internet and in Social Media

  1. 1. Trade-marks & the Internet Protecting Brands on the Internet and in Social Media d i S i l M di LAW 451 Trade-marks Faculty of Law, Queen’s University y , y Lorraine M. Fleck March 18, 2010
  2. 2. OUTLINE I. Domain Names A. What are they? B. Types C. How do you get a domain name? D. D Disputes E. Strategies F. F Scams G. Pending developments
  3. 3. OUTLINE II. Social Media A. The problem B. Case studies C. Policies of some social media websites D. D Strategies
  4. 4. OUTLINE III.Other Uses of Trade-marks on the Internet A. Key word advertising B. Metatags C. C Pop up advertising IV.Some Internet Resources V. Questions V Q ti
  5. 5. DOMAIN NAMES A. What are they? y A more friendly form of a physical address on the Internet Like a “vanity number” E.g. the E th IP address 69 63 181 11 t k dd 69.63.181.11 takes you to…
  6. 6. DOMAIN NAMES
  7. 7. DOMAIN NAMES B. Types yp 1. gTLDs (generic Top Level Domains) a. a Unrestricted .com .net net .org .info b. Restricted .biz
  8. 8. DOMAIN NAMES B. Types yp 1. gTLDs c. c Sponsored restricted gTLDs a k a sTLDs a.k.a. (sponsored Top Level Domains) .areo .asia .cat .coop .edu .gov .int .jobs j .mil .mobi .museum .name .pro .tel .travel
  9. 9. DOMAIN NAMES B. Types yp 2. ccTLDs (country code Top Level Domains) .ca (Canada) .us (U.S.A.) .ie (Ireland) ie .uk (U K ) uk (U.K.) .fr (France) .jp (Japan)
  10. 10. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you g them? y get 1. First come, first served 2. 2 Do a WHOIS search a. ca WHOIS: http://whois.cira.ca/public/ 3. Use 3 U an accredited registrar dit d i t
  11. 11. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you g them? y get 4. Satisfy any applicable presence requirements a. .ca Canadian Presence Requirements i. i Canadian citizen ii. Permanent resident iii. Legal representative of (i) or (ii) above (executor, administrator or other legal representative but NOT a lawyer acting in another capacity)
  12. 12. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you g them? y get 4. Satisfy any applicable presence requirements a. .ca Canadian Presence Requirements iv. iv Corporation v. Trust vi. Partnership vii. Association viii.Trade union
  13. 13. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you g them? y get 4. Satisfy any applicable presence requirements a. .ca Canadian Presence Requirements ix. ix Political party x. Educational institution xi. Library, archive or museum xii. Hospital xiii. Her Majesty the Queen
  14. 14. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you g them? y get 4. Satisfy any applicable presence requirements a. .ca Canadian Presence Requirements xiv. xiv Indian band xv. Aboriginal people xvi.Owner of a registered Canadian TM xvii.Holder of an official mark xviii.Government
  15. 15. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you g them? y get 5. Privacy shielding a. a Controversial b. .ca WHOIS policy i. Individuals ii. Businesses/organizations
  16. 16. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you g them? y get 5. Privacy shielding b. .ca WHOIS policy p y i. Interested Party Contact Procedure ii. Request for Disclosure of Registrant Information Registered copyright, patent or TM Registered business or trade name trade-name Use of personal information to commit crime or identity theft y
  17. 17. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you g them? y get 6. Pick your term a. ca: a .ca: 1 – 10 years b. .com: 1 – 10 years
  18. 18. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you g them? y get 7. Obtaining rights a. Possession vs. ownership p b. Can rights be acquired? i. Yes for services A trade-mark is deemed to be used in association with services if it is used or displayed in the performance or advertising of those services. f d ti i f th i Trade-marks Act, subs. 4(2)
  19. 19. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you get them? 7. Obtaining rights b. Can rights be acquired? ii. It d ii I depends f wares d for A trade-mark is deemed to be used in association with wares if, at the time of the transfer of the property in or p p p y possession of the wares, in the normal course of trade, it is marked on the wares themselves or on the packages in which they are distributed or it is in any other manner so associated with the wares that notice of the association is then given to the person to whom the property or possession is transferred. Trade-marks Act, subs 4(1) Act subs.
  20. 20. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you get them? 7. Obtaining rights b. Can rights be acquired? ii. It d ii I depends f wares d for A passive website is NOT use with wares wares. Pro-C Ltd. v Computer City, Inc. (2001), 55 O.R. (3d) 577 (Ont. C.A.)
  21. 21. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you get them? 8. Trade-marks Office Practice A trade-mark consisting of or containing one of d k i i f i i f .com, .ca, .fr, .uk or .us is unregistrable under Trade- marks Act para. 12(1)(b) if the trade-mark when p ( )( ) considered in its totality, as a matter of first impression in association with the wares and/or services claimed in the application is clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive.
  22. 22. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you get them? 8. Trade-marks Office Practice Where a trade-mark i i totality i registrable and Wh d k in its li is i bl d contains one of .com, .ca, .fr., .uk or .us, a disclaimer of gTLD or ccTLD is required if the gTLD or ccTLD g q g when considered in association with the wares and/or services, forms a portion that is not independently registrable within the meaning of Trade-marks Act para. 12(1)(b). [Note: disclaimers no longer required as of August 15, 2007].
  23. 23. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you get them? 8. Trade-marks Office Practice If the gTLD or ccTLD i d h TLD TLD is deceptively misdescriptive i l i d i i and forms a significant part of the trade-mark, the mark in its totality is deceptively misdescriptive and y p y p therefore unregistrable having regard under Trade- marks Act para. 12(1)(b). Practice Notice: Descriptiveness and Terms Such as .com, .ca, .fr, .uk & .us CIPO (September 1, 1999)
  24. 24. DOMAIN NAMES C. How do you get them? 9. What happens when two people have rights in the same/confusingly similar domain name? E.g. imperial.com E g imperial com for margarine vs gasoline vs. “First in time” The lesson: register early!
  25. 25. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes a. Cease & desist letters i. May i M not work k ii. Puts squatter on notice, which can be good or bad Notice Musical chairs Purchase offer iii. Send to Registrar?
  26. 26. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes b. Administrative proceedings Useful when registrant is privacy shielded or outside of Canada making enforcement of a Canada, judgment difficult/impossible
  27. 27. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes b. Administrative proceedings i. Uniform Di i U if Dispute R Resolution P li (UDRP) l i Policy (UDRP): gTLDs such as .com, .org ii. ii CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP): .ca
  28. 28. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes p p b. Administrative proceedings iii. Procedural overview Complaint fil d C l i t filed Registrant ‘s response Panel appointed Decision iv. Parties Complainant (must meet Canadian Presence requirements in CDRP) Registrant NOT Registrar
  29. 29. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. 1 Responses to disputes b. Administrative proceedings v. Arbitrator UDRP – WIPO, National Arbitration Forum (NAF) – Either 1 panelist or 3 panelists; 3 panelists if parties disagree on number of panelists CDRP: Resolution Canada, BC International Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICAC) – Initially 3 panelists, can be reduced to 1 panelist if no response
  30. 30. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. 1 Responses to disputes b. Administrative proceedings vi. Evidence Documentation Affidavit not required
  31. 31. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes b. Administrative proceedings vii. F ii Fees UDRP: split between the parties WIPO Fees (USD) No. of Domain Names 1 Panelist 3 Panelists 1-5 $1500 $4000 6 - 10 $2000 $5000 > 10 To be determined To be determined
  32. 32. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes b. Administrative proceedings vii. F ii Fees CDRP: bore solely by Complaint BCICAC Fees (CDN) No. of Domains 1 Panelist 3 Panelists Initial Fee 1 $1750 + GST $3000 + GST $4000 + GST 2-5 $2250 + GST $4500 + GST $5500 + GST 6 - 10 $2500 + GST $5250 + GST $6250 + GST > 10 To be determined To be determined To be determined
  33. 33. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes b. Administrative proceedings viii. A iii Appeals l Available expressly under UDRP Not precluded under CDRP ix. Can also bring simultaneous court proceedings
  34. 34. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes c. Tests i. i UDRP 1. Disputed domain name is identical/ confusingly similar to a trade-mark or service mark in which the complainant h rights; l i t has i ht 2. Registrant has no rights/legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; AND 3. The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
  35. 35. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes c. Tests i. i UDRP Bad faith includes circumstances where the registrant has: – Registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the selling domain name to the complainant or a competitor of the complainant for valuable consideration in excess of registrant’s documented costs directly related to the domain name; – Registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade-mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;
  36. 36. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes c. Tests i. i UDRP Bad faith includes circumstances where the registrant has: – Registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; OR – By using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on-line location by creating a likelihood of on line confusion with the complainant’s trade-mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s web site or location or products or services on same.
  37. 37. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes c. Tests i. i UDRP Defence of registrant’s rights/legitimate interest includes demonstration of the following: – Before notice of dispute registrant used/made demonstrable dispute, preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services; – Registrant has been commonly known by the domain name (even if it does not have trade mark or service rights); OR trade-mark – Registrant is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade-mark.
  38. 38. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes c. Tests ii. ii CDRP 1. Registrant’s name is “confusingly similar” to a mark in which the complainant had rights prior to the date f d d t of domain name registration and continues t i i t ti d ti to have rights; 2. The registrant has no “legitimate interest” in the domain name; AND d i 3. The registrant has registered and is using the domain name in “bad faith”.
  39. 39. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes c. Tests ii. ii CDRP “Mark”: alphanumeric or punctuation elements of unregistered or CIPO registered trade-mark, certification mark, s. 9(1)(n) marks and t d d trade-names. “Confusingly similar”: a domain name is confusingly similar to a mark if the domain name so nearly resembles the mark in appearance, sound or th id d the ideas suggested b th mark as t b t d by the k to be likely mistaken for the mark.
  40. 40. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes c. Tests ii. ii CDRP “Rights”: Complainant has rights in the mark if – For an unregistered trade-mark, certification mark or trade- name, name the mark has been used in Canada by the complainant, its predecessor in title or a licensor of the complainant or its predecessor; – For a registered trade-mark, the mark is registered in CIPO in the name of the complainant, its predecessor in title or a complainant licensor of the complainant or its predecessor in title; – For a s. 9(1)(n) mark, public notice of the adoption and use of the trade-mark was given at the request of the complainant. l i t
  41. 41. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. Responses to disputes c. Tests ii. ii CDRP “Bad faith”: defined exclusively as 1. Registering the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, licensing or otherwise transferring the registration to the complainant or the complainant’s licensor or licensee of the mark or to a competitor of the complainant in excess of the registrant’s actual costs in registering th d f th i t t’ t l t i i t i the domaini name or acquiring the registration;
  42. 42. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. 1 Responses to disputes c. Tests ii. CDRP “Bad faith”: defined exclusively as 2. Registering the domain name or acquiring the registration to prevent the complainant, or the complainant’s licensee or complainant s licensor, from registering its mark as a domain name provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; OR 3. Registering the domain name primarily for disrupting the business of the complainant, the complainant’s licensor or licensee, who is a competitor of the registrant.
  43. 43. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. 1 Responses to disputes c. Tests ii. CDRP For defence of registrant’s rights/legitimate interest, registrant must show one of the following existed prior to receipt of complaint: – Domain name was a mark, registrant used mark in good faith and registrant had rights in the mark; – Registrant used domain name in Canada in good faith in association with any wares, services or business and the domain name was clearly descriptive in Canada in English or French of (1) character or quality of the wares services or wares, business, (2) the conditions of, or the persons employed in, production of the wares, performance of the services or operation of the business, or (3) the place of the origin of the wares, wares services or business;
  44. 44. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. 1 Responses to disputes c. Tests ii. CDRP For defence of registrant’s rights/legitimate interest, registrant must show one of the following existed prior to receipt of complaint: – Registrant used the domain name in Canada in good faith in association with any wares services or business and the wares, domain name was understood in Canada to be the generic name thereof in any language; – Registrant used the domain name in Canada in good faith in association with a non commercial activity including without non-commercial including, limitation, criticism, review or news reporting;
  45. 45. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. 1 Responses to disputes c. Tests ii. CDRP For defence of registrant’s rights/legitimate interest, registrant must show one of the following existed prior to receipt of complaint: – The domain name comprised the legal name of the registrant or was a name surname or other reference by name, which the registrant was commonly identified; OR – The domain name was the geographical name of the location of the registrant’s non-commercial activity or place of business.
  46. 46. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 1. 1 Responses to disputes d. Remedies i. Transfer ii. Cancellation iii. CDRP only: up to $5000 CDN in costs of unwarranted proceeding t d di
  47. 47. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 2. 2 Purchase a. Valid option if not strong case b. Pricing may match or exceed UDRP/CDRP fees g y
  48. 48. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 3. 3 Courts Option if domain name ties in with other trade-mark breach or other causes of action and the judgment is likely to be enforced a. Trade-mark a Trade mark causes of action i. Imitation (Trade-marks Act s. 19) ii. Infringement (Trade-marks Act s. 20) iii. Passing off iv. Depreciation of goodwill (Trade-marks Act s. 22)
  49. 49. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 4. 4 Common types of disputes a. Infringement/passing off i. Cybersquatters: Someone who deliberately acquires a domain name to prevent others with rights in the domain name from using it, or to hold the domain for ransom ii. Tests same as in other trade-mark disputes ii T i h d k di iii. Using a domain name which is similar to a trade-mark may violate the trade-mark owner’s rights if the domain name use results in misrepresentation or confusion lt i i t ti f i Tele-Direct (Publications) Inc. v. Canadian Business Online (1998), 83 C.P.R. 3d (34)
  50. 50. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 4. 4 Common types of disputes a. Infringement/passing off iii. Difficult to establish a breach of trade-mark rights when someone uses a domain name containing a trade-mark merely as an address, without selling goods, performing services or operating a business which would give rise to confusion Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Merlin International Communications Inc. (2000), 9 C.P.R. (4th) 307 (F.C. T.D.). iv. iv Conversion v. A passive website is NOT use with wares Pro-C Ltd. v Computer City, Inc. (2001), (2001) 55 O R (3d) 577 (O t C A ) O.R. (Ont. C.A.)
  51. 51. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 4. 4 Common types of disputes b. Typosquatting i. Cybersquatting which relies on typographical errors made by Internet users ii. Typos in the actual trade-mark e.g. xample.com vs. example.com iii. Also the addition of prefixes (e.g. wwwbrand.com) and suffixes (e.g. brandcom.com) iv. Adding prefixes/suffixes to a trade-mark does not mean the domain name is no longer confusingly similar
  52. 52. DOMAIN NAMES Most Common Prefixes Used by Cybersquatters Prefix Rank www 1 my 2 e 3 i 4 buy 5 shop 6 the 7 new 8 ww 9 go 10 Source: Corporation Service Company (March 2010)
  53. 53. DOMAIN NAMES Most Common Prefixes Used by Cybersquatters Prefix Rank online 1 s 2 usa 3 tv 4 sucks 5 store 6 shop 7 com 8 world 9 e 10 Source: C S Corporation S i C ti Service Company (M h 2010) (March
  54. 54. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 4. Common t 4 C types of disputes f di t c. “Sucks”/protest cases i. i UDRP: The majority view is that a domain name consisting of a trade-mark and a negative term is confusing similar to the complainant’s mark l i t’ k wal-martsucks.com (WIPO D2000-0662) ii. .ca: No “sucks” cases but freedom o ca o suc s cases… eedo of expression ≠ legitimate interest mckeehomes.ca (CDRP decision No. 00079, 2007)
  55. 55. DOMAIN NAMES D. Disputes 4. Common types of disputes d. Famous people cases i. UDRP: If a personal name is being used for trade or commerce, the Complaint can establish common law , p rights in the name. juliaroberts.com (WIPO D2000-0210) madonna.com (WIPO D2000-0847) ( ) – The name must actually be used in trade or commerce to establish trade-mark rights. Merely having a famous name is not sufficient. g izzyasper.com (WIPO D2001-0540) megwhitmanforgovernor.com (WIPO D2008-1534) ii. CDRP: No cases, but likely the same result.
  56. 56. DOMAIN NAMES E. Best practices against cybersquatting 1. 1 Be first in time 2. Diarize & renew registrations g 3. Register in multiple gTLDs and ccTLDs as available/applicable il bl / li bl a. .net is the most popular after .com
  57. 57. DOMAIN NAMES E. Best practices against cybersquatting 4. 4 Register most commonly used terms by typosquatters a. Add most common prefixes and suffixes i. “www” is the most common prefix ii. “online” is the most common suffix iii. “sucks” i NOT th most common suffix iii “ k ” is the t ffi b. Domain name typo generators
  58. 58. DOMAIN NAMES F. Scams 1. 1 Solicitations 2. Tasting 3. Kiting g 4. Front running 5. Slamming 6. Social engineering attacks
  59. 59. DOMAIN NAMES G. Pending developments 1. 1 Bespoke gTLDs 2. IDNs (Internationalized Domain Names)
  60. 60. SOCIAL MEDIA A. Why is social media a p y problem for brands? 1. Unauthorized IP use (including personality rights) 2. Inappropriate trade-mark use e.g. genercide 3. Depreciation of goodwill 4. Harm to reputation 5. No equivalent of UDRP/CDRP f /C 6. Is it possible to use social media without being anti- social?
  61. 61. SOCIAL MEDIA B. Case studies 1. Facebook: Scrabulous 2. Facebook: Coke 3. S Second Life: Herman Miller f 4. 4 Twitter: Tony La Russa & twittersquatting
  62. 62. SOCIAL MEDIA C. Policies of some social media websites 1. Facebook a. PURLs (personalized URLs) b. TM registration: no more? c. Unauthorized IP use is a breach of Facebook “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (para Statement Responsibilities” (para. 5(1)). Facebook can remove such content (para. 5(2)) and terminate the account of repeat IP infringers “when appropriate” (para. 5(5)). d. Online IP infringement form
  63. 63. SOCIAL MEDIA C. Policies of some social media websites 2. Twitter a. Twittersquatting is prohibited i. “Using a company or business name, logo, or other trademark protected materials in a manner that may mislead or confuse others or be used for financial gain, may be considered trade-mark infringement. Accounts with clear INTENT to mislead others will be immediately suspended, even if there is no trademark infringement, attempts to mislead others are tantamount to business impersonation” (Trademark Policy)
  64. 64. SOCIAL MEDIA C. Policies of some social media websites 2. Twitter a. Twittersquatting is prohibited ii. “Impersonation is pretending to be another person or entity in order to deceive. Impersonation is a violation of the Twitter Rules and may result in permanent account suspension” (Impersonation Policy). iii. “Twitter users are allowed to create parody, commentary or fan accounts. Accounts with a clear intent to confuse or mislead may be permanently suspended” (Impersonation Policy).
  65. 65. SOCIAL MEDIA C. Policies of some social media websites 2. Twitter a. Twittersquatting is prohibited iv. An inactive account without a profile picture and no intent to mislead typically means no namesquatting or impersonation. Twitter will not release inactive or squatted user names except when there is trade-mark infringement. Attempts to sell, buy or solicit other forms of payment in exchange for user names violate Twitter’s TOU and may result in permanent account suspension (Namesquatting Policy).
  66. 66. SOCIAL MEDIA C. Policies of some social media websites 2. Twitter a. Twittersquatting is prohibited v. Namesquatting and “user name for sale” accounts will be permanently suspended. Attempts to sell or extort other forms of payment in exchange for user names will result in account suspension. vi. Accounts that are inactive for more than 6 months can be cancelled without further notice.
  67. 67. SOCIAL MEDIA C. Policies of some social media websites 2. Twitter b. Twitter’s test to determine namesquatting i. The number of accounts created; ii. Creating accounts for the purpose of preventing others from using those account names; g iii. Creating accounts for the purpose of selling those acounts; iv. Using feeds of third party content to update and maintain accounts under the names of those third parties. c. Verified accounts d. Complaint mechanism
  68. 68. SOCIAL MEDIA C. Policies of some social media websites 3. Second Life a. You will not take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transit Content that infringes or violates any third party rights (Terms of Service, para. 4.1).
  69. 69. SOCIAL MEDIA C. Policies of some social media websites 4. MySpace a. Users cannot post what MySpace deems in its sole discretion as “prohibited content”, which includes content that violates or attempts to violate trade- mark rights (Terms & Conditions, para. 8.16). b. Users cannot upload, embed, post, e-mail, transit or otherwise make available any material that infringes any t d trade-mark (T k (Terms & Conditions, para. 9) C diti 9). Complainants can be sent to MySpace (Terms & Conditions, para. 9). p )
  70. 70. SOCIAL MEDIA D. Brand protection strategies & best practices p g p 1. Proactive registrations: register trade-marks and trade-names with each social media site bearing in mind th t i i d that inactive accounts may be cancelled per ti t b ll d TOU. 2. Register combinations, permutations and typosquatting variations of trade-marks as user names. 3. Review and understand each social media site’s 3 R i d d t d h i l di it ’ TOU. 4. Police your marks on social media sites.
  71. 71. SOCIAL MEDIA D. Brand protection strategies & best practices p g p 5. Address social media in trade-mark licenses and employment agreements. 6. If running a social media site, address IP infringement and consequences in TOU.
  72. 72. OTHER USES A. Key word advertising y g 1. A key word is a word (e.g. a trade-mark) used to find documents on the Internet 2. While there is no Canadian case law on this issues, using a trade-mark as a key word with services is arguably use; not likely with wares. 3. Google AdWords a. Prohibits infringement b. While has a complaint mechanism, will not investigate use of trade-marks as keywords in a number of countries, including Canada countries Canada.
  73. 73. OTHER USES B. Metatags g 1. Words in html code which are invisible to the use but are visible to search engines so the engines can decide h th to include d id whether t i l d a website i search b it in h results. 2. Questionable whether there is trade-mark use, since trade mark trade-mark use must be visible. Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Germain ( (1987)16 C.P.R. (3d) 517 ) ( )
  74. 74. OTHER USES B. Metatags g 3. Possibly common law passing off 4. The Canadian cases which have dealt with this issue ruled in plaintiff’s favour without deciding whether having a trade-mark in a metatag is trade- mark use. British Columbia Automobile Association v. Office and Professional Employee’s International Union, Local 378 (2001), 10 C.P.R. (4th) 423 (B.C. S.C.)
  75. 75. OTHER USES C. Pop up advertising p p g 1. Prompted by Internet searches. 2. Automatic, invisible and behind the scenes, like metatags. 3. No reported Canadian cases. 4. 4 Unlikely a breach of trade mark rights since no trade-mark rights, visible trade-mark use. 5. Possible common law passing off claim. p g
  76. 76. SOME INTERNET RESOURCES ICANN: www.icann.org.g Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA): www.cira.ca. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center: Domain Name A bit ti d M di ti C t D i N Dispute Resolution: www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains. g Internet Archive: www.archive.org. Alexa: www.alexa.com. Domain Tools: www.domaintools.com.
  77. 77. Thank you…Questions? Lorraine Fleck Barrister & Solicitor, Trade-mark Agent Hoffer Adler LLP lfleck@hofferadler.com

×