Law Times

Page 8 September 25, 2017 • Law timeS www.lawtimesnews.com Challenge on offensive trademarks could bring clarity BY MICHAEL MCKIERNAN For Law Times C anadian intellectual property lawyers say brand owners would benefit from the clar- ity a Constitutional challenge would bring to the country's ban on offensive trademarks. This summer, the U.S. Su- preme Court struck down part of the portion of its law prohib- iting disparaging trademarks, ruling that the ban infringed on First Amendment free speech rights. Julie MacDonell, a Toronto- based entertainment and trade- marks lawyer, says she would like to see a similar argument made about s. 9(1)(j) of Cana- da's federal Trade-marks Act, which prevents the registration of "scandalous, obscene or im- moral" marks. But she acknowl- edges there are practical barriers to such a move, which would be based on the freedom of expres- sion guarantees in s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "We have a situation where it's difficult to imagine a similar case coming forward in the Ca- nadian context. You need a cli- ent or a law firm with really deep pockets to push it forward and set a standard," says MacDonell, the founder of IP and business law boutique The Trademark Group. "A watchdog group like the Canadian Civil Liberties As- sociation could also do it, but it's probably not the most pressing civil liberties issue in Canada at the moment. "Until then, we're kind of lost in an abyss, because there is hardly any case law on the is- sue, and the cases that do exist are not really relevant to today's standards," she adds. The unanimous judgment of the U.S. top court's eight- judge panel went in favour of the Asian-American band the Slants, a band whose frontman Simon Tam claimed was named in an attempt to reclaim a once derogatory term. The group was originally denied a trademark because an official in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office deemed its name disparaging to those of Asian descent. But the Slants decided to take the government to court, claiming the rejection violated its constitutional rights. In his decision, Justice Sam- uel Alito, writing for the court, agreed and struck down the pro- vision: "It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the basis of the ground that it expresses ideas that offend," he wrote. Peter Henein, a partner at Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP in Toronto, says that U.S. Su- preme Court decisions, while obviously not binding on Cana- dian courts, can still prove inf lu- ential on this side of the border. "Trademark law and intellec- tual property more broadly is an area where many of the concepts are similar in both countries," he says. "The proposition that trademark law is not the proper venue for moral determinations makes a lot of sense to me, and I think the language and reason- ing of the court followed in the Slants case would certainly be of assistance if and when our courts have to deal with the same question." Philip Lapin, Ottawa-based head of the trademark practice group at intellectual property firm Smart & Biggar, says that the offensiveness of a trademark comes up relatively rarely in his practice. However, he says the lack of a strong body of jurispru- dence means applicants are of- ten at the mercy of a trademark examiner's individual biases when it does, leading to poten- tially inconsistent results. For example, he points to the rejection by the Canadian Trademarks Office of a drinks company's attempt to register the term "Lucky Bastard" for use on its line of distilled spirits, in- cluding vodka. That was in spite of a previous ruling in favour of another alcohol business, which succeeded in registering the "Fat Bastard" trademark for use on its wine products. "Many of these words pro- voke a visceral reaction in an examiner. Whether it's appro- priate or not, it can be hard to convince them to change their mind, especially with the dearth of case law you can point to dis- cussing the issue," Lapin says. "When you get an objection, you often feel that a different exam- iner with a different background may not have objected." MacDonell has acted for a number of artists in the enter- tainment industry who have seen their trademarks rejected at first instance, including heavy metal band God Helmet. "There was no way to an- ticipate the office would cite ob- scenity in respect of that filing," she says. "It's very difficult to advise clients in Canada as to what's likely to be considered offen- sive. You're grasping at straws to identify some sort of standard," MacDonell adds. "The word 'ass' has been accepted widely by ex- aminers for trademark filing, but other words aren't. It all feels very arbitrary, which also makes it very frustrating." She also laments the lack of any sort of internal review pro- cess for unsuccessful applicants, short of the expensive and time- consuming option of a court challenge. In 2015, she wrote to the CIPO, using various pop culture references to urge its reconsid- eration of a rejected application for the mark "Bitch Stick." Lapin says the guidance the Canadian Intellectual Property Office gives to its examiners on the application of s. 9(1)(j) only adds to the confusion about which marks will be acceptable for registration. He says the definitions of the key prohibitions suggest a ma- jority of Canadians would have to be offended by the mark. "It's not internally consis- tent," Lapin says. "It's very un- clear what the standard is, and how objective it should be." LT FOCUS ON Intellectual Property Law Peter Henein says U.S. Supreme Court decisions, while obviously not binding on Canadian courts, can still prove influential north of the border. FOCUS ORDER YOUR COPY TODAY! Visit carswell.com or call 1.800.387.5164 for a 30-day no-risk evaluation THE MOST COMPLETE DIRECTORY OF ONTARIO LAWYERS, LAW FIRMS, JUDGES AND COURTS Ontario Lawyer's Phone Book is your best connection to legal services in Ontario with more than 1,400 pages of essential legal references. You can depend on the accuracy of this trusted directory that includes the most up-to-date names, phone numbers, mailing addresses and emails so you don't have to search anywhere else. More detail and a wider scope of legal contact information for Ontario: • Over 26,800 lawyers listed • Over 8,500 law firms and corporate offices listed • Fax and telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, office locations and postal codes Includes lists of: • Federal and provincial judges • Federal courts, including a section for federal government departments, boards and commissions • Ontario courts and services, including a section for provincial government ministries, boards and commissions • Small claims courts • The Institute of Law Clerks of Ontario • Miscellaneous services for lawyers NEW EDITION Perfectbound Published December each year On subscription $82.50 One time purchase $86 L7796-5932 Multiple copy discounts available Plus applicable taxes and shipping & handling. (prices subject to change without notice) ONTARIO LAWYER'S PHONE BOOK 2017 Untitled-4 1 2017-09-20 10:24 AM

• Cover