Friday 28 October 2016

Registering El Chapo™

It was widely reported last month that the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (“IMPI”) had recently denied an application by wanted drug kingpin Joaquin “Chapo” Guzman to trademark his name. According to reports, the IMPI had also denied two applications for the marks “Joaquin El Chapo Guzman” and “El Chapo Guzman” in 2011.

As of February 10, 2016, there are no Canadian trademark applications pending for “El Chapo”, while the United States Trademark Database does have two pending applications and one registration in association with graphic T-shirts. A key distinction is that the owners of these marks do not appear to be related to Mr. Guzman.

Under Canadian trademark law, there is a good possibility that the proposed marks “Joaquin El Chapo Guzman” and “El Chapo Guzman” would also have been denied on the basis that the marks are “primarily merely the name or the surname of an individual who is living or has died within the preceding thirty years” regardless of whether the applicant is related to Mr. Guzman. It is unlikely however that a similar objection to the proposed mark “El Chapo” would be made based on the Canadian Trademark Office’s current practices.

Although Canada’s Trademarks Act does include a provision at Paragraph 9.1(j) prohibiting the registration of any “scandalous, obscene or immoral word or device”, it is unlikely this prohibition would be raised during examination based on the prior jurisprudence. The threshold on whether a mark is scandalous, obscene or immoral appears to be fairly high, based on the Registrar’s decision in 2014 to issue a Notice of Approval for the design mark F CANCER & Design.[1]

It remains to be seen whether “El Chapo” can be registered as a trademark in Canada, although the Canadian registration for BILLY THE KID is consistent with the U.S. position that such marks are registerable.




[1] Note: this application was successfully opposed by an individual who was able to asset superior common law rights to the mark 

Patents: Due Diligence Analysis through a Business Investment Lens

Friday 7 October 2016

A Financial Lesson On Thinking Before You Post



A Financial Lesson On Thinking Before You Post

In late 2015, a decision was released by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice that reminded us of the potential financial implications of posting on social media before we think. With the vast majority of Canadians being visible on social media in some way, similar court decision are likely to grow in number as more and more people are hitting ‘Enter’ without thinking of the ramifications of what they are posting.

Background
Mr. Kumar started a defamation action against his nephew, Mr. Khurana in relation to a number of statements that were made about Mr. Kumar both in a Facebook group and over private message to Mr. Kumar’s daughters. As a result of the statements, Mr. Kumar testified that his self-esteem had been diminished, he started seeing a psychologist and psychiatrist, which he had never before done, and he became withdrawn from his community.

The Decision
The court ruled in Mr. Kumar’s favour in finding that the statements made by his nephew met the three part test to establish defamation: (1) that the impugned words were defamatory, in the sense that they would tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person; (2) that the words in fact referred to the plaintiff, and (3) that the words were published, meaning that they were communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff.[1]

The Award
After taking into consideration a number of factors, including Mr. Kumar’s position and standing, the nature and seriousness of the statements, the mode and extent of publication, the absence of a retraction or apology, the motive of his nephew and other relevant circumstances, the court award Mr. Kumar $15,000 in general damages and $15,000 in aggravated damages.

The Take-Away
You should always think before you post, especially when your post is about another person whose reputation or feelings can be hurt by what you are saying about them. Not only will you be harming your personal relationships, but you could be exposing yourself damages in an amount equal to or more than was awarded to Mr. Kumar. When in doubt ask yourself: would you rather make that comment or buy a new car?

For more information on defamation law, contact MDK Business Law.




[1] Kumar v. Khurana, 2015 ONSC 7858 quoting Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61, [2009] 3 S.C.R. 640,