Can a building be a trademark? Can a photo of a building be a trademark? Can a drawing based on a photo of a building be a trademark? I’d be inclined to answer no, no, maybe.

Well, when the Supreme Court of your local country says it is, the answer is yes, it seems. One more reason to be glad we’re Americans (not “North Americans”), I guess. As the offending blogger, TheCourt.ca, put it, “one takedown message from the Supreme Court of Canada is… interesting; two would be unfortunate.” Yes, it would be — in more ways than two!

Hat tip to Library Boy.

By Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

3 thoughts on “Trademarks mean something different up there, I guess”
  1. Glad to see you picked up this piece. Can I ask only that you change the URL in your comment to TheCourt.ca instead of .com?  (This was picked up by another reader — thanks.  Can you imagine a more typical Yankee mistake? — RDC)

  2. […] First we reported about how the Canadian Supreme Court has asserted trademark rights in the shape of its (rather undistinctive!) courthouse. Now March Randazza reports this gem from the National Post: The City of Toronto launched an ad campaign “One Cent Now” to increase support in Ottawa for a measure to set aside more tax funds for Ottowan cities. The ad campaign depicts the obverse (tails) of a Canadian penny. The Royal Canadian Mint sent a bill for $47,000 in licensing fees, claiming that the design of the penny and the term “One Cent” are the mint’s registered trademarks. […]

Comments are closed.