Trademarks and Domain Names

Before delving into the topic, let’s begin with a definition. Official marks are statutory instruments specific to Canadian practice. They are not trademarks per se, but are treated similarly, because they are adopted and used by a limited group of organizations including universities, Canadian public authorities and Her Majesty’s Forces.1 In this article, we will be focusing on Canadian public authorities. There are several hundred marks in the Register belonging to public authorities, including the federal and provincial governments, government agencies and municipalities. Unlike traditional trademarks, official marks do not protect specific goods or services, but instead cover all classes of goods and services. They may even be descriptive, as they are not required to be distinctive. Moreover, they are not registered in the usual sense of the word. Instead, a notice of adoption is simply published in the Trademarks Journal. One unique feature of official marks is that they are not subject to a renewal process. They can therefore remain in the Register indefinitely. That being so, official marks may hinder the registration of a trademark filed subsequently, unless the public authority concerned voluntarily withdraws the notice of adoption of its official mark. Lastly, it is important to note that official marks are not subject to examination or opposition proceedings. In other words, the Registrar of Trademarks (the “Registrar”) makes no official verification as to their validity or compliance with the standard registration criteria. Thus, because of the extensive protection afforded to official marks, they appear to be virtually unassailable. But is that really the case? The Registrar considers that they have no discretion to refuse to give public notice of an official mark, unless it has not been registered by a Canadian public authority or such authority has not adopted or used its official mark at the time of filing its application. When the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) was amended in June 2019, trademark professionals were hoping that the criteria providing these marks with extensive protection would be revised. However, Parliament chose not to undertake an in-depth review of the laws governing official marks. That being said, the Office of the Registrar did provide some clarification in October 2020 as to its practice regarding official marks. First, since 2020, the Registrar requires evidence of public authority status. This change was made further to several comments on the questionable status of certain so-called “public authorities.” The decision in Ontario Association of Architects v. Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario (C.A.), 2002 FCA 218, clearly states that for a body to qualify as a public authority, the government must exercise a significant degree of control over its activities, particularly as relates to its governance and decision-making, and such activities must benefit the public.  Given that the laws governing public authorities have been in force for several decades, it is reasonable to assume that many published official marks are no longer held by public authorities or no longer meet the criteria defining a public authority. What is the proper way to respond to an opposition based on the resemblance between an official mark and a trademark? The options are limited. It is important to remember that subsection 9(1) of the Act states that no person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trademark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for, an official mark. The test is not based on a likelihood of confusion, as is the case when examining the likelihood of confusion between two trademarks. Instead, it is based on resemblance. Trademark professionals may argue that the applied-for mark is not identical or so similar to the official mark as to be confused with it. Another option—mainly in cases where the applied-for trademark is identical or very similar to an official mark—is to seek the consent of the official mark’s owner to use and register the trademark. In some cases, however, contacting a public authority may prove difficult, either because it no longer exists, or because it simply will not respond to requests for consent. Some public authorities ask for financial compensation in exchange for their consent. Can an official mark be contested? For the time being, there is no simple mechanism for contesting an official mark. The process of publishing a public notice of an official mark is not subject to opposition proceedings. Third parties have the option of contesting an official mark by means of an appeal or an application for judicial review to the Federal Court. They may do so in cases where an official mark was not adopted and used before the public notice was issued, or the body in question is not considered a public authority, or the official mark infringes on another mark. However, it should be noted that such proceedings are costly and take time. So what does the future hold? While the laws governing official marks remain essentially intact, some amendments are expected. The Canadian legislative authorities intend to add two new sections to the Act, namely sections 9(3) and 9(4). The purpose of these amendments is to clarify that even where a public notice has been issued concerning an official mark, such notice does not apply if the entity that requested it is not a public authority or no longer exists. In such circumstances, the Registrar may, on their own initiative or at a person’s request, give public notice that section 9 does not apply. Our understanding is that the Registrar will have new powers, including that of requesting—either on their own initiative or at the request of a person who pays the prescribed fee—that a so-called official mark be invalidated should its owner fail to respond to the Registrar’s notice requiring evidence of public authority status. This amendment to the Act should be introduced shortly. On another note, there were some interesting decisions handed down in 2023. KASAP TURKISH STEAKHOUSE & Design: The decision in The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System and EDAM Ltd., 2023 TMOB 161, clearly establishes the limitations of official marks when it comes to assessing the likelihood of confusion between two marks. The Board of Regents of the University of Texas opposed the application for the trademark KASAP TURKISH STEAKHOUSE & Design (hereinafter “Kasap”): in particular, on the grounds that the Kasap mark bore such a resemblance to the official mark of the University of Texas that it could be confused with its official mark as shown below: However, as previously mentioned, when assessing the resemblance between a trademark and an official mark, particular attention is paid to the similarity between the marks. The Trademarks Opposition Board concluded that the applicant’s applied-for mark did not resemble the official mark as to be likely to be mistaken for it, despite the presence of an image of a longhorn cow’s head in both marks. The distinctiveness of the word “KASAP” in the applicant’s mark was deemed sufficient to distinguish the two marks. As such, the opposition was rejected. A mark that includes an official mark along with other elements does not “consist of” that official mark. Via Rail Canada Inc. and Via Transportation, Inc., 2023 TMOB 155  This decision concerns an opposition filed by Via Rail Canada Inc. (the Opponent and owner of an official mark) against a trademark application submitted by Via Transportation, Inc. (the Applicant). The application was for the mark “VIA & Design” as shown below: for use in association with the transportation of passengers and related mobile application software and telecommunication services. The Opponent opposed the application based on an allegation that the mark caused confusion with its trademarks, official marks and trade names containing the word “VIA” and used in association with its national railway services and related goods and services. Ultimately, the Applicant’s application was rejected in part because the Applicant’s mark was not registrable under section 12(1)(e), as it was deemed too similar to the Opponent’s official “VIA” mark, which was likely to cause confusion. The hearing officer summarized the resemblance test as follows in paragraph 106: The resemblance test under section 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Act differs from a standard confusion analysis in that it requires a likelihood that consumers will be mistaken as between the marks themselves rather than a likelihood that consumers will be confused as to the source of the goods or services. In short, the general consensus is that the laws governing official marks in Canada could certainly use a thorough revision, one that would help weed out any marks cluttering up the register of official marks that no longer fit the definition. Examples of university official marks: Université de Montréal (0910712), Universität Heidelberg (0923735), Louisiana State University (0923069). It should be noted that universities are not required to be Canadian to request publication of an official mark. The Armed Forces have adopted several marks on behalf of Her Majesty, including PORTE DAUPHINE (0903172) & Design, SKY HAWKS (0903269) and CORMORANT & Design (0903170). More specifically, we refer to sections 9 and following of the Trademarks Act.

CIPO has announced an increase in their fees as of January 1, 2024. Their current fees will be increased by at least 25%. This increase will apply not only to trademarks, but also to patents, industrial designs and copyrights. For example, the anticipated official fee to file an application for registration of a trademark is being increased from $347.35 to $458.00 for the first class, and from $105.26 to $139.00 for each additional class. A majority of CIPO’s other fees are subject to a similar adjustment. As such, this increase will have an impact not only upon filing an application for registration, but also during the registration process and upon renewal. We therefore recommend that you review your intellectual property portfolio to determine if new applications should be filed or renewals effected before the end of the year. CIPO indicates that the increase will contribute to supporting its strategy on intellectual property which is aimed at offering services comparable to those offered worldwide. We hope that it will also reduce turnaround times!

Although the more nostalgic among us were recently celebrating the announcement of a third film (and sequel) of In a galaxy near you (Dans une galaxie près de chez vous), a sci-fi series on Quebec TV, sports fans might be disappointed if the arena near them ever ends up being renamed. In the first instalment of our series of articles on sports law, we examined various issues surrounding team branding. We would now like to focus on the naming of stadiums, arenas and our favourite sports venues, which often feature corporate names or trademarks. In a press release dated August 15, 2023, the Montreal Canadiens announced that their training centre, previously known as the Bell Sports Complex, would be renamed the CN Sports Complex. The reasons for this change have to do with naming rights agreements. These agreements stem from a “marriage of values” for commercial purposes between two brands that share a number of clearly defined objectives. In this article, we will answer two fundamental questions: how do these agreements work and what are the objectives? Defining a naming rights agreement A naming rights agreement is a contract between a company and an operator or owner of a venue, building, event or facility. Under such agreements, a company obtains the exclusive right to name a venue, building, event or facility by making royalty payments or providing other benefits. This enhances the company’s visibility because its name or brand is now associated with the venue, building, event or facility. In return, the owning or operating entity is paid a royalty that helps to support its activities or boost its profitability. Naming rights agreements are commonly used for naming stadiums, arenas and sporting events. It should be noted that naming rights agreements are different from sponsorship agreements. A sponsorship agreement is another type of arrangement under which a company can obtain visibility associated with an event. For example, the Royal Bank of Canada entered into a sponsorship agreement with the Montreal Canadiens to display its logo on the team’s jerseys. One of the main differences between sponsorship agreements and naming rights agreements is their duration. A sponsorship agreement has a shorter term (usually 3 to 5 years), whereas a naming rights agreement may run from 5 to 20 years, sometimes longer. An ever-growing market Underscoring the importance of naming rights agreements, over 90% of the teams in North America’s five largest professional sports leagues have signed one: In Europe, the most popular sport by far is soccer. The status of naming rights agreements in European soccer is not comparable to the North American situation, but everything indicates that their popularity will continue to rise in the coming years: What are the primary objectives of naming rights agreements? Although most North American sports teams have entered into naming rights agreements, the frequency with which stadiums or sports venues are renamed remains low due to the long-term nature of these arrangements. Companies are prepared to invest considerable sums in these agreements. There are various reasons for this, including the desire to partner with an organization that shares certain values, or to reap the benefits of a unique financial tool, or to consolidate business interests or gain a foothold in a given market. In 2017, the Air Canada Centre, which hosts the Toronto Maple Leafs (NHL) as well as the Toronto Raptors (NBA), was renamed the Scotiabank Arena. Under this agreement, Scotiabank will reportedly pay $40 million annually over 20 years to maintain the new name. At the time, this was a record amount. But the new (publicly disclosed) record is now held by the Crypto.com Arena, formerly known as the Staples Center, home to two NBA teams (LA Lakers and LA Clippers), together with the LA Kings (NHL). In 2021, Crypto.com agreed to pay approximately $50 million annually for 20 years. In addition to the recent CN Sports Complex name change, Uniprix Stadium,which hosts the Omnium National Bank tennis tournament, became IGA Stadium back in 2018. When the IGA Stadium agreement was concluded, Eugène Lapierre, Senior Vice-President at Tennis Canada, offered this assessment: “IGA attaches a good deal of importance to healthy eating, while for our part, we’re working hard to develop tennis in Canada. Our objectives are in sync.”1 Similarly, France Margaret Bélanger, President, Sports and Entertainment of Groupe CH, confirmed this marriage of values between the Montreal Canadiens and CN: “CN is not only a world leader in transportation, but also an iconic Canadian company which, like the Canadiens, has been based in Montreal for over a century.”2 It is clear that these companies were carefully selected on the basis of “common ground”, which implies a sharing of values between them and the operators of the IGA Stadium and the CN Sports Complex. Choosing the right partner: a key strategic issue Choosing the right company whose name or brand will be publicly displayed is essential. An owner or operator will want to avoid any association with a company whose identity is incompatible or whose values are not in alignment. Several examples of dubious partnership choices spring to mind: The Chicago White Sox’s baseball stadium changed its name from U.S. Cellular Field to Guaranteed Rate Field in 2016. This change sparked controversy, drawing ridicule from the public. The problem was that the White Sox are a high-profile brand, known throughout the sports world and enjoying immense prestige. In contrast, Guaranteed Rate was a local company, unknown to many baseball fans, and was simply unable to bear the weight of a storied franchise such as the White Sox. The social networks lit up at the time, adding to Guaranteed Rate’s visibility. The company certainly achieved its objective of “getting its name out there”! Away from the sports realm, another relevant example is the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), which operates that city’s mass transit system. In April 2023, the TTC announced that it wanted to look into the possibility of selling the rights to name train or subway stations – an idea that it had initially announced in 2011. The outcry was immediate: “This will turn the TTC into a joke”, said Rami Tabello, a representative of the Toronto Public Space Initiative. “It's going to turn our civic identity and put a price tag on it. We need to say that our city is not for sale.”3 Just imagine the conductor’s announcement: “Next stop, Pepsi Station”! Structuring a naming rights agreement Although the parties to naming rights agreements are free to negotiate their own terms and conditions, certain provisions should be included to ensure a good long-term relationship. A naming rights agreement should be comprehensive and detailed enough to enable both parties to “uncouple” quickly and easily if a disturbing or controversial event occurs that could have an adverse impact on their brand image or reputation. As a general rule, such agreements include a termination clause in case one party defaults or is in breach of contract. It is therefore important to clearly identify what constitutes a default or a breach of contract. Along with the digital boards, certain spaces on the ice of hockey rinks or advertising on helmets, crests or jerseys, the rights stemming from a naming agreement are valuable assets that can be monetized by means of various financial instruments. Not only can these agreements be monetized as soon as they are signed, but they can also be transferred for a consideration to a third party, such as an alternative investor. Hence the importance of ensuring that naming rights agreements are flexible and transferable, thereby facilitating third-party transfers and monetization. As an additional type of financial instrument, naming rights agreements provide immediate access to cash flows. Intellectual property and trademark rights: what precautions should be taken? Naming rights agreements often facilitate the creation of new intellectual property linked to the joint use of brands. According to trademark law, the owner of a brand must, and is generally assumed to, exercise control over the products and services associated with the brand. In addition, when a new form of use extends to new services stemming from a naming rights agreement, it is advisable to verify whether the brand’s trademarking is sufficient or should be extended. Here is another point to consider: when the naming rights agreement expires, the chosen partner must not have permanently acquired rights to the brand. These agreements, therefore, must carefully circumscribe property rights as well as the terms and conditions governing intellectual property. It is also important to outline the civil liability arising from use of the brand. Considerations include compensating the brand owner for the partner’s use of the brand and, conversely, compensating the partner in the event that the brand infringes third-party-owned intellectual property. In any event, the brand owner cannot stand idly by if the user goes beyond what is permitted in the agreement (this would amount to breach of contract). North America and Europe: two different realities Naming rights agreements generate significant revenues for sports teams. A team unable to find the right partner may find itself at a disadvantage vis-à-vis other competitors in its league or even compared to other sports. This is the daunting reality facing a number of European soccer clubs, which are having a harder time finding partner companies for naming rights agreements than sports teams are in North America. One British example involves London-based Tottenham Hotspur, which has been unable to find a co-contractor to enter into a naming rights agreement for its new stadium since 2019. The team is now in serious financial difficulty and is attempting to host events other than soccer (concerts, boxing, NFL games, etc.) to make up for its revenue shortfall. In Europe, naming rights agreements are not as widespread as they are in North America. This is primarily due to the fans’ reaction. In Europe, soccer boasts a tradition-steeped history: fans tend to be opposed to change or to the idea of “selling” an iconic stadium to a company. On the other side of the Atlantic, marketing icons are often linked to companies that have signed naming rights agreements. To understand this phenomenon, consider the city of Pittsburgh and the Steelers’ football stadium, which was named Heinz Field for over 20 years under an agreement involving (unsurprisingly) the Heinz company. The stadium was also home to two gigantic Heinz ketchup bottles mounted atop the scoreboard: Image 1: Heinz ketchup bottles atop the Heinz Field scoreboard. The Heinz agreement expired and the facility was renamed Acrisure Stadium in July 2022; the ketchup bottles were removed. Steelers fans were soon calling for the ketchup bottles to be brought back—in their eyes, the gigantic bottles were an emblem of the team. Art Rooney II, the team’s legendary owner, acceded to the fans’ demands earlier this year: one of the bottles was reinstalled above a gate outside the stadium. Image 2: Some fans were outraged when the Heinz ketchup bottles were removed from Acrisure Stadium. Image 3: One of the ketchup bottles was reinstalled above Gate C outside the stadium. It should be noted that the Heinz company was founded in Pittsburgh in 1869 by Henry J. Heinz; it is still headquartered there. In Pittsburgh, the Heinz family is both emblematic and iconic. For local residents, Heinz is much more than a brand of ketchup or a food processing company: it is a key part of their history and culture, interwoven with the social fabric. The Heinz ketchup bottles towering over the football stadium were not just a marketing ploy; they were also a cherished symbol for the community and the city of Pittsburgh. Conclusion Unbeknownst to many of us, the impacts of naming rights agreements can be felt discreetly in our day-to-day lives. In addition to being a vehicle for conveying emotions and exerting an influence on our experience of certain events and places, these agreements drive our emotional attachment to certain sports properties. Pierre Durocher, Le stadium Jarry change de nom, Le Journal de Montréal, April 16, 2018 (https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2018/04/16/le-stadium-uniprix-devient-le-stadium-iga). Montreal Canadiens, Montreal Canadiens' practice facility to be named CN Sports Complex, media release, August 15, 2023 (https://www.nhl.com/canadiens/news/montreal-canadiens-practice-facility-to-be-named-cn-sports-complex-345595466). CBC News, TTC deal opens door to station naming rights, July 6, 2011 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ttc-deal-opens-door-to-station-naming-rights-1.1023460).

Choosing the name of a sports team can be a perilous exercise. In addition to representing certain values, names are supposed to fire up the fan base and motivate the athletes themselves. It must sometimes meet with the approval of major sponsors. But when sports teams are companies seeking to profit commercially from the use of their brand, legal considerations also come into play. Team names are typically linked to the organization of sports events for which tickets are sold. They may also be associated with products such as caps or jerseys that fans take pride in wearing. In these respects, the team’s name is a trademark and does not only serves to differentiate a team from its competitors but can also help to fill a company’s coffers. Team names are often associated with logos that also embody certain values. Logos may incorporate various design features, in addition to the team name, and often displayed on a wide range of products. Trademarks in sports has given rise to various problems, as seen in the examples below. Trademark Confusion Do you remember when the Canadian Football League was home to the Saskatchewan Roughriders as well as the Ottawa Rough Riders? This type of situation is far from ideal when watching a game and from the point of view of trademarks, it is to be avoided, since it will probably be impossible for at least one of the two teams to register its trademark. Remember that trademark registrations generally grants national exclusivity. Similar nominal trademarks, however, are quite common among sports teams, particularly when different sports are involved. Examples include the New York Rangers (hockey) and the Texas Rangers (baseball), or the Florida Panthers (hockey) and the Carolina Panthers (football). This form of “nominal coexistence” might prevent one team from registering its trademark, especially if the description of the other team’s products and services is wide-ranging. For instance, if the description of the services provided by the first team to register its trademark includes the presentation of sports events or the sale of jerseys, without specifying the associated sport, there would then be a risk of confusion from the legal point of view between the two nominal trademarks.  To register as a design mark which includes both the team’s name and a logo can sometimes resolve this problem if the teams’ logos are substantially different from each other. However, this will be ineffective if the design mark primarily consists of the team’s name. In that case, the Intellectual Property Office will consider the logo along with any accompanying text to assess the likelihood of confusion. A logo that does not include the team’s name is often easier to register, provided that it is different from the logos of other existing teams. The case of teams with the same name playing the same sport in different leagues is more complicated. Such situations often arise with minor league and major league hockey teams that have the same name. No problem arises when the minor league team is owned by the same business interests, since it is then easy to conclude a licensing agreement between the two and consolidate trademark ownership to only one company. On the other hand, such situations might also stem from a random choice of name or an unconscious desire to be associated with a major league team. At the very least, teams with the same name should consider signing a coexistence agreement. For example, on January 10, 2018, the U.S. Army’s parachute team, nicknamed the Golden Knights, filed a notice of opposition with the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) calling for the rejection of the trademark registration application filed by the NHL’s Vegas Golden Knights. Both teams ending up signing a coexistence agreement: the risk of confusion between them was perhaps more limited given the very different nature of their activities. In addition, team trademarks should aim to be distinctive and should not be limited to generic descriptions of the sport or the place where the team is based. Socially unacceptable trademarks Although they may be registered and legally valid from an intellectual property perspective, team logos or names may, however, be socially unacceptable. The notion of social acceptability actually evolves over time. Some trademarks that were used for years are no longer acceptable today. (Come to think of it, were they ever?) Take trademarks like Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben’s, which, following decades of commercial use, were renamed to be less offensive. In the world of sports, one only has to think back to the former Cleveland Indians and their logo featuring “Chief Wahoo”. In the face of social pressure, the team dropped its logo and became the Cleveland Guardians. The same phenomenon has been observed in Canada: The Edmonton Eskimos, of CFL fame, became the Edmonton Elks after the organization acknowledged that its name could be offensive to the Inuit and other Indigenous peoples of Canada. In 2019, McGill University changed the name of its varsity sports teams from the Redmen to the Redbirds. This decision followed a referendum in which 78.8% of participating students voted in favour of the name change. In 2020, the Ahuntsic College Indians became the Eagles following a student vote. To protect their trademarks, sports teams must take into account evolving standards of social acceptability. Trademarks that avoid racial or discriminatory stereotypes are more likely to “stand the test of time”. One might wonder how much longer certain team names will last. In the NFL, the Kansas City Chiefs and the Minnesota Vikings both have names that play on stereotypes that have been contested for years. In the NHL, the same questions arise for the Chicago Blackhawks. While various communities are calling for a new name and logo, others insist that the name pays tribute to a real-life Native American. In Major League Baseball, the Atlanta Braves have faced similar scrutiny and social pressure. Team nicknames created by fans Certain team names were created by the fans themselves, not by the owners or the organizations involved. Take, for example, the “Habs” (Montreal Canadiens), the “Als” (Montreal Alouettes) or “Nos Amours” (former Montreal Expos). Are these nicknames the intellectual property of the fans that invented them? In fact, a number of these nicknames have been successfully trademarked in Canada: “Habs” has been a registered trademark since 2003 for entertainment services and since 2007 for merchandise such as clothing and other promotional items. “Als” has been a registered trademark since 2014 for all promotional items and entertainment services. “Barça”, the nickname of Barcelona’s professional soccer club (officially FC Barcelona), has been a registered trademark in Canada since 2022 for all promotional products. However, the French nicknames “Nos Amours” (Montreal Expos) and “La Sainte-Flanelle” (Montreal Canadiens) have not yet been trademarked in Canada, although applications for “Tricolore Sports” and “Bleu Blanc Rouge” were recently filed by the Montreal Canadiens. The issue that arises stems from sports teams taking the opportunity to trademark and protect nicknames that became distinctive thanks to widespread use by fans.  Trademarks linked to a sponsor Sports teams might wish to adopt a name and /or a trademark that pays tribute to their owner or a major sponsor. One example that comes to mind is the Anaheim Mighty Ducks (now the Anaheim Ducks), which were originally named after the Disney-owned film franchise. This situation is not problematic per se since two separate companies were involved. However, things can get tricky if relations with sponsors become tense or if they decide to withdraw their sponsorship. For that reason, an agreement should be in place setting out the sponsor’s trademark rights and, if the sponsorship comes to an end, how quickly the team has to change its name and trademarks. Departing sponsors should also be prevented from interfering in the management of the team. Teams should also reserve the right to change their names and trademarks for various reasons, including reputational risk. And if a sponsor sells sports equipment or other team-related products, teams should ensure that they can sell their own promotional products without infringing the sponsor’s trademark. If not contractually regulated, such situations could even affect the validity of the sponsor’s registered trademarks since the sponsor would not exercise adequate control over the trademark. The issues outlined above might not just affect the company’s image, but could also prevent it from adequately protecting its trademark. A registered trademark ensures nationwide protection; it may also cover multiple countries if applications are filed outside Canada. Above all, trademark registration provides a greater degree of legal certainty. This also greatly facilitates intervention against malicious actors seeking to counterfeit—and profit from—registered trademark and, in many cases, serves to block imports of counterfeit merchandise. From the outset, sports teams that wish to profit commercially from their brand should check at the outset whether it can be registered as a nominal and/or design trademark. If it cannot, they are advised to work closely with their legal teams and trademark agents to find an alternative name or logos that are not affected by the above-mentioned issues.