May 13, 2009
You have probably seen the ® or ™ symbol on products or in advertisements. But what do these symbols mean and when is it appropriate to use them?
Generally, the ® or ™ symbols are used in connection with a trade-mark, which is a word, symbol or design used to distinguish the wares or services of one person or organization from those of others. Trade-marks can be valuable intellectual property.
The Trade-marks Act (Canada) (the “TM Act”) does not contain any marking requirements. However, trade-mark owners often indicate their registration through certain symbols, namely, ® (registered) or ™ (trade-mark). Although the TM Act does not require the use of these symbols, in Canada, the ™ and ® symbols may be used whether the trade-mark is registered or not. However, while this is not a requirement of the TM Act, the ® should be used only if the mark is registered with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. If the ® is used and the mark is not in fact registered, it may be possible for someone to argue its use amounts to false advertising. The ™ suggests the mark is not registered, but can help establish distinctiveness in the mark.
One should be especially careful using the ® outside in Canada. In certain jurisdictions, including the U.S., ® may only be used by the owner of a mark following registration with that jurisdiction’s trade-mark office. For example, if a Canadian company is marketing a product in the U.S. and its mark is not registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it would not be able to use the ® in connection with its mark and could only use the ™, even if the company has been using ® in Canada all along.
Businesses should consider having their intellectual property “audited” by legal counsel with an expertise in the field and, in doing so, developing an appropriate trade-marks business strategy. When I advise my clients on trade-marks matters I often rely on the expert counsel of my friends and colleagues Jolin Spencer (whom I should thank for this blog post), Robert Watchman and Howard Nerman, all of whom have expertise in trade-marks law.
1 Comment | 
Copyright, Due Diligence, Industrial Design, Intellectual Property, Marketing, Patent, Trademark | Tagged: Copyright, Due Diligence, Industrial Design, Intellectual Property, Marketing, Patents, Trade Marks | 
Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
May 5, 2009
Earlier this year, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) announced that they will be opening up the generic Top Level Domain extensions (the “gTLDs”) to allow for personalized extensions. I could (for a mere US$185,000.00+) now apply for a .brian or even a .privacy. And while the chances of me starting a .brian are very slim, it will be interesting to see how many organizations pay the application fee and create their own .blank extension. Opening up the gTLDs will likely force trademark owners to evaluate their brand strategies and, in doing so, weigh the costs and benefits of buying any or all gTLDs related to their brand.
If you’re a trademark owner and you want to approach your strategy conservatively, then you may want to take a defensive position and register any of the gTLDs that relate to the business in which you’re engaged. The list of commercial gTLDs would include .com, .net., .info, .org, .tel, .biz, .mobi, .tv and any other TLDs that seem to have a commercial application. Additionally, you may want to register and maintain the country code domain names (ccTLDs) in the jurisdictions where your organization offers, or plans to offer, its products or services. Once this is completed, you should then register any known variations of your trademark.
While, in theory, this is a very effective strategy – in practice, this strategy will be more difficult to execute. For example, the owners of Lego currently own 450 domain names within the TLDs. They recently pursued and won a WIPO arbitration decision against a cybersquatter who had registered the domains Justlegos.com, legosonly.com, and onlylegos.com; illustrating that even the most vigilant defensive strategy for the registration of domains names cannot prevent all infringements. As such, any brand strategy should be accompanied by vigorous monitoring and enforcement. The decision about which TLDs to register is a business decision that must weigh the cost of brand enforcement from a defensive position and an offensive position.
Leave a Comment » | Domain Names, Due Diligence, Intellectual Property, Internet, Technology, Trademark | Tagged: Domain Names, Due Diligence, Internet, Technology | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
April 22, 2009
The current global economic climate has led to a growing number of bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, particularly in the U.S. In dealing with these proceedings, many business leaders have not paid enough attention to the role of privacy law and its impact on the bottom line.
A prime example is the bankruptcy of U.S. online toy retailer, Toysmart.com. Toysmart.com had collected vast amounts of personal information from its online consumers in accordance with its privacy policy, which stated that the company would never share its database with third parties. Despite the promise, Toysmart.com then made attempts to sell the database. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) then sued Toysmart.com seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent the sale of the database by Toysmart.com. The complaint alleged that Toysmart.com had violated U.S. law by misrepresenting to consumers that personal information would never be shared with third parties, and then disclosing, selling and offering that information for sale. Toysmart.com later settled with the FTC. The settlement agreement forbid the sale of the database except under very limited circumstances.
Of course, Canadian companies are subject to Canadian privacy laws such as PIPEDA, which require the consent of individuals for the disclosure of personal information to third parties. In structuring privacy policies, Canadian companies should consider all outcomes including bankruptcy. As a result, privacy policies should be carefully drafted with consideration of the possibility that personal information may be shared with third parties in the event of bankruptcy. Doing so will almost certainly not be enough to fully comply with Canadian legal requirements, but it’s a prudent step in the right direction – especially in these uncertain economic times.
Leave a Comment » | Due Diligence, Internet, PIPEDA, Privacy, Privacy Breach, Sale Transactions | Tagged: Businesses, Customers, Due Diligence, Personal Information, PIPEDA, Privacy, Privacy Compliance | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
April 15, 2009
Businesses are increasingly being asked to reduce their “carbon footprint”. And while many customers are interested in doing business with organizations that are trying to reduce their carbon footprint, many customers are also concerned about their own “digital footprints“.
The Discovery Channel has an interesting online tool that allows you to play a simple scenario by conducting your normal transactions as you would on any given day. Doing so shows you how often you provide your personal information to businesses and governments. You can then play the scenario again to try to reduce your digital footprint. Click here to play!
Businesses can help reduce their customer’s digital footprints by ensuring they only collect the personal information of customers necessary for the purposes identified by the organization and required for particular transactions. Additionally, businesses should avoid collecting personal information indiscriminately. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, reducing the volume of personal information that a business collects (and is then responsible for safeguarding and destroying in accordance with applicable privacy laws) helps customers to reduce their “digital footprints”. It also helps businesses to comply with privacy laws like PIPEDA and improve customer relations.
Leave a Comment » | Due Diligence, Identity Theft, Internet, PIPEDA, Privacy, Safeguarding, Safekeeping, Security, Technology | Tagged: Businesses, Customers, Due Diligence, Identity Theft, Information Technology, Personal Information, PIPEDA, Privacy Compliance, Retention, Safeguarding | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
April 13, 2009
Does PIPEDA apply to non-Canadians? It’s a common question.
PIPEDA applies to organizations that collect, use, or disclose “personal information” in the course of a commercial activity. The definition of “personal information” does not specify the residency of the individual to whom the personal information must relate. As a result, organizations are well-advised to manage their personal information holdings in accordance with all of the obligations set forth in PIPEDA regardless of the residency of the individuals to whom information relates. If they don’t, non-Canadians (including U.S. residents) may initiate privacy complaints to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.
Leave a Comment » | Due Diligence, PIPEDA, Privacy, Privacy Breach | Tagged: Businesses, Personal Information, PIPEDA, Privacy Commissioner, Privacy Compliance | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
March 23, 2009
Bell Canada recently announced that it would acquire The Source, a national electronics dealer. Bell has indicated that it will be acquiring substantially all of the assets of The Source.
I don’t know what those assets will be, but I think it is an interesting example of the fact that even in recessions we still see acquisitions of companies. When an organization’s assets are bought, one of the most valuable assets that are purchased is often its customer list.
PIPEDA and other applicable privacy laws, of course, govern transactions involving personal information. In the course of such transactions some companies are now implementing concepts once used only to secure physical assets. For example, many organizations are choosing to employ “escrow” arrangements to ensure the security of personal information.
Most businesses now understand that the implications of violating applicable privacy laws can be very serious to the reputation and bottom line of both the vendor and purchaser. As part of a sale of a customer list, and depending on the specific circumstances, both parties may agree that the customer list be placed in escrow until the transaction is completed. This ensures that what is likely the most valuable asset in the transaction – the customer list – is protected from unintended disclosures prior to the actual transfer of the business.
1 Comment | Access to Information, Due Diligence, Privacy, Sale Transactions, Security | Tagged: Access to Information, Businesses, Customers, Due Diligence, Personal Information, PIPEDA, Privacy, Sale Transactions, Security | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
March 9, 2009
If you’re a privacy professional you will know that Canada’s privacy laws are in place to protect the privacy rights of individuals, not businesses.
Despite this fact and that Canada’s federal privacy law, PIPEDA, has been in force since 2001, it’s surprising how many others are confused on this point.
For instance, I recently had a client make an information request to an organization for access to corporate information. When the organization responded, they denied access to the requested information and claimed that PIPEDA required that they do so in order to protect the privacy interests of a business.
There may be circumstances where organizations have other legitimate reasons for denying access to certain information. There may also be circumstances where privacy laws such as PIPEDA should be cited in denying access to certain business records where releasing the information could unlawfully disclose the personal information of another individual. Organizations should not, however, cite Canada’s privacy laws as a justification to deny access to information requests on account of the privacy rights of a business.
If you encounter this scenario you may be dealing with someone who either doesn’t understand privacy laws or who is perhaps being disingenuous. After all, the general thrust of Canada’s privacy laws is to encourage organizations to create a culture of privacy in order to protect the privacy of individuals whose personal information is collected, used, retained or disclosed by such organizations.
2 Comments | Access to Information, Due Diligence, PIPEDA, Privacy | Tagged: Access to Information, Businesses, Corporate Information, PIPEDA, Privacy | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
March 3, 2009
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) has published some useful Guidelines for Processing Personal Data Across Borders to explain how the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) applies to transfers of personal information to third parties, including third parties operating outside of Canada, for processing.
As the OPC points out, PIPEDA does not prohibit organizations in Canada from transferring personal information to organizations in other jurisdictions for processing, but Canadian organizations are still accountable and the OPC can investigate complaints and audit privacy practices of Canadian organizations.
PIPEDA provides that
an organization is responsible for personal information in its possession or custody, including information that has been transferred to a third party for processing. The organization shall use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while the information is being processed by a third party.
The primary means by which an organization can protect personal information that it transfers to a third party for processing is through a contract. Organizations must also be transparent about their privacy practices, including advising customers that their personal information may be sent to another jurisdiction for processing and that while the information is in another jurisdiction, it may be accessed by the courts, law enforcement and national security authorities.
Check out the OPC’s Guidelines, and if your business hasn’t yet signed privacy contracts with all third parties to whom you transfer or disclose personal information, now may be the time.
2 Comments | Due Diligence, PIPEDA, Privacy, Safeguarding | Tagged: Border Protection, Due Diligence, Outsourcing, Personal Information, PIPEDA, Privacy, Privacy Commissioner, Privacy Compliance, Safeguarding, U.S. Patriot Act | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
February 12, 2009
Canada, U.S. laws on privacy complex
My September 3, 2008 column in the Winnipeg Free Press reports on the findings of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada regarding canada.com’s outsourcing to a U.S. based service provider. The finding highlights the complexities of Canadian and U.S. laws as they relate to the personal information of customers and reminds Canadian businesses of the need to have legal agreements with third party service providers, especially those located in the U.S.
Leave a Comment » | Due Diligence, Government, Privacy, Safekeeping | Tagged: Customers, Due Diligence, E-mail, Outsourcing, PIPEDA, Privacy, Safeguarding, U.S. Patriot Act | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
February 12, 2009
Data “packrats” failing customers: Companies need policies on retention
My December 3, 2008 column in the Winnipeg Free Press details the problems businesses can get in to when they keep every single piece of information on their customers, even when they no longer need it.
2 Comments | Due Diligence, PIPEDA, Privacy, Safekeeping, Security | Tagged: Businesses, Due Diligence, Personal Information, PIPEDA, Privacy Breach, Retention, Safeguarding, Security | Permalink
Posted by Brian Bowman
