Navigating “Made in Canada” Claims in 2025

By Marie Lussier of Fogler, Rubinoff LLP and Celia Ohayon

Since the start of the year, Canadian consumers and businesses have rallied behind the “Elbows Up!” movement and are looking to “buy Canadian”. Homegrown goods are in high demand, and origin claims like “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” are getting more attention than ever. These claims, however, are not just feel-good slogans. They are legal statements and their misuse can lead to penalties, regulatory action, and a loss of consumer trust.

What Changed (and What Didn’t)

On March 7, 2025, the Competition Bureau released updated enforcement guidelines for “Product of Canada” and “Made in Canada” claims. The updates did not change the legal requirements but clarified them to make the rules easier to understand and to apply.

Can Non-English Language Trademarks Be Refused Registration Based on the Foreign Equivalents Doctrine?

By Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard on July 1, 2025 Posted in Branding, Copyright, Europe, Foreign Protection, Trademarks, United States

By Dan Bliss of Howard & Howard

Suppose that you want to register your trademark that is in a non-English language on goods or services for your business in the United States. Will your non-English language trademark need to be translated to English to determine its registrability? If so, can your English translation trademark be refused registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? The answer is YES! if the non-English language trademark is translated into English under the doctrine of foreign equivalents and found, for example, generic or merely descriptive when applied to the goods or services.

How does one determine whether their non-English trademark is registerable? By using the doctrine of foreign equivalents, one can determine whether a non-English language trademark is may be refused registration. E.g., In re N. Paper Mills, 64 F.2d 998 (C.C.P.A. 1933). The doctrine of foreign equivalents has been considered in likelihood of confusion refusals “to determine . . . similarity of connotation in order to ascertain confusing similarity with English word marks.” Palm Bay Imports, Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee en 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d) (prohibiting registration when a proposed mark is “likely . . . to cause confusion, or to cause mistake” with another mark).

The Rise of Class Actions in Influencer Marketing: What Brands Need to Know To Protect Themselves

By Paavana L. Kumar of Davis+Gilbert LLP, Jordan Thompson of Davis+Gilbert LLP, Amy Marcus of Davis + Gilbert and Allison Fitzpatrick of Davis+Gilbert LLP on June 25, 2025 Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Branding, Copyright, Counterfeit Goods, Online Content, United States

Authors: Allison Fitzpatrick, Paavana Kumar, Jordan Thompson and Amy Marcus.

Class actions targeting prominent brands using influencers to advertise their products on social media are on the rise, accusing brands and their influencers of failing to properly disclose paid endorsements.

A series of recent cases targeting brands and their influencers rely on a similar set of facts – namely that consumers paid a premium for goods recommended by influencers that they might not otherwise have purchased, believing these recommendations were based upon the genuine opinions of these influencers rather than part of a paid ad. With damages sought in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, these class actions are proving to be a major concern for brands that engage in influencer marketing.

Major setback for Tiktok’s trademark rights in India

By Gaurav Bhalla of Ahlawat & Associates on June 18, 2025 Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Asia Pacific, Branding, Case Studies, Copyright, Legislation, Online Content, Trademarks

By Gaurav Bhalla of Ahlawat & Associates

The Bombay High Court recently affirmed the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks whereby TikTok’s application for declaration of its mark as well-known in India was disallowed. Interestingly, this decision (by the Bombay High Court) was not on merits but rather had a heavy influence of sovereignty and integrity of India, its defence and public order. This judgment might serve a message to trademark owners of global digital products to be cautious of the manner of operating their products in India.

TikTok was launched in India in 2017 and became an instant hit with its unique algorithm which offered tailored and engaging short-form content to users. TikTok also obtained a trademark registration further strengthening its trademark rights in India. Subsequently, it filed an application for declaration of its mark as well-known as per the procedure laid down under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. Interestingly, while the application (for declaration of the mark as well-known) was being examined, TikTok was banned in India (in 2020) citing national security concerns (owing to allegations of data privacy owing to its servers located outside India, circulation of inappropriate content, etc.).

Uber’s Opposition Fails the Grade in Tutors Trade Mark Dispute

By Jessica Bell of Kalus Kenny Intelex and David Cinque on June 10, 2025 Posted in Australia, Branding, Copyright, Protection & Enforcement, Trademarks, United States

Jessica Bell – Lawyer, Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne Australia

David Cinque – Special Counsel, Kalus Kenny Intelex

The Australian Trade Marks Office has permitted the registration of the trade mark UBER TUTORS after finding that transport and delivery giant, Uber Technologies Inc (Uber Tech) failed to oppose the mark’s registration under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (Trade Marks Act).

Background

Uber Tech

Uber Tech, most commonly known as ‘Uber’, is well known for its on-demand transportation and delivery services. Uber Tech first began using the UBER trade mark in around late 2010 when the company began providing on-demand transportation services in the United States. Uber Tech quickly grew and by 2011, was providing on-demand transportation services internationally. The company has since expanded, offering on-demand food (Uber Eats) and package (Uber Connect) delivery, and a range of other services.

Law 5103/2024: The New Legislative Framework – Provisions for the promotion of Greek-Language Music

By Kriton Metaxopoulos of A. & K. Metaxopoulos and Partners Law Firm and A. & K. METAXOPOULOS AND PARTNERS LAW FIRM on May 28, 2025 Posted in Europe, Legislation, Protection & Enforcement

By A. & K. METAXOPOULOS AND PARTNERS LAW FIRM

On 18/04/2024 the Greek Parliament has enacted Law No. 5103/2024 dealing with the protection and promotion of Greek-language songs as an element of cultural identity. The new law introduces provisions in the form of, on the one hand, guidelines and, on the other hand, obligations for radio stations and managers of public and private shared spaces. Specifically, the law includes provisions related to creating motives for the transmission of Greek-language music, establishing minimum rates of transmission, and setting up an electronic database and online application for Greek-language songs. Additionally, provisions have been made for the procedures for control and the imposition of administrative sanctions.

Different Kinds Of Cool That Still Just Don’t Register: Why Birkenstocks & Melted Rink Ice (AKA Water) Aren’t Copyrightable

By James P. Flynn of Epstein Becker Green on May 20, 2025 Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Branding, Copyright, Europe, Trademarks, United States

By James P. Flynn, Epstein Becker Green

In 2015, the Wall Street Journal observed why Birkenstock sandals might be considered cool:

“It’s a taboo thing,” said New York-based stylist Brian Coats, who dresses Jimmy Fallon. “The fact that Birkenstocks are so uncool makes them cool.” The unstylish stereotype tied to Birkenstocks, said Mr. Coats, has made them ripe for the sort of re-contextualization that happens so often in fashion. [Ortved, CAN BIRKENSTOCKS EVER LOOK COOL ON A MAN?, WSJ, 5/14/2015]

Beauty is in the eye…lash extension: Beauty salon’s actions to remove two trade marks dismissed by the Australian Trade Marks Office

By Jessica Bell of Kalus Kenny Intelex on April 17, 2025 Posted in Australia, Branding, Copyright, Patents, Trademarks

Jessica Bell, Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne Australia

A recent trade mark stoush in the eyelash extension market highlights the importance of registering trade marks in all states of Australia, and ensuring that trade marks that intend to be used are registered as soon as possible.

The Australian Trade Marks Office (ATMO) recently dismissed two related actions for removal brought by beauty salon Whiplash’d Pty Ltd (Whiplash’d) against two registered trade marks owned by Mae Watson (Watson) for beauty-related services including eyelash extensions. Both of Watson’s marks, ‘Whiplash’ and ‘WHIPLASHED’ remained on the register.

Can Trademarks Be Too Descriptive for Registration?

By Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard on April 17, 2025 Posted in Branding, Copyright, Legislation, Patents, Protection & Enforcement, Trademarks

By Daniel H. Bliss

Suppose you want to register a trademark that identifies a source of goods/services for your business. What if the trademark describes an ingredient, quality, feature, function, characteristic, or purpose of your goods/services? Can your trademark be too descriptive to obtain a registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office? The answer is YES! if the mark is highly descriptive and has not acquired distinctiveness.

Trademark Opposition Proceedings in Canada: Proposed Changes Now in Place

By Marie Lussier of Fogler Rubinoff LLP on April 15, 2025 Posted in Canada, Copyright, Foreign Protection, Protection & Enforcement, Trademarks

By Marie Lussier of Fogler Rubinoff LLP

In July 2024, I discussed proposed changes to trademark proceedings in Canada. Following a public consultation period, revised Regulations came into force on April 1, 2024 that incorporate those proposed changes. The changes aim to improve the efficiency of dispute resolution proceedings in Canada. Time will tell if that goal is achieved but, for now, practitioners and stake holders should be aware of key changes affecting the conduct of opposition proceedings in Canada.