This Kat would like to say a big thank you to Chris Torrero for sending us the link to this story!
Three years ago, the City of Terrace and Kitasoo Band Council (from
British Columbia, Canada) asked Mike Urban to stop using the name and image
‘Spirit Bear’ on his brand of vodkas and gins. Terrace and the Band Council had
previously filed trade mark applications for ‘Spirit Bear’. Mr Urban (from
Urban Distilleries) refused, as it would mean investing into the creation of a
new brand altogether. Terrace and the Band Council therefore sued him and the
matter proceeded to Court.
 |
|
Urban Distilleries donate part of their proceeds of sale to the Spirit Bear Youth Coalition to help protect the animal |
Meanwhile Mr Urban can continue to use the symbol of a Spirit
Bear on his bottles and does not have to worry about rebranding. The Spirit
Bear is a nickname for the Kermode bear, a white, non-albino species of the
black bear, which can be found on the North-West coast of British Columbia.
This bear is the official mammal of Mr Urban’s province. Spirit Bear is a
reference to the bear, but also to spirits: strong distilled alcoholic drinks.
Since the white Kermode bear is specifically found in that
area, it may have been advisable for the authorities to apply for geographical
indication protection, relying on Article 22(1) and Article 23 TRIPS. At the
moment, there does not appear to be one, which allows anyone to use the name
and image of the bear to commercialise their products. However, it is unlikely
that the alcohol produced there would qualify for this protection, unless its
“quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially
attributable to its geographical origin.”
Spirit Bear: not an Urban myth, rules court
Reviewed by Unknown
on
Tuesday, September 09, 2014
Rating:
Reviewed by Unknown
on
Tuesday, September 09, 2014
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
![[UPCKat] UPC Court of Appeal confirms that opt-outs may be withdrawn for patents subject to pre-UPC national litigation](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpmrXJ0cC3SxOoivC5ULhM28pQmX9tykkfzReC-ZaHlNPANbFKM6qY-jGJUpJbI6VWkoJH2kL867Uqs-KAOosZHW-Voz25uAZwOw2RUO65FeTgLEbGFtTAq6tQ-9-uzLRW4oHj1EcMR2xqvSOVOXN2BSRYuMJvTGXub5Htcij5mAgo2HX2M90LXA/s72-c/cat%20opt%20out.png)
Posts
As often seems to happen information gets lost through use of a news article rather than the decision (which while not yet published is available upon request).
ReplyDeleteIn brief (and with the disclaimer that I represented the Defendant) official marks for "SPIRIT BEAR" were asserted by the City of Terrace and the Kitasoo Band Council. In Canada official marks can be filed by a government entity, and do not have to be specific to any wares or services, making them potentially very powerful means of trademark like protection.
Geographical indicator protection would not seem applicable in this case, as the Plaintiffs do not produce or license alcoholic beverages, while the Defendant is a Distillery. On the subject of geography I note that BC is a rather large Province, being approximately 3.8 times larger than the UK as currently composed, and that there is a significant geographical distinction between the Plaintiffs and Defendant, as well as a physical distance roughly equivalent to that between England and Switzerland.)
While confusion was argued, no ruling on the issue was made, as the Court found the issue of validity determinative to the case, holding that the official marks were not registered correctly.
Any potential double entendre regarding "spirit" was not argued by either side.
I would note that this is a trial level decision, and an appeal may still be taken up.