Groovle Case Featured in Excellent Article on ADR in Lawyers Weekly

Journalist Christopher Guly has written an excellent piece on the UDRP and how it is at the vanguard of online alternative dispute resolution. In this article, Mr. Guly discusses the Groovle.com case and interviews me about the case and about the UDRP.

Canada Missing Digital Revolution

In this concerning article from the National Post, journalist Matt Hartley, reports that Google's Canadian born CFO, Patrick Pichette, "has a unique view of the business landscape in his home country of Canada."

Mr. Hartley reports that, "although Canadians spend more time online than just about any other nation in the world, advertising dollars and marketers haven't followed audiences online to the same degree as in other countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom."

Mr. Hartley also reports that according to Google CFO, Mr. Pichette, in Canada "the needle hasn't moved yet in any significant way" and "Canadian companies do not spend what would be required to actually capture the advertising opportunity; they are staying traditional in their behaviour and mindset."

Which is hardly news for me. Just take a look at the lack of any significant market for .CA domain names and the lacklustre number and depth of Internet players in Canada.

Hopefully comments from qualified observers of Canada such as Mr. Pichette, will not fall upon deaf ears. Canada needs a wake up call, if it is not already too late.

Solid UDRP Decision From Panelist Jonathan Turner

WIPO UDRP Panelist, Jonathan Turner, deserves kudos for authoring a fine decision which makes excellent use of appropriate and highly relevant case law, in the aidsdrugsonline.com case (February 5, 2010).

He wrote as follows in this case brought by a Canadian against a Californian, wherein the Complainant alleged that the Respondent was a "cybersquatter":

"The more descriptive the term, the more extensive must normally be the use, if it is to acquire such a secondary meaning and become distinctive of a particular company. Where a term is highly descriptive, even very extensive use may be insufficient to establish the requisite secondary meaning, as is illustrated in Canadian and United States law by Canadian Shredded Wheat Co. Ltd. v. Kellogg Co. of Canada Ltd. [1938] 1 All ER 618 and Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111.

In this case, the Complainant has not provided any specific evidence as to the extent or nature of its use of the term in which it claims rights, apart from mentioning its website which is located by a domain name consisting of the alleged mark. The Complainant has not stated the value of its sales using the alleged mark or of its expenditure on any advertising or other promotion under the mark. Nor has it disclosed the nature of any advertising or promotion. There is no evidence showing that consumers have been taught to regard or have come to perceive the term as a brand. "

Mr. Turner's excellent reference to appropriate and highly relevant case law (the "shredded wheat" cases) is of particular interest to me as I relied on the Canadian "shredded wheat" case in the CHEAP TICKETS case (See Paragraph 15 of Justice Strayer's decision).