Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Its Courtroom Barbie!

Shamrock
May 26th, 2005, 06:13 PM
Doll... food .. oh, which IS it?? ;)

Today, lawyers for the U. S toy-giant Mattell Inc. are in Supreme Court to appeal two recent Federal court judgements that permitted a couple of restaurant-bars operating in the Montreal area as "Barbie's" to register the name "Barbies and Design" for the sale of food and catering services across Canada.

Mattell challenges this as a Trademark infingement of their name, and contends this would confuse consumers.

The restaurant, which specializes in barbecue dishes, contends that people are well aware that the name is referring to "barbie" as in.. throw another shrimp on the barbie".

I realize there are such things as copyright, trademarks, etc.. but this just stuck me as funny!
HOW could the two be confused? :crazy:

Do you see this as a valid legal challenge - or a cororate giant pushing it's weight around ?

melanie
May 26th, 2005, 06:23 PM
well thats jsut plain dumb, that means that every aussie had best whisper the name of their barbies, just incase we get done for it. we will now have to refer to our barbies as 'outdoor culinary development, advancement and establishment centres' :D

and you can buy barbeques with the term barbie in the name, but i suppose when its a whole cultural use issue thingy then what can they do.? will they sue all aussies?? we probably deserve it anyway :D :p

Writing4Fun
May 26th, 2005, 06:29 PM
Well, I recently researched trademarks and copyright, and I believe (but don't quote me on this :D ) that you're allowed to use a word with a trademark on it as long as it clearly cannot be confused with the trademarked purpose, as in this case. Now, if they put a picture of Barbie on their storefront and make like it's Barbie's restaurant, then that's infringement. But, when you have a word that is commonly used (as in "barbie" being short for "barbeque", I don't think they can contest it (I think you're safe, Mel ;) ).

Prin
May 26th, 2005, 07:22 PM
It's like Ralph Lauren suing Polo magazine, about polo, for trademark infringement... :rolleyes: Get a life you egotesticle corporate hags!!

Schwinn
May 27th, 2005, 11:11 AM
That's like when Spike Lee sued Spike TV for using "his" name. He argued that people would think it was his station. He even brought in some actor friends to testify that they thought he was starting a new channel. I argued that once they watched it and saw it was for men and associated with testosterone-driven programming, they would know it had nothing to do with Spike Lee--nobody would ever associate that with him...