To add some spice to a previous class discussion, this “shopper in a hurry” wanted to share what he recently found at No Frills. It’s yet another take on that same sriracha chili product! Despite having the exact same shape of bottle, the getup is otherwise distinct. As was noted, the lawyers for the no-name brand probably advised against a green lid and transparent label with rooster depiction. I also noticed the price difference ($3.99 vs $7.99 for the authentic sauce), which was one of the many factors suggesting a lack of confusion in Institut National. One wonders whether the shopper in a hurry would notice this contrast. I guess it depends on whether the average shopper is, like me, “ballin’ on a budget.” Furthermore, I doubt that the bottle shape on its own is strikingly distinctive enough to suggest a particular trade source, unlike in Ray Plastics. In any case, I’m sure it’s sufficiently spicy.
The other pictures are a comparison between an authentic Allard hat and one that I received from one of our student clubs, the “Mallard” Law Birdwatching Society. It reads, “Mallard School of Bird Law.” Could this be a copyright issue? This is by no means direct copying, but if it was, I think that it would safely fall into one of the eight exhaustive fair dealing categories under s.29 of the CA. Specifically, it fits into the parody category as seen in United, given that it seems to be poking fun at the law school (and its prohibitive approach to unofficial merchandise) while relating to the activities of the club. As for the second leg of the fair dealing test, it should be noted that these hats were given away freely and not produced for profit. On the other hand, many copies were made, which may lean more toward unfairness. As for the amount of dealing, the hat contains no actual UBC coat of arms or the name “Allard” and is overall quite a niche reference. Alternatives…maybe? Nature of the work…nothing unpublished or confidential about the original. Finally, I don’t expect this work to have any negative economic effect upon the original. Not to pass the duck, but what do you think?
Communications Law