WWD just now notices gigantic, apparel-related legal dispute in Canada?
LOF gets a pass on this one, as it has only been in existence since Christmas.
But why is WWD just now reporting on a dispute in Canada between the Target we all know and
love have no particular feelings about and a Canadian "Target" that has been fighting the U.S. retail giant since 2002?
This is a perfect real-life illustration of the territoriality/non-use issues LOF discussed just last week. In short, Target wants to (further) expand into Canada, but has encountered a teeny, tiny problem in the form of a Canadian citizen's prior registration of the "Target" mark in his home country.
Apparently, Hell hath no fury like a second-tier big box store chain running out of collaborators with design cred. For eight years, Target has been arguing that it should be allowed to use the "Target" mark in Canada because, inter alia, the owner of the Canadian "Target," one Isaac Benitah, lost his trademark rights due to non-use of the contested mark. Despite temporary victories here and there, the U.S. Target has thus far been unsuccessful in its efforts to wrest control of the name from Benitah. For a more detailed case history, read the fairly recent and seemingly thorough coverage of the dispute at WSJ.com.
Now, back to WWD: as my editor at SmartMoney would always ask, what's the time peg here? Is there a recent development in the dispute that you're not telling us about, Dubs? If so, please report, and LOF will duly pontificate.
Alternatively, just hire [the man behind] LOF to keep your readers current with a weekly legal roundup. Hmmm... yes, actually, let's go with that plan.