[dino_bobba_renno]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Actually, the Greenshift lawsuit is another thread. This was to draw attention to the state of Liberal finances summed up in this one paragraph:

$1:

The financial statements also show a $2-million loan with an extremely punishing 9% interest rate, collateralized against the assets not only of the party but of a number of riding associations. This is highly unusual and indicates a degree of financial stress long suspected but never admitted by the party.

That $2 million loan didn't get into the usual media and with 4 by-elections comming up soon (first week of September - two in Quebec and two in Ontario) the state of finances could be a huge point with voters.
The CPC is always slagged as being the party of big businesss but since Chretien's changes to company donations, the Libs have been unable to raise money when the CPC is still going strong. That tells me that they the Libs were far more dependant on Bay Street tnan the CPC are.

Fighting by-elections, campaigning for an election and fighting 2 lawsuits is definately going to be difficult if the party needs to borrow the money to do it.

That's very telling. 9% intrest, wow, libs must be in rougher shape than first thought.

If lenders don't trust the Liberal with 2 million why the hell should Canadians trust them with the entire budget.

[mtbr]

The Libs should be happy ,there is new laws in place to protect them from the "payday loans" outlets

[Thanos]

mtbr mtbr:

The Libs should be happy ,there is new laws in place to protect them from the "payday loans" outlets

Be kind of ironic if one day some of Alphonso Gagliano's friends came to the Liberal's door to "collect" on what was owed. I'd buy that for a dollar!

[ridenrain]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ridenrain ridenrain:

That's fair. With enough money and the right lawyers, there's always a chance you can prove black is white and day is night. We'll have to leave this up to the courts.

What about the Liberals suing them for their share of increased revenue due to all the publicity they are getting?

Aside from your bias against the Liberals you might have been asking about how they can trademark a common phrase or how they can balk at names that are close but not exact.

Trademark infringement is a whole twisted sordid legal landmine.

http://www.greenshift.com (US corporation)
http://www.thegreenshift.ca (Liberal site)

Which one is the trademark infrigement?

How about:
http://www.greenshiftmusic.com
Greenshift - Firefox addon

http://www.greenshift.ca

From their own webpage:

$1:

Green Shift is as much a concept as it is a company. We are a Federal Incorporate of Canada and operate as a For Profit Organization because we believe that a Sustainable future rests not on hand outs from generous souls but on Profit with Principles. We set out to be a Model for what initially began as a plea to others.

Can concepts be trademarked? Isn't that very concept the whole Liberal strategy?

Since none of us are trademark lawyers we can't argue the merits of the case.

If this were the CPC your opinion would be the exact opposite. I hope my opinion wouldn't be but in all honesty if it were the CPC doing it I probably would.

Just to clear the air on this one.. This is how a real party resolves these thimgs:

$1:

Statement - Government of Canada Clarifies Ecotrust Name Matter
OTTAWA, April 13 /CNW Telbec/ - The Honourable John Baird, Minister of
the Environment, today apologized to Ecotrust Canada for any inconvenience
that may have ensued since the launch of the $1.5 billion Canada ecoTrust for
Clean Air and Climate Change.
After we launched the initiative, it came to our attention that this
non-profit organization was already using the name "EcoTrust Canada". To avoid
any possibility of confusion, we have agreed to stop using this name.
The Government of Canada is pleased that an amicable solution could be
found between the two parties.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/arch ... c5220.html


mbtr: SNAP!!

[DerbyX]

That was the road they took. The Liberals probably would have been better suited to alter their name a little more but that still doesn't mean they are legally in the wrong.

Thegreenshift is not the same as greenshift and trademark infringements must be exact.

[mtbr]

Are the Liberals admitting their guilty?

or maybe just a little worried about the possible outcome

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/n ... ada420f098

Liberals might settle 'green shift' tiff
Dispute over title. Woman whose firm has same name files lawsuit
JULIET O'NEILL, Canwest News Service
Published: 6 hours ago

The Liberals hinted yesterday they will seek a settlement with a businesswoman who is suing the party for $8.75 million and says she is willing to go bankrupt to protect her Green Shift company from affiliation with the Liberals' "green shift" carbon tax policy.

Liberal leader Stéphane Dion said yesterday "it's deplorable" that Jennifer Wright, founder of Green Shift, a Toronto environmental consulting firm, is taking the party to court on grounds of trademark violation. Dion said he is willing to fight in court to keep the "green shift" policy name that is attracting attention to the Liberals.

However, Dion also told reporters that "in a practical way we are ready to work with this businesswoman."
Jennifer Wright, founder of the Toronto consulting firm Green Shift, speaks to reporters yesterday at Liberal Party of Canada headquarters in Ottawa after delivering her statement of claim over the party's use of the term "Green Shift."View Larger Image View Larger Image
Jennifer Wright, founder of the Toronto consulting firm Green Shift, speaks to reporters yesterday at Liberal Party of Canada headquarters in Ottawa after delivering her statement of claim over the party's use of the term "Green Shift."


Liberal party president Doug Ferguson also said "given our common interest and passion for the environment, we look forward to a reasonable and amicable resolution that is in the parties' mutual interest."

"We're open to discussion," said Liberal spokesman Daniel Lauzon, adding that for now, the Liberals will press on with their use of "the green shift" label on their proposal to impose a tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels and reduce personal and corporate business taxes.

Wright delivered a legal statement of claim to Liberal party headquarters and held a news conference on Parliament Hill, saying she is "absolutely outraged" by the Liberals.

She estimated the court case would cost $500,000 and said her company did $1.5 million worth of business last year. She vowed to "let it bankrupt us if we need to."

The suit, alleging violation of the Trademarks Act, asks the court to impose: $8.5 million in general and special damages; $250,000 in aggravated and punitive damages; an injunction against Liberal use of the term "green shift"; and a court order requiring the Liberals to hand over to the company or destroy all their green shift campaign pamphlets and material "in an environmentally conscious manner."

[mtbr]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Unless the person suing can be tied to the CPC. That might turn a weakness into a strength.

the Red Star has been pursuing that point of view , with no luck

Jul 10, 2008 04:30 AM.

OTTAWA–The owner of an environmental firm who is suing the Liberal party for $8.7 million over its use of the company's name says she has received offers of financial support for her legal battle from Conservatives.

But Green Shift Inc. owner Jennifer Wright denies the Conservative party is bankrolling legal bills she said could reach $500,000 to stop the Liberals from calling their environmental plan "Green Shift."

"Oh my God, that is ridiculous," Wright said yesterday. "Right now, we're paying."

Initially saying she was not getting support from Conservatives, Wright added: "Well, there's a bunch of them emailing saying they want to give us money."

Green Shift has retained former Progressive Conservative communications guru from the days of Brian Mulroney, Michael Krauss, to orchestrate her media strategy.

Krauss says he is not affiliated with the Conservatives.

The first word of the lawsuit surfaced June 23 on Conservative blog A Step To The Right.

- The Canadian Press

[saturn_656]

"Shift" happens eh Dion!

Figures tho, I don't recall anyone trying to link EcoTrust Canada to the Federal Liberal Party when they threatened to sue the Conservatives.

All of a sudden its the other way around and the EVIL CONSERVATIVES MUST BE BEHIND IT!

Gawd if it weren't so entertaining to see the Libs flopping around like a dying fish I might be a little angry.

[ryan29]

DerbyX DerbyX:

I don't know how far they'll get.

$1:

Spokesman Dan Lauzon said the party simply used a common phrase in the environmental movement, and is not using the brand to sell any products or compete with Wright.

"It's the green shift," Lauzon told The Canadian Press.

"We're taking taxes out of one part of the economy and moving them to another part of the economy. Those words are used widely to describe bold environmental movements."

Wright acknowledged that at least one other company, Greenshift Corp., of the United States, also uses the phrase. She said she attempted legally to stop them but dropped her efforts because of the expense and location of the company.

Wright also has acknowledged the British government last year used the term Green Shift for the name of a task force investigation of carbon-dioxide emissions.

Its a common phrase. Recall when Donald Trump tried to trademark the phrase "your fired". That failed for very understandable reasons.

well it is a common phrase but this is a private company and the liberals were aware it existed . yet they continue to use the name and still don't seem very sorry about what has happened or really care about this business much at all it appears .
they just think they are entitled to do whatever they please and can get away with anything . oh what else is new .

i can't wait till this party is broke and disappears and that day is coming closer each day i suspect . they lose this lawsuit and there finished .

[DerbyX]

ryan29 ryan29:

well it is a common phrase but this is a private company and the liberals were aware it existed . yet they continue to use the name and still don't seem very sorry about what has happened or really care about this business much at all it appears .
they just think they are entitled to do whatever they please and can get away with anything . oh what else is new .

i can't wait till this party is broke and disappears and that day is coming closer each day i suspect . they lose this lawsuit and there finished .

Think again. You have been touting this mythical whole hearted embracing of the cons and abandoning the Libs yet it just isn't happening.

WHat gave her the right to take a phrase already in common usage and co-op it for her company?

[mtbr]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ryan29 ryan29:

well it is a common phrase but this is a private company and the liberals were aware it existed . yet they continue to use the name and still don't seem very sorry about what has happened or really care about this business much at all it appears .
they just think they are entitled to do whatever they please and can get away with anything . oh what else is new .

i can't wait till this party is broke and disappears and that day is coming closer each day i suspect . they lose this lawsuit and there finished .

Think again. You have been touting this mythical whole hearted embracing of the cons and abandoning the Libs yet it just isn't happening.

WHat gave her the right to take a phrase already in common usage and co-op it for her company?

[DerbyX]

As always, we can pick you out of the crowd.

[Wally_Sconce]

New, original phrases can be copyright protected.

Use any phrase long enough, and often enough and it becomes a trademark. Most jurisdictions recognize this.

[DerbyX]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

New, original phrases can be copyright protected.

Use any phrase long enough, and often enough and it becomes a trademark. Most jurisdictions recognize this.

True but legally people can still use that phrase when its distinct from the specific trademark usage and its the original usage.

In this case the term "greenshift" was originally coined long before the company to mean a shift to green philosophies/technologies/attitude.

Thats entirely why it was co-opted for that use. Under those laws the Liberals aren't stealing her copyroght but simply using an already established phrase as it was originally intended for.

There is a difference between well established english language phrases and catch phrases like "What you talk'n 'bout willis"?

[ridenrain]

Again.. that's the other thread:

ridenrain ridenrain:

Actually, the Greenshift lawsuit is another thread. This was to draw attention to the state of Liberal finances summed up in this one paragraph:

$1:

The financial statements also show a $2-million loan with an extremely punishing 9% interest rate, collateralized against the assets not only of the party but of a number of riding associations. This is highly unusual and indicates a degree of financial stress long suspected but never admitted by the party.

That $2 million loan didn't get into the usual media and with 4 by-elections comming up soon (first week of September - two in Quebec and two in Ontario) the state of finances could be a huge point with voters.
The CPC is always slagged as being the party of big businesss but since Chretien's changes to company donations, the Libs have been unable to raise money when the CPC is still going strong. That tells me that they the Libs were far more dependant on Bay Street tnan the CPC are.

Fighting by-elections, campaigning for an election and fighting 2 lawsuits is definately going to be difficult if the party needs to borrow the money to do it.