yes but their published tm didnt come thru til 2018 and 2020.
So what?
If there is one thing that domainers most frequently do not understand about trademarks is that REGISTRATION OF A TRADEMARK IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A TRADEMARK.
In the US, Canada, and many other countries, you do not "get a trademark" by filing an application with some government agency. The way you "get a trademark" in the US, Canada, and many other countries is simply by using a word, phrase or symbol on or in connection with your goods or services in such a way that the word, phrase or symbol distinguishes your goods or services from those of others in the relevant marketplace.
If you've been doing that you have a trademark. End of story.
You may then choose to register your mark, in order to obtain a raft of advantages. If you register your mark in the US, then it is presumed valid, of nationwide effect, provides public notice, provides a right of suit in federal instead of state court, and a number of other things.
But, and I can't emphasize this enough, you "get a trademark" by using a distinctive term in commerce on your goods or services. You do not "get a trademark" by filing some stuff with a government office somewhere.
It is bleedingly obvious that this guy registered Binance.ca months after someone else had already received considerable consumer recognition for this inherently-distinctive made-up word in the market for financial services, and that the sole value of the domain name was due to the fact that someone had already established a clear reputation in that market.
All of the comments to the effect of "but they filed some form with a government office on (some date)" simply fail to grasp the most basic concept of "what is a trademark" in the US, Canada, and many other countries (including all countries whose legal systems are derived from English common law).
My "dog" analogy should be familiar to long time members. In some places, if you own a dog, you must obtain a license for the dog, in order to be entitled to certain legal privileges, such as the right to walk your dog in public.
However, whether you own a dog is not determined by whether you've filed the paperwork for your dog license. If you own a furry animal with four legs and a tail that barks, then you have a dog. You did not get a dog by filling out the form for a dog license. You already had a dog when you did that.
So, lets say you just bought a dog and brought it home on Saturday. You are planning to go to the city office some time during the week and get your dog license, but you obviously haven't done that yet. On Sunday, I break the fence to get into your yard and steal your dog. You call the police to report your dog stolen.
Okay, do you have that so far?
The police officer comes over to your house and you show them the receipt for what you paid for the dog and pictures of you playing in your yard with the dog on Saturday. You show them that someone has broken your fence, and you tell them your dog is now missing.
If that police officer follows the Namepros logic of trademarks, then she will say, "I checked the city records and there is no dog license or application for a dog license. Therefore, we have concluded that you did not have a dog."
No, it just doesn't work that way. Whether you have applied for a dog license is not what determines whether you own a dog. Likewise, whether someone has applied for or received trademark registration somewhere does not determine whether or not they have a trademark.
It's really mind boggling that people continue to have this sort of voodoo belief system around trademark registration and what it means. Yes, trademark registration records can be meaningful in a lot of ways, but they do not tell you whether someone has a trademark. Additional information is required to know that.
If one pays attention to domain dispute proceeding decisions, this is such a common situation that it is included among the frequent UDRP issues in the WIPO Overview of UDRP decisions. While having a trademark registration is a simple way to show that one owns a trademark (along with continued use), one can also show
unregistered trademark rights by appropriate evidence:
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item13
1.3 What does a complainant need to show to successfully assert unregistered or common law trademark rights?
To establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP, the complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant’s goods and/or services.
Relevant evidence demonstrating such acquired distinctiveness (also referred to as secondary meaning) includes a range of factors such as (i) the duration and nature of use of the mark, (ii) the amount of sales under the mark, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys.
-------
The undue fixation on trademark registration or application dates among domainers remains the single most significant misconception in the community.
It's pretty obvious that the binance.ca registrant has no idea what he is talking about in general, although the more amusing point in his rant is the notion that the complainant has undertaken action in Canada because it is difficult for him to litigate in Canada. That's kind of dumb, because we are talking about a .ca name. It's the Canadian ccTLD registry, so the natural jurisdiction for the dispute is Canada.
It's just another example in a decades long line of blowhard cybersquatters who don't understand basic principles of trademark law.
?
