When is a chair not just a chair?

When it’s a Muskoka chair that has long been featured on the labels of Muskoka Brewery products — and it suddenly starts appearing on promotional T-shirts produced by Molson Coors.

Last Thursday, Muskoka Brewery sued the international brewing giant for using the image of what the brewery called Adirondack chairs — an American term for Muskoka chairs — on its T-shirts. The chairs have long been a staple of Muskoka Brewery’s marketing campaigns.

“If you don’t protect your trademark, you lose it. We had to do this,” said Muskoka president Todd Lewin. “There are thousands of cases of Canadian with this T-shirt out there in the market on a long weekend.”

Lewin said that given Molson’s history of acquiring smaller craft breweries — including Granville Island, Creemore, and Quebec’s Trou du Diable — there was also a concern consumers might have thought Muskoka had sold out.

“People need to know we’re independent. That matters,” said Lewin.

The suit seeks the destruction of the offending T-shirts, as well as any profits Molson gained from their use, and damages to the value of Muskoka’s brand. No dollar figure was cited.

A Molson Coors spokesperson said the company was aware of the claim, but wouldn’t comment.

To the average consumer, the idea of a company being able to trademark an image of something as common as a chair might seem puzzling. But it’s those very consumers that trademark law is designed to protect, legal experts say.

“The laws are there for good reasons. It’s a matter of consumer protection, so they know what they’re buying and who it’s from,” said law professor Giuseppina D’Agostino, founder and director of the intellectual property law program at Osgoode Hall law school.

In any trademark case, the heart of the matter is consumer perception, says Myra Tawfik, an IP law specialist and professor at the University of Windsor’s law school.

“The standard is whether or not consumers will be confused,” said Tawfik, adding that the potential for confusion in the beer chair war is real.

Still, some cases even catch her by surprise.

One head-scratcher? A European court ruling last year that a Dutch shoe company had infringed the trademark of French luxury fashion line Christian Louboutin by painting the soles of some shoes red. That shiny red sole has been a staple of Louboutin’s designs since the early 1990s.

“Trademarks have incredible value to companies. Now, there are companies trademarking not just images or words, but sounds and colours and fragrances,” said Tawfik.

For D’Agostino, some companies can push things too far in the name of protecting their own trademarks.

Take, for instance, the case of French champagne giant Veuve Clicquot claiming trademark infringement by a small Quebec-based clothing chain, Boutiques Clicquot. The champagne company sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, where the Quebec company won in 2006

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“Would people really confuse champagne with an apparel shop? That one really surprised me,” said D’Agostino.

While Tawfik says that Muskoka Breweries may have a valid case against Molson Coors, resorting to a lawsuit too quickly is not always the best way to resolve such disputes, according to James Kosa, head of the IP law practice at Toronto-based law firm WeirFoulds, and past chair of the Canadian Bar Association’s IP law group.

“There are other considerations than just the trademark law,” said Kosa. “There can be reputational damage to suing. There can be reputational damage to being sued. And also, litigation can be expensive. Sometimes it’s just a better idea to settle, and put that money toward marketing.”