Comments

For a very long time Marlboro Virginia Blends were my brand of choice. After having been turned on to them by my then room mate, Ben, I went to the gas station he procured them from and bought their stock out. For the next three months the only cigarette I would touch was Marlboro Virginia Blend. When the only retailer I knew of stopped selling these wondrous cigarettes I fell into a slump and began smoking those wretched Pall Mall and L&M Reds. But when the gas station I originally bought out began selling them again I was overwhelmed with joy. Having bought a pack I smoked one as soon as I was out the door. But the taste had changed no longer did they have the thick, airy semi sweetness that once marked these as Virginia Blends, and no longer did they have the slow mellow taste that I had come to know and love. They were harsh, fast burning pieces of trash. Something changed with Virginia Blends perhaps it was the shelf life, perhaps it was the manufacturing techniques. Before this I was glad to pay the high price for them, but after getting through half of the pack I bought I had to give them away. Overall, from past and current experience, I would give these a 3 out of 5. Now if I had rated these three months ago I would have given them a 6, and had I rated this from my most recent experience I would give them a one. But, overall, they deserve a 3.

Report this review as inappropriate

Why marlboro country ends at the border – the globe and mail

Ïåðåâîä ïåñåí never shout never: ïåðåâîä ïåñíè coffee and cigarettes, òåêñò ïåñíè. ëèíãâî-ëàáîðàòîðèÿ àìàëüãàìà.

Since Philip Morris cannot use the Marlboro name in Canada, its cigarette packages look almost like Marlboro knockoffs. They use the same white background with the rooftop design (most famously in red, but also in gold, silver and green), the come to where the flavour is slogan, and even the same font on the name all design elements that it does have the right to use in Canada. But it has to use the brand names Matador or Maverick. The current problem began in 2006, when the company put out a new package court documents call it the world s first no name brand of cigarette. It used the same design, but with no brand name just a descriptor, world famous imported blend, on the side of the package.

Imperial Tobacco, Canada s Marlboro maker, cried foul. Imperial s packs use the brand name, but the design is very different from the other Marlboro, and includes a maple leaf and the word Canadian. The problem is the global brand s creep into this country Canadians are familiar with the other Marlboro through travels abroad and through exposure to U.S. advertising. The question in the court case, which recently reached the Federal Court of Appeals, was this Without the Matador or Maverick label distinguishing it from Marlboro here, did the no name version create confusion? In late June, the justice ruled that it did.

The case is complicated by the fact that Canada is a dark market for cigarettes that is, except for some specialty shops, cigarettes are not displayed openly. Customers cannot point out their selection they have to ask for a product by name. Surveys submitted as evidence in this case showed that many customers were asking for the no name product using the Marlboro name, and many retailers also refer to them as Marlboro.

Federal Court of Appeal Madam Justice Johanne Gauthier determined that even though the rooftop did not use the Marlboro name, the associations that the package created in customers minds caused confusion, and therefore infringed on Imperial s Marlboro trademark. Ms. Gauthier granted an injunction preventing Rothmans Benson & Hedges Inc. (the Canadian affiliate of Philip Morris International) from selling its cigarettes in the no name package.

This is a case that acknowledges the non verbal elements of brand association, said Beth Macdonald, a counsel with McCarthy T trault in Vancouver who specializes in intellectual property and trademark law.

It s not enough that the packs do not have any literal resemblance The ruling determines that a package can infringe on a trademark simply by suggesting an idea.

Ms. Macdonald believes this case has wider significance It opens the door for other marketers to challenge the widespread practice of copycat packaging.

Examples abound Germany based discount grocery store chain Aldi sells the Protane brand of shampoo and conditioner in bottles similar to the well known Pantene brand. Vaseline lotion is another product frequently seen on shelves beside similar looking bottles for generic brand lotion. Nor is it limited to generic or store brands In 2010, Coca Cola Co. filed a trademark lawsuit in the U.S. against rival Pepsico Inc., claiming the design of the packaging for its Trop50 fruit juices copied the shape, style and large green caps of its Simply juice brand. They settled last year.

Creating confusion with a more well known product can be highly valuable for a competitor, said Chun Qiu, a marketing professor at McGill University, who focuses on the subject. At most, a consumer will be misled into buying the copycat product once, but that s all a generic brand needs.

An important value of copycat packaging is to induce product trial, Prof. Qiu said. The consumer will try the cheaper brand, and if it is close enough in performance to the name brand, the hope is that they ll choose the lower cost version on purpose next time.

The tobacco trademark case gives brand owners a way to push back, and create more caution in the minds of generic brands, Ms. Macdonald said. The courts will now be able to look at the ideas suggested, and not just the literal ideas, but the intangible associations consumers may have.

That is, if the current decision stands. Ms. Macdonald said she would be shocked if Rothmans Benson & Hedges do not request leave to appeal. Chris Koddermann, the company s director of corporate affairs, said it is reviewing its legal options. (Imperial did not respond to a request for comment.) For now, it is complying. Last week it relaunched its no name cigarette in packages that now include the brand name Rooftop.

But while the case may hold some hope for other brands, the confusion surrounding the Marlboro brand in Canada may not be so easily resolved. When clerks in two gas stations in downtown Toronto last week were asked for Marlboros, they each reached behind the counter and pulled out the freshly redesigned packs, their name clearly displayed Rooftop.

In Canada Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. sells Marlboro. It is not the same cigarette as those sold under the famous name elsewhere, and the packaging looks completely different.

In the U.S. and internationally Altria Group sells Marlboro through Philip Morris USA. This is the Marlboro most people think of, in the white package with the red rooftop design. Philip Morris International sells Marlboro everywhere else in the world where the brand is available, with similar packaging and logo as the brand sold in the U.S. Despite the similarities in name, they re not the same company Altria spun off PMI in 2008.