What’s in a Brand? How Trademark Law Protects Brand Power

In this second instalment in CIPPIC’s new fashion law blog series (see my first post here) I dive into the nuanced relationship between trademark law, brands, and brand power. What follows is a look at how trademarks help companies establish and build reputation, through the lens of some Canadian fashion case studies.

What’s in a Brand?

A brand is a multi-faceted marketing asset. A brand is a broad recognizable identity or personality created by a company through the strategic use of tangible identifiers—names, logos, slogans, and designs—as well as messaging, and the products or services themselves. A strong brand doesn’t just identify a product. It tells a story about the company’s values, the quality of its products, and what customers can expect when they make a purchase. Lululemon and Canada Goose are two Canadian fashion companies that have built recognizable brands. Vancouver-based Lululemon’s brand focuses on promoting a lifestyle of wellness and activity; Canada Goose’s story centers on quality and extreme weather performance.

Branding is one of many tools for building identity, values, and reputation around a business, product, or service (see Aaron Marcus, Chapter 16, “Branding 101”, in HCI and User-Experience Design and Bill O’Leary, “Branding 101” in Electrical Apparatus. In competitive marketplaces, companies aim to distinguish themselves and their products, positioning through storytelling, aesthetic choices, and consistent messaging so what they’re selling resonates with a particular target audience. The Canada Goose logo and the distinctive design of Lululemon’s products are marketing assets that consumers now associate with those companies because of the stories the companies have told, consistently over time, about these unique identifiers. Branding is the process of building affinities in the minds of consumers based on shared values or aspirations (see Aaron Marcus and Bill O’Leary above). Achieving these affinities is what builds brand equity and drives brand power.  

However, branding is not solely dictated by the company. Consumers shape brands as much as companies do, especially in the age of social media. Consumers connect with companies, products, services for myriad reasons, and upon doing so, create their own brand narrative in the process. These sometimes competing but often constitutive narratives are part of what makes brand protection so challenging. Trademarks are often leveraged to control how others present and use identifiers, which is why trademark law has become so intertwined with brand power. This also explains why assertions of trademark power are becoming increasingly controversial. For example, in United Airlines Inc., v Cooperstock, 2017 FC 616, the airline sued the creator of a parody complaint site (untied.com), arguing its use of the “United” name and logo infringed United’s trademarks—even though the site was clearly critical and non-commercial. This attempt by United, demonstrates how trademark law is increasingly being invoked, not to prevent confusion, but to police reputation and suppress negative consumer narratives about a brand. Brands are sites of social communication, and so expressive vehicles. However, as expression, branding is inherently contested: others engage in the narratives and contest the values brands embody.

Before going further, it is important to clarify that companies themselves are often referred to as brands. This confuses matters. In this blog, ‘brand’ refers to the respective marketing story built by companies and influenced by consumers. However, a company can have its own brand (i.e. personality) while also having other brands within its portfolio. For example, Aritzia is a Canadian clothing retailer with a brand of its own (their choices in narrative, styling, marketing tactics, aesthetic choices, products, etc. that attract a, typically, young, female-identified consumer). But Aritzia offers multiple brands within its product portfolio that cater to different market segments (i.e. TNA for athleisure/fitness, Babaton and Wilfred for office wear, Sunday Best for casual, in addition to the core Aritzia products). These Babaton/TNA/Wilfred/etc. brands are exclusive to the Aritzia world but are admittedly distinct from the brand Aritzia has built for the company overall. In the rest of this blog, ‘brand’ will refer to ‘the brand story’ or personality that is built around a company or particular products/services. However, note that not all authors on this subject maintain the same distinction.

How Trademark Law Services Brand Management

Intellectual property plays a key role in helping companies leverage and safeguard innovation, uphold brand value, and prevent unfair competition. Trademarks are a powerful legal tool for supporting brand management and messaging. Trademarks are legally registered or protected symbols, names, logos, colours, sounds or other identifiers that serve as a source identifier, signalling to consumers the origin of a product or service (see Trade Marks & Copyright 2025 – Canada, s. 2.1. Lululemon’s logo and Canada Goose’s Arctic Program patch are examples of trademarks, registered under intellectual property law, that let consumers know that products bearing those symbols came from those companies and will be of a certain standard or quality.

Trademarks alone are not a brand. Trademarks work in tandem with a company’s strategic visual and sensory marketing to create consistency in the consumer experience, which builds loyalty, trust, and goodwill. Use of a trademark can help establish a company’s reputation by creating associations in consumers' minds between a particular source and its offerings. The familiarity developed through consistent messaging around, and use of, a trademark often lets a company command higher prices due to the perceived value that is created along the way. For instance, Canada Goose’s brand is not just its logo (the trademark) but its image as a luxury outerwear company synonymous with quality, craftsmanship, heritage, and extreme weather performance (the branding). In a market saturated with options, a recognizable brand, like what Canada Goose has built, helps consumers make quick decisions when trying to associate themselves with a certain company because of what it will say about them (this decision can be made for a whole host of reasons).

Trademark law is often mistakenly seen as a comprehensive tool to protect brands. But its scope is far more limited and does not encompass the broader concept or act of branding. Trademark law protects specific identifiers such as symbols, names, logos, slogans, colours, and scents, that distinguish a company from its competitors. It does not protect the broader brand identity, which includes intangible aspects like reputation, values, consumer perceptions, and the emotional connection fostered through branding efforts. Trademark registrations provide the exclusive right of owners to prevent others from using similar marks in a way likely to cause consumer confusion. A well-protected trademark (i.e. registered and strongly enforced) ensures consumers can trust the origin of the products/services they choose. Seeing a trademark can often be an influential part of why a customer chooses to shop at a particular company or chooses a certain product. But a consumer’s ultimate choice is influenced by myriad factors, many of which are often undefined. Although important and powerful, all a trademark is, is a legal tool to protect a specific identifying sign. Anything more and we overstep what trademark law intends.

In conclusion, branding broadly involves storytelling, tone, voice, and aesthetic choices that build consumer loyalty and convey a company’s identity. Trademark law cannot protect these elements unless they are tied to a specific, registered mark. While Canada Goose’s logo is protected as a registered trademark, the story of its Arctic heritage or its association with extreme weather performance falls outside the scope of trademark law. Trademarks signify the origin of goods or services, they do not inherently protect the quality associated with a brand. Branding builds consumer trust through consistent experiences, but trademark law cannot enforce those standards; nor does it guarantee a certain association will be made in a consumer's mind about a product or company. Ultimately, while trademarks serve as legal shields for specific brand identifiers, they cannot capture the full depth of branding—the trust, reputation, and emotional connection that companies work to build. Branding shapes consumer perception; trademark law merely defines its legal boundaries. 

The opinion is the author’s, and does not necessarily reflect CIPPIC’s policy position.