Jamie Bordman, an Ottawa intellectual property lawyer who represented OVO, dismissed Simpson’s claims of a broad victory and muted the case’s direct links to Drake, saying he represented OVO and had no contact with the star. “What this trademark entitles its owner to is the exclusive right to use 6IX with DJ services or, really, any musical entertainment services throughout Canada, and that’s certainly of value,” said Simpson. In a decision released in December, Folz, ruled that OVO’s objection prevented Di Cosmo from trademarking “6IX” for selling goods such as for an apparel brand, but failed to stop him from using it for his services. OVO also argued that if Di Cosmo really was distributing T-shirts and other goods marked with the word 6IX back then, they were given as promotional items and not sold as goods, as trademarked wares are supposed to be.įolz agreed the items Di Cosmo distributed were promotional items to support his DJing business and not independently sold. Michael Di Cosmo provided the Trademark Opposition Board with examples of flyers advertising his gigs that identify him variously as âSIK 6IX,â âDJ 6IX,â and â6IX.â Photo by Michael Di Cosmo OVO argued Di Cosmo did not use the name 6IX from 2000, but rather it evolved over time from “SIK 6IX” to “DJ 6IX” and finally “6IX”.Ĭindy Folz, the adjudicating member of the Trademark Opposition Board, accepted that DJ 6IX was an acceptable variation of 6IX as it merely added a description of the service. He provided the Trademark Opposition Board with examples of flyers advertising his gigs that identify him variously as “SIK 6IX,” “DJ 6IX,” and “6IX.”ĭi Cosmo said he distributed goods featuring the mark 6IX to patrons where he DJed and visitors who liked his Facebook page starting that same year. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Manage Print Subscription / Tax Receipt.

Drake views from the 6 album mega