Toronto pulls popular anti-littering ads after companies complain

The posters used brand-name packaging to spell insults directed at litterbugs. The city scrapped the campaign after companies raised copyright concerns

Aug. 28, 2014
thestar.com
By Eric Andrew-Gee

Good news for urban litterbugs: you can return to dropping your garbage on the street without being stylishly berated by the City of Toronto.

After rolling out a slick ad campaign that used brand-name packages to spell out epithets like “Pig” and “Lowlife,” accompanied by the tagline “Littering says a lot about you,” the city has pulled the images because some companies complained that their trademarks were being violated.

The series began in mid-August and immediately earned praise online. In one poster, a crumpled du Maurier cigarette package sits next to a crushed Red Bull can; the only visible letters spell “Dumb.”

“I am so pleased with the city of Toronto littering ads. I hope it does the city some good,” tweeted @britneyannxo on Aug. 22.

The images appeared in print publications, transit shelters, and the exterior of TTC vehicles.
But the city did not consult with any of the companies before using their products in the ads and some subsequently objected, said city spokesperson Siobhan Ramsay.

“It was around the trademarks, and they thought the campaign could have a potentially negative effect on the brands,” she said. “All of the images have now been pulled.”

Ramsay declined to say which companies protested. Among the brands depicted were Reese’s Pieces and Gatorade (“Pig”), Fun Dip and Drumstick (“Dipstick”), Sweet’N Low and Life Savers (“Lowlife”), and Lay’s and Krazy Glue (“Lazy”).

The advertising agency Publicis Canada was behind the campaign. It is not yet clear how much the city spent, since the agency has not submitted their invoices, Ramsay said.

Publicis declined to comment. “The city has very stringent guidelines which prohibit us from commenting on any matter,” said company vice-president Brett McIntosh.

Celina Fenster, a Thornhill-based intellectual property lawyer, said the ads do seem to violate trademark protections.

“There are two trademark issues that I can see here,” she said. “One is that there is a section in the Trade-marks Act that says you cannot use another person’s trademark in a way that depreciates its goodwill...The other is that the trademarks are being used without any kind of licence or permission.”

She added that the half-disguised nature of the brands’ appearance did not change the legal calculus. “If it’s still recognizable to the general public, then it has an effect on the goodwill and reputation of the owner.”