“Nothing is closer to my heart than toilet paper”
Jennifer Wright, Green Shift Inc.
Need I say more?
Some excerpts from Kady O’Malley’s live blogging on this morning’s presser with paper cup seller and publicity hound Jennifer Wright that was carried live on Newsworld.
11:09:29 AM
Question from Sun Media on how she arrived at the $8.5 million figure. “Marketing experts,” she says. Last year, business exceeded a million.11:10:34 AM
Asked whether the launch has cost them actual business, she dodges the question; companies are “staying quiet” thus far, although some have asked her to keep their name out of it.11:14:17 AM
Tim Naumetz brings up all those other uses of the phrase “green shift” and suggests that she has seen the term out there. Why does she have a right to the term? She’d be happy to explain, she says, but she really doesn’t. Apparently, there was a tussle over greenshift.com—owned by an American company—which the company eventually abandoned.As for the British use, she… Is she seriously claiming to have invented the term “green shift”? She is. Wow.
11:17:36 AM
More from Tim, who has done his homework on what Green Shift, Inc. actually does: coffee cups and other supplies, which it provides to companies. “We’re here to be a program for those who want to be leaders,” she says. The symbol and the name Green Shift show that this is a company that people can trust.11:40:58 AM
Wait, what? Now she’s saying that “Green Shift” actually applies to a “network of companies” that are striving to be environmentally responsible. It’s also the name of her company, and the program offered, and a “concept.”Meanwhile, Michael Krauss is handing out examples of the Green Shift poster, which was printed in 2008.
She’d better come up with something more convincing than today’s incoherent performance if she hopes to succeed in court.
Update: CAITI is helpfully offering the name Green Incentive Plan along with the domain name GreenIncentivePlan.ca for the low, low cost of $10.45. Might not be a bad idea to make the switch. We can still call it “Green Shift” informally.
Update2: From the LPC’s official response via Macleans.
Mr. Ferguson noted that Green Shift Inc. does not have a registered trademark and that the Liberal Party is not using the words “green shift” in connection with the sale of any products or service, which is necessary to meet the legal test for trade-mark infringement.
“The Liberal Party has done nothing in announcing its ‘Green Shift’ that infringes on any valid trademark or other rights of Green Shift Inc. or any other company. In fact, Green Shift Inc. itself uses the words in a descriptive sense on its website,” said Mr. Ferguson.
Mr. Ferguson also said the widespread generic use of the words “green shift” or “green tax shift” has resulted in the right of anyone to use the words in so far as a tax plan is concerned.
“For example, last year, the UK announced a ‘Green Shift taskforce’ to combat the carbon dioxide emissions from the production, operation and disposal of personal computers. Do Green Shift Inc.’s claims also apply to the government of England?” he said.
“That being said, given our common interest and passion for the environment, we look forward to a reasonable and amicable resolution that is in the parties’ mutual interest,” said Mr. Ferguson.
Fairly predictable.
It sure would be interesting to dig into the failed case against GreenShift Corporation, especially given that the U.S. company was only formed three years ago, long after Green Shift Inc. claims the term “Green Shift” was trademarked (which it isn’t — or not registered anyway).
Okay, I sympathized when this silly business began but she utterly lost me when she said this….
. She’s ready to fight til the bitter end, even if it “bankrupts” the company.
Bankrupt? She’s willing to lose her company? And she’s staying with her original lawyer… the one who lost the battle with http://www.greenshift.com? I can see why he would want to work with her… she’s willing to fork over the dough even in hopeless causes.
As for originating the term…
http://www.greenshiftmusic.com/
In business since 1970.
Quite a strange attitude.
I don’t know; I think she’s just kind of dumb.
Her performance today certainly did little to disabuse anyone of that possibility.
I would be careful with Green Incentive Plan. The GIP acronym may easily be taken up by opponents and used as a homonym for the word ‘gyp’, implying that the program is a swindle or cheat.
Ouch! Hadn’t thought of that. Bloody acronyms.
Perhaps she’s taking the donated monies on the Conservative Victory Fund thing…..if so, that’s political.
Yes, I did it, I did it – I read some of the BT’s and one of them pointed out that the $8.5 million is the amount the Liberals get of taxpayer election funds – coincidence?
It’s begining to smell
Hoooo boy. Where to start.
Well, first off, you didn’t bother to take a look at Green Shift’s services offered section, did you?
Toilet paper and all that, huh?
Of course I did, you twat.
I was just making fun of Ms. Wright. It was a very amusing thing to say.
You really have no sense of humour, do you?
Sandi — I never made that connection. Pure coincidence, I’m sure.
By the way, I loved her remarks about the calls she was receiving from people saying they now planned on boycotting the company. I wish somebody had taken her to task on that. Clearly those were Freepers.
Pingback: Shifty green (is that trademarked?) at Bene Diction Blogs On
“She’d better come up with something more convincing than today’s incoherent performance if she hopes to succeed in court.”
Oh, don’t worry. I’m sure there are many “supportive” non-partisans lining up to give helpful advice to her lawyer.
Heh.
And the ironic thing is normally you have nothing better than “pathetic wanker” or some other stupidity to say, and somehow your comments still make it through moderation over at the Nexus.
You really are just a hypocrite through and through, aren’t you?
I’ll say this much for you: you do make me laugh.
How does this play into this situation, if at all?
If you check the trademark registration site, after languishing for a few years, it appears the trademark for Green Shift was approved – on June 27 2008. It’s not yet registered, but apparently it miraculously achieved approval status, despite years of general usage in environmental circles and by other companies, programs, and book titles. And it just happened to occur less than 10 days after Dion launched the plan to the public.
I know there is no competing product, but does the fact that the trademark was finally approved change anything, or just make it more confusing?
Oh, here’s the link – http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/app/cipo/trademarks/search/viewTrademark.do;jsessionid=0000KYZJhZr6eRVln4Kc4t_pZVK:1247nfca5?language=eng&fileNumber=1244652&extension=0&startingDocumentIndexOnPage=1
I doubt the situation changes much with the trademark passing.
To add to the list of greenshifts….
There’s a Foxfire page
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addons/policy/424/2112/0
There’s also a call center that refers to one of its plans as “The Green Shift.”
http://www.cantono.com/DataCentres/GreenShift.asp
As for the US company GreenShift….
There’s a blog devoted to them
http://greenshift-gers.blogspot.com/
This is the most visibility her little venture has ever garnered … she is simply milking the cow.
I doubt anything’s changed with the passing of the trademark. There was a poster Johnny LaRusic (geek not a lawyer) had an interesting take on the situation:
What’s at issue here is whether or not the brand of products called “Green Shift” is likely to be confused with the Liberal plan called “Green Shift”.
Anyway, just wanted to throw in a few more examples of green shift floating on the internet. A Firefox ad-on, a data company (Cantono) that has a program called “The Green Shift.”
Coincidentally, there’s also a blog on the US company Green Shift.
Steve — Oh yes, I’m sure there will be no shortage of “fair weather friends” willing to lend their moral support to her crusade. Of course, these very same people couldn’t give a toss about anything environmental and would normally dismiss her as nothing but a “moonbat” or an “eco-Nazi” or whatever, but she makes are rather useful idiot for their purposes.
Joseph — Thanks for the updated info. Interesting.
RT,
Why on earth are you posting on this?
It is truly lame. It was worth two days of media exposure, but guys like you have got yourself wrapped around the LPC so tightly that you’ve cut off blood circulation to your brain.
Get over it.
But if you truly want a comment. I’ll give you one.
I hope the LPC ends up in receivership. Given Dona Cadman’s deposition, the 3.5 Million is as good as gone from the LPC. In addition, they appear to be close to borrowing against vote money from the NEXT election. Given the GreenShift debacle, expect another settlement of money the LPC doesn’t have.
And THESE want to run the Government of Canada????
The LPC will try and save ten cents by not allowing Godfrey to quit the house, thereby saving whatever sheckles they can on the bye election. Its lame. Very, very lame.
May Green Shift give the LPC the Green Shaft, they so richly deserve.
In addition, your last post to me on the CBC burying the “happy” Federal civil servant article was just un-called for.
They DID bury it. It was third from the top, two hours later it was 16th from the top and falling fast. How can you be blind to this stuff? I truly don’t appreciate your posting something that indicates you think I was purposely lying. I’ve been better than that.
The CBC is almost vibrating with bad journalism. And you aren’t going to acknowledge a problem until…?
How balanced of you.
“Given Dona Cadman’s deposition, the 3.5 Million is as good as gone from the LPC.”
It was NOT a “deposition”, it was an affidavit; an affidavit that said nothing at all relevant to the case. Or did you think that the fact she says she did not introduce Zytaruk to Harper actually changes his own words on the tape?
When she is cross examined on this affidavit, she will be asked all kinds of neat questions like did her husband tell her the CPC tried to bribe him, and was her husband prone to making up slanderous allegations against prominent political figures.
That does not even begin to cover what HARPER will have to answer when he is cross examined.
Try not to confuse legal posturing with actual legal grounds.
This particular lawsuit can only succeed if the plaintiff demonstrates actual damages, and that they can be attached to the fact the liberals used this name. I suggest that a lawsuit filed within a month of the green plan being launched is going to have a hard time demonstrating this is about damages and not about something else.
What is that? Am I a purple bat?
Actually, it is kind of fitting…
Patsy, Patsy… I’m miles ahead of you. Yes, I looked at their trademark application weeks ago, you tool. Contrary to your assertion, it has not been “approved” since 2005. We’ve also discussed here the various aspects of protection available to this company on the basis of “prior use” and so on. Go back to the old blog v.2.0 and do a search on “Green Shift” and you’ll see the postings.
And no, my “sorry ass” is not yours. I’ll approve your comments if I feel like it and dump them if I don’t. It seems only fair given that’s the treatment you offer at your little shithole of a blog. Speaking of which, shouldn’t you be working on some interminably long, boring post fulminating about what a cad I am or something.
Gayle — They’re autogenerated “monsters” which are a lot more charming than the default pattern thingees that were appearing before. I found those highly annoying.
Tomm — Why on earth am I posting on this, you ask. Do you run around asking Steve Janke why he posts on the murder of Asian prostitutes or Neo posts on the killing of/by every swarthy person in Toronto? Just wondering out of curiosity.
But to answer your question, having some professional concern with copyrights, intellectual property and advertising, I find it quite interesting on that level. As a political cock-up, it’s also quite amusing to watch the trainwreck unfold. I suppose you could call it lame to some extent. Well, so be it. There are other posts you can comment on. I’m not totally fixated on this issue to the exclusion of everything else. There’s the matter of the atheist suing the Pentagon for infringement of his constitutional rights, for example.
Regarding an earlier comment about the CBC “burying” the news about ecstatic civil servants, sorry if you felt that it was uncalled for. It’s not uncommon for stories to sink like a stone on news web pages. You would really have to study the normal rate of rotation before being able to reasonably claim that it was “buried” as you put it.
I do watch these things and am sometimes quite surprised at how rapidly stories are swapped in and out and shuffled from prominence to relative obscurity in a matter of hours. There’s nothing unusual or particularly nefarious about this. I think you’re reading far to much into that.
I didn’t mean to suggest that you were purposely “lying” more just that you yourself are incredibly biased against the CBC (e.g., your claim that it’s “vibrating with bad journalism” as a case in point) and this informs, and I would suggest, distorts your impressions. Therefore, I’m not just going to take your anecdotal account of something at face value without further corroboration. And that, my friend, is a “balanced” approach.
RT,
Thank you, much more balanced. It looks like we can agree to disagree on certain topics.
The Green Shift thing is just on the edge of ridiculous. The company can post their lawsuit, but the media has got to spend their time doing something other than chasing ambulance chasing lawyers around. I saw the press conference and the whole thing was just weak.
Whatever happened to digging into a story? Journalism just keeps sinking further into the muck of mediocrity.
(www.mediocrecanadian.com???).
I would say one thing on behalf of bad journalism, Stock Day recovered, at least to some extent, perhaps lazy, bad and just plan brain dead journalists can too.
Gayle,
Sorry… affidavit…
Do you think the LPC’s case is stronger now that Dona Cadman is clearly disagreeing with the “journalist” that is claiming not to have monkeyed with the tape that experts have said was monkeyed with? What about the LPC taking some half cocked story and spreading it like confetti on the internet?
I’m not a lawyer (as you know), but things don’t look so good.
Tomm – no one is saying the relevant part of that tape has been “doctored”. The only relevant part of the tape is Harper’s own words, though I agree that what was said before would give those words context.
Harper is the only person who can explain his words, regardless of any context. I believe all these recent moves are an attempt to strong arm the LPC into settling before Harper has to actually testify.
So, no, I am not concerned in the least about this affidavit. These are minor points that are not relevant to the issue at hand. Discrepancies between witnesses happen every day in courts – no one is expected to remember events perfectly. At the end of the day, if the author did not properly remember the details of meeing Harper, it hardly means anything. What possible motive could he have to lie about this? How does it benefit him to say Dona Cadman introduced him to Harper rather than some political aide did so. How does that make his story any stronger?
Tomm — I’d agree that there’s an element of silliness to the kafuffle over the “Green Shift” name. In fact, my first inclination (as you can see from the initial post a couple of weeks ago) was just to laugh it off. I actually started off by saying that Matt, one of the first bloggers to “break” the story was all wet and thought he was making a fool of himself, but then things started to escalate and take on something of a life of its own and therefore it could no longer just be dismissed.
By the way, had I just l blown it off as beneath contempt and not worth discussing, I would likely have been criticized for that as well — perhaps for being arrogant or aloof or something. Sometimes you can’t win.
It has irked me perhaps more than others because I really could see how this might have been turned to the company’s advantage — allowing them to still reap the benefits of publicity without the need of getting embroiled in a messy, rancorous lawsuit.
I also think that Ms. Wright is being “played” by people that certainly don’t have her best interests at heart and she seems all too willing to go along with it. Furthermore, as I’ve said before, the notion that people will find her company and its products/services easily confused with a political policy program seems like a real stretch that depends on thinking her target market is made up of really stupid, naïve people.
That said, it is what it is and now it’s up to the Liberals to deal with it. I think they’d be better off just dropping it and moving on. Just call it a carbon tax and forget about “branding” it at all. People seem confused about it at present with the branding in any case, so it’s obviously not doing them any good.
And here’s another thing that crossed my mind. If the Liberals are allegedly “infringing” on her registered trademark, then are we (that is to say bloggers, newspapers and other media) complicit in that violation of her intellectual property when we use the term “Green Shift” in connection with anything other than her company?
I should add there have been countless studies on witnesses and their memories. Sometimes in jury trials judges have to instruct juries on that.
I once watched a trial when a police officer gave one account of events, and then I listened to his partner give a completely different account. That does not mean either or both were lying – it means that memories are fallible.
That is why, for example, police officers are supposed to get as detailed a story/description as possible from witnesses at the time the offence is being investigated. Otherwise, by the time the case gets to trial the crown would be left with as many different versions as there are witnesses.
For that matter, the simple fact that Harper has three witnesses who agree with his version does not mean his version is correct. Memories can be affected by suggestion. For example, if Harper sat down with Ms. Cadman and said: “you remember Donna, I had just left the house, no one was with us during our conversation, I met the guy on your driveway…”, Ms. Cadman may honestly hold the opinion that is the way events unfurled. That does not mean they did.
That is why a discrepancy on a minor point is often quite irrelevant. What would be relevant is a discrepancy on a major point – such as if Harper denied ever saying anything on tape.
Just one more thing on this off topic discussion, if you are interested you might want to look up Elizabeth Loftus. She did a study on creating false memories and it is fascinating.