Why a Trademark Won’t Save You: Lessons from the Arthurs Nosh Bar Dispute

By Lionel Perez, Founder of CorpCentre and Lawyer

A note before we begin: what follows is commentary on how businesses choose and protect their names. It is not an endorsement of the OQLF’s actions in this matter, or of its interpretation of the Charter of the French Language — it simply describes the rules as they are purportedly applied so that business owners can plan around them. Whether the regulator’s position is sound is a separate, and very live, debate. (Full disclosure: I enjoy a good nosh as much as anyone.)

A single Yiddish word has put a popular Montreal restaurant in the crosshairs of Quebec’s language regulator — and handed every business owner in Canada a useful, if uncomfortable, lesson about how much a name can cost you after the fact.

In June 2026, Arthurs Nosh Bar, a well-known brunch spot in Montreal’s Saint-Henri neighbourhood, confirmed that it had been contacted by the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) following a complaint about its signage. The word at issue was “nosh.” Co-owner Raegan Steinberg pointed out the irony publicly: “nosh” is not even an English word — it is Yiddish, meaning roughly “to snack” or “to eat.” To complicate matters, the full name “Arthurs Nosh Bar” is a registered trademark.

It is tempting to read this as a story about one quirky word. It isn’t. It is a story about the gap between picking a name you love and picking a name that holds up — legally, across jurisdictions, and over time. That gap is exactly where a lot of businesses get hurt, and it is entirely avoidable with the right groundwork at the naming stage.

What actually happened

According to public reporting and the owner’s own account, the OQLF acted on a complaint that the restaurant’s exterior signage did not ensure French was sufficiently — and specifically, markedly — predominant, given that the name contains a non-French trademark.

Two points are worth getting right, because the headlines tend to blur them.

First, the OQLF is not banning the word “nosh.” The contemplated remedy is the addition of French text so that French clearly predominates within the same visual field — not the removal of the trademark.

Second, the existence of a trademark did not make the business compliant. If anything, the owner has noted that the trademark complicates the fix, because altering a registered, brand-defining name is not a trivial signage change.

As with many areas of regulatory law, outcomes often depend as much on interpretation and enforcement discretion as on the text itself.

Nor is this the first Quebec business caught by the rule. In 2024, the Burgundy Lion Pub was questioned over the word “Burgundy” — a matter resolved only after the pub explained that the word referred to its Little Burgundy neighbourhood. The episode underscored that even proper nouns, heritage terms, and culturally significant words can attract regulatory attention, and that whether you can talk your way out of it is far from guaranteed.

The law behind the complaint

Quebec’s Charter of the French Language has required French on public signage since 1977. What changed is the strictness of the standard. Under Bill 96 (formally, An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec), the final signage and trademark provisions came into force on June 1, 2025, and they raised the bar considerably.

The key concepts:

•       “Markedly predominant” French (sections 58.1 and 68.1 of the Charter). Where a recognized non-French trademark, or an enterprise name that includes a non-French expression, appears on public signage visible from outside the premises — a storefront being the classic example — French must now be markedly predominant, not merely present. In practice, that is read as French occupying at least roughly twice the space of the non-French text and having a much greater visual impact.

•       The recognized-trademark exception still exists — but it is narrower than people assume. A recognized mark (registered, or certain well-known unregistered marks) may appear in another language, and only where no corresponding French version of the mark is on the register. Even then, the exception does not exempt you from the markedly-predominant-French requirement on exterior signage. A trademark lets you keep your non-French mark; it does not let you skip the French.

•       Trade names and business names are caught too (sections 67 and 68.1). It is not only trademarks. A business or trade name that contains a non-French expression is subject to the same predominance rule on exterior signage.

In other words, the law treats your brand name, your registered trademark, and the text on your storefront as three related-but-distinct things — and the signage rules apply to what the public actually sees, regardless of what you registered.

Lesson 1: A trademark is not a shield against language law

This is the single most important takeaway, and it is widely misunderstood. Many owners assume that once a name is trademarked, it is locked in and untouchable.

A federal trademark gives you valuable rights — exclusivity within your registered goods and services, a basis to stop confusingly similar marks, and a defensible brand asset. What it does not give you is immunity from provincial signage, labelling, and consumer-protection regimes.

Arthurs Nosh Bar holds a trademark and is still being asked to change its signage. The trademark and the Charter operate in different domains. Treating one as a defence to the other is precisely the error that turns a naming decision into a remediation bill.

Lesson 2: “Non-French” is broader than “English”

A second trap: the rule is not about English. It is about anything that is not French.

“Nosh” is Yiddish. “Burgundy” is arguably a place name. Neither distinction spared the businesses involved from review. Heritage names, culturally significant terms, invented words, surnames, and foreign-language flourishes can all land a name in the regulated category.

If your branding strategy leans on a distinctive, non-French word — and distinctiveness is exactly what makes a name trademarkable — you should assume it will be treated as non-French for Quebec signage purposes and plan accordingly.

Lesson 3: “Markedly predominant” is a design requirement, not a footnote

Compliance here is not a disclaimer in fine print. It is a layout decision.

To meet the standard, French generally has to dominate the visual field — the space allotted to French at least twice that of the non-French element, with the French at least as legible and permanently visible. That is far cheaper to build into a logo, storefront, and brand system at the design stage than to retrofit after you have invested in signage, menus, packaging, and marketing materials.

What’s actually at stake

The downside is not abstract. Under the Charter as amended:

•       Fines run from $3,000 to $30,000 per offence for a corporation, and $700 to $7,000 for an individual. They are doubled for a second offence and tripled for subsequent offences, and a continuing violation can be treated as a separate offence for each day it persists.

•       Officers and directors can face doubled individual fines where the offence is committed by the entity.

•       The OQLF can seek an injunction — including an order to remove non-compliant signage at the offending party’s expense — and can suspend or revoke permits of repeat offenders.

Layer on top of that the commercial costs that fines don’t capture: rebranding, reprinting, lost brand equity, and reputational friction. A name chosen without legal screening can quietly carry all of this risk for years before a single complaint surfaces.

The lesson extends beyond Quebec

While this dispute arises under Quebec’s language laws, the broader lesson applies everywhere.

Businesses routinely encounter naming issues involving trademarks, regulated professions, consumer-protection legislation, advertising standards, and industry-specific restrictions. The legal question is rarely just, “Can I register this name?” It is more often, “Can I actually use this name, in the way I intend to use it, everywhere I intend to use it?”

The answer to those questions is not always the same.

How to choose a name that won’t fight you later

The encouraging part of this story is that almost all of it is preventable at the front end. Before you commit, run the name through a layered screen:

1.    Corporate name availability. In Canada, that means a proper name search — including a NUANS report — to confirm the name is available and does not conflict with existing corporate names. Distinctiveness matters here too: a bare descriptive or generic name is weak and harder to protect.

2.    Trademark clearance. Search existing registered and pending marks for conflicts before you build a brand around the name — a name that clears corporate registration can still infringe someone else’s mark. Then consider registering your own.

3.    Linguistic and regulatory compliance — especially Quebec. If you operate in, sell into, or might one day expand into Quebec, ask early whether the name contains a non-French element and whether your signage can make French markedly predominant without gutting the brand.

4.    Plan the relationship between your legal name, trade name, and trademark. They can differ deliberately — a French-compliant element on the storefront can coexist with a distinctive trademark if it is designed that way from the start.

5.    Confirm digital and practical availability. Domains, social handles, and everyday usability still matter; a name is only an asset if you can deploy it everywhere you need to.

The bigger principle

The Arthurs Nosh Bar episode is not really about one word on one window. It is a reminder that a business name lives inside several legal systems at once — corporate registries, trademark law, and provincial language and consumer-protection rules — and that satisfying one of them does not satisfy the others.

The owners did the “right” thing by trademarking their name, and still find themselves negotiating with a regulator. The missing piece was not effort; it was front-loaded, multi-jurisdiction screening at the moment the name was chosen.

Pick the name you love. Just clear it, protect it, and pressure-test it against every regime that will govern it — before it is painted on the wall.

In our experience, businesses routinely spend far more fixing a name after the fact than they would have spent screening it at the outset. The irony is that the legal review often costs less than replacing a sign.

 

Thinking about a name for a new corporation, or worried an existing one may expose you? CorpCentre can help you get it right from the start — corporate name searches and reports, preliminary compliance review by our specialists, and trademark application services in Canada and the U.S. Choosing your name is the first decision your business makes; make it a defensible one.

This article is general information, not legal advice, and reflects developments as of June 2026. Language-law obligations are fact-specific and continue to evolve; for advice on a particular name, mark, or signage situation — especially in Quebec — consult qualified legal counsel.