I don't think the two situations are the same at all. I get why the Supremes in Ectomorph's example would have a valid concern that a legal blog not have a "trade-mark" having too close a resemblance to that of the Supremes'.
It goes without saying there may be a danger of some readers thinking the Court blog is an official SCC blog.
But the situation referred to by the Globe and Mail is not about copyright and trade-mark infringement. It is about free speech v the paradigms of confidentiality agreements; and as such, there should be specialists in consitutional and tort law willing to take on such a prestigious case pro bono.
I agree that the trademark issue is trivial, and this one is important. However, the common problem is that one of the parties is also the ultimate court of appeal in Canada, which makes the chances for the other party pretty slim.
I'm working from hazy memory here, but a similar thing happened at the SCOTUS after former clerk Edward Lazarus published his book Closed Chambers in the early 1990s.
Commenting by HaloScan
