No Hotel in Canada? No Problem – Trademark Owner Maintains Trademark Registration With Hotel Services

The Federal Court of Canada (the “Court”) recently released its decision in Hilton Worldwide Holdings LLP v Miller Thomson, 2018 FC 895. In the decision underlying this appeal, the Registrar expunged the Canadian trademark registration for WALDORF-ASTORIA, owned Hilton Worldwide Holdings LLP (“Hilton”), on the basis of non-use. The Court allowed the appeal, and found that Hilton had proven the requisite use of its trademark in Canada, notwithstanding the fact that it did not operate a physical hotel in Canada.

Under the Canadian Trade-marks Act (the “Act”) a trademark is deemed to be used in association with services if it is “used or displayed in the performance or advertising of those services.” Courts have found that this statutory provision includes a condition that the services themselves must be performed or delivered inside Canada, and the mere advertisement of services in Canada does not constitute use within the meaning of the Act.

For trademarks associated with hotels, the Registrar has interpreted this condition restrictively. The Registrar has issued a number of recent decisions which found that the operation of a “bricks and mortar” hotel in Canada is necessary to establish the use of a trademark for “hotel” or “hotel services” in Canada (see, for instance, Bellagio Limousines v Mirage Resorts Inc, 2012 TMOB 220; Stikeman Elliot LLP v Millennium & Copthorne International Limited, 2017 TMOB 34; and Ridout & Maybee LLP v Sfera 39-E Corp, 2017 TMOB 149).

In contrast to the Registrar’s decisions involving “hotel services”, the Court has increasingly recognized circumstances in which companies operating outside of Canada can establish use of their trademarks in association with services directed to consumers in Canada. In HomeAway.com v Hrdlicka, 2012 FC 1467, the Court held that the appearance of a trademark on a computer screen via a website accessed in Canada, regardless of where the information may have originated from or is stored, constitutes use and advertising of the mark in Canada. The evidence in HomeAway.com also showed that people in Canada used the service at issue to post available rental properties located in Canada, and that these postings were available online to customers in Canada.

In allowing the appeal brought by Hilton, the Court focused on the ordinary understanding of the term “hotel services”, which would include ancillary services, such as reservation and booking services. Because these ancillary services would be included in “hotel services”, the Court found the Registrar erred in equating these services with “the operation of a hotel” – services which can only be performed at a physical hotel location. The ancillary services, in contrast, go beyond the physical “bricks and mortar” hotel, and the evidence showed that Hilton had performed such services in Canada, despite operating a physical hotel in another country.

Moreover, the type of hotel services which can be delivered online had greatly expanded since Hilton’s registration issued. The scope of the registration, according to the Court, must be considered in light of the development in online commerce as it relates to the ordinary commercial understanding of “hotel services.” Technological developments which occurred post-registration meant that Hilton could provide services online to Canadians who benefited from them. This also supported Hilton’s claim that it used the mark in Canada.

The decision forms part of a growing trend of Canadian trademark decisions which recognize that companies based entirely outside of Canada can offer services in Canada, and that the performance of those services will constitute use in Canada of the trademarks associated with such services.

David Bowden

2018 Global 500 Brands: Who Takes Prime Spot?

February is the month Canadians look to for signs winter may come to an early end. It’s also the month when trademark practitioners around the world eagerly await Brand Finance’s Global 500 report. With an impressive 42% increase in brand value, AMAZON jumped from 3rd spot last year, to take the lead this year. Staying steady at number 2 was APPLE, seeing a 37% increase in brand value. The former leader, GOOGLE, now comes in 3rd, with a relatively modest 10% increase in brand value (it’s affiliated YOUTUBE brand, however, saw a 114% increase, vaulting from number 112 to 42!). While there was movement within the top ten brands, as a group these remained the same as last year, highlighting the staying power of already dominant brands. The top brands remained principally tech-focused and for the first time since the Global 500 study began, the top 5 were all technology brands. Rounding out the top ten in 2018 were SAMSUNG, FACEBOOK, AT&T, MICROSOFT, VERIZON, WALMART and ICBC. As is evident, United States-based brands dominated, but Chinese brands continue to make strong gains: in 2008 they accounted for a mere 3% of the total brand value (lagging far behind other countries), and in 2018 they account for 15%, coming in second to the United States (48% in 2008 to 43% today). According to the report, the strongest brand of the year was DISNEY (ranking 31 overall in value), while the top Canadian brand by value was RBC at number 107.

Global 500 Brand Rankings Feature A Shift At The Top

Brand Finance has recently published its 2017 Global 500 Brand Rankings, where GOOGLE has overtaken APPLE in the number one spot for the world’s most valuable brand.  APPLE’s five year dominance at the number one ranking follows a 27% fall in brand value in the past year.  Bringing up third spot again this year is AMAZON.COM, which showed an impressive 53% growth in its  brand value over the prior year.  The top 10 includes a number of other top tech sector brands such as Microsoft, Samsung and Facebook.  The list also includes a number of fast growing brands from China, including Alibaba, Tencent, WeChat, JD.com and Huawei.

Nuthin’ but a Leaf Thang – Toronto Maple Leafs take issue with Snoop Dogg’s trade-mark application for LEAFS BY SNOOP Logo

Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Partnership (“MLSE”), the parent company of the National Hockey League’s Toronto Maple Leafs, has requested an extension of time to oppose a U.S. trade-mark application filed by one Calvin Broadus – better known as Snoop Dogg (“Snoop”) – for a logo featuring the words LEAFS BY SNOOP on a leaf-shaped background.

MLSE is the owner of numerous trade-mark applications and registrations in Canada and the U.S. for different iterations of the Toronto Maple Leafs logo, for use with a variety of clothing and souvenir related goods.

For side-by-side comparison, below is Snoop’s logo next to the most recent version of the Toronto Maple Leafs logo.

Mark Image               Mark Image

Snoop’s application covers the goods “cigarette lighters not made of precious metals”.  Snoop also owns a word mark application for LEAFS BY SNOOP, although that application will not be published for opposition by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office until July 19, 2016.

More information about Snoop’s LEAFS BY SNOOP products is available at his website dedicated to that brand.  Interestingly – and perhaps not surprisingly – the products on the website appear to be cannabis and food products including cannabis.

Snoop also owns a Canadian application to register the words LEAFS BY SNOOP for a broader category of goods, including clothing-related products, edible oils, jams, candies, and live plants.  (Although the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) is usually known for being strict when it comes to the specificity of goods listed in trade-mark applications, in this case, it did not ask Snoop to provide further specificity as to the “edible oils and jams”, nor the “live plants”.)

Snoop’s Canadian application was advertised for opposition on June 8, 2016.  At this time, it is unclear whether MLSE has opposed – or requested an extension of time to oppose – Snoop’s Canadian application.

TSN, the source that broke news of this potential dispute, reached out to lawyers for both MLSE and Snoop, but did not receive a response.  An IP lawyer at the New York University School of Law provided TSN with his thoughts on the matter, generally opining that MLSE would likely face a tough road should it proceed with its opposition in the United States.

The intersection of pop culture and trade-marks is always a fascinating topic for us here at the Canadian Trademark Blog, and we will be watching with interest to see if this leads to an actual opposition-izzle.

Combating Counterfeit Products Act Receives Royal Assent

On December 9,2014 Royal Assent was given to Bill C-8, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act. The intention of Bill C-8 is to give the government and holders of trade-marks and copyrights new mechanisms for enforcement, along with substantial remedies, in order to combat counterfeit and black-market goods. Before the introduction of Bill C-8, Canada had been criticized for not having meaningful policies to combat the global problem of counterfeit trafficking which flowed across Canadian borders.

Specific enforcement mechanisms contained in Bill C-8 include:

  • new civil prohibitions under the Trade-marks Act and Copyright Act giving rights holders the ability to start civil actions against those who infringe their trade-mark or copyright by possessing, manufacturing, distributing or trafficking goods for commercial purposes;
  • new criminal offences under the Trade-marks Act and Copyright Act for possessing, manufacturing, distributing or trafficking counterfeit goods for commercial purposes;
  • new provisions giving customs officials ex officio power to independently seize and detain suspected counterfeit goods. This includes the ability for copyright and trade-mark owners to file a “request for assistance” with customs officials to increase the information available to customs regarding possible counterfeit goods.

For a deeper review of the changes contained in Bill C-8, please see our previous post written in March 2013 when the bill was first introduced as Bill C-56.

While the Bill has obtained Royal Assent, it is only partially in force. Changes currently in force include:

  • the introduction of the new criminal provisions;
  • the deletion of section 7(e) of the Trade-marks Act; and
  • amendments to Section 20 of the Trade-marks Act dealing with infringement.

The majority of the amendments to the Trade-marks Act and Copyright Act, including the provisions relating to importation and exportation and ex officio powers of custom officials, will be brought into force by regulation. It is not clear when this will occur. However, it is thought that implementation will be in step with Bill C-31, the Budget Implementation Act, which is also waiting to come into force sometime in 2015 early 2016 and contains further significant amendments to the Trade-marks Act.

We will keep you updated as coming into force dates are announced and these legal tools become available to trade-mark and copyright owners.

Just in time for the Olympics – a Race to the Trademark Podium

As we approach the opening ceremonies of the 2014 Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, the Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) has launched a lawsuit against outdoor apparel maker The North Face in the British Columbia Supreme Court, over allegations that it is infringing on Olympic trademarks through ambush marketing techniques.

The COC is seeking an injunction against The North Face and unspecified damages.  Readers of this blog will recall that the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver/Whistler featured many similar skirmishes and special legislation enacted to assist the COC in its ongoing battle against ambush marketing.

As reported in the Globe and Mail, the North Face is not a sponsor of the Olympic games, but introduced a new line of clothing in November 2013.  The clothing line, originally launched as the Villagewear Collection, was renamed as the International Collection in response to complaints by the COC. 

The clothing line, which includes jackets, toques and bags, is decorated with the colours and flags of various countries. This includes items bearing the Canadian flag which feature the colours red and white.  Some items featured a patch with the symbol “RU 14” which, according to the COC, is a reference to the Winter Olympic games in Sochi, Russia.  Other merchandise showed a world map with a red star where Sochi is located.  A t-shirt featured the date of the opening ceremonies for the Games.

MACDIMSUM: Challenging a Family of Marks

In Cheah v. McDonald’s Corporation, the Federal Court of Canada held that MACDIMSUM is likely to be confusing with the MacDonald’s family of trademarks.  Focusing on the evidence presented, the Court distinguished several earlier cases in which McDonald’s failed to preclude other businesses from using the MC or MAC prefix, including McDonald’s Corporation v. Silcorp Ltd (1989) and McDonald’s Corporation v. Coffee Hut Stores Ltd (1996), where McDonald’s failed to prevent the use of MAC for convenience stores and MCBEAN for a coffee business.  In Cheah, the Applicant, who was self‑represented, did not meet the onus on him to prove the mark was registrable.  It was also important that the application was simply for the word MACDIMSUM and not for that word in any particular type style or in combination with any other word or design.  Since a proposed use application was at issue, the Court stated that it must remain open to the fact that the trademark could potentially be used in any type style, with any combination of words or design, and in any trade environment as may present itself from time to time.

The Applicant failed to present any evidence of actual use and during cross‑examination he acknowledged he had not yet finalized plans regarding use.  McDonald’s’ evidence focused on its family of marks and included affidavits regarding McDonald’s “four score” trademarks, use and advertising in Canada, as well as an expert survey. 

In dismissing the appeal, the Court stated that the evidence presented regarding use or intended use is critical to a decision such as this.  While the respondent McDonald’s Corporation presented considerable evidence to oppose the registration of the word MACDIMSUM, the Applicant presented little probative evidence throughout the proceedings.  The Court also accepted the survey that McDonald’s presented, which involved showing certain members of the public a card bearing the word MACDIMSUM, and others a card bearing the word MAZDIMSUM.  Based on the results, the expert concluded that a statistically significant portion of consumers would identify the McDonald’s as the source of the MACDIMSUM food products.

The Court also found that the Applicant’s evidence of the use of MC and MAC in other jurisdictions was largely hearsay and did not establish dilution in Canada.  Finally, the Court found no merit in the Applicant’s assertion that he was being bullied, noting that the McDonald’s counsel was proper and courteous.  Instead, a hint of the Applicant’s true intention was to be found in a letter in which he suggested the possibility of “a global MACDIMSUM partnership”.