Whether infringement of a trademark and depreciation of goodwill can be established turns on the facts, even if a defendant fails to file a defence or show up at trial. At least the Plaintiffs in a recent Federal Court decision, Salam Toronto Publications and Mohsen Seyed Taghavi v. Salam Toronto, Inc. et al. did not have to pay the Defendants’ costs.

In the absence of a defence and given proof that the Defendants had been properly served, the Court determined that the action was a proceeding in default of defence”, which meant every allegation in the Statement of Claim had to be treated as if it had been denied and the Plaintiff had to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the claims were made out.

In Farsi, “Salam” is a word meaning “hello” or “welcome”. The Plaintiffs had been publishing a current affairs newspaper since October 2000 and the Plaintiffs’ trademark, SALAM TORONTO, was registered in 2004 for use in association with wares, namely, newspapers and magazines. The Plaintiffs’ business name, “Salam Toronto Publications” was registered in 2001. The Plaintiffs also had domain names, salamtoronto.net and salamtoronto.ca. Read more

A previous blog commented on the importance of proper evidence of use when the registered owner of a Canadian trademark is faced with a potential expungement pursuant to section 45 of the Trade-marks Act.

Curb v. Smart & Biggar, on appeal to the Federal Court from a decision of the Registrar is a further illustration.  Mike Curb, a well-known American record producer was the registered owner of CURB RECORDS for use in association with wares described as “audio and audio-visual recordings; printed materials, namely posters; clothing, namely t-shirts and caps” and services described as “entertainment services provided by pre-recorded and live music; and the production, publishing and distribution of audio and audio-visual recordings”.  On the basis of the Affidavit evidence filed by the Senior Vice-President of Curb Records, the Registrar concluded there was use in association with audio and audio-visual recordings, but insufficient evidence of use in association with the other wares and all the services during the three years preceding the section 45 request. Read more

The British Columbia Supreme Court recently considered the right to damages for the improper use of a trademark following the termination of a franchise agreement. In Fruiticana Produce Ltd. v. 575760 B.C. Ltd. et al., after determining that certain amounts remained unpaid under the  terms of a franchise agreement, the Court also concluded that the franchise agreement had been terminated and the defendants continued to use the trademark FRUITCANA for a period of time following the termination. Nominal damages were calculated on the basis of the formula set out in Louis Vuitton Mulletier S.A. v. 486353 B.C. Ltd. and the Plaintiff awarded $12,000. A permanent injunction was also granted.

Sleeman Breweries has reportedly filed a lawsuit against Dead Frog Brewery over Dead Frog’s use of a clear glass bottle design, in association with its beer. Sleeman is the third largest brewery in Canada; Dead Frog is a small and relatively new enterprise located in Aldergrove, BC. Invoking references to the classic David v. Goliath story, the President of Dead Frog has stated that the lawsuit is a silly waste of time, that there are many similar clear glass bottles on the market, and that the raised glass frog design on his bottles makes his products distinctive from those of Sleeman.

For its part, Sleeman will likely rely on its Canadian Trademark Registration for a distinguishing guise. A distinguishing guise is a type of trade-mark that is a distinctive shaping of goods or their containers or a mode of packaging or wrapping such goods.  To obtain a registration for a distinguishing guise in Canada, an applicant must prove that the distinguishing guise is, in fact, distinctive of the applicant’s wares in Canada. This normally requires proof of significant sales and advertising in every region of the country over an extended period of time. Read more

Whatever the advantages of not submitting certain evidence, such as expediency, complexity, or risk of ambiguity, the Federal Court of Appeal decision, Shell Canada Limited v. P.T. Sari Incofood Corporation demonstrates the significant risk of this course of action.

Shell Canada opposed the registration of JAVACAFE in relation to coffee products, arguing that it was not distinctive, but rather descriptive of the geographical source of the coffee products. Submitting various evidence regarding the definitions of the component words, the parties curiously omitted any evidence regarding the meaning of the word java in French. Noting this omission, the Registrar looked up the word in a 1968 edition of Larouse, discovered that it meant a type of dance, and concluded that Shell’s evidence fell short of its contention that a Canadian Francophone would associate JAVACAFE with coffee from the island of Java. Read more