Following up on an earlier blog posting, we note that the Supreme Court of Canada has refused leave to appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Shell Canada Limited v. P.T. Sari Incofood Corporation.
The Court of Appeal earlier concluded that JAVACAFÉ when sounded as two words was clearly descriptive, in French, of the claimed wares, namely, coffee products.
The Federal Court recently made clear that Canadian law does not recognize a rule equivalent to the U.S. doctrine of fraud on the trademark office, pursuant to which any material mistatement in the processing of a registation renders the entire resulting registration void.
In Parfums de Coeur, Ltd. V. Asta the respondent individual filed a trademark application in 1999 based on proposed use of the trademark BOD in association with wares identified as “hair care, namely shampoo conditioner, treatment, styling aids, hairsprays, hairpolish, perms, … .” The respondent subsequently filed a Declaration of Use signed February 12, 2004 declaring that by himself or through a licensee he had commenced use of the trademark in association with all the listed wares. The applicant began selling body sprays in Canada in association with the trademark BOD MAN as early as 2002, but when it sought registration in Canada, the respondent’s mark was cited against it. When challenged regarding his Declaration of Use, the respondent amended the list of wares to read only “hair care, namely shampoo, conditioner”. Read more
Just in time for Robbie Burns day, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that a Canadian distiller of whiskey can use the word GLEN in its trademark, without misleading Canadian consumers into thinking that its product is whiskey that is from Scotland. This is the latest round in the battle by Bedford, Nova Scotia based Glenora Distillers to register the mark GLEN BRETON in the Canadian Intellectual Property Office in association with its single malt whiskey. There’s no word yet on whether the Scotch Whiskey Association will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Under section 45 of the Trade-marks Act, an applicant, upon receipt of the Registrar’s notice, must provide an affidavit or statutory declaration evidencing use within the previous three years or an acceptable excuse for non-use. In Vêtement Multi-Wear Inc. v. Riches, McKenzie & Herbert LLP, the Applicant failed to provide its attorney with all the information and documents necessary to respond to the section 45 notice and the evidence was not filed in time. Pursuant to section 56, the applicant appealed the Registrar’s determination to expunge the mark, and as allowed under section 56, filed its evidence.
The Court noted that where new evidence (or in this case, the only evidence) is filed on a section 56 appeal, the Federal Court decision is de novo. The Court also noted that the test for “use” under section 45 is not onerous. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the applicant’s trademark, L’AMADEI for use in association with ladies’ clothing, namely skirts, dresses and blouses (but not vests and sweaters) was allowed to remain on the register. The Affidavit evidenced 6 sales to Canadian companies and 10 sales to one American company. The invoices did not use the trademark, but the affidavit explained that the hang tags on the items referenced in the invoices would have used the trademark.
An Oshawa, Ontario Regional Councillor, Robert Lutczyk, recently made a brazen attempt to claim copyright in the name “University of Ontario Institute of Technology”. Lutczyk registered copyright in the name of the University and then tried to use his registration to prevent the publication "Oshawa This Week" from using the name in an article, threatening legal action if they did not comply. Lutczyk’s attempt to assert copyright appears wrong on several points.
First, there is no copyright in a name. Copyright in Canada is governed by the Copyright Act and arises in literary, artistic, dramatic and musical works. A name, without more, does not fall under the definition of a work. Read more
A story in the Globe and Mail this week illustrates that the use of a popular logo may be a form of flattery to the owner, but the owner will still be concerned about infringement of its IP rights. Gordon DeRosa, after 21 years of public service, is again running for re-election to the Trail City Council, Trail being a community of 8000 in the interior of British Columbia. Mr. DeRosa’s election signs used the well known Energizer Bunny, and the slogan “Re-elect DeRosa, Still Energized”. The Eveready Battery Company, which owns an extensive trademark portfolio in Canada, sent a cease and desist letter to Mr. DeRosa, advising that the use of the Energizer trademarks constituted violations of the company’s IPÂ rights. Mr. DeRosa has taken down his election signs.
If a lawsuit had ensued it might have been argued that Mr. DeRosa was not using any trademarks in association with wares and services since he was running for political office, but presumably Eveready would have succeeded on the basis of copyright infringement.
For those of us who have embraced – and perhaps take for granted – the ease and convenience of filing documents online with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, the last two days have been trying ones. All systems of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, including the Trademark Database as well as the Online Filing Portal, were offline from late in the afternoon on September 30th, until earlier this morning, October 2nd. (Even now, the site seems a little shaky: pages load properly one minute and are unavailable the next.)
Recently released trade-mark statistics (which we blogged about a few months back) indicate that just over 45,000 applications were filed in the last twelve-month period for which stats are available. Of these, 90% were filed online. Crunching the numbers, that works out to be approximately 110 applications filed online, each day. Read more