Playing Nice: CIPO to accept applications with Nice Classifications this fall

In a milestone step towards harmonization of Canada’s trade-mark regime with most other developed countries, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) announced yesterday that starting this fall, it will accept trade-mark applications filed with goods and services classified using the Nice Classification system.

According to CIPO’s announcement, there will be changes to its website to take advantage of the use of Nice Classification.  In particular, the Goods and Services Manual will be redesigned to facilitate classification of goods and services, and the search capability of the CIPO online database will be updated to allow for searching within specific classes.

Historically, Canada has not used the Nice Classification system when it comes to descriptions of goods and services.  However, as part of the aforementioned harmonization process, Canada will accede to the Nice Agreement.  As we previously reported, CIPO has already started the process of assigning Nice classes to terms in its database.

Happy Canada Day to all of our readers!

Managing the transition: the impact of Canada’s amended Trademarks Act on pending trade-mark applications

The recent amendments to Canada’s Trade-marks Act present many interesting opportunities and challenges to brand owners and their counsel.  This article focuses primarily on the impacts for Canadian trademark applications that are pending at the time the amended Act comes into force—that is, applications that have been filed with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) but that have not yet issued to registration.

As a preliminary comment, there is, unfortunately still no clarity about when the amendments to the Act will come into force. When the amending legislation was passed, CIPO initially indicated that the effective date could be as early as late 2014; subsequent projections were revised to mid-to-late 2015. More recent comments from CIPO suggest that mid-2016 is a more realistic timeframe.  The delay is apparently related to the magnitude of the IT changes required, particularly as connected to implementation of the Madrid  Protocol, to which Canada is becoming a party.

The amendments to the Act are set out in Bill C-31, which reached the last stage in the legislative approval process on June 19, 2014. Those amendments include a number of transitional provisions setting out the legislation’s varied impacts for both registrations and applications, including for applications at different stages of the examination process, as at the date the amended Act comes into force (the Implementation Date). We’ll look briefly at each of these in turn.

Registrations issued prior to the Implementation Date

Under the transition provisions, the amended Act will apply to registrations issued prior to the Implementation Date, with certain exceptions.  Most notably, following the Implementation Date the term of renewal for such registrations will be 10 years, as opposed to the 15 years provided under the current regime. The registration term is not being truncated for registrations issued prior to the Implementation Date; owners will have the benefit of their full 15-year registration terms. Upon renewal, however, only a 10-year term will be available. Of course, prior to the Implementation Date the current regime applies and owners can renew their registrations for 15-year terms.

This shift has led some owners to consider ‘early’ renewal, well in advance of the expiration of their existing registrations, in an effort to obtain the longer 15-year term. However, CIPO has indicated that if the registration anniversary falls after the Implementation Date, any renewal of the registration will be for a period of 10 years, regardless of whether the registered owner submitted the renewal fee and obtained a Certificate of Renewal from CIPO prior to the Implementation Date. CIPO takes this position despite its current practice of issuing renewal certificates at the time fees are paid (and not waiting for the anniversary of registration), with such certificates denoting a 15-year renewal term.  As part of the implementation process, CIPO officers have suggested these certificates may be revised to indicate that if the anniversary of registration falls after the Implementation Date, the registration period will be 10 years, despite other 15-year references on the certificate.

Applications that have been “allowed” prior to the Implementation Date

In the Canadian trademark system, once an application is “allowed”, it means that the application has been approved by a CIPO Examiner for advertisement in the Trade-marks Journal, it has been advertised in the Journal, that no one has filed a Statement of Opposition to that application (or if an Opposition has been commenced it Read more

Canadian Intellectual Property Office posts proposed amendments to Trade-marks Regulations

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office has today posted proposed amendments to the Trade-marks Regulations at http://bit.ly/1xCOIEj  The consultation period for these proposed amendments is from October 1 to November 30, 2014.   As quoted in CIPO’s press release:

“The proposed regulatory amendments to the Trade-marks Regulations are required to enable Canada to accede to the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks, the Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement concerning the International Registration of Marks and the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks.

The new regulations reflect the requirements of the trade-mark treaties and aim to increase legal certainty, streamline and clarify CIPO’s procedures, and align Canada’s trade-mark protection regime with international norms. The proposed amendments also include measures relating to the opposition regime and summary cancellation proceedings.”

 

Official Marks Up For Review

A Private Members Bill was introduced in Canada’s federal parliament yesterday, which, if passed, will result in significant amendments to the official mark provisions in the Trade-marks ActSection 9(1)(n)(iii) of that Act currently sets out a very simple procedure whereby public authorities can attain official mark status for virtually any mark that they have adopted and used.  Once attained, official mark status prevents other parties from adopting, using or registering the same or a very similar mark in association with any wares (goods) or services, unless the public authority consents.  Under the current Act, official mark requests cannot be opposed, there is no specified term or renewal process for such status and there is no process for expunging an official mark if it is no longer in use, unless the public authority voluntarily abandons that status.

Bill C-611 would, if passed, add a definition of public authority to the Act and set out an opposition procedure for third parties to challenge official mark requests.  It would also provide for a 10 term for such status, with the ability to renew for further 10 year periods, each of which could also be opposed.

Time will tell if this Bill gains any traction.  The Member who introduced the Bill is with the minority Liberal party.  This Bill is unrelated to the wide ranging changes to the Act that are set out in Bill C-31.

Bodum: Appeal Court Affirms Trademark Distinctiveness Analysis

An earlier blog commented on the Federal Court’s decision in  Bodum USA, Inc. v. Meyer Housewares Canada Inc.  Bodum commenced an action for infringement, passing off and depreciation of goodwill against Meyer, which counterclaimed for a declaration that Bodum’s registration was invalid.  Bodum’s action was dismissed and the registration expunged.

The Court of Appeal has now affirmed this decision, noting that this is “essentially a distinctiveness case” and quoting statements from the trial decision that “‘French press’ is and was at all relevant times a common name for the type of non-electric coffee making device” and “the registration is invalid because the term was and is in ordinary and bona fide commercial use as a generic term”.

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”.

A Clearly Descriptive Engineering Trademark

In the recent case of Continental Teves AG & Co v. Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, the Federal Court of Canada dismissed an appeal of the Trade-mark Opposition Board’s refusal to register a mark.  The original application was brought by Continental Teves, a foreign corporation, to register the words ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE IS OUR HERITAGE for use as a trade-mark in Canada in association with wares, namely brake pads and rotors for land vehicles.  The Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (the “Council”), a national organization of the 12 provincial and territorial associations that license and regulate Canadian engineers, opposed the application.  It is the Council’s policy to oppose trademarks which consist of or include the term “engineering” in order to both protect the integrity of the titles of Canadian engineering professionals and to protect the public.

At issue on the appeal was whether the Hearing Officer erred in finding that the mark:

1. Was not clearly descriptive of the character or quality of the wares, based on section 12(1)(b) of the Trade-Marks Act;

2. Was deceptively misdescriptive of the character or quality of the wares, based on section 12(1)(b) of the Act; and

3. Was not distinctive of the wares based on the section 2 definition of “distinctive”.

Regarding the section 12(1)(b) prohibition on registering “clearly descriptive” and “deceptively misdescriptive” marks, the Court came to the same result, that the mark was not registrable, although for opposite reasons.  A mark is not registrable if it is either “clearly descriptive” or “deceptively misdescriptive”.  Whereas the Hearing Officer found the mark to be not clearly descriptive yet deceptively misdescriptive of the persons employed in the production of the wares, the Court found the converse – that the mark was “clearly descriptive” yet not “deceptively misdescriptive”.

Informing this reversal was the additional affidavit evidence from one of Continental Teves’ vice presidents, stating that the company employs a substantial number of engineers in the production of the wares in question and had done so for decades.  However, the Court also noted that nothing in the evidence established whether Canadian engineers were involved although it appeared that none were.  This additional evidence was enough to change the mark’s characterisation from “not clearly descriptive” to “clearly descriptive”  since it established that engineers were involved and the mark was therefore a clear description of the manner in which the wares are designed and produced.  Nothing in the evidence established whether the engineers involved were Canadian, but this did not matter since there was no evidence indicating or suggesting that the average consumer, on encountering the mark, would believe the wares were designed or produced by Canadian engineers.  Thus, the mark was not deceptively misdescriptive according to the Court.  The decision appears to be at odds with the earlier decision in Canadian Council of Professional Engineers v. Kelly Properties LLC, but in that case the Applicant was seeking to use KELLY ENGINEERING RESOURCES in association with employment services, which implied that Canadian engineers were involved since the services were being offered in Canada and only a licensed Canadian engineer could offer such services.

The Court came to the same result as the Hearing Officer on the finding of a lack of distinctiveness, noting that distinctiveness is “the very essence of a trademark” since it allows a consumer to identify the source of goods.  Continental Teves failed to meet its onus to prove the mark was distinctive of the wares in the face of the Council’s evidence showing the use of the phrase “engineering excellence” in Canada and abroad in multiple contexts.

Finally, the Court noted the Council was “zealous” in protecting the exclusivity of the words “engineer” and “engineering”, although this was not an endorsement or disapproval of the approach but only an observation regarding the policy.