Trademark

Federal Court of Appeal considers “special circumstances” in appeal of trade-mark expungement

By In Legislation, Protection & Enforcement, Registration, Trademark Oppositions

In a recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”), the FCA took the rare opportunity to consider an appeal from a section 45 expungement proceeding. In One Group LLC v Gouverneur Inc, the FCA reviewed the Registrar’s decision not to expunge One Group LLC’s (“One Group”) trade-mark registration for STK (the “Mark”) on the basis of non-use, as well as the subsequent Federal Court (“FC”) decision to overturn the Registrar’s ruling.

One Group operates high end restaurants using the Mark outside of Canada.  In preparation for a new restaurant in Toronto, One Group registered the Mark in Canada. However, due to failed discussions with hotels and developers, a Toronto restaurant never materialized.

In due course, Gouverneur Inc. (“Gouverneur”) brought a section 45 proceeding, alleging that One Group failed to use the Mark in the three preceding years. The Registrar refused to expunge the Mark on the basis that there were special circumstances that excused the non-use, namely that the non-use was not in the control of One Group, and that there was evidence that One Group was close to coming to an agreement with a hotel chain which would see the Mark used in Canada.

Gouverneur appealed to the FC on the basis that the Registrar misunderstood or misapplied the test for special circumstances. The FC agreed and overturned the decision of the Registrar on the basis that it was not a reasonable finding that special circumstances excused the non-use of the Mark, and ordered the Mark expunged.

One Group then appealed to the FCA. In a relatively brief decision, the FCA allowed the appeal and reinstated the ruling of the Registrar.

This decision highlights a number of points:

  • First, the FCA emphasized that deference must be given to the Registrar in expungement proceedings, as well as in those instances where the Registrar is applying its “home statute”. As a result, courts should not disturb the Registrar’s findings of fact except in those circumstances where such findings are clearly not correct.
  • Second, it appears that there is a general willingness of the Registrar to preserve registrations. Hence, to the extent the Registrar makes factual findings in support of preserving a registration, the court’s deference to those findings on an appeal presents a potentially difficult hurdle to overcome.
  • Third, this case is a reminder that there is a “special circumstances” exception to non-use which can be used to preserve registrations. The criteria for determining if “special circumstances” exist are:

– the length of time during which the trade-mark has not been used;

– whether the reasons for non-use were beyond the registered owner’s control; and

– whether the registered owner has a serious intention to shortly resume use of the trade-mark.

Whether special circumstances exist will be determined by the Registrar from the evidence. Such findings, as stated above, will be given deference by the courts.

With this deference in mind, the FCA found no error in the Registrar’s decision that justified judicial intervention, and restored the decision of the Registrar.

Location Matters: The Perils of Geographic Names as Trade-marks

By In Branding, Case Law, Protection & Enforcement, Trademark Oppositions

When choosing a trade or business name it may seem like a good idea to incorporate the location of your business into the name. There are benefits: it is helpful for marketing, it gives your audience an idea of where your business is and who your market is, it can help establish your business in a neighborhood, and it can help you build a brand based on community and locality.

However, using the location of your business in your trade or business name can cause difficulties when it comes to registering that name as a trade-mark. Under section 12(1) (b) of the Trade-marks Act, a trade-mark is not registerable if it is clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of the place of origin of the goods or services with which the trade-mark is used, unless that trade-mark has acquired distinctiveness through its use.

The Federal Court of Appeal recently reviewed section 12(1)(b), and considered the issue of whether a service provider can register, as a trade-mark, the name of a geographic location, purely in relation to its services.

In 2012, a dental practice owned by Dr. Cragg applied to register the trade-mark OCEAN PARK (the “Mark”) in association with dental services based on use since as early as 2000. The Mark was registered for use in association with “dental clinics” in 2013.

Prior to Dr. Cragg applying to register the Mark, another dentist, Dr. Lum purchased an existing dental practice a block away from Dr. Cragg’s and changed the name of the practice to “Ocean Park Dental Group”. Then, after moving the practice, Dr. Lum changed the name to “Ocean Park Village Dental”, and advertised and displayed signage using the trade-name “Village Dental in Ocean Park”.

In early 2014 Dr. Cragg brought an action against Dr. Lum for infringement of the Mark. In response, Dr. Lum brought an action seeking to invalidate the Mark on the grounds that it was not registerable under section 12(1)(b) of the Trade-marks Act.

In the court below, the trial judge held that in order to prove that a trade-mark is not registerable under section 12(1)(b), a plaintiff has to show (1) that a trade-mark refers to a geographic location; and (2) that the location was indigenous to the services in question. Under this analysis, in order for the Mark to be non-registerable, a reasonable person would have equate the geographic location “Ocean Park” with dental services.  Based on the evidence, the trial judge found that this was not the case, and the court dismissed the action to invalidate the Mark.

However, the Court of Appeal held that this was not the correct analysis.  Instead, the analysis under section 12(1)(b) is to focus on:

–          the type of services involved;

–          the average consumers to whom the services are offered; and

–          the character of the geographic location.

Under this analysis, if the trade-mark is the name of the geographic location where the services or goods are provided, then the trade-mark is descriptive within the meaning of 12(1)(b) and non-registerable because the trade-mark is descriptive of the origin of the services or goods.

The Court of Appeal reminded us that the reason why trade-marks that are descriptive of geographic locations are not registerable or protectable is to prevent a single service provider from monopolizing the name of a geographic location, so as to prevent other service providers from using that name to describe their own services.

On the issue of acquired distinctiveness, the problem identified by the Court of Appeal was that while geographic locations can be used in business names and for other purposes, they often do not meet the key requirement of a registerable trade-mark: distinctiveness. In this case, the Mark as registered, OCEAN PARK, was never used by itself in association with dental services. It was always used in the context of the name Ocean Park Dental. In this case, upon hearing “Ocean Park”, consumers would not think about Dr. Cragg’s dental services; as such, it could not be said that the Mark had acquired distinctiveness. Therefore, the Mark was declared invalid and struck from the Trade-mark Register.

This case warns businesses to be careful when choosing geographic locations as business or trade names which they may wish to register as a trade-mark. The use of a geographic location within the context of a broader trade-mark may be permissible. However, it is unlikely that a business can expect to register a trade-mark consisting purely of a geographic location, unless that business and the trade-mark have acquired significant distinctiveness through lengthy and extensive advertising and use.

Implementation of Trademarks Act amendments pushed back to 2018

By In Legislation, Protection & Enforcement, Registration, Trademark Oppositions

Since the Canadian Government announced massive changes to the Canadian Trademarks Act (the “Act”) in 2014, practitioners and other stakeholders in the trademark space have been anxiously awaiting its implementation.

Unfortunately we are all going to have to wait a little longer.

It is now expected that the amendments to the Act which have been passed but not yet implemented will not be implemented until sometime in 2018. This pushes out the implementation date again, from an original (and optimistic) implementation date of late 2015, and a revised implementation date of  2017, to 2018.

The implementation of the remaining amendments is expected to coincide with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office’s implementation of the Madrid Protocol, the Nice Agreement and the Singapore Treaty.

We will provide further updates here on the timeline for implementation as more information becomes available.

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

By In Legislation, Registration

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

Combating Counterfeit Products Act Receives Royal Assent

By In Branding, Counterfeit goods, Famous Marks, Foreign Protection, Legislation, Protection & Enforcement

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.

Canadian Government Tables 5 IP Treaties in the House of Commons

By In Foreign Protection, Legislation

The Canadian Government tabled 5 intellectual law Treaties in the House of Commons on January 27, 2014.   The purpose of this action is for Canada to harmonize its trademark, patent and industrial design laws with those of many other countries.

The Treaties tabled are as follows:

The first three Treaties in particular will have significant impacts on the procedures for trademark applications and registrations in Canada.   The tabling of these Treaties is the first procedural step towards their ratification and implementation by the Government of Canada.  Implementation will require amendments to Canada’s existing IP legislation, which could take a long time to be approved.  The Canadian Intellectual Property Office published a paper in January of 2012 on the changes required to the Trade-marks Act in order for Canada to adhere to the Madrid Protocol.  Until such amendments are approved by the Canadian Parliament, none of these Treaties will be binding in Canada.