More Champagne, anyone?

We recently reported on the difficulties in registering wine trademarks consisting of names of geographic locations. The Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) concluded that geography was one of the most important considerations of the average consumer when purchasing a wine. Accordingly, the registration of a trademark consisting of a geographic description unfairly prevented other local winemakers from listing that place of origin on their brands. As all good wine gurus know, it is the land, air, water and weather where grapes are grown that make each wine unique. Geographic location is a huge selling point for exclusive brands, as is evident with the popularity of real French champagne.

For more than eight decades, only 319 select vineyards within specific boundaries of north-eastern France had the right to brand their sparkling white wines as “champagne“. But now, due to the increasing demand for champagne from China and Russia, the Institut national de l’origine et de la qualite, which governs the Appellation d’Origine Controlee designation for champagne, is set to expand the appellation’s boundaries. The move is expected to provide a windfall for the lucky vintners whose vineyards happen to lie within the expanded region and highlights the value of a trademark consisting of a geographic location. Worldwide exports of champagne hit an all time record in 2007.

The name champagne is legally protected in most countries in order to prevent sparkling wines from outside the Champagne region of France from using the brand. Until two years ago, US winemakers, in particular, capitalized on the popularity of the brand and commonly sold sparkling wines under the name “California Champagne”, ignoring the outcries from indignant French viticulturists. But now, only a few older grandfathered brands in the US may use the name “champagne” in a move to correctly label US sparkling wines as “sparkling wines”. In 2003, Canada and the European Union entered into an agreement which committed the parties into protecting each others’ geographical indications for wines and spirits and the use of the term “Canadian Champagne” will cease after December 31, 2013.

Last year, the wine regions of Sonoma County and Paso Robles, California; Chianti Classico, Italy; Tokaj, Hungary; and Victoria, and Western Australia, Australia added their names to a growing list of signatories of the Joint Declaration to Protect Wine Place & Origin, a set of principles aimed at educating consumers about the importance of location to winemaking.

Trademark Appeals: Stays and Service Requirements

A recent blog noted that a failure to obtain a stay of a Federal Court judgment when an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal is sought, means the Registrar of Trademarks will act in accordance with the Federal Court judgment, which may be contrary to what the appellant is seeking before the Court of Appeal.

A recent Practice Notice from the Trademarks Office clarifies the issue. Section 50 of the Federal Courts Act allows the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal to stay proceedings. If there is an appeal from the Federal Court to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Registrar, absent a stay, must act in accordance with the judgment of the Federal Court.

There is, however, an exception in the case of opposition and section 45 procedings. If there is an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal the Registrar will not treat the Federal Court decision as final because it must, pursuant to sections 39(1) and 45(5) of the Trade-marks Act, act in accordance with “the final judgment given in the appeal”.

Thus, where there is an appeal from the Federal Court to the Federal Court of Appeal, it is important to consider whether an opposition or section 45 proceeding is at issue, and if not, obtain the requisite stay.

The Practice Notice also provides guidance regarding the service of court documents on the Registrar.

Where a decision of the Registrar is appealed under section 56 of the Trade-marks Act or where judicial review of a Registrar’s decision is sought, the Registrar must be served personally. This is best effected by leaving the document with an employee of the Executive Office who is authorized to accept service.

All Notices of Appeal filed with the Federal Court must also be filed with the Registrar. These may be transmitted by any means, but failure to comply with sections 56(1), (2) and (3) of the Act, including the filing requirement, may render the appeal a nullity.

Trademark Statistics: The Year in Review

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office released its 2006-7 Annual Report earlier today. The report contains some interesting information:

  • over 45,000 applications were filed in the twelve month period ending March 31, 2007, reflecting a 4% increase over the previous year
  • Canada remains the most common country of applicant origin, with nearly 20,000 applications filed; the US placed second, with over 14,700 applications, while applicants from Germany, France and the United Kingdom rounded out the top 5
  • 90% of Canadian trade-mark applications were filed online; prior to 2004, only 20% of applicants were using the e-filing system
  • despite the addition of several new Examiners, turn-around times remained the same as in the previous year, and an examination backlog of approximately 20,000 files remains to be addressed
  • the number of Statements of Oppositions filed continued to decline, with just over 1100 filings; however, the number of Section 45 (cancellation) notices issued increased slightly over the previous year.

The full report is available here.

Change You Can Xerox

When Hillary Clinton recently accused presidential rival Barack Obama of political plagiarism by describing him as the candidate of “change you can Xerox“, trademark lawyers at Xerox Corporation winced. For years, Xerox has fought against the genericisation of the Xerox brand and trademark. A genericised trademark is a trademark or brand name that has become the colloquial or generic description for a particular class of product or service. The generic use of the term “Xerox” as a verb in place of the word photocopy, diminishes the value of the Xerox trademark in the marketplace and can result in the loss of intellectual property rights by the trademark holder. In the past, Xerox Corporation has attempted to police its brand use by launching advertising campaigns promoting the “Xerox machine” and has been successful in protecting the trademark in Canada and the United States. The brand has, however, become generic in Russia, Bulgaria, Portugal and Romania. Aspirin, Band-Aid and Thermos are also examples of brands which became victims of brand genericisation.

Under Canadian trademark law, a trademark should never be used as a noun (whether in singular, plural or possessive form) or as a verb. Every day phrases such as “I need a Kleenex” should be discouraged as the correct use of the trademark is “I need a Kleenex tissue”. It may seem natural and even beneficial from a marketing perspective to use the trademark as a noun or verb. Many like to have their trademark considered synonymous with the wares or services with which it is associated. However, certain trademarks, through misuse by their owners and others, have passed into the English language by becoming generic terms. The brands Escalator, Jacuzzi, Linoleum and Tabloid were all once trademarks of a specific product but are now generic terms commonly used to describe a product category. The use of a brand name as part of the English language, or any language should always be avoided to prevent genericisation of the trademark.

Canadian Intellectual Property Office News

Good news from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office: in an announcement posted to their website yesterday, CIPO advised that it will soon be making information concerning the status of both Section 45 proceedings and Opposition proceedings available online.

Currently, CIPO’s database provides limited information to the public respecting Trademark Opposition proceedings, setting out only the names of the Opponent and their counsel, and the date the Opposition was filed. The situation for Section 45 (or summary cancellation) proceedings is worse for those, the database indicates only the name of the Section 45 Requestor and their counsel, and does not even indicate when the Section 45 request was issued. In neither case is information about the current stage of the proceeding available through the database; for a member of the public to get such information they would have to perform a manual review of the physical file located at CIPO’s office in Gatineau, Quebec.

The addition of further information relating to these proceedings will permit interested third parties to make better informed decisions concerning the mark(s) at issue, allowing them to consider the impact such proceedings may have on their own interests. While CIPO has a long way to go before matching the standards set by the USPTO Trademark Office and its excellent Trademark Document Retrieval system, this step is an important one and CIPO should be applauded.

Amendment to Trade-marks Act: the Red Crystal Comes to Canada

Though normally a somewhat staid corner of trademark law, prohibited marks have garnered a lot of attention of late particularly as a result of the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, which we commented on in several previous posts. However, the Trade-marks Act itself has been recently amended to add a new entrant to the list of prohibited marks.

Bill C-61, titled “An Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, An Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act” came into force on January 31, 2008. This Act was introduced to account for recent changes in the Red Cross Movement the term used to refer to work performed by the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Over the last decade, efforts have been underway to find a single symbol devoid of any religious, political, ethnic or other connotation that could be used by all nations engaged in the Movement’s humanitarian work. The Red Crystal is the result, and the Trade-marks Act has now been amended to add the Red Crystal to the list of marks whose adoption is prohibited by section 9. The Red Crystal joins the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and the now little-used Red Lion and Sun in the list of emblems that have been used by a variety of nations in humanitarian efforts over the last several centuries, and that are now protected by section 9 of the Act.

The addition of this mark to the prohibited list will be sure to catch the eye of video-game developers several of whom raised the ire of the Canadian Red Cross years ago by depicting the familiar Red Cross emblem in their games. But gamers aren’t the only ones attracting legal trouble from use of the Red Cross emblem: in 2007 the American arm of the Movement found itself in hot water when it was sued by Johnson & Johnson over its licensing of the emblem to for-profit companies to be used on commercial products, notwithstanding that the licensing revenues it received were directed toward humanitarian aid projects.

We’ll keep you posted on developments related to the Red Crystal.