Canadian Trademark Blog

Maintained by Clark Wilson LLP

.CA Dispute Resolution Consultation Now Open

By In Domain Name Disputes, Domain Names

The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) has initiated a consultation on the CIRA Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP).  The CDRP has been in place since 2002 and is intended to be a quick, relatively low cost arbitration forum for disputes over .CA domain names.  The stated purpose of the consultation is to solicit feedback from interested parties as to the effectiveness of the CDRP and whether it continues to meet the needs of its stakeholders. 

The consultation consists of a number of questions about the process itself, the tests that a complainant must meet, the remedies provided and the like.  Interestingly, the consultation notes that over the 8 years the CDRP has been in place, there have only been 149 decisions rendered, with the high water mark occurring in 2008, when there were 30 decisions.

The consultation is open from June 9 to September 17, 2010.

Beer, Trademarks and the Jurisdiction of the Opposition Board

By In Case Law, Registration, Trademark Oppositions

Molson Canada 2005 v. Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, a decision of the Federal Court and another case in an ongoing “beer war”, provides an interesting analysis of the jurisdiction of the Opposition Board. The Opponent before the Opposition Board, Molson, through a predecessor in title, held the registered trademark for the label for Standard Lager:

Standard Lager Mark

(“the Standard Lager Mark”) a beer continuously sold in Canada since 1926, but almost exclusively in the province of Manitoba. Anheuser-Busch, the Applicant before the Opposition Board, had two labels that were registered as trade-marks:

Registered Anheuser-Busch Marks

(“the Registered Anheuser-Busch Marks”). The opposition arose when Anheuser-Busch sought to register an “updated” version of its two previously registered marks (“the Proposed Anheuser-Busch Marks”).

The Federal Court reviewed the litigation history arising in respect of the earlier registered marks, including a 1986 Federal Court of Appeal decision, Carling O’Keefe Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Anheuser-Busch Inc., which concluded that the Standard Lager Mark and the Registered Anheuser-Busch Marks were confusing, that there was some sort of impropriety when the Standard Lager Mark was originally registered in 1929 since it was inspired by and designed with knowledge of the BUDWEISER label, but Carling (Molson’s predecessor in title) could rely on the equitable defence of laches and thus there was no basis for expunging either the Standard Lager Mark or the Registered Anheuser-Busch Marks.

The Opposition Board allowed the registration of the Proposed Anheuser-Busch Mark as it applied to clothing since Molson had not established that the ambit of protection accorded to the Standard Lager Mark included wares other than beer. With regards to use in association with beer the Opposition Board determined that it could limit the scope of protection afforded the Standard Lager Mark since the Court of Appeal had determined it was wrongfully obtained. Thus, Molson’s opposition with regards to use in association with beer was rejected.

The Federal Court disagreed and allowed the opposition with regards to use in association with beer. The Court was particularly concerned that the Opposition Board had exceeded its jurisdiction, since it is limited in an opposition proceeding to determining if a trademark is or is not registrable. Thus, for example, if there is a confusing mark on the register, the new mark cannot be registered. However, if the existing registration of an invalid trademark is interfering with the registration of a new trademark, it is up to the applicant for the new mark to take the necessary steps, usually an expungement application to the Federal Court, to get the register corrected. In an opposition proceeding, the validity of an opponent’s registered mark is not in issue.

The Federal Court was concerned that the Opposition Board could not limit the ambit of protection afforded the Standard Lager Mark on the basis that the Court of Appeal had questioned the lawfulness of the registration. Indeed, the Court of Appeal had not found the registration of the Standard Lager Mark was unlawful, but had instead found that the registration was not a nullity. Thus, Molson was relying on a valid registration and the question to be answered was whether the Proposed Anheuser-Busch Mark was confusing with the Standard Lager Mark. The Federal Court concluded they were confusing, applying the test in section 6(5) of the Trade-marks Act and giving particular weight to two surrounding circumstances: (1) that the Court of Appeal had found the Registered Anheuser-Busch Marks confusing; and (2) an acknowledgement in the Memorandums of Fact and Law filed by both the parties that the marks were confusing.

The beer wars continue and we may very well see an appeal.

Feud Over Family Name Spills Into Federal Court

By In Case Law, Protection & Enforcement, Registration

In a recent decision of the Federal Court Trial Division, the registration of the mark STENNER was expunged on the basis that it was not distinctive. 

STENNER was registered as a trademark in the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) in 2005.  The Application, filed in 2003, was objected to by the CIPO Examiner on the basis that the mark was primarily merely the surname of an individual.  That objection was overcome when the Applicant provided sufficient evidence of secondary distinctiveness – i.e. evidence that the mark was recognized as the source of the Applicant’s financial services and newsletters, as much or more than than it was recognized as a surname.  The Application was not opposed by anyone.

The Federal Court found that the evidence established that the registered owner had used the STENNER mark on and off over the years, commencing in the late 1980’s, though rarely, if ever, as a standalone mark and periods of use had been punctuated by lengthy periods of non-use.  In the early 2000’s, the principal of the registered owner had a bitter falling out with his two children who were also in the financial services industry and who also used the STENNER name in association with the performance of their services.  That falling out had been the subject of a separate lawsuit, however the Court in those proceedings specifically declined to rule on the validity of the trademark registration for STENNER.

The application to expunge the registration for STENNER was based on various grounds, but the argument that won the most favour with the Federal Court was that the mark was no longer distinctive (assuming it ever had been), due to extended periods of non-use, lack of use as a standalone mark and the results of expert evidence on the recognition of the mark as a source indicator for the registered owner’s services.   The expert evidence put forward showed that the mark was recognized by virtually no one outside of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia and even within that region, the recognition factor was very low.  Also, the use of the same mark by the two children in the same industry and geographic area also pointed to a lack of distinctiveness.

In the end result, the Federal Court ordered the expungement of the registration for the STENNER mark.  There is no indication yet of whether an appeal will be filed, though the deadline for doing so is fast approaching.

“Bad Faith” Decisions Bad News for Trademark Applicants?

By In Case Law, Protection & Enforcement, Trademark Oppositions

The following article, authored by Jeffrey Vicq, was originally posted on the IPilogue—a co-operative blog hosted on the IP Osgoode website of York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School.

Those of us who provide trademark prosecution and counselling services—and particularly those of us who work with clients that have multi-national trademark portfolios—know that clients are sensitive to developments not only in Canadian practice, but also in other key markets around the world.  Many of my clients were concerned about a line of United States cases, decided over the last several years, that regarded innocent filing errors in applications, renewal forms, and other correspondence with the US Patent and Trademark Office as attempts to perpetrate a fraud on the Office, justifying refusal, expungement, or some other highly punitive penalty.  These decisions had effectively broadened the notion of “fraud” on the USPTO to include innocent mistake and negligence.

However, it appears generally acknowledged that this trend halted in 2009 with a decision titled In re Bose Corp. In the most general terms, Bose served to restore the concept of fraud on the Office to a more conventional meaning.  Now, only if an applicant knowingly makes a false, material representation with the intent to deceive does their action rise to the level of fraud, meriting harsh punishment.

However, I am becoming concerned we may be seeing the start of a trend in Canada toward permitting challenges to applications for alleged lack of good faith akin to what our US friends experienced pre-Bose.  In decisions released over the last two years, the Canadian Trade-marks Opposition Board appears to be breathing new life into the ability of opponents to challenge applications on the basis of good faith. Read more

When Prior Use is not Prior Use

By In Case Law, Legislation, Registration

In an update to an earlier post, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently granted leave to appeal in the case of Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc.    Both the Federal Court Trial Division and the Federal Court of Appeal held that, in a proceeding to expunge a Registration, the relevant date for determining whether there was confusion with a mark previously used in Canada is the date that the application was filed, and that likelihood of confusion at a point in the future is not a relevant consideration. 

In addition, both of the earlier decisions stated that in order for prior use of a mark in Canada to be grounds for successfully expunging a registration, such prior use must have occurred in the same geographic area where the applicant used its mark; otherwise there could have been no likelihood of confusion at the time the application was filed.   In coming to the latter conclusion, both Courts appear, at least with respect to an action for expungement of a registration, to have imported into the test for likelihood of confusion, the test for common law passing off.   Given this, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on this issue will be eagerly awaited by practitioners.

CIPO Seeks Consultation On More Proposed Changes

By In Uncategorized

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office recently posted a consultation, requesting comments on three proposed changes to its Office practice.  The proposed changes are all relatively minor, but worth noting.

The first proposed change is that the Registrar will no longer require applicants to confirm that they are a “person” as defined in Section 2 of the Act.  Previously, the Examination Manual has required Examiners to seek confirmation from applicants where it’s not clear from the application that the applicant is a legal entity – for example if a individual files an application under a “doing business as” name rather than under their legal name.  Under the proposed Practice Notice, Examiners will no longer request clarification from the applicant and it will be up to the applicant to ensure that it complies with the Act in this regard.

The second proposed change is in relation to colour claims in applications.  The Act currently provides that unless an application is for a word mark not depicted in a special form (i.e. if the mark is anything other than a word mark in block letters), then the application must contain a drawing of the mark and if colour is claimed as a feature of the mark, the Regulations stipulate that the colour(s) must be described.  Rule 28 of the Regulations provides that if a description of the colour(s) as provided by the applicant is not clear, the Registrar can cause the applicant to provide a drawing of the mark, lined for colour in accordance with a chart that is set out in Rule 28.  This chart contains different lining specifications for all the basic colours but there is no indication of how (or whether) an applicant is to differentiate between different shades/hues of a particular colour – for example there is a specific line drawing for the colour “Blue” (horizontal lines) in Rule 28, but this would apply to light blue, dark blue and everything in between. Read more

Municipality’s rights in name not retroactive under CDRP: westkelowna.ca

By In Domain Name Disputes, Domain Names

In District of West Kelowna v. Baremetal.com Inc. the District of West Kelowna (the “Municipality”) lost a Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) proceeding involving the domain name westkelowna.ca, to an alleged cybersquatter.

On April 2, 2007, Baremetal.com Inc. (the “Registrant”), apparently operated by a businessman living in the Municipality, registered the domain name westkelowna.ca. Subsequently, on January 29, 2009, in response to an opinion poll, the Municipality legally changed its name from “Westside District Municipality” to the “District of West Kelowna”. The Municipality contacted the Registrant to request a transfer of the domain name, but the Registrant refused. As a result, the Municipality filed a complaint under the CDRP in an attempt to gain control of the domain name.

To succeed in a CDRP proceeding, Section 4.1 of the CDRP Policy provides that the Complainant must prove that:

(a) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant had rights prior to the date of registration of the disputed domain name,

(b) the Registrant has registered the domain in bad faith,

and the Complainant must provide some evidence that:

(c) the Registrant has no legitimate interest in the domain name.

Even if the Complainant proves (a) and (b) and provides some evidence of (c), the Registrant will succeed in the proceeding if the Registrant proves, on a balance of probabilities, that the Registrant has a legitimate interest in the domain name.

In this case, the Complainant Municipality didn’t even make it out of the gate, as the Panel found that the Municipality did not have prior rights in the mark “West Kelowna”. Under CIRA’s Municipal Name Registration Policy, a municipality’s name is generally reserved for the use of that municipality; however, the Panel found that unless a municipal name is specifically listed in the Canadian Geographical Names Database (CGNDB) at the time of the domain name reservation, the name is not reserved for the use of the municipality. The Municipality also failed to provide sufficient evidence that it had rights in the mark due to use of the mark prior to the registration of the domain name.

As a result, the complaint was dismissed. The Panel did, however, refuse the Registrant’s request for costs, finding that the Municipality had not made the complaint in bad faith.