Canadian Trademark Blog

Maintained by Clark Wilson LLP

Psion Capitulates In Netbook Battle

By In Protection & Enforcement, Registration

Following up on a story we reported earlier this year, Mississaugua, Ontario-based Psion Teklogix appears to have resolved its trademark dispute with Intel Corporation by undertaking to withdraw all of its NETBOOK trademark registrations.  As regular readers of our blog will recall, Psion’s registrations for NETBOOK were being challenged in a number of jurisdictions, including Canada, by Intel and others on the bases of non-use and non-distinctiveness.

While the Psion press release makes no specific reference to the terms of settlement, it seems likely that Intel persuaded Psion to formally abandon the NETBOOK brand by providing a cash payment to the Canadian company.  It is not clear to what extent, if any, Dell Inc. – who had joined Intel in attacking Psion’s registrations – was a formal part of any such settlement.

The news of the settlement is not particularly surprising: Psion had a long and expensive row to hoe defending the various actions in the jurisdictions in which it was under attack, let alone asserting its rights around the world to stave off allegations of non-distinctiveness / genericide.  Moreover, Intel and Dell no doubt both had more resources to apply to the case than Psion did.  Given all of that, the cost-benefit analysis pushes one to settlement pretty quickly. Read more

Maple Leaf Melee

By In Case Law, Foreign Protection

A recent CTM case concerning an iconic Canadian symbol caught our attention.

The dispute between American Clothing Associates SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (“OHIM” – the body that administrates the Community Trademark System) focuses upon the Canada’s well-known maple leaf symbol–stylized versions of which appear as part of our own logo, above.

The case considers the extent to which national symbols are afforded protection under the Community Regulation 40/94 and under the Paris Convention.  American Clothing Associates SA (“ACA”) originally sought to register a logo made up of the Maple Leaf symbol, with the letters RW located beneath, for use in association with both goods and services.

OHIM’s examiner refused the initial application concluding that the mark as a whole would improperly connote an association with Canada.  ACA appealed and lost again, the Appeal Board noting that the inclusion of the RW element in the mark did not avoid the application of Article 6ter of the Paris Convention which prohibits the use of marks incorporating State indicia without consent. Read more

Osteoporosis Marks a Bone of Contention: NPS Pharmaceuticals v. Biofarma

By In Case Law, Trademark Oppositions

The Federal Court recently issued its judgment in NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc v. Biofarma, Société Par Actions Simplifiée.   This case was an appeal by NPS from a decision of the Trade-marks Opposition Board, which had refused NPS’s application to register PREOS, on the basis that it was confusing with Biofarma’s prior application for PROTOS.   Both marks were associated with osteoporosis medications.

The Board analyzed the facts with respect to the criteria laid out in Section 6(5)  of the Trade-marks Act and also considered the issue of drug errors and whether or not Biofarma would actually use the PROTOS mark.   When considering the nature of the wares and the channels of trade for the two marks, the Board found that although the PREOS and PROTOS drugs would be administered in very different forms (PREOS being self injected and PROTOS being dissolved in a glass of water) and could be aimed at different groups of patients, the description of the wares in the applications for both drugs covered identical wares and were not limited as to physical form, dosage and mode of application.   The Board also found a “fair degree of resemblance” between the marks, rejecting the “microscopic analysis” by NPS regarding the differences in appearance and sound of the marks.   On the issue of possible drug administration errors, the Board held that this was not directly relevant to the issue of confusion.   In addition, the Board found that Biofarma was entitled to rely on its allowed application for PROTOS (which was in good standing) to oppose PREOS, despite uncertainty surrounding whether the PROTOS mark would ever be used in Canada.   Based on all the factors considered, the Board held that the PREOS mark was confusing with PROTOS. Read more

Breweries Battle Over Ontario

By In Case Law, Protection & Enforcement

In yet another Canadian trademark dispute involving alcoholic beverages – seems to be a bit of a trend lately – Ontario based Brick Brewing Co. Limited has issued an announcement that Labatt Brewing Company Limited has commenced an action in Canada’s Federal Court against Brick, alleging that Brick’s RED BARON trademark infringes Labatt’s BRAVA trademark.  While these marks, taken by themselves, seem quite different, the dispute focuses on the similarities between the labels and packaging used with these products, along with the similarity of the bottles.

In an interesting side bar, Labatt has a significant ownership interest in Ontario’s “The Beer Store” which is by far the largest retail channel for beer in Canada’s most populous province.  As such, Labatt indirectly receives fees from Red Brick in order to display its RED BARON lager in a lobby display program at The Beer Store, as well as fees to sort RED BARON bottles, which are non-industry standard.  Brick argues that because of the set up of The Beer Store, where more popular brands such as those sold by Labatt are featured more prominently, consumers generally have to ask for Brick’s products, such as RED BARON, by name, thereby lessening any likelihood of confusion.

Ch-ch-ch-ch Changes? CIPO’s Client Consultations Continue

By In Legislation, Registration, Trademark Oppositions

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office has engaged in a number of client consultations recently.  Considering changes to Section 45 practice, changes to practice before the Opposition Board – even changes to the method by which it publishes practice notices – CIPO has been soliciting client and stakeholder views.  (On the Opposition point, CIPO’s changes to practice before the Board came into effect on March 31, 2009.)

CIPO is now engaged in a new consultation – this one concerning three separate issues.  The first concerns deadlines for responding to Examiner reports.  CIPO is proposing to extend the deadline for responding to such reports from four to six months.

The second concerns deadlines for responding to CIPO’s requests for outstanding information concerning transfers.  Here, CIPO is proposing doing away with such deadlines altogether, though of course the transfer will not be effected it CIPO’s records until all required materials have been provided. Read more

Counterfeit Goods: Another Substantial Award of Damages

By In Case Law, Protection & Enforcement

This blog previously reported on Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. 486353 B.C. Ltd., which, along with Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Yang and Microsoft Corp. v. 9038-3746 Quebec Inc., evidences a recent trend toward substantial damage awards in counterfeit goods cases. The April 2009 decision in Microsoft Corp. v. PC Village Co. Ltd. follows the approach taken in these cases and appears to confirm the courts’ commitment to cracking down on the sale of counterfeit goods in Canada.

In this most recent case, Microsoft Corporation brought an action for copyright and trademark infringement against corporate defendants known as PC Village Markham and PC Village Downtown, which were computer retailers in the Greater Toronto Area. The action was also brought against two employees that worked in sales at these stores. Evidence provided by the plaintiff’s investigators showed that both retail locations engaged in selling computers with unlicensed Microsoft software loaded onto the hard drives. The individual defendants served a Statement of Claim, but did not file it and proceeded to negotiate a settlement which was never finalized. Microsoft then brought a motion for default judgment. Read more

Court Distills Wisdom from Vodka Trade-mark Appeal

By In Case Law

The Federal Court of Appeal recently delivered its decision on the appeal in SC Prodal 94 SRL v. Spirits International B.V., as well as on a motion to quash the appeal.

The Respondent (Spirits) had applied to the Federal Court to expunge the Appellant’s (SC Prodal’s) mark STALINSKAYA for Vodka from the register.  In the meantime, the Appellant had submitted a new application for the same trade-mark and subsequently cancelled the original mark.  By the time the Respondent’s application for expungement of the original mark was considered, it was no longer on the register and consequently the Appellant did not file a notice of appearance.  Although the original mark had been cancelled, the applications judge allowed the Respondent’s application and went on to issue a declaration that the trade-mark STALINSKAYA was not distictive as it was confusing with the Respondent’s trade-marks, including STOLICHNAYA for Vodka.  The applications judge ordered a stay of proceedings and granted a “permanent mandatory injunction” prohibiting the Registrar of Trade-marks from considering the Appellant’s new STALINSKAYA application.  The Appellant appealed and the Respondent moved to quash the appeal on the grounds that the Appellant had waived its rights in the court below by failing to file a notice of appearance. Read more