Canadian Trademark Blog

Maintained by Clark Wilson LLP

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.

Nice-ly done: CIPO now accepting voluntary classification of goods and services

By In Legislation, Registration

Following our post from July 2015, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) is now accepting trade-mark applications filed with goods and services classified using the Nice Classification system.  As part of this process, CIPO has also updated the online Canadian trade-marks database, such that “Nice classification” is now a possible search field.  In addition, the Canadian Goods and Services Manual has been updated to allow users to search for specific terms within all 45 Nice classes, and to cut-and-paste or import text containing a list of goods and services for proposed classification by the database.

Once the upcoming changes to the Canadian trade-mark regime come into effect, there will be a requirement to classify the goods and services claimed in an application into Nice classes, and to have that classification approved by an Examiner.  For the time being, however, the classification of goods and services by an Applicant is entirely voluntary.

As another interim point of interest, where the Examiner does not agree with an Applicant’s classification of goods and services for a yet-to-be advertised application, CIPO will nevertheless advertise the application in the Trade-marks Journal if no other requirements and/or objections are outstanding – but without the Nice classification.  Obviously, this will no longer be the case once the changes to Canada’s trade-mark regime come into force.

We will provide an update as soon as it becomes mandatory to classify goods and services in Canadian trade-mark applications.  In the meantime, the ability to search all Nice classes and to view the expanded list of goods and services that are acceptable to CIPO is a welcome update.

Back to school – Keyword advertising 101

By In Case Law, Protection & Enforcement

In the 21st century, when advertising is frequently conducted via the Internet, the use of keyword advertising has become an increasingly contentious point of trade-mark law.

In short, keyword advertising is a form of online advertising in which a business selects words or phrases (the “keywords”) that trigger its advertisements to appear when the user of a search engine performs a search using those keywords.  The advertisements typically appear alongside the organic search results produced by the search engine.

Where multiple companies use the same keywords to trigger advertisements, the search engine will use an algorithm to select which company’s advertisements actually appear and in what order, based at least in part on the amount each business is willing to pay for the advertisement.  The difficulty from a trade-mark perspective is that businesses frequently choose competitors’ trade-marks as keywords.

There has been little development in Canadian jurisprudence in the area since the first Canadian decision on keyword advertising in 2010.  Last week, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, writing through Justice Affleck, tackled the issue head-on in Vancouver Community v. Vancouver Career (Burnaby) Inc., 2015 BCSC 1470.

In this case, the Vancouver Community College (“Community”) brought a passing off action against the Vancouver Career College (“Career”) in which it alleged, among other claims, that Career, principally through keyword advertising, misrepresented its educational services as those of Community.  As part of its claims, Community objected to the use of the acronym VCC by Career as part of the latter’s keyword advertising campaign, notwithstanding Community’s unregistered, common law trade-mark rights in VCC.  The evidence showed that Community used VCC as a trade-mark from 1965 until 1990, when it largely abandoned the use of VCC, until 2013, when significant use resumed.

Ultimately, Justice Affleck concluded that there was no passing off by Career, since Community failed to meet the first part of the test for passing off, in that it did not have sufficient goodwill and acquired distinctiveness in its unregistered VCC trade-mark to impart a secondary meaning to consumers.  However, the trial judge went on to discuss the second part of the test, namely, whether Career had caused confusion by misrepresenting its services as those of Community.  In doing so, Justice Affleck made the following comments of interest:

-on bidding by advertisers, and the operation and process of searching using search engines – “a bid on a keyword may send a searcher to the bidder’s landing page, but the process of the search is controlled by the searcher and the search engine, not by the advertiser”.

-on when a first impression is made on the consumer – consistent with the decision in Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Stainton Ventures Ltd., 2014 BCCA 296 (the “ICBC Decision”), “the “first impression” cannot arise on a [search] at an earlier time than when the searcher reaches a website […] the “relevant consumer” will “understand that it is necessary to view a website to determine whose site it is” [citing the ICBC Decision].  In my opinion that is the point during a search when the relevant first impression is made”.

-on bidding on another company’s trade-mark as a keyword – “to award damages to the plaintiff or to enjoin the defendant from certain conduct because the defendant bids on the plaintiff’s name for the purposes of keyword advertising would be to disadvantage the defendant in a way that other online advertisers are not”.

In the result, Justice Affleck concluded that Career did not cause confusion by taking advantage of the keyword advertising service offered by Google.

Other than the issue of keyword advertising, which we expect is the point that will garner the most interest and commentary from practitioners, the decision is interesting for:

-Justice Affleck’s reliance on the ICBC Decision, as referenced above, which sparked its own interest for its assessment of when a “first impression” is made upon Internet users;

-Justice Affleck’s disposition of the official mark issue raised by Community in essentially 3 brief paragraphs without going into detail, such as whether Career actually used VCC as a trade-mark prior to publication of Community’s official mark for VCC;

-Justice Affleck’s finding that Community’s VCC mark enjoys “goodwill in the educational services it provides, but [has] not achieved a “secondary meaning” in the marketplace”, which contrasts with the comments of the Trade-marks Opposition Board (the “Board”) with respect to Community’s VCC mark in an earlier decision in which the Board rejected Career’s application to register the trade-mark VCCollege.ca; and

-Justice Affleck’s observation that Community’s action for passing off was an attempt to handicap Career, and was “motivated by a concern that its own inability to invest the necessary funds and expertise to create a sophisticated online advertising program leaves it at a competitive disadvantage in the marketplace in comparison with [Career]”.

Community has until September 19, 2015 to appeal Justice Affleck’s decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

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

By In Legislation, Registration

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!

C’est vrai: Québec government to continue seeking use of French on store signage

By In Branding, Legislation

The Canadian media, including the CBC, is reporting that the Québec government intends to continue its fight to require the use of French on signage where trade-marks and business names are otherwise displayed in English.

This is the latest development in a dispute that has gone on for a number of years.  As previously discussed in our post from November 23, 2012, a number of well-known retailers took the Québec government’s French language watchdog, the Office québécois de la langue française (“OQLF”), to Court over a requirement that all retailers must use either a generic French descriptive word or a French language slogan or explanation to reflect what they are selling, if their signage features an English language trade-mark – even if such trade-mark is registered under the Federal Trade-marks Act.

The retailers, which included multinational heavyweights such as WALMART, COSTCO and BEST BUY, were successful both before the Québec Superior Court and, more recently in April 2015, before the Québec Court of Appeal.  The Courts confirmed that the display of English language trade-marks on exterior store signage, without additional French descriptive language, did not violate Québec’s Charter of the French Language (the “Charter”), as retailers in Québec are entitled to post their trade-marks as is – i.e., in English – on the storefronts of their establishments, because of exceptions built into the Charter.

The retailers were therefore granted the declaratory judgment they requested against the OQLF.  The Québec government has until June 26, 2015 to file for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, although the CBC reports that the government will not seek such leave.

In the meantime, the Québec government has decided to approach the issue from a matter of legislative change.  Framing the issue as a matter of “politeness” and awareness of the French language, the government will propose legislative amendments in the fall that will “ensure a permanent and visible presence of French” on exterior storefronts.  The government is hoping to have the legislative amendments in place by 2016.

Using as an example the SECOND CUP coffee retailer, which apparently is known as “Les cafés SECOND CUP” in la belle province, Premier Philippe Couillard takes the view that while “everyone knows” they sell coffee, the fact that the company uses “les cafés” in Québec is a recognition on the part of the retailer of the existence of French in Québec.

While there will apparently be no requirement to translate English language trade-marks, there will instead be a need to add descriptive or generic language in French.  Hence, once again, the Québec government is set to challenge the resistance of companies wishing not to use French on their English language signage in that province.

The CBC reports that the Retail Council of Canada has endorsed the move; however, it remains to be seen how companies, including the aforementioned retailers, will react.

Given the history and the nature of the businesses involved, we expect that there are more chapters to come in this story.

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