A New Look at an Old Section of the Trade-Marks Act



ANEWLOOKATANOLDSECTIONOFTHETRADE-MARKSACT

by
HuguesG.Richard*

LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
TheTrade-MarksActissubdividedinmanyparts,oneofthemisentitled:
VALIDITYANDEFFECTOFREGISTRATION.UnderthistitlearefoundSections19,
20and22.Thesearethesectionsreferredtoinmosttrade-markinfringement
cases.The”classic”interpretationofthesesectionscanbesummarizedas
follows:
Section19willgenerallybeinvokedwhentheinfringer”uses”
1without
authorizationtheidenticaltrade-markinassociationwithwaresandservices
inrespectofwhichthetrade-markisregistered:samemark,samewaresand
sameservices.
Section20,ontheotherhand,willgenerallyberesortedtowhentheinfringer
“uses”1
withoutauthorizationatrade-marklikelytocreateconfusionwiththe
registeredtrade-mark:confusingmark,confusingwaresorconfusingservices.

Section22hasalwaysbeensomewhatproblematicandevenmoresosince
thejudgmentofThurlowJ.inClairolInternationalv.ThomasSupply&
Equipment
2,butwecansafelysaythatitisgenerallyresortedtowhena
person”uses”1
itscompetitor’strade-markforthepurposeofappealingtoits
competitor’scustomersinanefforttoweakentheirhabitofbuyingwhatthey
boughtbefore.
Thepurposeofthisshortpaperistoputintoquestionthese”classic”
interpretations,inanattempttoshednewlightonsection20andtheso-



















































LEGERROBICRICHARD,1995.
*OfthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andofthepatent&trademarkagencyfirm
ROBIC,g.p.Publishedat(1995),2-1IntellectualProperty60underthetitleTheDefinitionof
‘use’MayAlterSection20InfringementsoftheTrade-marksAct.
1″Useofatrade-mark”asdefinedinsections2and4oftheTrade-MarksAct.
2(1968),55C.P.R.176(Ex.CT.)



calledrequirementof”use”asdefinedinsections2and4oftheTrade-Marks
Act.
3
Section19endowstheownerofaregisteredtrade-markwithcertainpositive
rights,rightswhichgobeyondtherightsconferredbycommonlaw,itissoto
speaktheepicentreoftheAct.Itgivestotheownerofatrade-markthe
exclusiverighttouseitthroughoutCanadainrespectofthewaresorservices
inassociationwithwhichitisregistered.
Nothingissaidinsection19astotheconsequencesforapersonwhowould
doanyactcontrarytoitsprovisions.Thisaspectofthelawistakencareofby
section53.2whichstatesthatontheapplicationofanyinterestedperson,the
court,ifitissatisfiedthatanyacthasbeendonecontrarytotheAct,may
makeanyorderthatitconsidersappropriateinthecircumstances.
Takenalonesections19and53.2wouldnotmakeiteasyinsome
circumstancesfortheownerofatrade-marktoavailhimselfoftherights
conferredbysection19.Whathappensifthetrade-markshowsupinthe
advertisingofacompetitor’sproductorontheproductitself?Whatifthe
trade-markisusedinagenericwayorinadescriptivemanner?Whatifthe
trade-markusedisnotexactlythesameastheoneregistered?Whatifthe
trade-markusedisthesame,butthewaresorservicesaredifferentfrom
thoseoftheregistration?Wouldsuchunauthorizedmarkingbyathirdparty
beconsideredasactsdonecontrarytosection19?Probablynot.
Thisiswheresection20couldcomeintoaction.Itissubmittedthat
Parliamentdidnotwanttheownerofatrade-markregisteredinrespectof
anywaresorservicestobetrappedin,itthereforeadoptedagenerous
DEEMINGprovisionwherebyanypersonwhosells,distributesoradvertises
waresorservicesinassociationwithaconfusingtrade-markisDEEMEDto
haveinfringedtherightoftheownerofaregisteredtrade-marktoits
exclusiveuse,asprovidedforundersection19.AsstatedbyDenaultJ.:
“Inprovingthatitsrightshavebeeninfringed,theplaintiffcanalso
countontheprotectionoftheAct,ass.20createsapresumptionin
favourofanyonewho
hasaregisteredmarkagainstanypersonwhosells,distributesor
advertisesservicesinassociationwithaconfusingtrade-name,
whatevertheclassofwaresorservices.”
4(emphasisadded)

Thereforeundersection20,itshouldbesufficientfortheownerofaregistered
trade-marktoestablishthatathirdpartysells,distributesoradvertiseswaresor
servicesinassociationwithaconfusingtrade-markortrade-name,inorderto



















































3
See,SyntexInc.v.ApotexInc.(1984),1C.P.R.(3d)145
4CulinarInc.v.GestionCharaineInc.(1987),19C.I.P.R.,133at139.



shifttheburdenofproofonthatthirdpartywhowillbeDEEMEDtoinfringethe
owner’strade-markunlessthethirdpartycanrebutthislegalpresumption
throughthedefensesprovidedforinsection20.Inordertoreversethe
burdenofproofnowonhisshoulderstheDEEMEDinfringercanprovethathe
isapersonentitledtousetheregisteredtrade-markundertheAct.
5
Ifontheotherhandthethirdpartycannotestablishedthatheisaperson
entitledtousethetrade-markundertheActtherearestillfurtherdefenses
availabletohim,i.e.:

a)heuses,inabonafidemanner,hispersonalnameasatrade-
name,or
b)heuses,inabonafidemanner,otherthanasatrade-mark,
i.thegeographicalnameofhisplaceofbusiness,or
ii.anyaccuratedescriptionofthecharacterorqualityofhis
waresorservices.
Thedefensesprovidedin(a)and(b)cannotsucceedifthebonafideuseof
hispersonalnameasatrade-nameorthebonafideuse,otherthanasa
trade-mark,ofthegeographicalnameortheaccuratedescription,arelikely
tohavetheeffectofdepreciatingthevalueofthegoodwillattachingtothe
trade-mark.
Section20shouldthereforebeinterpretedasaconsiderableadvantage
beinggivenbyParliamenttotheownerofaregisteredtrade-markwho,
shouldnothavetoproveanunauthorized”useofatrade-mark”byathird
partyinordertobesuccessfulinaninfringementaction.Theonlythingthat
theownershouldhavetoproveisthefactthatthedefendant”sells,
distributesoradvertiseswaresorservicesinassociationwithaconfusing
trade-markortrade-namewhichafortiorishouldincludetheidenticaltrade-
mark.
Thisinterpretationofsection20wouldavoidhavingtodiscussthemeaningof
“useasatrade-mark”asitwasdone,inaveryunsatisfactorymanner,inthe
Clairolcase(supra).Italsowouldrecognizethatapersoncanbeatrade-
markinfringerwithout”usinganytrade-mark”asdefinedinsections2and4of
theAct.



















































5
Thiscouldbedoneforinstancebyestablishingthatheistheassigneeorlicenseeof
theregisteredtrade-mark,orthattheregistrationisinvalid,orthathebenefitsfrom
theextinctionofrightstheoryconfirmedbysection8oftheActetc…



Thisfactisconfirmedbythelastparagraphofsection20whereitisclearly
statedthatapersonwillbeDEEMEDtoinfringearegisteredtrade-markifit
useshispersonalnameasatrade-name(andnotasatrade-mark)orifituses
otherthanasatrade-markageographicalnameetc…inamannerlikelyto
havetheeffectofdepreciatingthevalueofthegoodwillattachingtothe
trade-mark.Thisinterpretationofsection20alsoshowsthatourcourtsmay
havemischaracterizedthe”infringer”undertheActasaunlawful”userofa
trade-mark”asdefinedinsections2and4.Wearetemptedtosuggestthat
sections2and4areintendedtodescribethetypeofusewhichisneededof
apersontobecometheownerofatrade-markandnotthekindofusewhich
isneededofapersontobecomeaninfringerofatrade-mark.

Notallhasbeensaid,thereflexionmustcontinue,butifthisinterpretationof
section20isright,itcouldhaveusefulrepercussionsincomparative
advertisementcaseswherethereusuallyisapersonadvertisingwaresor
servicesinassociationwiththeregisteredtrade-markoraconfusingtrade-
markortrade-nameinamannerlikelytohavetheeffectofdepreciatingthe
valueofthegoodwillattachingtoregisteredtrade-mark.
Section20,accordingtothisinterpretation,hastheconsiderableadvantage
oversection22ofnotmakingreferenceto”useofatrade-mark”bythe
alledgedinfringerandthereforemayaffordaremedytoaregisteredowner
incircumstanceswhererelyingonsection22wouldlikelyraisebizarre
distinctionssuchasintheClairolcase(supra)andtheEyeMasterLtdv.Ross
KingHoldingsLtdcase.InthatlattercaseReedJ.hadtoadmitthatshe
foundtheconclusion(whichsheaccepted)”somewhatbizarre”.
6

6
(1992),3F.C.625,ReedJ.,(F.C.T.D.)atp.630



ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,
droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-
howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,
litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdansle
monde.Lamaîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD