Abandonment of a Registered Trade-Mark with respect to a Design Variant



ABANDONMENTOFAREGISTEREDTRADEMARKWITHRESPECTTOADESIGN
VARIANT

BobH.Sotiriadis*
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

UnderCanadianTrade-MarkLaw,aregisteredtrademarkmaybeexpunged
onapplicationbyanyinterestedpartywhodemonstratesthatthetrade-mark
hasbeenabandonedbyitsowner.Thisprincipleapplieswhetherthetrade-
markconsistsofaword-markoradesign-mark.
Generallyspeaking,inexaminingwhetherabandonmentofatrade-markhas
occurred,thecourtmustsatisfyitselfthatthemarkisnolongerinusein
Canadaandthattheintentionoftheownerofthemarkistoabandonit.
Inthisessay,wewilldiscussarecentjurisprudentialdevelopmentwithrespect
toabandonmentwhenitoccursasaresultoftheemplaymentofawriantof
aregisteredmarkasopposedtoitsabandonmentpurelyandsimply.
ThePromafilCase.InthecaseofPromafilCanadaLtéev.MunsingwearInc.
(T-328-88,February7th,1990),
1theFederalCourtofCanadawasagaingiven
theopportunitytoconsidertowhatextentandtowhatdegreetheownerof
aregisteredtrade-markmayemployavariantofthesaidmarkandstillbe
saidtobeusingtheregisteredtrade-mark.
Asweshallsee,avariantofaregisteredtrade-markwillconstituteuseofthe
markaslongasthevariantdoesnotconsistofanoverlyradicaldeparture
fromtheregisteredmark.OneoftheinterestingaspectsofthePromafilcase



















































*
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,1990.
Lawyer,BobH.SotiriadisisaseniorpartnerinthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andin
thepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Publishedat(1990),7Business&theLaw.
46-47.Publication116.002.
1Thecaseispresentlyonappeal.However,itservesasanexcellentexampleofthemanner
inwhichthecourtswillinvariablytreatthisquestion.Furthermore,thewholequestioncould
havebeenavoided,andtheappealwouldhavebeenunnecessaryhadtheRespondent
registereditsnewmarkasmentionedinourconclusion.



isthefactthattheCourthadbeforeitanapplicationfortheexpungementof
adesignmark,asopposedtoamarkcontainingonlywords.Also,the
designsunderscrutinybytheCourtdidnotnecessarilydifferinanobvious
way.
FactsBeforetheCourt.InthePromafilcase,theApplicantsoughtthe
expungementofaregistereddesignmarkreferredtoastheslimpenguin.
ThisdesignhadnotbeenusedbyMunsingwearInc.oranyregisteredusers
since1982.
Ontheotherhanda”corpulentpenguin”designmarkhadbeenusedbefore
andafterthedatetheRespondentstoppedusingthe”slimpenguin”design.
Bothdesignsconsistofpenguinswiththeirheadsturnedtotheright.Evidently
the”corpulentpenguin”iswiderbutonlyslightlytallerthantheUslimpenguin.
The”corpulentpenguin’s”tuxedoisdrawnwithalittlemoredetailanditsbaw
tieismoreevident.The”corpulentpenguin”alsohasamoreavalhead,a
finerbeak,andbetterdesignedarmsandfeet.
The”slimpenguin”designwasembroideredonthefront,orsleevesofmen’s
sportshirtsfrom1957to1982.After1982,onlythe”corpulentpenguin”was
usedinconnectionwithmen’ssportshirts.
TheCourtwasaskedtodecidewhethertheuseofthe”corpulentpenguin”on
shirtsafter1982,constitutedauseoftheregistered”slimpenguin”designin
accordancewiththeTrade-MarkAct.Ifthisconstituteduse,thentherewould
benocaseofabandonment.Theanswertothisquestion,however,will
alwaysdependontheextenttowhichdeviationofamarkcanoccurandstill
beconsidereduseoftheregisteredmark.
PrinciplesInvoked.InthePromafilcase,theHonourableJusticeBarbara
Reedconsideredtheprinciplesenunciatedinawell-establishedlineof
jurisprudenceonthequestion.Asummaryoftheprinciplesconsideredbyher
maybesetforthasfollows:
a)amarkwillbeconsideredtobeinusewhenthedeviationisnot
substantial,especiallywhenessentialfeaturesofthemarkasregistered
areretainedinthemarkasused;
b)amarkwillbeconsideredtobeinusewhenthedeviationdoesnot
touchononeofthedominantfeaturesofthemarkasregistered;
c)amarkwillbeconsideredtobeinusewhentheCourtconcludes
thatthemarkinitsdeviantformwouldnothavedeceivedanyperson
whowouldcomeacrossit;and



d)amarkwillbeconsideredtobeinusewhenonlyinsignificant
featuresareaddedtoit.

AnalysisandDistinctionsMadebytheCourt.TheHonourableJusticeReed
chose,however,todistinguishtheforegoingjurisprudenceonthebasisthat
thecasesinquestiondealtwithmarkswhichcontainedonlywords.She
statedthatinsuchcasestheCourtwillfocusonthemeaningofthewords
conveyed.
Onthecontrary,inthePromafilcase,theHonourableJudgefoundthatwhen
adesignmarkisunderscrutinynocommonalityoffocusexists.Insuchcases,
theCourtmustdeterminenotonlywhetherthedifferenceisoneofseveral
features,butmustalsolookatthevisualimpactofthedesignsexamined.
AccordingtotheHonourableJustice,oncethisanalysisiscarriedout,the
Courtmustapplythetestoftheunawarepurchaserwhichwassummarized
asfollowsinthecaseoftheRegistrarofTrademarksv.Compagnie
internationalepourl’informatiqueHoneywellBullsociétéanonyme(1985),4
C.P.R.(3d)523(F.C.A.):
“Thepracticaltesttobeappliedinordertoresolveacaseofthis
natureistocomparethetrade-markasitisregisteredwiththe
trade-markasitisusedanddeterminewhetherthedifferences
betweenthesetwo(2)marksaresounimportantthatan
unawarepurchaserwouldbelikelytoinferthatboth,inspiteof
theirdifferences,identifygoodshavingthesameorigin.”

Conclusion.Evidently,Promafilisnottheonlyjudgementeverrenderedon
thequestionofthevariationofadesignmark.However,thisdecisionserves
asaclearwarningtoownersofregisteredtrade-markswhowish,for
whateverreasons,touseavariantoftheirregisteredtrademarkwithout
seeingtotheregistrationofthenewversionofthemark.
ItshouldalsobenotedthattheRespondentinthePromafilcaseargued
withoutsuccessthatthedevelopmentofthe”corpulentpenguin”evolvedas
aresultofanimprovementovertheyearsofembroiderytechniques.The
HonourableJusticefurtherdismissedanargumenttotheeffectthatthe
“corpulentpenguin”wasmerelyadevelopmentorevolutionofthe”slim
penguin”.
ThedecisioninPromafilmakesitclearthenthatwhenindoubtaboutthe
variantofaregisteredtrademark,howeverslightitmayappearuponcasual



scrutiny,theowneriswelladvisedtoseetotheregistrationofthevariantina
timelymanner.



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