An Important Change Regarding the Treatment of Trade-Mark Applications in Canada: A Fifty Year Practice by the Trade-Marks Office is Overturned Following the Decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in the Effigi Case

1
ANIMPORTANTCHANGEREGARDINGTHETREATMENTOFTRADE-MARK
APPLICATIONSINCANADA:AFIFTYYEARPRACTICEBYTHETRADE-MARKS
OFFICEISOVERTURNEDFOLLOWINGTHEDECISIONOFTHEFEDERALCOURTOF
APPEALINTHEEFFIGICASE

BarryGamache*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.
Lawyers,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

Inanimportantdecisionwhichchangestherulesofthegameregardingthe
treatmentoftrade-markapplicationsinCanada,theFederalCourtofAppeal
inAttorneyGeneralofCanadav.EffigiInc.,2005FCA172(F.C.A.,Décary,
LétourneauandPelletier,JJ.A.)confirmedanearlierdecisionhandeddown
in2004bytheFederalCourt(EffigiInc.v.AttorneyGeneralofCanada(2004),
35C.P.R.(4th)307(F.C.,ShoreJ.))whereitwasdecidedthattheRegistrarof
Trade-marks,whenexaminingatrade-markapplicationunderparagraph
37(1)(c)oftheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.(1985),c.T-13,cannotrefusea
proposedusetrade-markapplicationbecauseofconfusioncreatedwith
anothertrade-markmentionedinalaterfiledapplicationwhichallegesa
dateoffirstusethatisearlierthanthedateoffilingofthefirstfiled
application;inotherwords,attheexaminationstage,anallegeddateofuse
isnotarelevantfactortodetermineentitlementtoregistration.
TheRegistrar’spractice
EversincetheadoptionofCanada’scurrentTrade-marksActbackonJuly1
st,
1954,ithadbeenthepracticeoftheRegistrarofTrade-markstorefertoany
allegeddateoffirstusementionedinatrade-markapplication(andnottoits
actualfilingdate)whencomparingtwoconfusingandco-pending
applicationsinordertodeterminewhichonewillbepublishedforopposition
purposesintheTrade-marksJournalandwhichonewillberejected.

CIPS,2005.*OfLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrademark
agents.PublishedintheSummer2005issue(Vol.9,No.3)issueofourNewsletter.Publication
068.068E.

2
ThispracticebytheRegistrarresultedinpreferentialtreatmentbeinggivento
aanapplicationallegingadateoffirstusewhichwasearlierthanthefiling
dateofapriorapplicationbasedonproposeduse;thelaterfiledapplication
wasthusallowedtopublicationforoppositionpurposeswhiletheproposed
useapplicationthatwasfiledfirstwasrejected.
Paragraph37(1)(c)oftheTrade-marksActwhichdescribestheRegistrar’s
jurisdictionattheexaminationstagereadsasfollows:”TheRegistrarshall
refuseanapplicationfortheregistrationofatrade-markifheissatisfiedthat
…theapplicantisnotthepersonentitledtoregistrationofthetrade-mark
becauseitisconfusingwithanothertrade-markfortheregistrationofwhich
anapplicationispending”.
WhattheCourtdecided
InitsdecisionhandeddownonMay10,2005,theFederalCourtofAppeal
confirmsthattheRegistrardoesnothaveanyauthoritytoconsiderallegations
ofusewhenconsideringtrade-markapplicationsunderparagraph37(1)(c).
Thus,contrarytoitspracticeforthelastfiftyyears,theRegistrarwillnow
examineapplicationsinchronologicalorder,beginningwiththeonethathas
theearliestdateoffilingtodetermineifthereisnoconfusionwithamarkthat
ispendingwhentheapplicationisfiled,andifalltheotherrequirementsof
section37arefulfilled;ifsuchisthecase,theapplicationwillthenbe
acceptedforadvertisementbytheRegistrarandanythirdpartywhoclaims
previoususeofaconfusinglysimilartrade-markmayfileastatementof
oppositionundersection38oftheTrade-marksAct.This”firstcome,first
served”policyappearedtotheCourttobemorelogicalandeasiertoapply
thantheonefollowedbytheRegistrar.
TheRegistrartriedtojustifyitsfifty-year-oldpracticebyrelyingontheweight
thatshouldbegiventoanyprevioususeintheprotectionoftrade-marks
sinceuseisalinchpinintheacquisition,maintenanceandenforcementof
trade-markrights.However,asmentionedbyMr.JusticeDécary,thisprinciple
isnotoffendedbyforcingasecondapplicantwhoclaimsprevioususeofa
confusinglysimilartrade-markonthestrengthofamereallegationtoresortto
oppositionproceedingsinordertoestablish,withmoreelaborateevidence,
hisrighttoregistrationonthebasisofsuchprevioususe.
Whatitnowmeans…
ThemostimportantconsequenceofthisdecisionisthattheRegistrarno
longergivesanypreferentialtreatmenttotrade-markapplicationsfiledon
thebasisofanyallegeduse;alltrade-markapplications,whetherfiledonthe
basisofuseorproposeduse,arenowtreatedonthesamefooting.Thatis

3
whyalltrade-markapplicationsshouldnowbefiledassoonaspossiblein
ordertobenefitfromthe”firstcome,firstserved”policy.
Itisnowtimeforfulldisclosure:theauthorofthisarticlerepresentedEffigiInc.
bothbeforetheFederalCourtandtheFederalCourtofAppeal.Withthis
importantchange,proposeduseapplicationswillnolongerberejected
becauseofasubsequentlyfiledapplicationallegingprevioususe.

4
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademark
agentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofall
fieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;
trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplant
breeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,
franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusiness
law;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD