An overly broad declaration of use resulting from an innocent misstatement does not suffice to strike out a trademark registration

A
NOVERLYBROADDECLARATIONOFUSERESULTINGFROMAN
INNOCENTMISSTATEMENTDOESNOTSUFFICETOSTRIKEOUTATRADE-
MARKREGISTRATION

M
ARCELNAUD*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
L.L.P.
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS
ParfumsdeCoeur,Ltd.v.Asta,2009FC21(CanLII)

Inajudgmentrenderedon2009-01-08,theFederalCourtofCanadafoundthatit
shoulddismissanapplicationbyParfumsDeCoeur,Ltd.(the“Applicant”)tostrike
outthetrade-markBODregisteredbyChristopherAsta(the“Respondent”)in
associationwith“Haircare,namely,shampoo,conditioner”.TheCourtrefusedto
granttheapplicationgiventhat(i)themisstatementwhichledtoanoverlybroad
DeclarationofUsewaswrongandinnocentornegligent,butnotfraudulentand(ii)
theRespondentamendedhisregistrationpriortothebeginningoftheproceedings.
On2004-02-12,theRespondentfiledaDeclarationofUseofseveralwares
pertainingnotonlytohaircarebutalsoskincare,cosmeticsandbodycareforits
trade-markBOD.Ontheotherhand,theApplicantstartedtosellitsproductswiththe
BODMANtrade-markinCanadaaroundOctober2002.Afterissuanceofthe
Respondent’sregistrationfortheBODtrade-mark,theApplicantnotifiedthe
Respondentofitsintenttoseekcancellationoftheregistration.
On2006-10-13,theRespondentamendedthestatementofwaresforitstrade-mark
BODtoreflecttheactualuseinrespectofwaresassociatedtherewith.Theamended
registrationwascitedbytheexaminerasanobstacletotheregistrationofthe
Applicant’strade-markBODMANinassociationwith“men’sfragrances,namely,
cologne,eaudetoilette,aftershave,scentedbodyspraysandpersonaldeodorants.”
Initsdecision,thecourtreaffirmedthat“dateofapplication”intheprovisiononwhich
theRespondentreliedwasreferringtothefilingdateoftheapplicationtostrikeout
thetrade-markandnotthedateoftheoriginalapplicationtoregisterthetrade-mark.
RelyingonthepriordecisionoftheFederalCourtofAppealinGeneralMotorsof
Canadav.DecarieMotorsInc.2000CanLII16083(F.C.A.),theCourtstatedthat



















































©CIPS,2009.*LawyerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentand
trade-markagents.PublishedinaFebruary2009issueofWorldTrademarkReport.Publication
293.058.

2
only(i)fraudulent,intentionalmisstatements,and(ii)innocentmisstatementswithout
which“barrierstoregistrationwouldhavebeeninsurmountable”canberelied-upon
toinvalidateatrade-markregistration.
Here,theCourtfoundthatthatthemisstatementintheDeclarationofUsepertaining
totheoriginalapplicationwasnotfraudulent.TheRespondent’sexplanationswere
thathethoughtthathewasentitledtofileaDeclarationofUseforallthewares
specifiedintheoriginalregistrationaslongashewasusinghistrade-markwithat
leastsomeofthewareslistedintheoriginalapplication.TheCourtsuggeststhatthe
outcomewouldhavebeendifferenthadtheRespondentnotusedthetrade-markat
allatthetimeoffilingitsDeclarationofUse.
Therefore,theburdenoftheRespondentwastoshowthattheamendedregistration
hadbeenobtainedbymaterialmisstatement.Ultimately,accordingtotheCourt,the
amendedregistrationhadnotbeensecuredbymaterialmisstatement,andthe
Respondentmettherequirementsforuseofthemarkasearlyasinearly2001in
respectofthewareslistedinhisamendedregistration,despitesomeflawsand
deficienciesintheevidenceofuse.
ThisjudgementconfirmsthatthereisnoprovisionintheCanadianTrade-MarksAct
underwhichmisstatementsinanapplicationforregistrationorextensionofwares
becomegroundsforinvalidatingtheregistrationunlessthemisstatementhadthe
effectofmakingthetrade-marknotregistrableorunlesstherewasafraudulent
misrepresentation.
Indoingso,theCourtmadeacleardistinctionbetweentheCanadianlawandthe
AmericanlawandrejectedtheapplicationoftheU.S.doctrineoffraud,accordingto
whichrealfraudisnotrequiredandmerematerialmisstatementmaysufficetohold
thattheregistrationasawholeisinvalid.TheCourtfeltthatitwasmoreappropriate
nottoadoptaprinciplethat,initsview,hasnogroundinthecurrentCanadian
Trade-MarksActandthattheParliamenthassofarrefusedtoembrace.

3

ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP(“ROBIC”)

4