Any New Description of Wares in Respondent’s Registration Must Comply With Provisions Protecting Third Party Rights Under Canada’s Trade-Marks Act, Federal Court Rules in Omega Case

1
ANYNEWDESCRIPTIONOFWARESINRESPONDENT’SREGISTRATIONMUST
COMPLYWITHPROVISIONSPROTECTINGTHIRDPARTYRIGHTSUNDERCANADA’S
TRADE-MARKSACT,FEDERALCOURTRULESINOMEGACASE

BarryGamache*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,LLP
Lawyers,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Victoria-Square–BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
info@robic.com-www.robic.ca
Inanimportantdecisionwhichdescribestheextent(butalsothelimits)ofthe
authorityexercisedbytheFederalCourtofCanadaduringjudicial
expungementproceedingsundersection57oftheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.
1985,c.T-13(hereafter:the“Act”),Canada’sFederalCourthasruledthata
respondent’sregistrationcannotbeamendedbyreplacingageneral
classificationofgoodsforanotherconsideredallegedlymoreadequateby
anapplicantwhopetitionedtheCourtforsuchrelief(OmegaEngineering,
Inc.v.OmegaSA(OmegaAG)(OmegaLtd.),2006FC1472(F.C.BlaisJ.,
December8,2006)).
Section57oftheActgrantsCanada’sFederalCourtexclusivejurisdictionto
orderthatanyentryinthetrade-markregisterbestruckoutoramended.The
applicationofthisbroadjurisdictionisnotwithoutlimitsasthiscaseillustrates.
Section57oftheActishereafterreproducedinpart:
57.(1)TheFederalCourthasexclusiveoriginaljurisdiction,onthe
applicationoftheRegistrarorofanypersoninterested,toorderthat
anyentryintheregisterbestruckoutoramendedontheground
thatatthedateoftheapplicationtheentryasitappearsonthe
registerdoesnotaccuratelyexpressordefinetheexistingrightsof
thepersonappearingtobetheregisteredownerofthemark.
AsnotedbytheCourt,thepurposeofthisprovisionistoprovideaprocedure
wherebytheRegistraroftrade-marksoranyinterestedpartymayapplytothe
Courttoclarifythevalidityoftheregistrationofatrade-markintheregister.
OmegaSA(OmegaAG)(OmegaLtd.)(hereafter:“OmegaSA”),thewell-
knownmanufacturerofwatchesandothertiminginstruments,istheownerin

©CIPS,2006.*LawyerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentand
trade-marksAgents.Publication142.197.

2
CanadaofregistrationTMDA05009,securedonJuly24,1894,fortheOmega
Designtrade-markwhichcovers,amongotherthings,watches.Morethan
halfacenturyago,onOctober24,1952,OmegaSAcauseditsregistrationto
beamendedinordertoprotectotherwares,includingchronographsfor
sportingeventsalongwithotherwaresdescribedinthefollowingfashion(and
translatedfromtheoriginalFrenchtextintheregistration):technicaland
scientificapparatusforelectricity,optics,telegraphy,cinema,radio,
telephony,namelyelectricphotocells,startinggates,phototimerecorders
andstartingpistols.
InseparateandearlierproceedingsbetweenOmegaSAandOmega
Engineering,Inc.,thelattercompany,throughitscounsel,appliedunderthe
Act’s“useitorloseit”provision,i.e.section45,fortheexpungementofthe
generaldescriptionofwaresinregistrationTMDA05009(i.e.thetechnicaland
scientificapparatusforelectricity,optics,telegraphy,cinema,radio,
telephony)forreasonsofallegednonuse.AsproofofusewasfiledbyOmega
SA,thesection45proceedingswereeventuallydismissedbytheFederal
CourtofAppealwhichruledthatsuchproceedingsundersection45didnot
allowanychallengetothevalidityofthewordingoftheTMDA05009
registration.(See“MonopolyRightsCan’tBeExaminedInTrademark
ExpungementProceeding”WorldIntellectualPropertyReport,November
2005,vol.19,no.11,p.3).
Thereafter,OmegaEngineering,Inc.initiatedanapplicationundersection57
oftheActforanorderthatregistrationTMDA05009beamendedsothatthe
generalclassificationcurrentlyfoundtherein(andquotedabove)be
removedandreplacedbyanewgeneralclarificationi.e.“appareilssportifs”
orsportingapparatus.TheCourtthereforehadtoconsiderwhetherthe
currentdescriptionofthegeneralclassofwaresi.e.technicalandscientific
apparatusforelectricity,optics,telegraphy,cinema,radio,telephony
accuratelyexpressedtheexistingrightsofOmegaSAundertheTMDA050009
registration.
Insupportofitsposition,theapplicantarguedthattheelectricphotocells,
thestartinggates,thephototimerecordersandthestartingpistolswerenot,
infact,technicalandscientificapparatusbutrathersportingapparatus.The
Courtrejectedthisargumentandruledthattherewasnoquestionthatthe
respondent’sequipmentswere“appareilstechniquesetscientifiques”
pursuanttotheusualdefinitionthatisprovidedforsuchwords.Therewasalso
evidencethattheywere“pourl’éléctricité”andalso“pourl’optique”,
pursuanttodocumentsfiledintheprevioussection45proceedingsandthat
wereintroducedbeforetheCourtinthecurrentsection57proceedings.

3
However,theapplicant’sapplicationalsoraisedtheissueoftheCourt’s
authoritytoamendwhatwouldotherwisebeavalidregistration.Inthecase
beforeit,theCourtdeclinedtoamendregistrationTMDA05009forthe
followingreason:AlthoughtheCourtclearlyhasthepowertostrikeoutan
invalidregistration,thepowerto“amend”,asopposedto“strikeout”,any
registrationshouldonlybeexercisedwhereatrade-markisotherwiseopento
expungement;theabilitytoamendtheregisterinthiswayallowstheCourtto
saveanotherwiseinvalidmarkbutnottorestricttheexistingrightsofthe
registeredownerofavalidtrade-mark(Patou(Jean)Inc.v.LuxoLaboratories
Ltd.,[1998]F.C.J.No.1910(F.C.T.D.)).
Moreover,amendingregistrationTMDA05009asrequestedbytheapplicant
couldnegativelyimpacttherightsofthirdpartiessincetheproposed
amendmentwouldnothavegonethroughtheusualexaminationand
publicationprocesssetoutundertheTrade-marksAct.TheCourtreferredto
RoyalDoultonTablewareLtd.v.Cassidy’sLtd,[1984]F.C.J.No.270(F.C.T.D.),a
casewhereanapplicantwantedtobesubstitutedasrightfulownerofa
registeredtrade-mark:
Itwassuggestedbycounselfortheplaintiff,andresistedby
counselforthedefendant,thatitwouldbeopentomesimply
tosubstituteasregisteredownerParagonChinaLimitedfor
Cassidy’sLtd.withrespecttoregistrationnumber162,829.
Counselfortheplaintiffcontendedthatthiscouldberegarded
asanamendmentoftheregisterwhichbysubsection57(1)of
theTradeMarksActtheCourtisentitledtoorder.InFriendlyIce
CreamCorp.v.FriendlyIceCreamShopsLtd.,[1972]F.C.712;7
C.P.R.(2d)35(T.D.),HealdJ.heldatpage717F.C.;atpage40
C.P.R.thattheCourthasnojurisdictiontomakean
amendmentofthissortandIrespectfullyconcur.Ifone
examinestheschemeoftheTradeMarksAct,particularlythe
procedurebywhichregistrationoftrademarksisobtained,itis
clearthatparliamentcontemplatedaprocessofexamination
tobecarriedoutwithrespecttoanyregistrantwhichprocess
hasnottakenplaceherewithrespecttoParagonChina
Limited.Inparticularsection[30]oftheActrequiresa
considerableamountofinformationtobeprovidedbyan
applicanttotheRegistrarwhichhasnothappenedinthiscase
withrespecttoParagonChinaLimited.Thereisofcoursealso
theprocessofadvertisingundersection[37]andtheprocessof
consideringoppositiontoregistrationundersection[38],none
ofwhichhashappenedhere.Inmyviewanyspecificproposed
registrationshouldgothroughtheseprocessesanditmatters
notthatanotherapplicant,Cassidy’sLtd.hasundergonethis
processwithrespecttothesametrademark.Icanfindnothing

4
intheActnorinthejurisprudencewhichwouldsupportan
interpretationoftheCourt’spowerofamendmentofthe
registersoastoincludeorderingtheinvoluntarysubstitution–as
comparedtoatransferconsentedtobytheregistrant–ofone
registrantforanother.
InRoyalDoultonTableware,theCourtruledthatitcouldexpungea
registrationwhichwasobtainedwithoutrightbutthatitcouldnotsubstitute
oneownerforanother.BlaisJ.concludedthatthelatterprinciplewassimilarly
applicableinacasewhereanapplicant,suchashere,wantedtosubstitute,
inarespondent’sregistration,astatementofwaresforanother;henotedthat
undertheprocedurebywhichtheregistrationoftrade-marksisobtainedin
Canada,Parliamentcontemplatedaprocessofexamination,publication
andpossibleopposition,stepsthatwouldnottakeplaceshouldthe
descriptionof“sportingapparatus”beintroducedbytheCourtinregistration
TMDA05009astheapplicantrequested.TheCourtalsodismissedthe
applicant’sargumentthatOmegaSA’sregistration,inasmuchasthe
technicalandscientificapparatuswasconcerned,hadbeenabandoned.
Thisdecisionhighlightstheimportanceandtheextentoftheauthority
exercisedbytheFederalCourtinitsroleinoverseeingthetrade-markregister;
however,inthiscase,becauseofthenatureoftheremedythatwas
requested,theCourtwasmindfulofParliament’sclearintentregardingthe
meansforsecuringregistrationofatrade-markoranyotherinformation
associatedtherewith(suchasanystatementofwares).
(OmegaSAwasrepresentedbyLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLPinthiscase).

5
ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdelartisteinterprète;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
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
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