Assessing the Adequacy of Pleadings in Isolation — A Thing of the Past, Federal Court of Appeal Rules
ASSESSINGTHEADEQUACYOFPLEADINGSINISOLATION—ATHINGOFTHE
PAST,FEDERALCOURTOFAPPEALRULES
By
StellaSyrianos*
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
ArecentdecisionoftheFederalCourtofAppealdealtwithissuesrelatingto
theadequacyofpleadingsandthesufficiencyofevidencewithinthe
frameworkofoppositionproceedings.TheCourtheldthatfiledevidence
mayservetocurewhateverinadequaciesmayexistinpleadings
(NovopharmLimitedvs.AstrazenecaABandTheRegistrarofTrade-marksA-
418-09,A419-01,October15
th,2002,Rothstein,J.A.).
Thefacts
TheRespondentAstrazenecaAB(“Astra”)appliedtoregistertwotrade-marks
inassociationwithtabletscontainingfelodipine,apharmaceutical
preparationforuseintreatinghypertension.OneofAstra’sapplicationswas
forpink,roundandbiconvextabletsandtheotherwasforred-brownround
andbiconvextablets.TheAppellant,Novopharmopposedtheseapplications
onthegroundsthatAstra’strade-markswerenotdistinctiveinthattheydid
notdistinguish,norwereadaptedtodistinguishAstra’stabletsfromthoseof
otherpharmaceuticalcompanieswithsimilarcolours.
TheRegistrar’sdecision
TheRegistrarrejectedNovopharm’soppositionsontwogrounds:(i)its
StatementsofOppositionwereinsufficientlydetailedtoenableAstrato
respondtotheformer’sassertionsthatAstra’strade-markswerenot
distinctive,(ii)itsevidenceinrelationtothesalesandheuseof
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.*OftheLawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andthePatentandTrademarkAgencyFirm
ROBIC,g.p.Publication142.146.
pharmaceuticaltabletswhichhaveacolourandshapecombination
resemblingAstra’sappliedfortrade-markswasinsufficient.
Inrelationtotheoppositionregardingthered-browntablets,Astraadvanced
initswrittenargumentthatNovopharm’sStatementofOppositionhadnot
indicatedanyspecificpharmaceuticalproductswhichweresimilartothose
ofAstra’s,thatitrelieduponinsupportofitsnon-distinctivenessargument,i.e.
nomentionwasmadeoftheiractiveingredients,theirshapeorwhen,where
andinwhatquantityred-browntabletswereusedbythethreeother
pharmaceuticalcompanieslistedinNovopharm’sStatementofOpposition.
TheRegistraragreedwithAstra’spositionandconcludedthatAstrashould
nothavebeenburdenedwithinvestigatingwhatproductsaresoldbythird
partiesinanattempttodiscoverwhichred-browntabletstheopponentwas
possiblyreferringto.
Inrelationtotheoppositionregardingthepinktablets,Novopharm’s
StatementofOppositionwassimilartotheoneinthecaseofthered-brown
tabletsexceptthatithadlisted26pharmaceuticalproducers.Astra’swritten
argumentwasalmostidenticaltoitsargumentinthered-browncase.
Onceagain,theRegistrarsidedwithAstraandheldthatitshouldnothave
beenburdenedwithinvestigatingwhatproductsaresoldbythirdpartiesin
anattempttodiscoverwhichpinktabletsNovopharmwaspossiblyreferring
to.
TheAppealtotheFederalCourtofCanada
InconsideringNovopharm’sappeal,theTrialJudgestatedthatshewasto
reviewtheRegistrar’sdecisiononastandardofreasonablenesssimpliciter.
Basedonthisstandard,theTrialJudgefoundthattheRegistrar’sdecision
rejectingNovopharm’soppositionswasnotunreasonablefortheRegistrar
requiredcompliancewiththestatutoryrequirementfordetailedpleadings.In
effect,paragraph38(3)(a)oftheTrade-marksActprovidesthatastatement
ofoppositionmustbesetoutinsufficientdetailtoenableatrade-mark
applicanttoreplytoit.TheCourtthereforedismissedNovopharm’sappeal.
SinceitsconclusioninrelationtotheRegistrar’sfirstgroundforrefusal
disposedoftheappeal,theCourtdidnotgoontoconsidertheRegistrar’s
secondarygroundforrefusalinrelationtotheinsufficiencyofNovopharm’s
evidence,eventhoughithadfiledsignificantnewevidencebeforetheTrial
Division.
TheFederalCourtofAppealDecision
Theissuesonappealwerethreefold:(i)didtheTrialJudgeerrinconfirming
theRegistrar’sdecisiontorejectitsoppositionsontheprimarygroundthat
Novopharm’sStatementsofOppositionwereinsufficientlydetailed?(ii)ifthe
TrialJudgediderr,didshealsoerrinnotreviewingandnotoverturningthe
Registrar’ssecondarymotiveforrejectingNovopharm’soppositions,namely
theinsufficiencyoftheevidenceandlastly(iii)iftheTrialJudgeerredin
upholdingtheRegistrar’sdecision,howwerethemeritsofthecasetobe
dealtwith?
Adequacyofthepleadings
InreviewingtheevidencefiledbeforetheRegistrar,theCourtofAppeal
notedthatNovopharm’saffiantswerecross-examinedbyAstraaboutthe
tabletssimilartothoseinassociationwithAstra’swhichwereavailableinthe
marketplace.Moreover,Astra’saffiantadmittedincross-examinationthat
hewasawareofspecificpinkandred-browntabletsinthemarketplace.As
such,theCourtofAppealopinedthatAstrawasfullyabletoknowand
respondtotheproductsthatNovopharmwasrelyinguponinsupportofits
non-distinctivenessgroundofopposition.
TheCourtconcludedthatinrespecttoNovopharm’sprimarygroundof
opposition,theRegistrarerredbynottakingintoaccounttheevidencefiled
beforehimsincesamecuredanyinsufficiencyinthepleadings.TheCourtof
AppealalsoheldthattheTrialJudgeshouldhavereachedthesame
conclusionwithouthavingtoconsidertheadditionalevidencefiledby
NovopharmbeforetheTrialDivisionontheissueoftheadequacyofthe
pleadings.
Sufficiencyoftheevidence
Novopharm’sevidencebeforetheRegistrardemonstratedthatotherpink
andred-brownpillswereintheCanadianmarketplace.Onappealbefore
theTrialDivision,Novopharm’sevidencewasmorespecificinthatqualitative
evidenceaboutthenames,manufacturersandusesofthetabletswere
provided.Also,quantitativeevidencerelatingtotheannualsalesofspecific
pinkandred-browntabletswereprovided.
SincethisadditionalevidencewouldhaveaffectedtheRegistrar’sdecision,
theCourtofAppealheldthattheTrialJudgeerredinnotgoingonto
considertheRegistrar’ssecondarybasisforrejectingNovopharm’sopposition.
TheCourtofAppealwasoftheviewthatwhateverdeficiencytheremay
havebeenintheevidencebeforetheRegistrar,wascuredbytheadditional
evidenceNovopharmfiledbeforetheTrialDivision.
Disposingofthemerits
InregardtothethirdelementofNovopharm’sappeal,theCourtofAppeal
remandedthemattertotheTrialDivisionfordeterminationonthemerits
particularlyinlightofthefactthatthemeritsoftheoppositionmattershad
notbeenconsideredbyneithertheRegistrarnortheTrialDivision.
Conclusion
TheCourtofAppeal’sdecisionshedslightonthosewhomayseekto
challengetheadequacyofaparty’spleadingsafterevidenceisfiled.Legal
practitionersshouldbearinmindthatonceevidenceisfiled,onecannotgo
backandassessthepleadingsasifthatevidencewasnotfiledsinceunder
suchcircumstances,itmaycurewhateverinadequacymayhavebeeninthe
pleadings.AsstatedbytheCourt,“thetimetoassesstheadequacyofthe
pleadingsinisolationhaspast”.
Publishedat(2002),16-12WIPR3-4underthetitleAssessingAdequacyof
PleadingsInIsolationaThingofthePast
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.
ROBIC,ungrouped avocatsetd agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd origine;droitsd auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
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.Ideaslivehere.
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