Colour and Shape: A Difficult Pill to Swallow

2002-01-01

COLOURANDSHAPE:ADIFFICULTPILLTOSWALLOW

AlexandraSteeleandStellaSyrianos*
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
Overtheyears,ithasbecomecommonplaceforpharmaceuticalcompanies
toapplyforanddefendtrade-markregistrationsforthecolourandshapeof
pills.Thishasresultedinanabundanceofjurisprudencewhich,ontheone
hand,hasheldthatthecolourandshapeofaproductis,inlaw,capableof
constitutingatrade-mark,butontheotherhand,hassetahighthresholdfor
establishingthedistinctiveness
1ofsuchtrade-marks.
ThepresentarticledoesnotpurporttobeanexhaustivereviewofCanadian
caselawonthesubject.However,itwillcanvasssomeofthemorerecent
decisionsrenderedbytheFederalCourtofCanadaandaddressthe
requirementsforobtainingtheregistrationofatrade-markforthecolourand
shapeofpillsanddefendingitsuccessfully.
Thenotionofdistinctivenessconstitutestheveryfoundationoftrade-mark
law,forwithoutdistinctiveness,thereisnoindicationofsource,henceno
protectabletrade-markright.Itiswiththislegalprincipleinmindthatthe
Courtshaverenderedtheirdecisions.Indeed,Section2oftheTrade-marks
Act
2defines“distinctive”asfollows:

“distinctive”,inrelationtoatrade-mark,meansatrade-markthatactually
distinguishesthewaresorservicesinassociationwithwhichitisusedbyitsownerfrom
thewaresorservicesofothersorisadaptedsotodistinguishthem;

©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.*Lawyers,AlexandraSteeleandStellaSyrianosaremembersofthelawfirmLEGERROBIC
RICHARD,g.p.andofthepatentandagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Publication173.12
1Ontheissueofestablishingdistinctiveness,seealsoOxfordPendaflexCanadaLtd.v.Korr
MarketingLtd.,[1982]1S.C.R.494(S.C.C.);Parke,Davis&Co.v.EmpireLaboratoriesLtd.,
[1964]S.C.R.351(S.C.C.);NovopharmLtd.c.BayerInc.,(1999),3C.P.R.(4
th)305(F.C.T.D.),
affirmed(2000),9C.P.R.(4th)304(F.C.A.).2R.S.C.,1985,c.T-13.

InNovopharmLtd.v.BayerInc.3,(hereinafter“Novopharm”and“Bayer”)
Bayerhadappliedfortheregistrationofthetrade-markCIRCLEDESIGN(TMO
657,397),namelyadustyrosecolourappliedtothewholevisiblesurfaceofits
nifidepinetablets.NovopharmopposedBayer’sapplicationbasedon,
amongstothers,thegroundthatBayer’strade-marklackedthe
distinctivenessrequiredtoconstituteatrade-mark.TheRegistrarrejected
Novopharm’soppositionontheissueofdistinctivenessbecauseitwasinferred
fromBayer’sevidencethat,althoughthereweredozensofpinktabletsof
differentsizesonthepharmaceuticalmarket,nonehadareputationin
Canada.TheRegistrarfurtherconcludedthatsincetherewerenoother
interchangeableproductsforBayer’snifidepinepills,itwouldbelikelyfor
pharmacistsandpatientstoassociatethecolourandshapeofthepillswith
Bayer’snifidepineproduct.
OnappealbeforetheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourt,Novopharm
submittedsignificantadditionalevidencerelatingtothecrucialissueofthe
distinctivenessofBayer’strade-mark.
Basedonalloftheevidence,theTrialJudgeconsideredthatpinkround
smalltabletswerecommonplaceinthepharmaceuticalmarket.
Consequently,Bayerhadaheavyburdentodischargeinordertoprove,on
abalanceofprobabilities,thatatthedateofNovopharm’sopposition,the
appearanceofitstabletswasassociatedby“ordinaryconsumers”,namely
patients
4,physiciansandpharmacists,withonesource.
TheCourtfoundthatpharmacistsrelyonthecolourandshapeofpillsasa
“secondarycheck”,theirprimarysourceofidentificationbeingthelabelon
thepackageinwhichtheproductissupplied.Furthermore,otherevidence
alsoindicatedthatpharmacistsandphysiciansalsoidentifiedBayer’stablets
byappearance,toaveryminimaldegree,ifatall.
Itwasalsoinferredfromtheevidencethatpatientstendedtoassociatethe
colourandshapeoftheirpillswiththeirtherapeuticeffect
5,ratherthanwitha
singlesource.TheCourtopinedthattheevidencesuggestedthatpatients
weremorelikelytoidentifyBayer’sproductbyitsbrandname,or
manufacturer,ratherthanbyitsappearance.
Consequently,theCourtreversedtheRegistrar’sdecision,rulingthatBayer
hadnotdischargeditsonusofprovingthatitsmarkwasdistinctiveofits
wares.

3(1999),3C.P.R.(4th)305(F.C.T.D.),affirmed(2000),9C.P.R.(4th)304(F.C.A.).4Ciba-GeigyCanadaLtd.c.ApotexInc.,[1992]3S.C.R.120(S.C.C.).5EliLilly&Co.v.NovopharmLtd.,(1997),73C.P.R.(3d)371(F.C.T.D.),affirmedonappeal
(2000),10C.P.R.(4th)10(F.C.A.).

Threesubsequentcasesalsodealtwiththequestionofthedistinctivenessof
colourandshapeofpillsasatrade-mark.
In,NovopharmLtd.v.Ciba-GeigyCanadaLtd.
6(hereinafter“Ciba”),theTrial
DivisionoftheFederalCourtwasseizedwithanappealfromadecisionofthe
RegistraracceptingCiba’sapplicationpinkTABLETDESIGN(TMO630,536)for
atriangularshapedtabletcomposedofdiclofenacsodium
Inanothercase,NovopharmLtd.v.Ciba-GeigyCanadaLtd.
7,theTrial
DivisionoftheFederalCourtwasalsoseizedwithanappealfromadecision
oftheRegistraracceptingCiba’sapplicationpinkTABLETDESIGN(TMO
630,537)foracircularshapedtabletcomposedofdiclofenacsodium
Inbothinstances,theissueofdistinctivenesswasraisedbeforetheRegistraras
oneofthegroundsofopposition.TheRegistrarruledthat,basedonthe
evidencebeforeit,Ciba’strade-marksweredistinctivebothinrespectoftheir
colour
8andtheirshape9.
ThesetwocasesweresimultaneouslyheardonappealbytheTrialDivisionof
theFederalCourtwhichfoundthattherewasnoevidenceestablishing,ona
balanceofprobabilities,thatasignificantnumberofconsumers,ifanyatall,
associatedtheappearanceofCiba’spillswithasinglesource.Inrendering
itsdecisions,theCourtreiteratedthatitissettledinlawthatimpressivesales
figuresalonecannotsatisfytheburdenofprovingdistinctiveness.
Inthethirdcase,Novopharmv.AstraAktiebolag
10,(hereinafter“Astra”)
NovopharmappealedtheRegistrar’sdecisionallowingtheregistrationof
Astra’strade-markCAPSULEDESIGNBROWN-PINK(TMO692,410).
TheFederalCourtruledthatthatAstra’strade-markwasnotdistinctiveinlight
ofevidencethattherewereanumberofwell-known,two-tonedcapsules
soldinthepharmaceuticalindustry,includingseveralcapsuleswitha
brown/pinkcombinationofcolours.Onceagain,theCourtheldthatAstra
hadfailedtoadduceevidenceprovingthedistinctivenessofitstrade-mark.

6[2000]CarswellNat726(F.C.T.D.).7(2000)6C.P.R.(4th)224(F.C.T.D.).8(TMO630,537),NovopharmLtd.c.Ciba-GeigyCanadaLtd,(2000),6C.P.R.(4th)224
(F.C.T.D.),affirmedonappeal(2001),15C.P.R.(4th)327(F.C.A.).Applicationfortoappealto
theSupremeCourtofCanadaispending,havingbeenfiledonDecember17,200(No.
28972).
9(TMO630,536),NovopharmLtd.v.Ciba-GeigyCanadaLtd,[2000]CarswellNat726(F.C.T.D.),
affirmedonappeal(2001),15C.P.R.(4th)327(F.C.A.).Applicationforleavetoappealtothe
SupremeCourtofCanadaispending,havingbeenfiledonDecember17,2001(No.28972).
10(2000),6C.P.R.(4th)16(F.C.T.D.).

ItisworthnotingthatinallthreeoftheseFederalCourtrulings,whichwere
upheldbytheFederalCourtofAppeal
11,theTrialJudgereservedharshwords
regardingtheRegistrar’sconclusionsthatthetrade-marksinquestionwere
distinctive:

Inmyview,theRegistrarfailedtoapplytheestablishedprinciplesoflawwith
respecttotheissueofdistinctiveness.Indeed,heappearstohavehadvirtually
littleregardforthelegaltenetsestablishedbythejurisprudence.Inthesame
manner,hisfindingsoffactcanonlybeconsideredperverse,giventhatthere
wassimplynoevidencebeforehimtosubstantiateafindingthatthe
respondent’sproducthasobtainedrecognitionorareputationinthemindof
theconsumingpublicasaresultofitsappearanceofget-up
12.

Morerecently,inAstrazenecaABv.NovopharmLtd.13,Astraappliedto
registerthetrade-markYELLOWTABLETDESIGN(TMO783,267)foratablet
containingfelodipine,adrugusedinthetreatmentofpersonssufferingfrom
hypertension.Novopharmopposedthetrade-markapplicationalleging,
amongstothergrounds,thatAstra’strade-markwasnotdistinctive.
TheevidencesubmittedtotheRegistrarshowedthatAstrawastheonly
manufactureroffelodipine.Thetabletswerepackagedina”blisterbubble”
sleevewhichwasinsertedinaboxmarkedunderthetrade-markPLENDIL.
TheevidencesubmittedbyNovopharmdemonstratedthattherewere
approximatelytwentyyellowroundtabletsavailableontheCanadian
marketforthetreatmentofhypertension.
TheFederalCourtconfirmedtheRegistrar’sfindingsthatAstra’smarkwasnot
distinctive.TheadditionalevidenceadducedbeforetheFederalCourt
showedthatpharmacistsprimarilycheckedthemarkingsontheouterand
innerpackagingwhichcontainedAstra’spills.Assuch,theCourtheldthatit
wasthepackagingwhichmadethewaresdistinctive,ratherthanthecolour
andshapeofthepills.Moreover,therewasnoevidencethatpharmacists,
physiciansorpatientsidentifiedAstra’spillssolelybytheirappearance
14.
Generally,fromthebodyofcaselawrelatedtothecolourandshapeofpills
asatrade-mark,therearecertainelementswhichhavebeendeemedby
theCourtstobeinandofthemselvesinsufficienttosubstantiateafindingof
distinctiveness,namely:

11NovopharmLtd.c.AstraZenecaAB,(2001),15C.P.R.(4th)327(F.C.A.).Applicationforto
appealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadaispending,havingbeenfiledonDecember17,
2001(No.28972).
12Seeforexample:Novopharmv.AstraAktiebolag,(2000),6C.P.R.(4th)16,at26(F.C.T.D.).13[2001]CarswellNat2420(F.C.T.D.).14ApotexInc.v.SearleCanadaInc.,(2000),6C.P.R.(4th)26(F.C.T.D.).

·Showinguseofthecolourandshapeoftabletsonthemarket
15
·Showingthatpharmacistsrecognisethecolourandshapeoftablets
insidetheirpackaging
16
·Showingthatthepharmaceuticalcompanyisthesolemanufacturer
ofthedruginquestioninCanada
17
·Showingthatthereisnointerchangeableproductforthedrugin
question
18
·Showingimpressivesalesfigures
19
Caselawhasconsistentlyheldthatapharmaceuticalcompanymustclearly
establish,onabalanceofprobabilities,thatthecolourandshapeofitspills
havebeenusedtotheextentthatpharmacists,physiciansorpatients
associatethecolourandshapewithasinglesource.
However,fromapracticalstandpoint,itmaybequitedifficulttomeetthis
heavenburden.Thereasonisbestreflectedinthefollowingpassagefromthe
SupremeCourtofCanada’srulinginCiba-GeigyCanadaLtd.c.Apotex
Inc.
20:
…pharmaceuticalcompaniesarelimitedinthechoiceofwaystodistinguishthe
get-upoftheirproducts.Aspharmacistsbuysuchproductsinbulkanddispense
themtothepublicinstandardcontainerswhicharetransparentandanonymous,
theonlywayofdrawingtheattentionofpatientstotheoriginoftheproductis
thecapsuleortabletitself.Therearenotmanypossibilities:whatiswrittenon
tabletsisoftentoosmalltobelegible,atleastnotreadilyso,andthatleavesonly
theshape,sizeandcolouroftheproductsasameansofdistinguishingthem.
Hereagainpharmaceuticallaboratorieshavelittleroomformanoeuvre.Thesize
andshapeofdrugscannotdependsolelyonimagination,sincetheymustmeet
certainfunctionalrequirementsresultingfromphysiologicalnecessitiessuchas
ingestionanddigestion.Astocolour,owingpartlytothesmallsizeofthe
products,combinationswhichmightbeoriginalorcharacteristicarealso
relativelylimited.
Inlightoftheseinherentrestrictionsfacedbythepharmaceuticalindustry
andtherequirementsofproofsetbytheCourtsontheissueofthecolourand
shapeofpharmaceuticalpillsastrade-marks,practitionersmayhaveto

15AstrazenecaABv.NovopharmLtd.,[2001]CarswellNat2420(F.C.T.D.).16Id.17NovopharmLtd.v.BayerInc.,(1999),3C.P.R.(4th)305(F.C.T.D.),affirmed(2000),9C.P.R.
(4th)304(F.C.A.).18Id.19Novopharmv.AstraAktiebolag,(2000),6C.P.R.(4th)16(F.C.T.D.),affirmedonappealin
NovopharmLtd.v.AstraZenecaAB,(2001),15C.P.R.(4th)327(F.C.A.).SeealsoNovopharm
Ltd.c.Ciba-GeigyCanadaLtd.,[2000]CarswellNat726(F.C.T.D.)andNovopharmLtd.v.
Ciba-GeigyCanadaLtd,(2000),6C.P.R.(4
th)224(F.C.T.D.),affirmedonappeal(2001),15
C.P.R.(4th)327(F.C.A.).AnapplicationforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanada
ispending,havingbeenfiledonDecember17,2001(No.28972).
20[1992]3S.C.R.120(S.C.C.),(1992),44C.P.R.(3d)289at304.

readilycautionclients:thehighthresholdestablishedbytheCourtsfor
provingthedistinctivenessofsuchtrade-markscouldbeadifficultpillfor
themtoswallow…

ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaquailleursdanslemonde.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
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD

computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaand
throughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.