Colour and Shape of Pills Must be Distinctive to be Registrable, Federal Court of Canada Rules

1
COLOURANDSHAPEOFPILLSMUSTBEDISTINCTIVETOBEREGISTRABLE,FEDERAL
COURTOFCANADARULES

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

[Note:InNovopharmLimitedvs.AstrazenecaABandTheRegistrarof
Trade-marks(2003),21C.P.R.(4
th),289,Rothstein,J.A.,theFederalCourtof
AppealallowedNovopharm’sappealandremittedthemattertotheTrial
Divisionfordeterminationonthemerits,hencethepresentdecisionofthe
FederalCourtofCanada.SeealsoearliercommentarybyauthorinWorld
IntellectualPropertyReport,December2002,Vol.16,Number12]
ArecentdecisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadaupheldcaselawwhich
espousesthatwhereanapplicantseekstoregisterthecolourandshapeofa
tablet,itmustshow,onabalanceofprobabilities,thatitstabletactually
distinguishesitfromothermanufacturers©tablets.(NovopharmLimitedvs.
AstrazenecaAB,T-1470-99andT-1471-99,October17
th,2003,Dawson,J.).

Thefacts
TheRespondent,AstrazenecaAB(“Astra”)hadappliedtoregistertwo
trade-marksinassociationwithtabletscontainingfelodipine,apharmaceutical
preparationforuseintreatinghypertension.OneofAstra’sapplicationswasfor
pink,roundandbiconvextabletsandtheotherwasforred-brownroundand
biconvextablets.TheAppellant,Novopharmopposedtheseapplicationsonthe
groundsthatAstra’strade-markswerenotdistinctiveinthattheydidnot
distinguish,norweretheyadaptedtodistinguishAstra’stabletsfromthoseof
otherpharmaceuticalcompanieswithsimilarcolours.
TheRegistrar’sdecision
TheRegistrarrejectedbothofNovopharm’soppositionsonthebasisthat:(i)its
StatementsofOppositionwereinsufficientlydetailedtoenableAstratorespond

2
totheformer’sassertionsthatAstra’strade-marksarenotdistinctiveand(ii)its
evidenceinrelationtothesalesandtheuseofpharmaceuticaltabletswhich
haveacolourandshapecombinationresemblingAstra’sappliedfor
trade-markswasinsufficient.
TheAppealtotheFederalCourtofCanada
TheCourtdismissedtheappealsandupheldtheRegistrar’sdecisionsbasedon
theprimarygroundthatNovopharm’spleadingswereinsufficientlydetailedto
enableAstratorespondtoNovopharm’sallegationsthatAstra’smarkswerenot
distinctive.ItdidnotgoontoconsidertheRegistrar’ssecondarygroundfor
refusalrelatingtotheinsufficiencyofNovopharm’sevidence,eventhoughithad
filedsignificantnewevidencebeforetheTrialDivision.
TheFederalCourtofAppealdecisionremittingthematterbacktotheFederal
CourtTrialDivision
TheFederalCourtofAppealallowedtheappealsandconcludedthatthemerits
ofthecaseweretoberemittedtotheFederalCourtTrialDivisionfor
determinationsinceitfoundthat:(i)theRegistrarcommittedareviewableerror
infailingtoconsidertheevidenceinassessingwhetherAstraknewthecaseithad
tomeet,(ii)theevidencefiledwiththeRegistrarcuredanyinsufficiencyinthe
pleadingsand(iii)withrespecttotheRegistrar©ssecondarybasisforrejectingthe
opposition(i.e.sufficiencyoftheevidence),newevidencewasfiledintheTrial
Divisionaboutthenames,manufacturersandusesofproductsandquantitative
evidenceofthenumberofprescriptionsdispensedbyaffiantpharmacistsand
theannualsalesofspecificpinkandred-brownproducts,whichwouldhave
affectedthedecisionsoftheRegistrarsothatthereviewoftheRegistrar©s
secondarybasisforrejectingNovopharm©soppositionsshouldbeareviewedon
thestandardofcorrectness.
TheFederalCourtTrialDivisiondecision(disposingofthemerits)
TheTrialDivisionheldthattheissuetobedeterminedwaswhetherAstrahadmet
itsburdenofestablishingthatitstrade-marksweredistinctiveasofthedateof
Novopharm’soppositions.Evidently,Astraarguedthatthecolourandshapeofits
tabletsactuallydistinguishthewaresfromthewaresofothermanufacturers(i.e.
themarkshasacquireddistinctiveness)andalsothatthecolourandshapeare
adaptedsoastodistinguishthewares(i.e.themarksareinherentlydistinctive).

3
Inconsideringthedistinctivenessissue[seeAlexandraSteeleandStellaSyrianos,
“ColourandShape:ADifficultPilltoSwallow”,(2002)9-1IntellectualProperty509]
theCourtlistedasetofprinciplestoapply:
1.Thetrade-markapplicantmustsatisfythetripartitetestenunciatedin
PhillipMorrisv.ImperialTobaccoLtd.(1985),7C.P.R.(3
d)254
(F.C.T.D.)atpage270.(…)Thethirdpartofthetripartitetestrequires
thattheassociationbetweenthemarkandtheproductenablesthe
ownerofthemarktodistinguishhisproductfromthatofothers.

2.Colouralonehasnotbeenviewedasbeinginherentlydistinctive.
3.Proofofactualdistinguishmentisnotaneasyburdentodischarge.
4.Wheretheactiveingredientinthepharmaceuticalproductisnot
claimedasthetrade-mark,andthetrade-marksoughttobe
registeredisthecolourandshapeofthetablet,theapplicantmust
showthatthecolourandshapedistinguishesthetabletfromthe
tabletsofothermanufacturers.

5.Itisincumbentonthetrade-markapplicanttoshowthatphysicians,
pharmacistsorpatientscananddousetheproposedtrade-markin
choosingwhethertoprescribe,dispenseorrequesttheproduct.
6.Itisnotfataltoanapplicationthatconsumersmayalsousemeans
otherthanthemarkforidentifyingtheproductwithasinglesource.
Inherentdistinctivenessofthepinktablets
TheCourtheldthatsincetherewasnoevidenceofanyuseofthepinktabletsas
ofthedateoftheopposition,Astrawasprecludedfromassertingthatits
proposedtrade-markinrespectofthepinktabletshadacquireddistinctiveness.
Therefore,itsregistrabilityresteduponwhetherornotitwasinherentlydistinctive.
Astraarguedthatthecolourandshapeofitspinktabletsareinherentlydistinctive
becausetheyarearbitraryinthatthecolourandshapearenotdependentupon
theactiveingredientcontainedinthetabletsandthattheywerechosenfor
marketingreasonsandtobedistinctive.
Inapplyingtheabove-mentionedprinciplesanduponreviewoftheevidence,
theCourtstatedthatAstrafailedtoprovideevidenceestablishingtheinherent
distinctivenessofitsmarkandheldthatthecolourandshapeofitstabletsdidnot

4
havetheeffectofdistinguishingAstra©stabletsfromthetabletsofother
manufacturers.
Acquireddistinctivenessofthered-browntablets
Astrarelieduponevidencethatpharmacistsusetheshapeandcolourofthe
red-brownpillswhenchoosingwhethertodispenseAstra©sred-browntablets.
TherewasnoevidenceprovidedfrompatientstothateffectandAstraalso
concededthatphysiciansdonotpaymuch,ifany,attentiontothecolourand
shapeofpillswhendispensingmedication.
However,despiteAstra’sassertions,theCourtdecidedithadnotdischargedits
burdenthatitsmarkwasdistinctive.First,theCourtfoundthatbasedonthe
evidence,pharmacistsdidnotdispenseAstra’sfelodipinetabletstoasignificant
degreeonthebasisofcolourand/orshape.Theappearanceofcolourand
shapewassimplyoneitem,asecondarycheck,whichpharmacistsconsidered.
TheCourtalsoheldthatbasedontheevidence,pharmacistsprimarilyidentified
tabletsbytheirDrugIdentificationNumber,theirmarkings,andthelabelsonthe
packagingandwentontheacceptNovopharm’ssubmissionthatitisinsufficient
thatapharmacistwouldknowthatAstra©sfelodipinetabletsare,forinstance,not
green,toconcludethattheyaredistinctive.
Second,theCourtheldthattheevidencefiledbeforeitestablishedthatatthe
relevanttimethereweremanyred-brownordarkpinkpillsinthemarket.
Therefore,theCourtheldthatthesumoftheevidencefailedtoestablish,onthe
balanceofprobabilities,thattheshapeandcolourofthered-browntablets
actuallydistinguishedAstra©stabletsfromthoseofothermanufacturers.
TheCourtwentontograntNovopharm’soppositionanddenyregistrationfor
Astra’strade-marksunderapplicationnumbersTMO699,917(pinktablet)and
699,918(red-browntablet).
Conclusion
TheCourt’sdecisionupholdstheprinciplethatthecolourandshapeofa
productmaytogether,becapableinlaw,ofconstitutingatrade-markaslongas
thethresholdforprovingdistinctivenessismet.Whilepharmaceuticalcompanies’
effortstoregistersuchtrade-marksareoftenthwartedbytheCourts,this
thresholdmaynotbesuchadifficultpilltoswallowifCourtsareprovidedwith
evidencethatphysicians,pharmacistsorpatientscananddouse,toasignificant
degree,thecolourand/orshapeoftabletsinchoosingwhethertoprescribe,
dispenseorrequestthem.

5

LEGERROBICRICHARD,2003.
Publishedat(2003),17-12WorldIntellectualPropertyReport4-5underthetitleColor,ShapeofPills
MustBeDistinctivetoBeRegistrable.Publication142.155.

6

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