Company Convicted for Failure to Advertise in French on the Internet

2002-01-01

1
COMPANYCONVICTEDFORFAILURETOADVERTISEINFRENCHONTHEINTERNET

MarcelNaud*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
info@robic.com–www.robic.ca
IntheProvinceofQuébec(Canada),sincethestateconsiderstheFrench
languagetobeadistinctiveattributeofthemajorityofitscitizens,itsquality
andsignificanceisdeemedworthyoflegislativeprotection.French-protective
measurescanbefoundinthelegislationofthatprovinceasfarbackas1910,
eventhoughthemainprinciplesnowentrenchedintheCharteroftheFrench
language(hereinafterthe”Charter”;seealso
http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca)tofulfill
thatgoalwereenactedaround1969,stilllongbeforetheinternetbecamea
popularmeantoadvertiseandsellproductsandservices.Therationale
behindsuchlegislationisthatinQuébec,consumershavearighttobe
informedandservedinFrench.
Charter’sProvisions
Section52oftheCharterprovidesthat”[c]atalogues,brochures,folders,
commercialdirectoriesandanysimilarpublicationsmustbedrawnupin
French.”Obviously,thisdoesnotpreventabusinessfromcreating,distributing
ormakingthosepublicationsavailabletothepublicinotherlanguagesas
well;therearealsoseveralexceptionstosection52intheRegulation
respectingthelanguageofcommerceandbusiness(hereinafter”the
Regulation”).Inprinciple,though,theOfficedelalanguefrançaise,whichis
theagencyresponsiblefortheapplicationoftheCharter,considersthat
commercialadvertisingpostedonaWebsite,aswellasadvertisingmaterial
sentbyfaxorelectronicmailbybusinesseslocatedinQuebec,fallunder
section52.
Section205oftheCharterprovidesthatapersonwhocontravenesa
provisionoftheCharterortheregulationsadoptedthereundercommitsan
offenceandisliable,foreachoffence,toafinebetween$250to$7,000CAD,

©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.*LawyerwiththelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andwiththepatentandtrademark
agencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Publication274.06.

2
theamountofwhichdependsonwhetherthefineisforafirstconvictionor
notandwhetherthepersonconvictedisanaturaloralegalperson.
ThedecisionrenderedintheQuébec(A.G.)v.HyperinfoCanadaInc.[
(2001-
11-01)QCCQ550-61-000887-014at
http://www.canlii.org/qc/jug/qccq/2001/2001qccq12076.html]
caseconstitutesa
clearillustrationoftheapplicationofQuebec’sChartertowebsitesof
commercialnature.
Facts
Thedefendantinthiscase,acorporationwithitsheadquarterandbusiness
placeintheProvinceofQuébec,operatesawebsite
[
http://www.hyperinfo.ca]toselldocumentationonnumeroustopics.On
September10,1999,furthertoacomplaintandaninvestigation,a
commissionersendsanoticeinformingthedefendantthatallthecommercial
advertisingonitswebsiteshouldbeinFrench.OnSeptember16,1999,the
Defendantrespondedtothenotice,statingthatcorrectionshadbeenmade.
However,asubsequentverificationshowedthatalargepartofthe
commercialadvertisingwasstillinEnglishonly.TheCommissionsentacease
anddesistletterenjoiningtheDefendanttocomplywithsection52ofthe
Charterandthatfailuretodosowouldleadtopenalsanctions.
TheDefendantthencloseditswebsiteandreopeneditshortlythereafter,
withawarningaddedonitshomepagestatingthattheproductsand
servicesonthewebsitewerenotavailabletotheresidentsofQuébec.Afilter
mechanismwasalsoaddedtopreventpeoplewitha”.qc”inthedomain
nameoftheiremailaddressfromusingthesite.However,theindexofthe
productsofferedhadremainedinEnglishonly.Hence,theCommission
referredthecasetotheAttorneyGeneralofQuebectoinstitutepenal
proceedings.
Contentionsandfindings
1.Defendant’sfirstargumentwasthattheCharterwasnotapplicabletothe
commercialactivitiesofQuebec-locatedcorporationsthatwereconducted
online,becausetheinternethasnoboundariesandbecauseimposingsuch
burdentobusinesseslocatedinQuebecwouldhampertheir
competitiveness.
Thecourtrejectedthisargumentonthebasisthattherewasarealand
substantialconnectionbetweenthejurisdictionofthecourtandthefactsof

3
thecasebecausethecompany’sheadofficeandbusinessplacewasin
Quebec.IntheopinionoftheCourt,thismadeitcompetenttodealwiththe
case.However,takingintoaccountthenotionofcomityofnations,theCourt
addedthatthemerefactthattheinformationwaspartiallyorentirelyaimed
attheQuebecmarketcouldsufficetofindarealandsubstantialconnection
thatmaytheoreticallysubjectforeignpublisherstotheChartereveniftheydo
nothaveabusinessplaceinQuebec.
2.Defendant’ssecondargumentwasthattheCharterwasanillegitimate
legislativemean,whichimproperlylimitedinformationaccessbyrequiring
businessentitiestoofferafrenchtranslationoftheirwebsite’scontent.
Thecourtrejectedthisargumentonthebasisthatitwaswithoutmeritsince
thepowertodeterminewhetherameasureislikelytoachieveitsintended
purposeisvestedintheParliament,andnottheCourt.
3.Defendant’sthirdargumentwasthattheexceptionfoundinsection11of
theCharter’sRegulationprovidingthatcatalogues,brochures,folders,
commercialdirectoriesconcerningaculturaloreducationalproductmaybe
exclusivelyinalanguageotherthanFrenchprovidedthatthecontentofthe
culturaloreducationalproductisinthatotherlanguagewasapplicable.
Thecourtrejectedthisargumentonthebasisthedefendantfailedtoshow
thatitscatalogues,brochures,foldersorcommercialdirectoriesconcerned
culturaloreducationalproducts.
4.Defendant’sfourthargumentwasthattheexceptionfoundinsection3(5)
oftheRegulation,providingthataninscriptiononaproductmaybe
exclusivelyinalanguageotherthanFrenchiftheproductisfromoutside
QuébecandisinlimiteduseinQuébecandnoequivalentsubstitute
presentedinFrenchisavailableinQuébecwasapplicable.
Thecourtrejectedthisargumentonthebasisthattheexceptiononly
concernedthelabellingofproductsandnotadvertisement.
5.Defendant’slastargumentwasthatthewarningonthewebsite’shome
pagestatingthattheproductsandservicesfoundonthewebsitewerenot
availabletotheresidentsofQuébecandthefiltermechanismmadethe
Charterinapplicabletothesite,addingthathecouldnotbeheldliableif
Quebecresidentschoosetoignorethewarningorcircumventthefilter.
ThecourtrejectedthislastargumentonthebasisthattheCharterwasa
matterofpublicorder;itismeanttoprotectpublicinterests.Therefore,a
personcannotexcludeitselffromitsapplication.Assuch,thewarningon

4
defendant’swebsiteandimperfectfiltermechanismhadnolegalimpacton
defendant’sobligationsandliability.
Conclusion
Theinterestofthiscaseliesinthefactthathadtherebeenatechnicalmean
toeffectivelyexcludeQuebecresidentsfromviewingthesite—inotherwords
awayforthedefendanttoalloworrefusevisitorsbasedonanobjective
attribute—thejudgecouldhavefoundthattheCharter’sprovisionwasnot
infringed.
Thesekindofdecisionstendtoconveytheideathatfore-commerceto
flourish,businessesshouldfindwaysofcomplyingwithlocalandregionallaws
despitetheirapparentglobalscope.Thismayenticebusinessestodevelop,
adopt,andeventuallyimpose,authentificationsystemsforclientswhoare
surfingtheirsites,inordertocertifytheirstatus,eitherbasedonage,country
ofresidenceoranyotherconceivableattribute.
Toalesserextent,thisdecisionisalsointerestingbecauseitshowsthejudicial,
legislativeandexecutivebranchesgovernmentsmaynotbeready,atleast
notyet,toacknowledgethatactionsincyberspacemayeventuallybe
subjecttoajurisdiction”layer”ofitsown,prettymuchinthesamemanneras
thesameactionsofacitizeninUnitedStatesoranindividualintheEuropean
Communitytodaymaybesimultaneouslysubjecttoseveral”layers”oflaws,
includingstatelawsandfederalorEUlaws.

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