Constitutionality of The Trade-Marks and Copyright Acts at Issue



CONSTITUTIONALITYOFTHETRADE-MARKSANDCOPYRIGHTACTSATISSUE

by
HuguesG.Richard*

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
Mr.JusticeTeitelbaumoftheFederalCourtofCanada,Trialdivision,on
December19,1996
1foundthattheDefendants’freedomofexpression
pursuanttoSection2(b)oftheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms
(hereafterthe”Charter”)hasnotbeeninfringed.Thisisoneoftherarecases
wheretheconstitutionalityofboththeCopyrightActandTrade-MarksActhas
beenraised.
ThePlaintiffwasseekingapermanentinjunctiontorestraintheDefendants(a
tradeunionanditsrepresentatives)fromusingitstrade-markandcopyrightsin
theterm”MICHELINandinthe”Bibendum”designinfutureorganizingdrives.The
Defendantscounteredbydenyingthechargesofinfringementandofferedinter
aliaaconstitutionaldefence.TheysubmittedthatifSection3andSection27of
theCopyrightActandSection20andSection22oftheTrade-MarksAct
prohibitedthemfromusingthePlaintiff’strade-marksandcopyrightsinaunion
organizingcampaign,thenthosesectionsoftherespectiveActswere
unconstitutionalrestrictionsontheirfreedomofexpressionguaranteedinSection
2(b)oftheCharter.
TheCourthavingruledthattheDefendantshadnotviolatedtheTrade-Marks
Act,theconstitutionalityoftheTrade-MarksActwasnotinissuewhenitcameto
theDefendantsclaimundertheCharter.ButtheCourtdidstatethatifitwere
incorrectinholdingthattherehasbeennoinfringementoftheTrade-MarksAct,
theprinciplesandoutcomedetailedinitsreasonsontheinfringementofthe
CopyrightAct,wereequallyrelevanttotheTrade-MarksAct.
TheDefendantssubmittedthattheirpostersandleafletsdepicting”Bibendum”
wereformsofexpressionprotectedbySection2(b)oftheCharter.The



















































LEGERROBICRICHARD,1994-2003.
*OfthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andofthepatent&trademarkagencyfirm
ROBIC,g.p.
1CieGénéraledesEtablissementsMichelin-Michelin&Ciev.C.A.W.-Canadaetal.,(1996)71
C.P.R.(3d),p.348.



DefendantsfurthersubmittedthatifSections3and27oftheCopyrightAct
limitedtheirrighttoproducesuchpamphletsandleaflets,thesectionswerenot
savedunderSection1oftheCharteras”reasonablelimitsprescribedbylawas
canbedemonstrablyjustifiedinafreeanddemocraticsociety”.The
DefendantswerenoturgingtheCourttosimplytaketheboldstepof
invalidatingtheCopyrightAct,theysuggestedthattheCourtmayusethe
techniqueofreadingdowntheword”mention”inSection27(2)(a.1)ofthe
CopyrightActtopreservetheconstitutionalityoftheCopyrightActand
safeguardtheactionsoftheDefendantC.A.W.
TheCourtheldthattheDefendants’righttofreedomofexpressionwasnot
restrictedsincetheCharterdoesnotconfertherighttouseprivateproperty-
thePlaintiff’scopyright-intheserviceoffreedomofexpression.
Section(2)(b)oftheCharterprovides:
2.Everyonehasthefollowingfundamentalfreedoms:
(b)freedomofthought,belief,opinionandexpression,includingfreedomof
pressandothermediaofcommunication.
TheCourtaskeditselfwhethertheleafletsandpamphletsoftheDefendants
containenoughoftheDefendants’ownthought,belief,opinionandexpression
tostandasanexpression?EventhoughtheDefendants’leafletsrepresenta
substantialreproductionofthePlaintiff’s”Bibendum”copyrightandarenot
“originalworks”forthepurposesofSection3oftheCopyrightAct,theCourt
foundthattheyarestillexamplesofexpressionbecauseunderCanadian
constitutionallawtherequiredmentaleffortisslightsinceitissufficientifthe
expressionconveysmeaning.
Itisnotbecausethecourtheldthattheuseofthe”Bibendum”constitutes
expressionthatnecessarilyeverydepictionofsomeoneelse’scopyrightis
protectedexpressionunderSection2(b).Whileallcontentisprotectedunder
theCharter,notallformsofexpressionareprotected.TheCourtthenanalysed
theinterplaybetweencontentandformandtheconnectionbetweentheuse
ofpublicandprivatepropertyinthenameoffreedomofexpression.The
Plaintiffarguedthattheuseofanother’sprivatepropertyisaprohibitedformof
expressionorelsequalifiedasaspecialcircumstancewarrantingtheremovalof
theexpressionfromtheprotectedsphere.TheCourtagreedwiththePlaintiff’s
submission.
ThetestfromtheCommonwealthcase
2isnotdirectlyapplicabletothecaseat
barsinceitconcernstheuseofpublicpropertyasaforumforexpressionbutit



















































2
CommitteefortheCommonwealthofCanadav.Canada(1991),77D.L.R.(4th)385
(S.C.C.).



elaboratesahelpfulprinciplefordistinguishingthenatureoftheparty’sinterests
inthiscase.TheDefendantshadnoneedtoadoptaformofexpression,theuse
ofcopyrightedmaterial,thatdeprivedthePlaintiffofitspropertyandactually
subvertedthevalueofpromotingthediversityofideas.Ifcopyrightisnot
respectedandprotected,thecreativeenergiesofauthorsandartistsin
furtheringthediversityofideaswillnotbeadequatelycompensatedor
recognized.
TheDefendantsurgedtheCourttoconsidertheuseofPlaintiff’scopyrightas
oneelementintheSection1analysisinwhichtheCourthastobalancethe
natureoftheparties’interestsandrights.TheDefendantsarguedthatthe
possibilityofalternateformsofexpressiononlybecomesrelevantattheSection
1analysisunderthequestionofwhethertheCopyrightActisaminimal
impairmentoftheDefendants’rightoffreeexpression.TheDefendantsargued
thatitisprematureundertheSection2(b)partoftheCourt’sCharteranalysisto
considerthefactthattheDefendantscanfreelycriticizeMichelin’scorporate
policiesandmaketheirpointwithoutrecoursetothePlaintiff’sproperty.
TheCourtdisagreedwiththeDefendants.Itconsideredthatitwaspermittedto
considertheparties’interestevenbeforetheSection1stageoftheanalysisin
ordertoexaminethescopeoftheDefendantsfreedomofexpressionunder
Section2(b)anddetermineiftheexpressionisinaprohibitedform.TheCourt
heldthatitwasreasonabletoequatedoingsomethingonprivatepropertyasa
forumforexpression(asinCommonwealth)withusingtheproperty-the
copyright-toconveyexpression(asinthecaseatbar).
Justbecausecopyrightisintangible,itshouldnotbeanylessworthyof
protectionasafullpropertyright.TheCourtheldthatapersonusingtheprivate
propertyofanotherlikeacopyright,mustdemonstratethathisorheruseofthe
propertyiscompatiblewiththefunctionofthepropertybeforetheCourtcan
deemtheuseaprotectedformofexpressionundertheCharter.TheCourt
foundthatinthepresentcase,subjectingthePlaintiff’s”Bibendum”toridiculeas
theobjectofparodyisnotcompatiblewiththefunctionofthecopyright.
TheCourtagreedwiththeDefendantsthatthethresholdforprohibitingformsof
expressionishigh.Violentformsarecertainlyattheextremeendbutaform
neednotbeviolentinordertobeprohibited.Thethresholdforprohibitingforms
ofexpressionisnotsohighthatuseofanother’sprivatepropertyisapermissible
formofexpression.Inthebalanceofinterestsandrights,iftheDefendantshave
norighttousethePlaintiff’s”Bibendum”,theyhaveamultitudeofothermeans
forexpressingtheirviews.However,ifthePlaintifflosesitsrighttocontroltheuse
ofitscopyright,thereislittlelefttothePlaintiff’srightofprivateproperty.
UnderSection2(b)oftheCharter,theDefendantsnotonlyhavetoprovethat
theirexpressionwasprotected,theyalsohavetheburdenofprovingthatthe



purposeoreffectoftheCopyrightActwastorestricttheirfreedomofexpression.
TheCourtfoundthatsincetheDefendantshavefailedtheirinitialburdenof
provingthattherighttouseanother’sprivatepropertyiswithintheprotected
scopeoffreedomofexpression,thereisnoneedtoproceedwithan
examinationofthepurposesoreffectsoftheCopyrightAct,thesecondstageof
theconstitutionalanalysisunderSection2(b).TheCourthoweverstatedthat
attemptstocontroltheformandnotthecontentofexpressiondoesnotinterfere
withtheabilitytoconveythemessagebyothermeans.
TheCourtalsoexpressedtheviewthatevenifitwereincorrectinstatingthatthe
DefendantshavenotmettheirburdenunderSection2(b)oftheCharterby
failingtoproveinfringementoftheirfreedomofexpression,itwouldhaveheld,
accordingtothewordingofSection1,thatSections3and27oftheCopyright
Actare”reasonablelimitsprescribedbylaw…demonstrablyjustifiedinafree
anddemocraticsociety”.Theprotectionofauthorsandensuringthattheyare
recompensedfortheircreativeenergiesandworksisanimportantvalueina
democraticsocietyinandofitself.Aswell,thepressingansubstantialnatureof
theCopyrightAct’sobjectiveisbuttressedbyCanada’sinternationalobligations
intreaties.TheCourtheldthattheobjectivesoftheCopyrightActare
implementedwithaminimalamountofimpairmentoftheDefendants’rights.
FinallytheCourtfoundthatconsideringthedeleteriouseffectsoftheCopyright
Act,thethirdelementoftheOakes
3three-prongedproportionalitytestconfirms
itsstatusasareasonablelimitprescribedbylawinafreeanddemocratic
society.ThePlaintiffofferedintoevidenceawealthofunionanti-Michelin
pamphletsandbrochuresthatdidnotusethePlaintiff’spropertyinviolationof
theCopyrightAct.AprohibitiononusingthePlaintiff’sBibendum,copyright
doesnotthereforecreateunduehardshipfortheDefendantsinconveyingtheir
messagetotheMichelinworkers.
TheDefendantshavefiledanoticeofappealbeforetheFederalCourtof
Appeal,thisisacasetokeepaneyeon.

3
.R.v.Oakes,[1986]1S.C.R.103.



ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
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.Ideaslive
here.
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