Court Extends Notion of Trade Mark Use

1992-01-01

COURTEXTENDSNOTIONOFTRADEMARKUSE

by
BarryGamache
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
AunanimousdecisionoftheFederalCourtofAppealhasextendedthe
notionof”use”ofatrademarktocoverthesituationwhereitisaffixedona
promotionalitem(CanadianOlympicAssociation-AssociationOlympique
Canadiennev.KonicaCanadaInc.
,No.A-279-90,November22nd,1991).
THEFACTS.OnMarch5,1980,theCanadianOlympicAssociation(“the
Association”)gavepublicnoticeofitsadoptionanduseofvariousofficial
marks,OLYMPICamongstothers,inaccordancewithSection9oftheTrade
MarksAct,1985R.S.C.c.T-13.Suchnoticeofadoptionanduseprohibitsany
otherpersonfromadoptinginconnectionofitsbusiness,asatrademarkor
otherwise,anymarkconsistingof,orsonearlyresembling,astobelikelytobe
mistakenforthesaidofficialmark.
KonicaCanadaInc.(“Konica”),soldfilmsandcamerasandwasasub-
licenseeoftheGuinnesscompanywhichhasformanyyearspublishedbooks
of”records”,includingthe”GuinnessBookofOlympicRecords”.Asasub-
licensee,Konicaacquiredtheexclusiverighttopublishanddistributein
Canadaitsownspecialeditionofthe”GuinnessBookofOlympicRecords”to
beissuedforthe1988Olympics.Thisspecialeditionconsistedintheentire
contentofthe”GuinnessBookofOlympicRecords”towhichwasadded,at
variouskeyspots,indiciarelatingtoKonica,suchasthetitleonthefront
cover:”KONICAGuinnessBookofOLYMPICRECORDS”.Thebook,published
byKonica,tobeissuedasapremiumor”giveaway”,wasina”shrunk-
wrapped”packagewhichincludedthreerollsofKonicacolorfilm.
THETRIALJUDGE’SDECISION.Konica’spromotionnevermadeitoffthe
ground.InNovember1987,theAssociationobtainedaninterlocutory
injunctionbarringthedistributionofthebookinits”shrink-wrapped”package.
Whenthematterwasheardonthemerit,wellafterthe1988Olympics,the
TrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtrejectedtheAssociation’sactionfora
permanentinjunctionanddamages.Amongstotherthings,theTrialJudge
consideredthatKonicahadnotmadeuseoftheAssociation’sofficialmarks

asatrademark(hedidconsiderhoweverthatithadusedtheAssociation’s
marks”otherwise”inconnectionwithabusiness,contrarytoSections9and11
oftheAct-Section11prohibitinguse”inconnectionwithabusiness”asa
trademarkorotherwise”ofanymarkwhichisalsoanofficialmark.Finally,the
TrialJudgeconsideredthatKonicaitselfhadnot”adopted”theAssociation’s
officialmarksasheconsideredthatGuinnesshaddonesoandthus,hadnot
violatedtheAssociation’srights.
THECOURTOFAPPEALANDTHEQUESTIONOFUSEOFATRADEMARK.The
CourtofAppealreversedtheTrialJudge’sdecisionandconcludedthatithad
notbeenGuinnessthathadadoptedthetrademarkthatwasexhibited,but
ratherKonica.Thus,apermanentinjunctionwasissued.
ThemostinterestingpointraisedinthisdecisionisthefindingoftheCourtthat
theTrialJudgewaswronginholdingthatKonicahadnotusedtheword
“Olympic”asatrademark.Inreachingitsdecision,theCourtofAppeal
madereferencetoSection2oftheTradeMarksAct
whichdefines”trade
mark”inthefollowingmanner:
“”trade-mark”means
(a)amarkthatisusedbyapersonforthepurposeof
distinguishingorsoastodistinguishwaresorservices
manufac-tured,sold,leased,hiredorperformedbyhim
fromthosemanufactured,sold,leased,hiredorperformed
byothers,
(b)acertificationmark,
(c)adistinguishingguise,or
(d)aproposedtrade-mark;”
Itwasalsonotedthat”distinguishingguise”wasalsodefinedatSection2of
theAct:
“”distinguishingguise”means
(a)ashapingofwaresortheircontainers,or
(b)amodeofwrappingorpackagingwares
theappearanceofwhichisusedbyapersonforthe
purposeofdistin-guishingorsoastodistinguishwaresor
servicesmanufactured,sold,leased,hiredorperformedby
himfromthosemanufactured,sold,leased,hiredor
performedbyothers;”
TheCourtwentontoconsiderthe”shrunk-wrapped”packagebindingthe
bookandthecartonsoffilmtogetherasadistinguishingguise.Further,inlight
ofthelargersizeandgoldcoloringofthewords”OlympicRecords”,itfoundit
impossibletosay”thattheword”Olympic”isnotasignificantandessential

partofadistinguishingguisebeingusedbytherespondent[Konica]to
distinguishitswares”.
Furthermore,theCourtofAppealconsideredthatthepublicationand
distributionofthebookconstituted”use”oftheword”OLYMPIC”asatrade
markwithinthemeaningoftheAct.ThenotionofuseisexplainedatSub-
section4.(1)oftheAct,whichreads:
“4.(1)Atrade-markisdeemedtobeusedinassociation
withwares,if,atthetimeofthetransferofthepropertyinor
possessionofthewares,inthenormalcourseoftrade,itis
markedonthewaresthemselvesoronthepackagesin
whichtheyaredistributedoritisinanyothermannerso
associatedwiththewaresthatnoticeoftheassociationis
thengiventothepersontowhomthepropertyor
possessionistransferred.”
Referringtosuchnotion,theCourtwrote:
“Insofarasthewaresdistributedbytherespondentarethebooks
themselves,therecansimplybenoquestionthattheword”Olympic”is
usedasatrade-markwithinthemeaningofsubsection4(1):itis
markedonthewaresthemselvesforthepurposeofdistinguishingthem.
Given,however,thatthebookisapromotionalitemandcontainsonits
insidefrontcoverandinsideandoutsidebackcoversadvertisingforthe
respondent’sfilmsandcameras,andinsofarasthelatterarewares
dealtinbytherespondent,Ithinkthattheword”Olympic”isbeingused
inassociationwiththosewaresaswell.(…)Whilenotallusein
advertisingisuse”inassociationwith”wares”soastodistinguish”them,
somesuchusesare.Heretheassociationbetweenthemarkandthe
waresissocloseandsoclearlyrelatedtotheirsale(notablyinthe
couponsofferingdiscountsonthepriceofthewares)thatIamsatisfied
thatthemarkisusedbytherespondentasatrade-markinassociation
withthem.”
Finally,theCourtconcludedthatKonicahadusedtheAssociation’sofficial
markasatrademarkforitsbook.ItisinterestingtonotethattheCourt
referredtoonecasetosupportitsaffirmationthatuseinadvertisingcanbe
considereduseofatrademarkinaccordancewiththeAct.However,that
case,WembleyInc.v.WembleyNeckwearCo.,(1948),7FoxP.C.244(Ont.
C.A.),wasdecidedbeforetheadoptionofthepresentTradeMarksActin
1953.Ofcourse,sincethattime,ithasbeenconsideredthatadvertisement
alonewillnotbesufficienttoconstituteuseofatrademarkinassociationwith
wares.

Usually,inordertoestablishuseofatrademarkinaccordancetoSub-section
4.(1)oftheAct,themarkusedmustbeatrademarkasdefinedinSection2,
thatis,usedforthepurposeofdistinguishingwares;themarkmustbe
associatedwithwaressothatnoticeofanassociationisgiven;andfinally,
theremustbetransferofpropertyorpossessionofthosewares,whichmust
occurinthenormalcourseoftrade.The”normalcourseoftrade”suggests
monetarycompensation.ItisthereforeinterestingtonotethattheCourtof
Appealconsideredthatatrademarkcanbeusedinassociationwitha
promotionalitem.
TheFederalCourtofAppeal’sdecisionseemstosignalthattheexpression
“normalcourseoftrade”istobeconsideredasafluctuatingnotion.
Innovationsinmarketingtechniquesinvolvingtrademarks,thatwouldnot
havebeenconsideredas”use”ofatrademark,arenowtobestudiedwitha
morenuancedapproach.
KonicahasrequestedleavetoappealthisdecisionbeforetheSupremeCourt
ofCanada.
Notpublished(1992),6W.I.P.R.000
LEGERROBICRICHARD,1992.

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