Customary Filing of Evidence Does not Override Hearsay Evidence Rule, Opposition Board Rules

1
CUSTOMARYFILINGOFEVIDENCEDOESNOTOVERRIDEHEARSAYEVIDENCE
RULE,OPPOSITIONBOARDRULES

StellaSyrianos*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.
Lawyers,PatentandTrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca–info@robic.com
TheTrade-marksOppositionBoardrefusedtheregisterthetrade-mark
BETONOL,havingdecideditcausedconfusionwiththeOpponent’strade-
markBETONEL(BetonelInc.v.PermatexGmbH,September22
nd,2006,Jean
Carrière,HearingOfficer).Ofparticularinterestinthiscasewasthe
admissibilityofevidencepertainingtowebsiteexcerpts.
Thefacts
OnDecember23
rd1998,theApplicantPermatexGmbH(“Permatex”)filedan
application,basedonproposeduse,toregisterthetrade-markBETONOLin
associationwithindustrialandcommercialuseepoxidandpolyurethane
coatingsforcementbasedsurfaces.Itwasadvertisedforoppositionpurposes
onJanuary1
st,2003andtheOpponent,BetonelInc.(“Opponent”)fileda
StatementofOppositiononFebruary28,2003.
Severalgroundsofoppositionwereraised,amongstthem,thatPermatex’s
applicationwasnotregistrableasitwasconfusingwiththeOpponent’s
registeredtrade-marksBETONELandBETONELanddesignforpaintsforuseon
walls,ceilings,doorsandwoodwork,solvents,varnish,remover,glueand
brushesanditsservicesrelatingtocoatingandaccessories.
Evidencefiledbytheparties
TheOpponentfiledtheaffidavitofitsVice-Presidentdetailingitsbusiness
activitiesintheprovinceofQuebecsince1959(manufacturerofcoatings
andoperationofspecializedstoresinthesaleofpaint).



















































©CIPS,2006*Lawyer,StellaSyrianosisamemberofthelawfirmandofthepatentandtrade-mark
agencyLEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.PublishedintheNovemberissueoftheWorldIntellectual
PropertyReport.Publication142.195.

2
TheApplicantfiledtheaffidavitofastudent-at-lawwiththeApplicant’slaw
firm.AttachedasexhibitsinsupportofsaidaffidavitweretheOpponent’s
brochureentitled“BetonoltheProducts”aswellasexcerptsfromvarious
websites,includingtheOpponent’sandthoseofthirdpartiesonwhich
appearedseveraldifferenttrade-marks,suchasBETONITE,BETONAMIT&
design,BETONPACTandPLASTIBETON.
AdmissibilityoftheApplicant’sevidence
TheHearingOfficerquestionedPermatexontheadmissibilityofthese
documentsandhelditwasinadmissiblehearsayevidenceasitwasnotone
ofitsdulyauthorizedrepresentatives(orthoseoftheentitiesidentifiedonthe
websites)thathadfiledsuchevidence.
TheApplicantarguedthatitwascustomaryinoppositionproceedingstofile
suchtypeofevidenceandinthealternativeitwouldconstituteanexception
underthehearsayevidencerule.TheHearingOfficerdisagreedwiththe
Applicantandstatedthatitwasnotbecauseitwascustomarytoproceedin
acertainfashionthatasaresult,itwastheproperwaytofileevidence.
Asfortheexceptionrulebasedonnecessity,theHearingOfficerhelditdid
notapplytothesituationathand.Hewentontodecidethatthewebsite
excerptsonlyestablishthatthepagesinquestionexistedatthetimethey
wereprintedbutdidnotconstituteevidenceoftheircontentastheaffiant
wasnotinapositiontoconfirmtheveracityoftheircontent.
Factorsrelatingtoconfusionundersection12oftheAct
Havingdisposedoftheadmissibilityissue,theHearingOfficerproceededto
assesstheregistrabilityofPermatex’strade-mark.
Asfortheinherentdistinctivenessofthemarksatissueandtheextenttowhich
theyhadbecomeknown,theHearingOfficerheld(i)theybothcouldsuggest
thesameideas,(ii)theApplicanthadnotuseditsmarkand(iii)theinherent
distinctivenessoftheOpponent’smarkcouldhavebeenenhancedthrough
itsextensiveusebuttheevidencedidnotsupportaconclusioninlawthatits
BETONELmarkhadbeenusedsince1963.Asaresult,thisfactorfavoured
neitherparty.
Asforthelengthoftimethetrade-markshadbeeninuse,theApplicant
providednoevidenceofuseofitsmark.AsfortheOpponent,theHearing

3
OfficerreferredtotheinformationcontainedinPermatex’scertificateof
registrationandconcludedthattherehadbeensomeuseofitsmarkBETONEL
inCanada.ThisfactorfavouredtheOpponent.
Asforthenatureofthewares,servicesorbusinessesoftheparties,theyboth
consistedofcoatingstocoverasurface,beitwalls,floorsorboth.Permatex,
byreferringtoitsbrochure,triedtoarguethedifferencesinthenatureofthe
waresinthatitsproductswereusedforfunctionalpurposeswhilethoseofthe
Opponentwereusedfordecorativeones.However,astheHearingOfficer
hadnoadmissibleevidenceenablinghimtomakeacleardistinction
betweentheparties’respectivewares,heconcludedtheproductswere
similarinnature,basedonrecordbeforehim.
Itisinterestingtonotethatduringthehearing,theOpponentattemptedto
relyonstatementsmadebytheApplicantintheprosecutionofitsapplication
attheexaminationstage.TheHearingOfficerdidnotconsiderthese
documentsinrenderinghisdecisionbecausetheywerenotintroducedby
wayofaffidavitorbyfilingacertifiedcopyofthefilewrappersoastoform
partoftherecord.
Asconcernsthechannelsoftrade,itwasdecidedthatevenifPermatex
proveditsproductsweresoldtoengineers,architectsandotherprofessionals
(noevidencewasfiledtothateffect)andtheOpponent’sproductsweresold
initsretailstores,therewasnorestrictionthatwouldpreventthelatterfrom
sellingitswaresoutsideitsretailstoresorevenforindustrialorcommercialuse.
Asconcernsthedegreeofresemblancebetweenthetrade-marksin
appearanceorsoundorintheideassuggestedbythem,theHearingOfficer
decidedthat(i)themarkswerevisuallysimilar,(ii)intellectuallysimilarand(iii)
theletter“O”replacingtheletter“E”inthelastsyllableoftheOpponent’s
trade-markwasnotenoughtodispeltheriskofconfusion.
Basedontheforegoing,theHearingOfficerheldthattheaveragehurried
consumerwouldbeunabletodistinguishthesourceofgoodsofthe
respectivepartiesandthattherewasalikelihoodofconfusionbetweenthe
marksBETONELandBETONEL.
Conclusion
Asidefromtheconfusionissues,thisdecisionisausefultoolforpractitionersin
preparingevidence,whetheritconcernsfilingexcerptsofwebsitesortrade-
markfilewrappers.Decidingonhowandwhentointroduceevidenceandin
particular,thechoiceofaffiantsrequirescarefulconsideration.Thiscasealso

4
remindsusofthepitfallswhichcouldbeassociatedwithrelyingon
employeesofafirmtoprovideevidenceonapointofsubstance(seealso
theFederalCourtofAppealdecisioninCrossCanadaAutoBodySupply
(Windosr)Ltdetal.v.HyundaiAutoCanada,A-419,April3,2006,SextonJ.A.).

5
ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademark
agentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofall
fieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;
trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplant
breeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,
franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusiness
law;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD