Different Standards of Review Apply to Separate Issues Raised in Summary Trade-Mark Expungement Case, Federal Court Rules in Guido Berlucchi Case
1
DIFFERENTSTANDARDSOFREVIEWAPPLYTOSEPARATEISSUESRAISEDIN
SUMMARYTRADE-MARKEXPUNGEMENTCASE,FEDERALCOURTRULESINGUIDO
BERLUCCHICASE
BarryGamache*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,LLP
Lawyers,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Victoria-Square–BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
info@robic.com-www.robic.ca
Inadecisionthatraisesinterestingpointsofadministrativelaw,Canada’s
FederalCourtallowedanappealfromadecisionoftheRegistrarofTrade-
markstoexpungetheregistrationofatrade-markunderSection45of
Canada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13(hereafter:the“Act”)onthe
basisofadditionalevidencefiledbeforeitonanissuewhere,intheRegistrar’s
view,theregistranthadnotmadeitscase(GuidoBerlucchi&C.S.r.l.v.
BrouilletteKosiePrince,2007FC245(F.C.GauthierJ.,March2,2007)).
Section45istheAct’s“useitorloseit”provision,whichallowstheRegistrarof
Trade-markstoexpungetrade-markregistrationswhicharenotinuse;
followingarequestmadebyanythirdparty,theRegistrarwillissueanotice
requiringthatanownershowuseofitsregisteredtrade-mark,failingwhich
suchmarkwillbeexpunged.Thus,section45providesinpart:
(1)TheRegistrarmayatanytimeand,atthewrittenrequestmadeafter
threeyearsfromthedateoftheregistrationofatrade-markbyany
personwhopaystheprescribedfeeshall,unlesstheRegistrarseesgood
reasontothecontrary,givenoticetotheregisteredownerofthetrade-
markrequiringtheregisteredownertofurnishwithinthreemonthsan
affidavitorastatutorydeclarationshowing,withrespecttoeachofthe
waresorservicesspecifiedintheregistration,whetherthetrade-mark
wasinuseinCanadaatanytimeduringthethreeyearperiod
immediatelyprecedingthedateofthenoticeand,ifnot,thedate
whenitwaslastsoinuseandthereasonfortheabsenceofsuchuse
sincethatdate.
©CIPS,2007.*LawyerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentand
trade-marksAgents.Publishedat(April2007))21-4WIPR.Publication142.200.
2
ThepartyrequestingtheissuanceofaSection45noticedoesnothaveto
establishanyinterestintheregistrationitwishestoattack;thisconfirmsthe
publicnatureoftheprovision,whichensuresthattheregisterreflectsthe
realityofthemarketplace.Inthiscase,therequestingpartyisBrouilletteKosie
Prince,anIPfirmfromMontreal.Foritspart,ItalianwinemanufacturerGuido
Berlucchi&C.S.r.l.(hereafter:“GuidoBerlucchi”)istheownerinCanadaof
registrationTMA282,873securedin1983fortheCUVÉEIMPÉRIALEBERLUCCHI&
DESIGNtrade-markusedinassociationwithsparklingwines.OnMay15,2003,
attherequestofBrouilletteKosiePrince,theRegistrarsentaSection45notice
toGuidoBerlucchi.
Inresponsetothenotice,GuidoBerlucchifiledevidencewhichestablished
thatitssparklingwineshadbeensoldintheordinarycourseofbusinessin
Canadaduringtherelevantperiod(May15,2000–May15,2003)and,more
particularly,thatithadsold300bottlestoBrunelloImportsInc.,itsexclusive
agentforOntario(Canada)onOctober4,2001.Supportinginvoicematerial
wasfiledinsupportofthissale.
TheRegistrarreviewedtheevidenceandconcludedthatitclearlyshoweda
saleofsparklingwineshavingoccurredinCanadaduringtherelevantperiod.
However,theRegistrarfoundthattheevidencewasambiguousastowhether
theregisteredtrade-markitself(inthespecificdesignunderwhichitwas
registered)hadbeenusedduringthatperiodsinceGuidoBerlucchididnot
provideasampleofitslabeloraphotographofabottleshowingitstrade-
marktoillustratethesalemadeinOctober2001.Thus,theRegistrarwasnot
satisfiedthattheregisteredtrade-markinthespecificformunderwhichit
appearsontheregisterhadbeenusedinassociationwithsparklingwines
duringtherelevantperiodinCanadaandproceededtoexpungethe
registration.
GuidoBerlucchiappealedtheRegistrar’sdecisionbeforeCanada’sFederal
Courtand,aspermittedbySection56oftheAct,filedadditionalevidence,
notablyalabelshowingtheappearanceofthetrade-markduringthe
October2001transactionwithBrunelloImportsInc.Onthebasisofthisnew
evidence,GuidoBerlucchiaskedtheCourttosetasidethedecisionofthe
RegistrarandtorestoretheCUVÉEIMPÉRIALEBERLUCCHI&DESIGN
registration.
Afirstissueraisedbythepartiesrelatedprimarilytowhetherthetrade-mark
usedbyGuidoBerlucchiandsubmittedtotheCourtwassodifferentfromthe
trade-markasregisteredthatitsusewasnotusewithinthemeaningofSection
4oftheAct.Indeed,thelabelsubmittedbyGuidoBerlucchishowedatrade-
markusedwithafewsmallvariationswhencomparedtoitsregisteredversion.
3
Onthisspecificissueofthelabel,i.e.evidencethattheRegistrardidnot
consider,theCourtdiscussedwhatwastheappropriatestandardofreview
forthisfindingandanalysedgeneralprinciplesofadministrativelaw:When
additionalevidenceisfiledonappealthatwouldhavemateriallyaffected
theRegistrar’sfindingoffactortheexerciseofhisorherdiscretion(ashere),
theCourtmustdecidetheissuedenovoafterconsideringalloftheevidence
beforeit(MaisonCousin(1980)Inc.v.CousinsSubmarinesInc.,2006FCA409).
Indoingso,theCourtwillsubstituteitsownopiniontothatoftheRegistrar
withoutanyneedtofindanerrorintheRegistrar’sreasoning.Ontheother
hand,whereonappealnonewevidenceisfiledthatwouldhavematerially
affectedtheRegistrar’sfindingsorexerciseofdiscretion,thestandardis
reasonablenesssimpliciter,whethertheissueisoneoffactormixedfactand
law(MolsonBreweries,APartnershipv.JohnLabattLtd.(2000),5C.P.R.(4th)
580(F.C.A.)).
DuringthehearingbeforetheCourt,BrouilletteKosiePrinceputforthanew
argumentthatwasnotspecificallyraisedbeforetheRegistrar.Itquestioned
whetherGuidoBerlucchi’ssinglesaletoBrunelloImportsInc.qualifiedasuse
ofthetrade-markintheordinarycourseoftrade.Thisraisedadebateasto
whetherthisnewissuewassubjecttoastandardofreviewdistinctfromthe
onetobeappliedtothefirstquestionregardingthelabel.TheCourthadto
tacklethisseparateissueanddetermineifthefilingofadditionalevidencein
theformofalabelonappealallowedtheCourttorevisitfindingsoffact
madebytheRegistraronissuesthatwerenotcontentiousuntiltheywere
raisedonappeal.
Onthisspecificissue,GuidoBerlucchireliedona2005decisionhandeddown
bytheFederalCourtofAppealinFootlockerCanadaInc.v.Steingberg,2005
FCA99wheretheFederalCourtofAppealreversedaFederalCourtJudge
whohadconfirmedaSection45expungementdecisionongroundsthat
weretotallydifferentfromthoserelieduponbytheRegistrar.InFootlocker,the
Registrarexpungedaregistrationbecauseitwasnotclearthatusehad
occurredduringtherelevantperiod.Theownerappealedandproduced
evidenceestablishinguseduringsuchperiod.However,inFootlocker,the
requestingpartyraisedbeforetheCourtanewargumentunrelatedtothe
timingissueandarguedthattherewasnoevidenceastotheidentityofthe
useroftheregisteredtrade-mark,apointthathadnotconcernedthe
Registrar.ThelatterargumentfoundfavourbeforetheFederalCourtJudge
whoacceptedthisnewgroundandconfirmedtheexpungementofthe
registrationdespitethefilingofadditionalevidenceclarifyingthetimingissue.
OnfurtherappealtotheFederalCourtofAppealinFootlocker,Justice
MarshallRothstein(whonowsitsontheSupremeCourtofCanadafurtherto
hisappointmentonMarch1,2006)allowedtheregistrant’sappealand
4
restoreditsregistration.Writingforaunanimousbench,heindicatedthatthe
absenceofnewevidenceonthisparticularissue(i.e.whowasusingthe
trade-mark)beforethetrialjudgeonappealshouldhavecausedthelatterto
reviewthatissueonthestandardofreasonablenesssimpliciter.Thus,hadthe
FederalCourtJudgeproperlydeferredtotheRegistrar’sfindingonthisissue
(aswasrequiredunderthereasonablestandard),hewouldhaveallowedthe
appeal.
TheFederalCourtJudgehearingGuidoBerlucchi’sappealtherefore
concludedthatdifferentstandardsofreviewcouldbeappliedtoseparate
issuesraisedinSection45expungementproceedings.Shethereforerejected
BrouilletteKosiePrince’sargumentthatFootlockerisbadlawbecause,inthe
requestingparty’sview,Section45oftheActcallsforasingledetermination
thatshouldbesubjecttoonlyonestandardofreview.
OnthebasisofFootlockertheCourtresolvedtheissueofthestandardsof
reviewinthefollowingfashion:Theissuerelatedtothelabelandactualuseof
theregisteredtrade-markwouldbedecideddenovowhiletheissueofthe
ordinarycourseoftrade–raisedbytherequestingpartyonappeal–would
bereviewedonastandardofreasonablenesssimpliciter.
Onthefirstpoint,theCourtwassatisfiedthatthelabelpresentedbyGuido
Berlucchiwasuseoftheregisteredtrade-mark,despiteslightvariationswhich
werefoundtobeinconsequential.Ontheissueofwhetherusewascarried
outinthenormalcourseoftrade,theCourtfoundtheRegistrar’sdecision
reasonable.Moreover,eveniftheCourthadtodeterminethissecondissue
denovo,itwouldhavebeensatisfiedthatuseintheordinarycourseoftrade
hadbeenestablished.
ThiscaseillustrateshowverydifferentissuesraisedinSection45expungement
proceedings(andtheseissuescanbenumerous:Isthereuseofthetrade-
markasitisregistered?Isthereusebytheregistrant?Isthereuseinassociation
withthespecificwaresmentionedintheregistration?Isthereuseduringthe
relevantperiod?…)caneachhavetheirownseparatestandardofreviewon
appeal,dependingonthescopeofanyadditionalevidencefiledbeforethe
CourtthattheRegistrardidnothavetheopportunitytoconsider.
GuidoBerlucchi&C.S.r.l.wasrepresentedbyLEGERROBICRICHARD,
L.L.P.in
thiscase.
5
6
ROBIC,ungrouped avocatsetd agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsd origine;droitsd auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel artisteinterprète;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
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL INVENTER!
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