Dispute over the Right to use a family’s surname : Not always “like father, like son”

DISPUTEOVERTHERIGHTTOUSEAFAMILY’SSURNAME:
NOTALWAYS“LIKEFATHER,LIKESON”
MARCELNAUD*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADEMARKAGENTS

InajudgmentrenderedonApril16,2010bytheFederalCourtofAppealofCanada
inthecaseofMirandaAluminumInc.v.MirandaWindows&DoorsInc.2010FCA
104(CanLII),thebenchdismissedanappealbroughtbyMirandaAluminumInc.(the
“Appellant”),acompanythatfiledanapplicationtoexpungetwotrade-marks(the
wordmark“Miranda”andadesignmark,Mirandasurroundedbytheoutlineofa
house)thathadbeenregisteredbyMirandaWindows&DoorsInc.(the
“Respondent”),acompanyownedbythesonoftheAppellant’sowner.
Thepartieswerearguingovertherighttousethefamily’ssurname,Miranda,in
connectionwiththesaleandinstallationofaluminumhomerenovationproducts,
suchaswindows,doors,etc.Atthetriallevel,thejudgedismissedtheexpungement
applicationessentiallyforthefollowingreasons:
1.EvenifMirandaisprimarilyasurname,theRespondent’strade-markshad
acquireddistinctivenessinconnectionitswaresandservicesbythetimethe
applicationstoregisterthemwerefiledonFebruary20,2006;
2.PrevioususeofthenameMirandabytheAppellantthatcouldhave
constitutedabasisforexpungementundertheCanadianTrade-marksAct
hadnotbeenestablished;
3.Thetrade-markscouldnotbeexpungedonthebasisthatthenameMiranda
mayfalselysuggestaconnectionwithalivingindividual(i.e.theAppellant’s
owner),giventhatwhentheRespondent’sownerfirstusedthetrade-name
“MirandaAluminumandVinylProducts”withitsfirstcompany,T.M.
RenovationsInc.,in1990,thepublicwouldnotfalselyhaveconnected
“Miranda”withtheAppellant’sownerinassociationwiththesupplyand
installationofaluminumproducts;
4.Therewasnomaterialfalsestatementregardingthedateoffirstuseinthe
Respondent’sapplicationstoregisterthetrade-marks;and

©CIPS,2010.*LawyerwithROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrade-mark
agents.PublishedinaJuly2010issueofWorldTrademarkReport.Publication293.066

2
5.Registrationofthetrade-markscouldnotbeinvalidatedonthegroundthat
theyhadlosttheirdistinctivenessduetotheAppellant’sallegeduseofthe
nameMirandaasofJuly16,2007,thedatewhenexpungementproceedings
werecommenced.
Attheappeallevel,theCourthadtodecidewhetherornotthetrialjudgeerredin:
1.findingthat,whentherespondentappliedtoregisterthemarksonFebruary
20,2006,itdidnotmisrepresentthedateofthefirstuseofthemarkofatleast
asearlyasAugust31,1991;
2.findingthatthenameMirandahadacquireddistinctivenessbyeitherFebruary
20,2006,whentheRespondentappliedtoregisterthemarks,orbyJuly17,
2007,whentheAppellantcommencedthepresentproceedings;and
3.failingtoholdthatthenamefalselysuggestedaconnectionwithaliving
person,thatis,theAppellant’sowner.
Inrespectofthefirstissue,theCourt,afterrestatingthatinnocentmisstatementswill
onlyinvalidateatrade-markiftheyare“material”,heldthat“therewouldhavebeen
nobartotheregistrationofthemarks,iftherespondenthadstatedinitsapplication
thattheirfirstusewasinMarch2005”insteadofAugust31,1991.Here,theCourt
qualifiedthemisstatementasa“technicalirregularity”resultingfromthefactthat
T.M.RenovationsInc.wasdissolvedinvoluntarilyinJune2004,withoutthe
knowledgeoftheRespondent’sowner,whilehecontinuedtooperatethebusiness
untiltherespondentwasincorporatedinMarch2005.
Inrespectofthesecondissue,theCourtconsideredtobefindingsoffactreasonably
opentothetrialjudgetorulethat:
(i)thebrotheroftheappellant’sowner,JohnMirandaandtheRespondent
werenotcompetingwitheachothergiventhattheformerwasinthe
manufacturingandwholesalebusiness,whilethelatterwasinretailsales
andinstallation;
(ii)theAppellant’sownerhadtwiceabandonedtheuseofthenamein
connectionwithabusinessandthathisuseofthenamebetween2000
and2004hadbeencalculatedtodeceivecustomers;and
(iii)the“Miranda”surnamehadacquireddistinctivenessinconnectionwiththe
Respondent’sgoodsandservices.
Therefore,theCourtrefusedtoconcludethattrialjudgemadeapalpableand
overridingerroronthispoint.
Inrespectofthethirdissue,theCourtrefusedtointerferewiththetrialjudge’sfinding
that“itwasunlikelythat,in1990,thepublicwouldhavefalselyconnectedthename

3
Mirandawiththefatherinassociationwiththesupplyandinstallationofaluminum
andvinylproducts”.Insupportofitsposition,theCourtstatedthatalivingindividual
challengingthevalidityofatrade-markonthebasisthatthepublicwillfalsely
associatethemarkwithhimwouldhavetoestablishtheexistenceofa“significant
publicreputation”,forwhichtherewasnoevidenceinthiscase.
Inlightoftheabovereasons,theCourtdismissedtheappeal.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++

4
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)