Drug’s Distinctive Colour, Shape And Flavour as Trademarks


DRUG’SDISTINCTIVECOLOUR,SHAPEANDFLAVOURASTRADEMARKS

BobH.SotiriadisandJulieLarouche*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,avocats
ROBIC,agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE-8
eétage
Montréal(Québec)H2Z2B7
Tél:514-987-6242-Fax:514-845-7874
info@robic.com–www.robic.ca
Traditionallyandgenerally,atrademarkisconstitutedofwords,letters,
phrases,arms,drawingsoracombinationofallofthese.However,particularly
inthepharmaceuticalindustry,thetrademarkshavechangedfromwordsto
colours,shapesandflavour.
Theevolutionofthemarketing’stechniquesallowsthepharmaceutical
companiestobeinventiveandoriginalinthepresentationoftheirproducts.
Thepharmaceuticalindustryinsistsonthevisualpresentationoftheirproducts
andthepublicity,notorietyattachedtothose.Patientsmaysimplyreferto
thecolourandshapeofatablettoidentifythemedicationthattheytookfor
aparticularillness:”IdonotrememberthenameofthepillsItookformyhead
ache…buttheywerepinkroundpills”.
Thefollowingtextwilltrytoanswerbrieflytothefollowingquestion:“Is
registrationofdrug’sdistinctivecolour,shapeandflavourauthorisedbythe
CanadianTrade-MarksAct?”.
Thereisnothinginthelanguageofsections2,9ortheentireActthatwould
precludethatadistinctivecolour,shapeorflavourarenotregistrable.Thereis
nothingintheActnorinanyoftheauthoritiesthatisrequiringamarktobe
two-dimensionalonlyorisprecludingfromregistrationamarkwhichcovers
thewholeofthevisiblesurfaceofthegoods:Smith,KlineandFrench
LaboratoriesLtd.v.Sterling-WinthropGroupLtd[1976]R.P.C.511.
Atrademarkisadistinctivesignthatisusedforthepurposeofdistinguishing
thewaresorservicesmanufactured,sold,leased,hiredorperformedbya
personfromthoseofothers.




























































©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2000.
*Lawyer,BobH.SotiriadisisoneoftheseniorpartnersofthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,
g.p.andofthepatentandtrademarkfirmROBIC,g.p.Lawyer,JulieLaroucheisanassociate
inthesamefirms.PublishedinPharmatech,collectionWorldMarketsSeries–BusinessBriefing
(London,WorldMarketsResearchCentre),2000),CD-ROM


Consequently,acolour,ashapeoracombinationofbothcanalsobe
recognisedasadistinctivesignwhichisusedtoidentifytheproductsofa
companyfromthoseofothers.Thedistinctivecoloursblueandpinkapplied
ontheshieldofapillorthedistinctivetriangleshapeofatabletmaybenefit
protectionastrademarks.However,theresultingmarks,wouldasageneral
rule,likelytobeweak:SmithKline&FrenchCanadaLtd.v.RegistrarofTrade-
marks(1987),9F.T.R.129(F.C.T.D.).
Theonusorlegalburdenisontheapplicanttoshowthatitsmarkisadapted
todistinguishoractuallydistinguishesitspharmaceuticalproductfromthose
ofothersthroughoutCanada.Therefore,theregistrationofacommonterm
usedintheindustrytoidentifytheproduct,adescriptiveterm,anornamental
orfunctionalcharacteristicwouldnotberegistrablebecauseoftheirdefects
todistinguishthewaresorservicesofapersonfromthoseofothers.
Theapplicantmustestablishonabalanceofprobabilitiesthattheordinary
consumersassociatethecolour,theshapeorthesizeofaproductwitha
singlesourceofmanufactureorsupply:StandardCoilProducts(Canada)Ltd.
v.StandardRadioCorporation,[1971]F.C.106at123(F.C.T.D.),aff’d.[1976]2
F.C.iv(F.C.A.).The”ordinaryconsumers”arenotonlyphysiciansand
pharmacists,butalsothe”ultimateconsumers”,thatarethepatientsforwhom
themedicalpreparationsareprescribed,eventhoughtheiraccessisthrough
adoctor’sprescription:Ciba-GeigyCanadaLtd.v.ApotexLimited,[1992]3
S.C.R.120.
Theprincipalimpedimenttotheregistrationorashapeofapharmaceutical
preparationisthesocalled“functionalitydoctrine”.InthecaseParke,Davis
andCoLtdc.EmpireLaboratoriesLimited,(1963)24FoxPat.C.88,38D.L.R.
(2d)694,[1964]Ex.C.R.399(Ex.C.R),Mr.thejudgeNoëlhasdecidedorstated
atthepages416,418-419and419that:

“[…]thecolouredgelatinebandisusedtoclosethegelatine
capsule[…]wehaveseen[i.e.,thetestimonyandareferenceto
thecorrespondingUSpatents]thatthecolourbandedcapsules
oftheplaintiffhavemanyutilitarianfunctionsandthateventhe
presenceofcolouronthebandsisusefulinenablingtheeasy
detectionofabreakontheband.”
Thesameprincipleapplieswhenaprincipalcomponentofatablet,syrupis
inherentlycoloured.Thesaidcolourcannotbeprotectednorregistered
becauseitisnotdistinctiveoftheproductusedinassociationwithit:


“Whenamedicinalcomponentofadrugisinherentlycolored,
thatcolorcannotacquiretrademarksignificance.Thus,the
yellowofsulphur,theblueofcupricsulfateandthevividredof
mercuricroditecannotbeappropriatedastrademarksforthe
correspondingmedicinal”
i
COLOURS:
Indeed,itisveryimportanttodistinguishbetweencolourasatrademarkand
colourofatrademark:Parke,DavisandCoLtdc.EmpireLaboratories
Limited,(1963)24FoxPat.C.88,38D.L.R.(2d)694,[1964]Ex.C.R.399(Ex.C.R).
Theregistrationofasinglecolourasatrademarkisnotpermittedbecauseit
couldbeseenasamonopolyofthecolourinaparticularindustry.Ifan
applicationreliesonacolouronly,thentheapplicationisdefectivebecause
acolouralonecannotconstituteatrademark:Wampole&Co.v.Hervay
ChemicalCorp.ofCanada,[1929]Ex.C.R.78,aff©d.[1930]S.C.R.336.
However,itispossibletoregisterthecolorationofaspecificproduct,asan
exampleTMA346,453whichconsistsofthecolourblueappliedonthewhole
ofthevisiblesurfaceofatablet.Acolourmightconstituteatrademark,ifthe
colourisonlyonefeatureofthemark(asappliedtothesurfaceofatabletof
aparticularsizeandshape):SmithKline&FrenchCanadaLtd.v.Registrarof
Trade-marks,[1987]2F.C.633,636(F.C.T.D.).
Thetechnicalitiesoftheapplicationformareveryimportantwhenitcomesto
thedescriptionofthecolourasatrademark.Especiallyinopposition
proceedings,wheretheRegistrarhasnodiscretiontoamendanapplication
bychangingitafterithasbeenadvertised:paragraph37(a)ofthe
Regulations.
TheintegrityoftheRegisterisacrucialelement.Anadequateandaccurate
advertisementpriortotheregistrationofatrademark,wouldundermine
whethertoopposetheregistrationofamarkthatmightjeopardisesome
interests:McDonald’sCorp.v.RegistrarofTrade-Marks(1989),24C.P.R.(3d)
463-466(F.C.A.).Thereisanimportantpublicinterestinensuringtheintegrity
oftheRegisterasarecordonwhichindividualscanrelyinordertoknowwith
certaintytheprecisescopeofthemonopolyassertedthroughthetrademark.
SHAPEANDSIZE:
Inaddition,inCanada,itispossibletoregisteraparticularshapeor
appearanceofaproductasa“distinguishingguise”.Adistinguishingguiseis


definedbysection2oftheTrade-MarksActas:“ashapingofwaresortheir
containersoramodeofwrappingorpackagingwaresortheappearanceof
whichisusedbyaperson”.Theappearanceofthewaresmustserveto
distinguishthewaresoftheapplicantfromthewaresofothers.
Ifaparticularshapeofatabletfitsinthedefinitionofadistinguishingguise,
theownerwouldhavenochoicebuttoregisteritasadistinguishingguise.To
obtaintheregistrationofadistinguishingguise,theapplicantmustprovethat
themarkhasacquireddistinctiveness(dateoffiling)inawaythatithasnot
limitedthedevelopmentofanyartorindustry.
FLAVOUR:
InCanada,theregistrationofaflavourisstilluncertain.Manyauthorsand
practitionershavedebatedthequestion.Theproblemliesinthefactthatit
wouldbedifficulttodescribethemarkinanobjectiveway.Unfortunately,itis
practicallyimpossibletodescribeaflavourobjectively.Infact,thereisno
standardtodescribeaflavouroramixofaroma.
Also,thereisthequestionof“functionality”relatedtotheflavour.Inthe
pharmaceuticalindustry,flavoursareusedtocoverupthebadtasteofthe
medicinalingredients.AssaidinCanada,wearestillinaprecariousstage
aboutflavourregistrationbutinUnitedStates,Mr.thejudgeSutherlandinthe
caseWilliamRWarner&Co.v.EliLilly&Co.,(1924)265U.S.526(S.C.)has
statedthat:
“therespondenthasnoexclusiverighttotheuseofitsformula.
Chocolateisusedasaningredient,notaloneforthepurpose
ofimpartingadistinctivecolour,butforthepurposeofalso
makingthepreparationpeculiarlyagreeabletothepalate,to
saynothingofitseffectasasuspendingmedium.Whileitisnot
amedicinalelementinthepreparation,itservesasubstantial
anddesirableuse,whichpreventsitfrombeingamerematter
ofdress.Itdoesnotmerelyservetheincidentalitshallbe
callednonessential”
Thereisalsothequestionofthe“use”ofaflavour.Howcanyouprovethat
theflavourisusedwhentheconsumerswilltasteitafterthetransfer?
CONCLUSION
WehaveseenthereforethatinCanadacertainhurdlesstillexistinrespectof
theobtainingofadditionaltrademarkprotectionthroughcolours,shapesand


flavour.However,itisalsofairlyclearthattheCourtsandtheLegislatorhave
becomeincreasinglyopentoallowingforprotectionand‘value-added’
throughtheuseofdistinguishingelementsotherthantraditionalwordsand
designs.



ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaquailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
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.Ideaslivehere.

COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD












!”#

”
$%&’
()*+,
-+


 



%
))