Evidence in Trade-mark Cases



EVIDENCEINTRADEMARKCASES

by
FrançoisGrenier
*
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

1.PRELIMINARYREMARKS
KNOWLEDGEOFTHELAW
Knowledgeoftherulesofevidenceisuselessifonehasnoknowledgeof
thesubstantivelaw.Beforeconsideringtheevidenceoftheoppositeside
orpreparinganyevidenceforyourownside(vivavoceorwritten
declaration),apreciseevaluationofwhatyoursideandtheotherside
mustproveisneeded.Whobearstheburdenofproof?What
presumptionswilloperateandinwhichparty’sfavour?
CONSIDERATIONOFTHEPLEADINGS.
¬Statementofclaim,statementofdefence,replyinacourtcase.
¬Application,statementofopposition,counterstatementin
oppositionproceedings.
Itisimportanttorememberthatbothsideswilleventuallytrytoprovewhat
wasallegedintheirwrittenproceedings.
2.BURDENOFPROOFINTRADEMARKCASES



















































LEGERROBICRICHARD,1997.
*Lawyer,FrançoisM.GrenierisoneoftheseniorpartnersinthelawfirmLEGERROBIC
RICHARD,g.p.andinthepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Thismaterialwas
originallydesignedforthepurposeofalecturedeliveredon1997.08.20duringtheweek
seminar”Trade-marks””-andintensiveadvancedpracticalcourse”organizedjointlybythe
PatentandTrademarkInstituteofCanadaandMcGillUniversity.Itwasmeantfordiscussion
anddoesnotconclusivelystatetheopinionoftheauthororthemembersofhisfirmonthe
subjectmatternordoesitprovideanexhaustivereviewthereof.Publication213.



A)INFRINGEMENTACTIONS
(sections19-20,TradeMarksAct,R.S.C.,1985,c.T-13).
.Possiblefactualsituations.
.Identicalmarksforidenticalwaresorservices.
.Clearinfringementofthetrademarkownersrights.
.Applicationofsection19oftheAct
.BonusFoodsLtd.-vs-EssexPackersLtd.(1964)43C.P.R.165,at
page171.
.Differentmark,identicalwaresorservices.
.Samemark,differentwaresorservices.
.Differentmark,differentwaresorservices.
.Applicationofsection20oftheAct.
Incaseswheresection19willapply,plaintiffwillhavetoproveitsstatutory
right,byfilingthecertificateofregistrationpursuanttosection54ofthe
Act.
.Decosol(Canada)Ltd.-vs-PVRCo.Ltd.(1973),10C.P.R.(2d)222,at
page227.
Thelegalburdenlieswiththeplaintiff.Plaintiffwillhavetoproveusebythe
defendantofthetrademarkasregistered,inassociationwithwaresor
servicesappearingonthecertificateofregistration.Finally,attrialor
subsequently,plaintiffwillhavetoprovedamages.
.CordonBleuInternationalLtée-vs-F.G.BradleyCo.Ltd.(1982),60
C.P.R.(2d)71,
atpage82
Incaseswheresection20willapply,inadditiontotheabove,plaintiffwill
havetoprovethatthetrademarksinissueareconfusingor,putinother
words”theuseofbothtrademarksinthesameareawouldbelikelyto
leadtotheinferencethatthewaresorservicesassociatedwiththose
trademarksaremanufactured,sold,leased,hiredorperformedbythe
sameperson”(section6oftheAct).Theburdenontheplaintiffinan
infringementactionistoshowreasonableprobabilityofconfusion,while
anapplicantforregistrationmustestablish,ifchallenged,theabsenceof
allreasonableprospectofconfusion.



.Pepsi-ColaCompanyofCanada,Limited-vs-.TheCoca-Cola
CompanyofCanada,Limited(1940)S.R.C.17,atpage32
.OshawaGroupLtd.-vs-CreativeResourcesCo.Ltd.(1982),61C.P.R.
(2d)29,atpage36
Inordertofindwhetherthetrademarksareconfusing,theCourtwillrely
onthecriteriafoundinsection6(5)oftheAct.Plaintiffwillbenefitfroma
certainnumberofpresumptionssincethecertificateofregistrationisprima
facieproofofthefactsfoundtherein(section54(3)oftheAct).Hence,a
presumptionexiststhatthetrademarkisinuseinCanadasincethedate
offirstusefoundinthecertificateorsincethedateoffilingofthe
declarationofusewhendealingwithamarkfiledonaproposedusebasis.
Furthermore,itwillbepresumedthatthemarkisinuseinassociationwith
eachandeverywarelistedinthecertificate.
Tobenefitfromabroaderambitofprotection,plaintiffwillhavetoshow
thatitstrademarkiswellknown(substantialsales,substantialadvertising,
surveyevidence).Thiskindofevidenceisimportanttoshowlikelihoodof
confusion.
TheevidencefiledmustallowtheCourttodrawasubjectiveconclusion
basedonanhypotheticalsituation.
.BonusFoodsLtd.-vs-EssexPackersLtd.atpage183.
Plaintiffwillbenefitfromthepresumptionofsection20whenitshowsthat
thetrademarksinissuearelikelytocauseconfusion.Itisalmostimpossible
toreversewhentheevidencefiledbytheplaintiffshowsthattheessential
elementofthetrademarkadoptedbyatraderestablishedinthemarket
foralongperiodoftime,hasbeentakenbythedefendant.
.C.TurnbullCo.Ltd.-vs-DominionWollens&Worsteds,Ltd.etal(1932)
Ex.C.R.218,atpage234
.RegalToyLtd.-vs-StarDollMfg.Col.Ltd.(1970),1C.P.R.(2d)208,at
page211
.Mr.Submarine-vs-HaralombosVoultsosetal(1977),36C.P.R.(2d),
270
.Sociétépourl’ExpansiondesTissusFins-vs-Marimac,Inc.(1984)78
C.P.R.(2d)112,atpages129and130



Whenplaintiffshowsthatthetrademarksinissuearelikelytocreate
confusion,plaintiffwillbenefitfromapresumptionofinfringement,a
presumptionthatcanberebutted.Theburdenofproofliesonthe
defendanttorebutthepresumption.
B)THEORIGINATINGNOTICEOFMOTIONTOEXPUNGEATRADEMARK
(Section57,TradeMarksAct)
Theapplicantwillhavetoallegeandprovethatitis”aninterestedperson”
asdefinedinsection2oftheAct.
.Burmah-Castrol(Canada)Ltd.-vs-NasolcoInc.(1974),16C.P.R.(2d)
193,atpages195and196
Theburdenofprooflieswiththeapplicant,theregistrationbeing
presumedvalidinviewofsection19oftheAct.
.ManhattanIndustriesInc.-vs-PrincetonManufacturingLtd.(1971),4
C.P.R.(2d)6,atpage13
.Tubeco,Inc.-vs-AssociationQuébecoisedesFabricantsdeTuyau
deBéton,Inc.(1980),49C.P.R.(2d)228,atpage230
Theapplicantmustallegeinitsmotionandeventuallyprovebywayof
affidavitorsolemndeclaration,oneofthegroundsofinvalidityfoundin
section18:
a)Section18(1)a):thetrademarkwasnotregistrableatthedateof
registration.Referencemustbemadetosection12(evidencemust
beattherelevantdate).

b)Section18(1)b):thetrademarkisnotdistinctiveatthetime
proceedingsbringingthevalidityoftheregistrationintoquestionare
commenced.
c)Section18(1)c):thetrademarkwasabandoned.Proofof
abandonmentmustbemadebytheapplicantanditmustbe
shownthattheownerhadtheintentiontoabandon.Alongperiod
ofnon-usecreatesapresumptionofabandonment.
.MarinelandInc.-vs-MarineWonderland(1975),16C.P.R.(2d)97,at
pages110and111
d)Section18(1)infine:theapplicantwasnotthepersonentitledto
registration.Thepersonentitledtoregistrationisdefinedinsection



16andgenerally,itisthepersonwhoatfirstuse,madeknownor
filedanapplicationforregistrationforatrademarkthatisnot
confusingwithanothertrademarkpreviouslyused,madeknown,or
filedinCanada.
Ifthegroundofinvalidityraisedisprioruse,section17(1)willoperate.This
groundcanonlyberaisedbytheprevioususeroritssuccessorintitleandit
mustbeshownthattheprioruserhadnointentiontoabandonitstrade
markatthepublicationdateofthetrademarkitisseekingtoexpunge.
Pursuantto17(2)oftheAct,ifthetrademarkhasbeenontheregisterfor
morethanfiveyears,itcannotbeexpungedonthegroundofprioruseby
anotherunlessitisshownthattheownerhadknowledgeoftheprioruse
whenitstrademarkapplicationwasfiled.
Theexpungementofatrademarkcanalsobeobtainedbycounterclaim
toaninfringementaction.Theabovecommentsapplytosuchasituation.

C)APPLICATIONFORREGISTRATIONOFATRADEMARK
(section38(2),TradeMarksAct)
Inallcases,theopponenthastheburdenofprovingtheessentialelements
ofitsallegations.Oncethisburdenmet,theapplicantmustshowthatits
trademarkshouldberegistered,notwithstandingtheobjectionofthe
opponent.
Whentheoppositionisbasedonaregisteredtrademarkandthe
opponentallegesthatthemarkappliedforislikelytocreateconfusion
withitstrademark,theburdenofprooflieswiththeapplicant.Thereisno
onusontheobjectingparty.
.CondeNastPublicationsInc.-vs-GozlanBrothersLtd.(1980),49
C.P.R.(2d)250,atpage253
.BerryBros.&RuddLtd.-vs-PlantaTabak-ManufacturDr.Manfred
Oberman(1981),53C.P.R.(2d)130,atpage143
.MolnlyckeAktiebolag-vs-Kimberly-ClarkofCanadaLtd.(1982),61
C.P.R.(2d)42,atpage45;
.SunshineBiscuits,Inc.-vs-CorporateFoodsLtd.(1982),61C.P.R.(2d)
53,atpage55;
Whenanappealagainstthedecisionoftheregistrarisfiled(section56of
theAct),theappellanthastheonusofshowingthattheregistrarerred.



Theburdenofproofwithrespecttothemeritoftheappealremains
unchanged.
Undersection56oftheAct,additionalaffidavitsmaybefiledinappeal(at
thetimeoffilingofthenoticeofappeal).Affidavitsmaybefiled
thereafter.InImmunoConcepts,Inc.v.ImmunoAG(1996),71C.P.R.(3d)
525(F.C.T.D.),MadamJusticeTremblay-LamerreferredtoMunsingwear
Inc.v.ProvostS.A.(1992),41C.P.R.(3d)470andsummarizedtherules
regardingthelatefilingofaffidavitevidenceonappealbeforethe
FederalCourtfromtheOppositionBoard,asfollowsatpage531:
“(1)TheprimarypurposeofRule704(7)istoenableapartytoobtain
leavetofileaffidavitslate,andtheaffidavitstobefiledmustbe
attachedtothenoticeofmotion;
(2)Apartycannotgenerallyapplyinadvanceforanextensionof
timetofileaffidavitsheorsheisnotinapositiontofileforthwith;
(3)Apartywhofindsitimpossibletofileaffidavitsatthepropertime
mustinformtheopposingpartythatheorshewillsubsequently,that
is,whentheaffidavitsareready,fileanapplicationforleavetofile
themlate;
(4)ApartymayinexceptionalcircumstancesapplytotheCourtin
advancepursuanttoRule3(1)(c)foranextensionoftimetofile
affidavitsheorsheisnotinapositiontofileforthwith;
(5)Whereapartyrelyingonexceptionalcircumstancesappliesto
theCourtforanextensionoftimetofileaffidavitsitisnotina
positiontofile,theCourtwillbeespeciallyscrupulousandwillgrant
themotiononlyiftheparty’snoticeofmotionindicates:
(a)thereasonsforthedelay;
(b)thepurposeoftheaffidavitsthepartyproposestofileand
theuseheorshewillmakeofthem;and
(c)ifitisimpossibleforthepartytoprovideinformationonthe
purposeanduseoftheaffidavits,thereasonswhyheorsheis
unabletodoso.”

3.COMMONMEANSOFEVIDENCE

A)EXPERTEVIDENCE
.Admissibleforwhatpurpose?:



“InWilliamH.Rorer(Canada)Ltd.v.Johnson&Johnson(1980),48
C.P.R.(2d)58atp.62,Mr.JusticeMahoneymadethefollowing
commentsregardingtheadmissibilityofopinionevidenceinthat
case:
“Inthisarea,asinanyother,opinionevidenceisadmissibleonlyto
assisttheadjudicatortomakeadecision.Itishisdecision,notthe
expert’s.Theadjudicatorisnotjustifiedinadoptinganopinionsimply
onthebasisofanexpert’sexpertise.Hemustknowthefactsand/or
assumptionsuponwhichtheexpertbasedhisopinionsothathecan
assessboththevalidityoftheopinionandtheprocessbywhichit
wasreached.”
Theconflictingopinionsoftheexpertsinthepresentcaseemphasizesthe
factthattheRegistrarofTradeMarksisnotjustifiedinadoptinganexpert’s
opinionsimplyonthebasisofhisorherexpertise.AsMr.JusticeMahoney
pointedoutinWilliamH.Rorer(Canada)Ltd.v.Johnson&Johnson(1980),
48C.P.R.(2d)58(F.C.T.D.)atp.62,referredtointheaboveextractfrom
theEtablissementsLeonDuhameldecision,theadjudicatormustknowthe
factsand/orassumptionsuponwhichtheexpertbasedhisorheropinion
sothathecasassessthevalidityoftheopinionandtheprocessbywhichit
wasreached.Inthepresentcase,bothexpertsbasedtheiropinionson
similarassumptionsandyetappearedtoreachoppositeopinionsonthe
issueofconfusion”.
.Coca-ColaLtd.v.BrasseriesKronenbourg,S.A.(1994),55C.P.R.(3d)
544(T.M.O.B.)atpage553.
Expertevidencecanbegivensomeweightnotwithstandingthatitmay
be,inpart,basedonhearsay.
.Coca-ColaLtd.v.BrasseriesKronenbourg,S.A.(1994),55C.P.R.(3d)
544(T.M.O.B.);
.MCICommunicationsCorp.v.MCIMultinetCommunicationsInc.
(1995),61C.P.R.(3d)245(T.M.O.B.);
.JacobsSuchardLtd.v.TreborBassettLtd.(1996),69C.P.R.(3d)569
(T.M.O.B.)
B)SURVEYEVIDENCE

.Surveyevidenceisadmissiblebutcaremustbetakentoensureits
reliability
.Affiantmustqualifyasanexpertinconductingandanalysingsurveys
Mr.JusticeMackaysetoutthefollowingguidelinesinJosephE.Seagram&
SonLtd.v.SeagramRealEstateLtd.(1990),33C.P.R.(3d)454(F.C.T.D.)as
hedismissedanappealfromadecisionoftheRegistrar:
-Therelevancyofasurveymaybedependentonthefollowing
circumstances:
1.thetimeperiodonwhichthesurveytookplace;
2.thequestionsasked;
3.wheretheywereasked;
4.themethodofselectingparticipants.
-Itisadvisabletohaveanaffidavitfromsomeoneactuallyinvolved
inthesurvey’scompletion;
-Directevidenceofthemannerinwhichquestionnaireswerecompleted
willbelookedfor;
-Questionsandresponsesshouldnotbegiveninanartificial
environment(i.e.showingamarkonacard);
-Thesurveyshouldbeconductedneartherelevantoppositiondates;
-Thesurveymustberepresentative.
-Openendedquestionsarepreferablewhenconductingasurvey:
“Asnotedbytheapplicant’sagentattheoralhearing,itis
difficulttodesignasurveythatapproximatesthetestfor
confusionwithoutprejudicingtherespondents’replies.
Althoughtheapplicant’ssurveyhasminimizedtheriskofsuch
prejudice,ithasdonesobyundulyrestrictingthescopeofthe
inquiry.Itispreferabletodesignasurveythatelicitsa
consumer’sfirstimpressionbytheuseofopen-endedquestions
suchas”Whatdoyouthinkofwhenyousee(orhear)this
mark?or”Whatwordcomestomindwhenyouseethismark?”
Thisallowsarespondenttoreplyinanynumberofways.He
mightstatethatthemarkremindshimofanothermark,thatit
remindshimofaparticularcompany,thatheassociatesit
withparticularwaresorservices,thatheassociatesitwitha

particularemotionorfeeling,etc.Suchaquestionshouldbe
followedupbyoneormorepromptsinwhichtherespondent
isaskedifthereisanythingelsehethinksofwhenheseesthe
mark.Thisallowsforamorecompleteassessmentofthe
respondent’sfirstimpressionwhichistheessenceofthetestfor
confusion.”
.NewBalanceAthleticShoes,Inc.v.Matthews(1992),45C.P.R.140
(T.M.O.B.)atpage147.
Mr.JusticePinardproposedthefollowingguidelinestoadmitsurvey
evidenceinOpusBuildingCorp.v.OPUSCorp.(1995),60C.P.R.(3d)100
(F.C.T.D.)atpage105:
“Ifindthatthesurveyisadmissibleforthefollowingreasons:
(a)thesurveywasconductedbyanexpertinthefieldof
publicopinionresearch;
(b)thesamplingisfromtheappropriate”universe”;
(c)thesurveywasdesignedandconducted,andtheresulting
datawasprocessed,inaprofessionalmanner,independent
ofboththeapplicantanditscounsel;
(d)thesurveywasnotgeographicallyrestricted;
(e)thesurveywasconductedinbothnationalofficial
languagesandinvolvedbothmaleandfemalerespondents;
and
(f)thesurveyevidenceisputforwardasthebasisonwhich
theexpertassessedtherecognizabilityofthewordOPUSinthe
survey”universe”.”

.R.J.ReynoldsTobaccoCo.v.PhilipMorrisProductsInc.(1995),64
C.P.R.(3d)39(T.M.O.B.)atpage400
.DCComicsInc.v.Canada’sWonderlandLtd.(1991),36C.P.R.(3d)68
(T.M.O.B.);
.ScottPaperCo.v.Beghin-Say,S.A.(1992),44C.P.R.(3d)544
(T.M.O.B.);



.MolsonCompaniesLtd.v.S.P.A.BirraPeroniIndustriale(1992),45
C.P.R.(3d)28(T.M.O.B.);
.NewBalanceAthleticShoes,Inc.v.Matthews(1992),45C.P.R.140
(T.M.O.B.);
.R.J.ReynoldsTobaccoCo.v.PhilipMorrisProductsInc.(1995),64
C.P.R.(3d)395(T.M.O.B.);
.MolsonBreweries.v.JohnLabattLtd.(1995),65C.P.R.(3d)231
(T.M.O.B.)(onappeal:T-150-96F.C.T.D.);
.MolsonBreweries.v.JohnLabattLtd.(1995),66C.P.R.(3d)218
(T.M.O.B.)(onappeal:T-149-96F.C.T.D.);
.TorontoBlueJaysBaseballClubv.BlueJaySprinklerSystemsInc.
(1996),68C.P.R.(3d)277(T.M.O.B.)
C)STATEOFTHEREGISTEREVIDENCE

Thegeneralruleregardingstateoftheregisterevidencemaybe
describedasfollows:
“Stateoftheregisterevidenceisonlyrelevantinsofarasonecan
makeinferencesfromitaboutthestateofthemarket-place:seethe
oppositiondecisioninPortsInternationalLtd.v.DunlopLtd.(1992),41
C.P.R.(3d)432(T.M.Opp.Bd.),andthedecisioninWelchInc.v.Del
MonteCorp.(1992),44C.P.R.(3d)205,56F.T.R.249,34A.C.W.S.(3d)
1278(T.D.).AlsoofnoteisthedecisioninKelloggSaladaCanada
Inc.v.MaximumNutritionLtd.(1992),43C.P.R.(3d)349,[1992]3F.C.
442,145N.R.131(C.A.),whichissupportforthepropositionthat
inferencesaboutthestateofthemarket-placecanonlybedrawn
fromstateoftheregisterevidencewherelargenumbersofrelevant
registrationsarelocated.”
.LiptonDivisionofULCanadaInc.v.Geo.A.Hormel&Co.(1996),66
C.P.R(3d)543(T.M.O.B.)atpage549.
.PortsInternationalLtd.v.DunlopLtd.(1992),41C.P.R.(3d)432
(T.M.O.B.);
.KelloggSaladaCanadaInc.v.MaximumNutritionLtd.(1992),43
C.P.R.(3d)349(T.M.O.B.);



.WelchFoodsInc.v.DelMonteCorp.(1992),44C.P.R.(3d)205
(T.M.O.B.);
.HandelsondernemingPietRentmeesterB.V.v.WigwamMills,Inc.
(1995),63C.P.R(3d)258(T.M.O.B.);
.MolsonBreweriesv.AndresWinesLtd.(1995),66C.P.R.(3d)530
(T.M.O.B.)(onappeal:T-374-96F.C.T.D.);
.LiptonDivisionofULCanadaInc.v.Geo.A.Hormel&Co.(1996),66
C.P.R(3d)543(T.M.O.B.);
.ChampionProductsInc.v.NewGamesS.r.l.(1995),66C.P.R.(3d)237
(T.M.O.B.)(onappeal:T-413-96F.C.T.D.);
.T.G.Bright&Co.v.NicolasNapoleon&CieMaison,fondéeen1929,
S.A.(1996),68C.P.R.(3d)510(T.M.O.B.);
.LifelineSystems,Inc.v.BellCellularInc.(1996),68C.P.R.(3d)407
(T.M.O.B.)(onappeal:T-1347-96F.C.T.D.)
TheRegistrardoeshavethediscretion,inviewofthepublicinterestto
maintainthepurityoftheregister,tochecktheregisterinordertoconfirm
theexistenceofaregistrationrelieduponbytheopponent.
SuchdiscretiondoesnotextendtoanyandallotherrecordsintheTrade-
marksOffice.
.MolsonBreweriesv.PernodRicard(1990),31C.P.R.(3d)42(T.M.O.B.)
[reversedonappealby(1991)40C.P.R.(3d)102(F.C.T.D.)(Dubé,J.);
howeverRegistrar’sdecisionrestoredby(1995)64C.P.R.(3d)356
(F.C.A.)(Pratte,DécaryandChevalierJJ.A.)];
.CargillLtd./CargillLtéev.OmegaNutritionCanadaInc.(1995),61
C.P.R.(3d)567(T.M.O.B.);
.SynertechSystemsCorp.v.MacDonald(1995),63C.P.R.(3d)272
(T.M.O.B.);
.MorsamFashionsInc.v.H.K.EnterprisesInc.(1996),66C.P.R.(3d)387
(T.M.O.B.);
.NationalBroadcastingCo.Inc.v.MiddleEastBroadcasting
Corporation(1996),69C.P.R.(3d)109(T.M.O.B.)



D)HEARSAYRULE

.Whatishearsay?
In1996,theFederalCourt(inLabattBrewingCo.Ltd.v.MolsonBreweries
(1996),68C.P.R.(3d)216(F.C.T.D.;HealdDJ.))deemedapplicableto
oppositionproceedingsthenewhearsayrulesasoutlinedbytheSupreme
CourtofCanadainR.v.Khan[1990]2S.C.R.531andR.v.Smith[1992]2
S.C.R.915.
.Hearsayevidencemaynowbeconsideredadmissibleonlyifit
satisfiesthetestofnecessityandreliability.
.SeeBarryGamache’scommentaryNewHearsayRulesAppliedin
Trade-MarkOppositionCase(enclosed)forexample.
.LabattBrewingCo.Ltd.v.MolsonBreweries(1996),68C.P.R.(3d)216
(F.C.T.D.);
.BudgetRentaCarInternationalInc.v.DiscountCarandTruck
RentalsLtd.(1996),70C.P.R.(3d)411(T.M.);
.BarryGamache,NewHearsayRulesAppliedinTrade-Mark
OppositionCase,WorldIntellectualPropertyReport,1996,(Vol.10),
p.243.
E)AFFIDAVITS
.An”affidavit”whichcontainsajuratwhichstatesthatanaffidavitwas
“sworn(oraffirmed)”hasbeenjudgedinadmissible.
Dr.Ing.h.c.F.PorscheAGv.ProcycleInc.(1992),45C.P.R.(3d)432
(T.M.O.B.);
.Affidavitsattachedasexhibittoanotheraffidavitdonothave
independentstatusasaffidavitsinoppositionproceedings.
.Scott-BathgateLtd.v.FerraraPanCandyCo.,Inc.(1993),49C.P.R.
(3d)378(T.M.O.B.)



.Exhibitswhicharenotproperlyidentifiedorinitiallyattachedtoan
affidavitmaysimplybetreatedastechnicaldeficiencies.
.WWF-WorldWideFundforNaturev.IncahaInc.(1995),61C.P.R.
(3d)413(T.M.O.B.)
.Testimonymustbeinaffidavitorstatutoryform.
.Menley&JamesLaboratories,Inc.v.LaboratoireCogan-Produits
LydiaDainowS.A.(1993),51C.P.R.(3d)458(T.M.O.B.)
.CanadianGraphicsWestInc.v.465775OntarioInc.(1991),36C.P.R.
(3d)251(T.MO.B.);
.Dr.Ing.h.c.F.PorscheAGv.ProcycleInc.(1992),45C.P.R.(3d)432
(T.M.O.B.);
.Scott-BathgateLtd.v.FerraraPanCandyCo.,Inc.(1993),49C.P.R.
(3d)378(T.M.O.B.);
.Menley&JamesLaboratories,Inc.v.LaboratoireCogan-Produits
LydiaDainowS.A.(1993),51C.P.R.(3d)458(T.M.O.B.);
.Magyarv.LoblawsInc.(1995),61C.P.R.(3d)267(T.M.O.B.);
.WWF-WorldWideFundforNaturev.IncahaInc.(1995),61C.P.R.
(3d)413(T.M.O.B.);
.EmpireofCarolina,Inc.v.GeorgeWestonLtd.(1995),63C.P.R.(3d)
420(T.M.O.B.);
.AlbertaGovernmentTelephonesv.CantelInc.(1994),55C.P.R.(3d)
116(T.M.O.B.);
.MerrillLynch&Co.Inc.v.BankofMontreal(1993),54C.P.R.(3d)473
(T.M.O.B.)
4.PREPARINGYOURWITNESSESANDTHEIRSTATEMENT.
Whenpossible,meetthewitnessesandgooverthefacts.Discussall
factualaspectsofthecaseofwhichtheymayhaveknowledge.You
shouldhaveanextremelygoodknowledgeofthefactualaspectsofyour



caseandtrytoseeif,spontaneously,theknownfactsmatchthetestimony
ofyourwitnesses.
Explaintoyourwitnesseswhatyourcaseisandwhatyouareattempting
toachievewiththeirtestimonyortheirwrittenstatement.
Tellallyourwitnessesthatmostlikely,theywillbecross-examinedbythe
otherside.Explaintotallyhowacross-examinationisconductedandthe
purposeofit.Witnessesshouldlistencarefullytothequestionsaskedand
thesuggestionsmade.Theydonothavetoagreeautomaticallywiththe
suggestionsmade.Answerssuchas”Idonotremember”and”Idon’t
know”areacceptableanswerswhenthewholeofthetestimonyis
credible.
5.CROSS-EXAMINATION

Ifyouhavenowheretogo,staywhereyouare.Ifyouwishtocross-
examine,knowinadvancewhatyouwanttoachieve,isolatethe
statementsmadebythewitnesswhichyouwanttocontradictoratleast
diminishtheimpact.Donotcross-examineoneverysmallpointorevenon
somethingyouknowtobeuntrueifitdoesnothurtyourcase,unlessyou
wanttoattackthecredibilityofthewitness.
Cross-examinationshouldbecarefullypreparedandadaptedafteryou
hearwhatissaid.
-Useofthe”aim-lock-releasetechnique”.
-Contradictingawitnesswithapreviousstatement.
-Alwaysbeconsciousofthepersonyouarecross-examining.
.NicholasXavadiuk-vs-MinisterofNationalRevenue(1967)C.T.C.
447,atpage450.
“Ididnotfindtheappellant’sevidencepersuasive.Hewasobviously
doinghisbesttoputforwardaviewofthefactsthatwouldsupport
hisappeal.Hisevidenceseemedtometobeanexampleofhowa
persontryingtorecalleventsofthepastcanpersuadehimselfthat
heactuallyremembersfactsfavourabletohimselfthatdidnot
actuallyoccur.Thisisnotanuncommonphenomenoninthecourts
and,whenitoccurs,thepersoninvolvedhasfrequentlybrought
himselftothepointwherehehonestlybelieveswhathesays”.





ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,
marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireet
artistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-
howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;
poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanada
qu’ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892to
theprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrial
designsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;
copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;
tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingand
technologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityand
labelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughout
theworld.Ideaslivehere.
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