Federal Court Allows Trade-Mark to Proceed to Registration Based on Use by Exclusive Licensee

1
FEDERALCOURTALLOWSTRADE-MARKTOPROCEEDTOREGISTRATIONBASED
ONUSEBYEXCLUSIVELICENSEE

By
AlexandraSteele
*
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

INTRODUCTION

OnanappealofadecisionoftheCanadianRegistrarofTrade-Marks
(“Registrar”)refusinganapplicationforregistrationpursuanttoopposition
proceedingsbasedonafindingthattheapplicanthadfailedtoshowuseof
thetrade-markbyitspredecessorintitle,theFederalCourtofCanada
reversedtheRegistrar’sdecisionandorderedthatthetrade-markproceedto
registration(SarasinConsultadoriaeServiciosLDAv.Roox’sInc.,2004FC431,
RussellJ.,March4,2004).

THEFACTS
TheAppellantSarasinConsultadoriaeServiciosLDA(“Sarasin”)wasthe
namedapplicantforregistrationofthetrade-markNOSEDESIGNforusein
associationwithshoes,boots,slippersandsandals,basedonusebyits
predecessorintitle,EditSRL(“Edit”)sinceMarch23,1995.TheNOSEDESIGN
trade-markwasadvertisedandtheRespondent,Roox’sInc.(“Roox’s”)fileda
StatementofOppositionalleging,amongstothergrounds,thatSarasin’s
trade-markwasconfusingwithRoox’sownregisteredtrade-mark,namely
TOESONTHENOSE&DESIGNregisteredfor,amongstothers,athleticshoes,
sandals,shoes,sneakers,tennisshoes,etc.Roox’salsoallegedthatSarasin
hadfailedtoshowuseoftheNOSEDESIGNtrade-markbyitspredecessorin
title.
TheRegistrarrejectedallthegroundsofoppositionraisedbyRoox’s,saveand
exceptforthegroundrelatingtosection30(b)Trade-marksAct(R.S.C.1985,




























































©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2004
*Lawyer,AlexandraSteeleisamemberofthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andofthe
patentandtrade-markagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.

2
c.T-13):accordingtoRoox’s,Sarasin’spredecessorintitle,Edit,hadnotin
factusedtheNOSEDESIGNtrade-markattherelevantdate,namelyMarch
23,1995.TheRegistraralsodismissedRoox’sargumentofconfusionbetween
theparties’respectivetrade-marksintheabsenceofanyevidencethat
Roox’smarkhadacquirednaydistinctiveness.
ThepartiesappealedthedecisionoftheRegistrar:Sarasinarguedthatthe
RegistrarerredindeterminingthatSarasinhadnotshownuseoftheNOSE
DESIGN,andRoox’sarguedthattheRegistrarerredindecidingthatthere
wasnoconfusionbetweenthetrade-marksNOSEDESIGNandTOESONTHE
NOSE&DESIGN.
THEFEDERALCOURTJUDGEMENT
TheCourtfirstproceededtoexaminethedecisionoftheRegistrar,including
theevidence,whichconsistedoftwoaffidavitsbythedirectorofEdit,one
thathadbeenfiledbeforetheRegistrarandonefiledonlybeforetheFederal
Courtasadditionalevidence,aswellasthedocumentaryevidencerelating
totheseaffidavits.
Theaffidavitevidencewastenderedtoprovethedateoffirstuseofthe
NOSEDESIGNtrade-markandthatthetrade-markhadbeenusedbyEdit’s
exclusivelicenseesincethatdate.SarasinarguedthatuseoftheNOSE
DESIGNtrade-markbyEdit’sexclusivelicenseeinuredtoEditasthe
owner/licensorofthemarkinsuit,andconsequently,benefitedSarasinasthe
assigneeofthetrade-markapplication.AccordingtoSarasin,theRegistrar
haderredinfailingtoconcludethatthetrade-markhadinfactbeenusedby
Sarasin’spredecessorintitle.
Roox’sadoptedthepositionthattheaffidavitssubmittedbySarasindidnot
establishusebyEditoftheNOSEDESIGNtrade-markasofMarch23,1995.
InaccordancewiththeprinciplessetoutinMolsonBreweries,aPartnershipv.
JohnLabattLtd,(2000)5C.P.R.(4
th)180(F.C.A.),theCourtmaysubstituteits
decisiontothatoftheRegistrar“iftheRegistrarcametoawrongconclusion
orifadditionalevidenceisadducedonappealthatwouldhavematerially
affecttheRegistrar’sfindingsoffactortheexerciseofherdiscretion”.The
standardofreviewinsuchacaseiscorrectness,i.e.whethertheRegistrar’s
decisioniscorrectinlightoftheevidence.
AccordingtoSarasin,theaffidavitevidenceofthedirectorofEditclearly
showedthatEdit’sexclusivelicenseehadinfactusedthetrade-markand
thatsaidusebenefitedEditdespitethefactthatthetrade-markwasnot

3
registeredatthattime.Atalltimes,althoughEditdidnotitselfusethemark,it
hadcontroloverthecharacterandqualityofthewares,namelyshoes,
boots,slippersandsandals;Editwasthereforedeemedtohaveusedthe
NOSEDESIGNmarkasofthedateofclaimedfirstuse,i.e.March23,1995.
Roox’sarguedthatSarasin’sevidencewasambiguousandthatthe
additionalevidenceofthedirectorofEditdidnotshowthatthetrade-mark
wasinfactusedinassociationwiththewares.Sarasinrespondedthatthe
affidavitsofthedirectorofEditshouldbereadtogether:thecombinationof
bothaffidavitsandthedocumentaryevidenceappendedthereto,suchas
invoicesandsamplesofthevariousstylesofwaresbearingtheNOSEDESIGN
trade-mark,clearlydemonstratethatthetrade-markwasusedasofMarch
23,1995.
TheCourtagreedwithSarasin’sposition:bothaffidavitsmustberead
togetheranduseoftheNOSEDESIGNtrade-markisestablishedthroughthese
affidavits.TheCourtdismissedRoox’scontentionthatthelicenseagreement
betweenEditanditsexclusivelicenseedidnotincludetheterritoryof
Canada.TheCourtreviewedthelicenseagreement,aswellasthecross-
examinationofthedirectorofEditonhisadditionalaffidavitandconcluded
thatthelicenseagreementcouldnotbeinterpretedsoastoexclude
Canada.Inaddition,theCourtrejectedRoox’sargumentthatthedirectorof
Editdidnotpossesssufficientpersonalknowledgeofthecommercialactivities
ofEdit’sexclusivelicensee:itwasarguedbyRoox’sthathisaffidavitrelated
factsbasedoninformationandbelief,butduringthecross-examinationof
Edit’sdirector,itwashadrevealedthathewasapartnerorshareholderof
thelicenseeandhadaccesstothelicensee’scorporatedocuments,aswell
asovertheproductionofproductsbearingtheNOSEDESIGNtrade-mark.
Roox’salsosubmittedtotheCourtthattheRegistrar’sdecisionastothe
absenceofconfusion,betweenSarasin’sNOSEDESIGNandRoox’sregistered
TOESONTHENOSE&DESIGNtrade-marks,waserroneous.Roox’sdidnot
presentadditionalevidenceontheissueofconfusionandarguedthatthe
Registrar’sdecisiononthisissuewasclearlywrong.Roox’ssubmittedthatit
wasSarasin’sburdentoshowthattherewasnolikelihoodofconfusion
betweentheparties’respectivemarksandthatsuchburdenhadnotbeen
discharged.
SarasinarguedthatRoox’shadnotspecificallypleadedconfusionasa
groundofoppositioninitsStatementofOppositionandthattheevidence
tenderedinsupportoftheargumentonconfusion,namelyacertifiedcopyof
theTOESONTHENOSE&DESIGNcertificateofregistration,wasinsufficientfor
theCourttoconcludetotheexistenceofconfusion.TheCourtagreedthat
Roox’sevidencewasnotsufficientorconclusiveasconcernedtheissueof

4
confusion,andsinceRoox’shadnotadducedanyadditionalevidenceon
appeal,therewasnoreasontoreversetheRegistrar’sdecisiononthisissue.
TheCourtthereforeconcludedthattheadditionalevidenceofSarasinwould
havemateriallyaffectedtheRegistrar’sdecisionandthatSarasinhadshown,
onappeal,thatitspredecessorintitlehadinfactusedthetrade-markatthe
materialdate,namelyMarch23,1995.TheCourtalsoconcludedthatthe
RegistrarhadnoterredinitsdecisionrejectingRoox’soppositionbasedon
confusionbetweentheparties’marks.Consequently,theCourtissuedan
orderallowingtheNOSEDESIGNtrade-marktoproceedtoregistration.
CONCLUSION
Inthiscase,boththeRegistrarandtheCourthadbeenfacedwithevidence
thatwaseitherincompleteorunclearandthiscausedthedecision-makers
somedifficultiesinunderstandingthefactsandthegroundsofopposition.
Althoughitmayseemselfevident,acasesuchasthisremindstrade-mark
practitionersthatnotonlymustaStatementofOppositionclearlyand
specificallyincludeallthegroundsofoppositiontheOpponent,butalsothat
suchgroundsmustbesupportedbyproperandcompleteevidence.Thisis
equallytruefortheApplicantdefendingitstrade-markapplication.The
consequencesoffailingtoadduceclearevidencemayfaroutweighthe
costsintime,effortandmoneytoensureprotectionofaparty’strade-mark
rights…

Publishedat(2004),18-3WorldIntellectualPropertyReport

5

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