Federal Court of Appeal Confirms Absence of Infringement in Word “Conservator” Case

2014-08-06

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006

FEDERALCOURTOFAPPEALCONFIRMSABSENCEOFINFRINGEMENTIN
WOOD“CONSERVATOR”CASE

BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

ArecentdecisionbyCanada’sFederalCourtofAppealhasconfirmedanearlierdecisionby
theFederalCourtthathaddismissedatrade-markinfringementactioncommencedin2002
byaplaintiffwhowastheregisteredownerofadesigntrade-markthatincludedtheword
“CONSERVATOR”,withthelast“o”ofthewordbeingreplacedbythedesignofahardhator
constructionhelmet(Osmose-PentoxInc.v.SociétéLaurentidesInc.,2014CAF146
(F.C.A.),Mainville,ScottandBoivin,JJ.A.,June3,2014).

OnJune11,2013,JusticeMartineauofCanada’sFederalCourtdismissedatrade-mark
infringementactionthatwascommencedmorethanadecadeearlierbyOsmose-PentoxInc.
(hereafterthe“Plaintiff”or“Osmose-Pentox”),asmallfamily-runMontreal-basedbusiness
thathaddevelopedovertheyearsaparticularexpertiseinwoodpreservativesandother
coatings.Osmose-Pentoxwastheregisteredownerofatrade-markcomposedoftheword
“CONSERVATOR”,withthelast“o”ofthewordbeingreplacedbytherepresentationofa
hardhatorconstructionhelmet(hereafterthe“conservatordesign-mark”).Since1996,
Osmose-Pentoxcommercializedcoatingsfortheprotectionofwoodunderthetrade-mark
PENTOXalongwiththeconservatordesign-mark.Theseproductsdidnotcontainany
pesticideandcouldbepaintedover.
Foritspart,SociétéLaurentidesInc.(hereafterthe“Defendant”or“Laurentides”)wasthe
manufacturerofvariousproducts,includingwoodcoatingsandvarnishesforwoodthatitsold
underthetrade-markPermaTec.Startingin1999,Laurentidesbeganthesaleofanew
product,aprimer-sealerforwood.Thelabelsusedtosellthisproductshowedthewords
“WOODCONSERVATOR”(inEnglish)and“CONSERVATEURPOURBOIS”(inFrench).

In2002,thePlaintiffcommencedtrade-markinfringementproceedingsagainstthe
Defendant.ItallegedthattheDefendant’suseof“WOODCONSERVATOR”wascreating
confusioninthemarketplacewithitsregisteredconservatordesign-mark.

In2013,theFederalCourtdismissedthePlaintiff’saction,concludingthattheDefendantdid
notusethewords“CONSERVATOR”et“CONSERVATEUR”astrade-marksbutratheras
descriptivewordstohighlightitsproducts’characteristics.Moreover,eveniftheDefendant
hadcarriedoutanytrade-markuse,theFederalCourtconcludedthatconfusionwasunlikely.

©CIPS,2014.*LawyerwithROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andfpatentandtrade-markagents.
Publishedat(2014),28:7WorldIntellectualPropertyReportPublication142.283.

ThePlaintiffappealedtheFederalCourt’sdecisionbeforetheFederalCourtofAppealand
arguedthatithadmadeoutitscaseforinfringementandthatthetrialjudgehaderredinhis
interpretationoftheusecarriedoutbytheDefendant.Accordingtoitsargument,itwas
thereforecrucialtoexaminetheuseactuallycarriedoutbytheDefendant.

TheFederalCourtofAppealnotedhoweverthatthiscasecouldnotbedecidedwithout
examinationofthemonopolisticrightsgrantedbythePlaintiff’sregistration.WhilethePlaintiff
enjoyedtheexclusiveuseofitsconservatordesign-mark,theadvantageconferredby
Canada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13(hereafterthe“Act”)onlyprotectedthe
representationofthewordCONSERVATORwherethelast“o”isreplacedbyahardhator
constructionhelmet.Theprotectionhoweverdidnotextendtootherwordssuggestedbythe
conservatordesign-mark.Inotherwords,theFederalCourtofAppealfoundthatthe
distinctiveelementofthePlaintiff’strade-markwas,infact,theconstructionhelmet.Without
thisdesigncomponent,theCourtconcludedthatitwouldbedifficulttoconceiveofany
protectionforthisexpressionundertheAct.
Accordingly,theFederalCourtofAppealagreedwiththeassessmentoftheevidencethat
wascarriedoutbythetrialjudgewhohadconcludedthattheexpressionsatissue,namely
“WOODCONSERVATOR”andCONSERVATEURPOURBOIS”,werenotusedastrade-
marksbutratherasdescriptivewordstohighlightaparticularaspectoftheDefendant’s
product.
ThePlaintiffalsoaskedtheCourttogiveafreshlooktoitsargumentbasedonsubparagraph
20(1)(b)(ii)oftheAct.Thisprovisionstatesthatnoregistrationofatrade-markpreventsa
personfrommakinganybonafideuse,otherthanasatrade-mark,ofanyaccurate
descriptionofthecharacterorqualityofhis/herwaresorservices,insuchamannerasisnot
likelytohavetheeffectofdepreciatingthevalueofthegoodwillattachingtothetrade-mark.
Here,thePlaintiffarguedthatthewordsCONSERVATORandCONSERVATEURwerenot
an“accuratedescription”oftheDefendant’sproductsbutwereratheratmostsuggestiveof
oneoftheproduct’scharacteristics.Forexample,thePlaintiffdrewtheCourt’sattentionto
variousdictionarydefinitionsthatdefined“conservator”asatypeofpersonandnotatypeof
sealerforwood.
WhiletheCourtwasinvitedtoexaminesomeoftheevidencethat,apparently,favouredthe
Plaintiff’sargument,italsotooknoteofotherelementsinevidencethatconfirmedthetrial
judge’sfindings.Forexample,beforethetrialjudge,evidencewaspresentedthatonthe
websitesofsuchdifferentorganizationsasEnvironmentCanada(thatprovidesupdateson
weatherconditions)andtheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization(theagencyofthe
UnitedNationsthatprovidesaforumforthedebateofIPissues),onecouldfindthepresence
oftheword“conservateur”inreferencetowoodprotectors.

AccordingtotheCourt,thetrialjudgecouldconcludeashedidthattheDefendant’suseof
thecontestedtermsdidnotviolateanyprovisionoftheAct,includingsubparagraph
20(1)(b)(ii).
Whilethiscouldhaveendedthedebate,theCourtalsoexaminedtheconfusionargument
raisedbythePlaintiff(presumingthecontestedwordswerebeingusedastrade-marksbythe
Defendant).Hereagain,theCourtsidedwiththeDefendant,statingthatthecasefor

3
confusionhadnotbeenmadeout.Moreover,thepresenceofthehardhatorconstruction
helmetinthePlaintiff’smarkwasanimportantfactoragainstafindingofconfusionasit
servedultimatelytodistinguishthePlaintiff’swaresinthemarketplace.

Whileaplaintiff’spersistenceindefendingitsmarkiscertainlynoteworthy,thisexample
illustrates,again,thataweakmarkcanonlybeusedasaswordagainstinfringersinvery
limitedcases.Whenathirdpartyusesanowner’sregisteredmarkinadescriptivesense,and
withoutitsmostdistinctiveelement,thecaseforinfringementwillbeverydifficult,ifnot
impossible,tomakeout,asthisparticularsetofcircumstancesdemonstrates.

Pourdesservicesdeconseilsdansledomainedelapropriété
intellectuelleetdestechnologiesdel’informationetdescommunications
(incluantlesservicesd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce)
demêmequedesservicesjuridiques.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstous
lesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriété
littéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielset
circuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secrets
decommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,
publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892
totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,
industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindications
oforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouring
rights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticals
andplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,
franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;
marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.
®/MD

COPYRIGHTER
TM/MC

IDEASLIVEHERE
®/MD

ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
®/MD

LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
®/MD

LEGERROBICRICHARD
®/MD

NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
®/MD

PATENTER
®/MD

ou«R»stylisé
®/MD

ROBIC®/
MD

ouROBIC++++
®/MD

ouROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
®/MD

ouROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
®/MD

THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TM/MC

TRADEMARKER
TM/MC

VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
®/MD

YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEAS
TOTHEWORLD
®/MD

MarquesdecommercedeROBIC,S.E.N.C.R.L.poursesservicesde
conseilsdansledomainedelapropriétéintellectuelleetdes
technologiesdel’informationetdescommunications(incluantles
servicesd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce)demêmeque
sesservicesjuridiques

**************************************************************************************************

Forservicespertainingtointellectualproperty,technologyand
communicationlawandrelatedmatters(includingpatentandtrade-mark
agencyservices)aswellaslegalservices.

6
circuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secrets
decommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,
publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892
totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,
industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindications
oforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouring
rights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticals
andplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,
franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;
marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.
®/MD