Federal Court Rejects Bid for Expungment Initiated by Italian Prosciutto Producers Against “Parma” Trade-Mark Owned by Canadian Company
FEDERALCOURTREJECTSBIDFOREXPUNGMENTINITIATEDBYITALIAN
PROSCIUTTOPRODUCERSAGAINST“PARMA”TRADE-MARKOWNEDBY
CANADIANCOMPANY
By
BarryGamache
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
ArecentdecisionoftheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadahas
rejectedaclaimthataregisteredtrade-mark,“PARMA”,standinginthe
nameofitsCanadianowner,wasdeceptivelymisdescriptiveoftheplaceof
originofthevariousmeatproductswhichwereregisteredinassociationwithit
(ConsorziodelProsciuttodiParmav.MapleLeafMeatsInc.,T-2382-97,
January25,2001,McKeown,J.).
TheConsorziodelProsciuttodiParma(the“Consorzio”)wasfoundedin1963
byprosciuttoproducerslocatedinParma,Italy.TheConsorzioownsthe
“ducalcrown”markforitsmemberstodisplayinassociationwiththeir
prosciuttoproducts.Thismarkincludestheword“PARMA”withinacrown
design.
In1997,theConsorzioaskedCanada’sFederalCourttoexpungethe
registrationforthetrade-mark“PARMA”inaccordancewithSection57of
Canada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13.This“PARMA”registrationwas
securedonNovember26,1971foruseinassociationwithvariousmeat
products,namelyprosciutto,mortadella,salami,capicollo,pepperbutts,
pepperonianddrysausage.Theregistrationindicatedadateoffirstuseof
September18,1958.TheRespondent,MapleLeafMeatsInc,aCanadian
company,wasthesuccessortotheinitialowner,ParmaFoodProducts
Limited,anotherCanadiancompany.
TheConsorzioputforwardthefollowinggroundsforexpungment:1)Thetrade-
mark“PARMA”wasdeceptivelymisdescriptive(i.e.,describingfalselyand
deceptivelythattheproductsoriginatedfromParma,Italy)atthetimewhen
itwasregisteredbackin1971;2)Atthetimetheproceedingswere
commencedin1997,therewasameasurableassociationamongstmembers
oftheCanadianpublicbetweentheword“Parma”andbotharegioninItaly
andmeatproducts,thusrenderingthetrade-markinvalidforlackof
distinctiveness.
TheCourtnotedthatin1978,theConsorziowasgrantedtheresponsibilityby
ItalianlawtoregulatetheproductionofProsciuttodiParmaandtheuseof
theProsciuttodiParmamarks.Moreover,theConsorziodidnotcommenceto
conductbusinessinCanadauntil1997.
TheCourtdealtwiththeissueofthegroundofexpungmentbasedon
deceptivemisdescriptivenessbyrejectingthepropositionthat,atthetimeof
theregistrationofthe“PARMA”markinCanada,backin1971,many
CanadianswereexposedtotheideathatParmawasavillage-cityinItaly
andthatthecitywasasourceofhighqualityprosciutto.
ReferringtoAtlanticPromotionsInc.v.RegistrarofTrade-marks(1984),2C.P.R.
(3d)183(F.C.T.D.)at186,theCourtcouldnotconcludethatin1971,the
generalpublicinCanadawasmisledintothebeliefthattheproductwith
whichthetrade-markwasassociated,inthiscasemeatproducts,hadits
originintheplaceofageographicalnameinthetrade-mark(i.e.,PARMA).
Toconductthisenquiry,theCourtevaluatedthetestinthecontextofthe
yearinwhichthetrade-markwasregistered,thatis1971.TheCourtnoted
thattheevidencedidnotdemonstratethatin1971thegeneralpublicin
Canadawaslikelytohavebeenmisledbytheuseofthemarkinassociation
withtheregisteredwaresintobelievingthatthosewaresoriginallyoriginated
specificallyfromParma,Italy.TheCourtacceptedtheRespondent’ssurvey
evidencethatamajorityofCanadiansinthepresentdaydidnotrecognise
that“Parma”isaregioninItaly,nordidtheyassociatetheword“Parma”with
meatproducts.Inlightofthefiguresforthecurrentsituationregardingthe
public’sperception,theCourtcouldonlyconcludethatthefiguresfor1971
wouldnothavebeendifferent.Inanyevent,theCourtmentionedthatthe
Applicanthadonlyshownevidenceinsupportofitscontentioninrelationto
prosciuttowhiletheRespondent’sregistrationcoveredothermeatproducts.
IntheCourt’sview,theApplicanthadnotsatisfieditsonusregardingthose
othermeatproducts.
TheCourtalsorejectedtheargumentmadebytheApplicantastotheneed
fortrade-markstoberegulatedinordertoprotectconsumersfromdeception
astothesourceand/orqualityofwaresavailableinthemarketplace;the
Courtmentionedhoweverthatonemustnotlosesightoftheneedtoprotect
therightfulownersoftrade-marksfromunfaircompetition,notinginpassing
thattheRespondentanditspredecessorshadbeenusingthe“PARMA”mark
forover26yearswhentheexpungmentproceedingswereinitiatedin1997.
Astotheissueoflackofdistinctiveness,theApplicantarguedthatthe
increasedrecognitionintheCanadianmarketplaceofthereputationand
goodwillenjoyedbyprosciuttofromParma,Italyrenderedthe“PARMA”
trade-markregisteredinthenameoftheRespondent,non-distinctive.Useby
theRespondentofa“faux-Italian”getuponitspackagingalsoallegedly
contributedtothislackofdistinctiveness.Inpresentingitscase,theApplicant
reliedonevidencefrompeoplewithaspecialknowledgeoftheItalianfood
industry,bothinCanadaandinItaly.Thisevidencewasgivenlittleweightby
theCourtasitwasnotconsideredrepresentativeoftheknowledgeheldby
thetypicalCanadianconsumerofaverageintelligenceandeducationon
theissueofthereputationconcerningprosciuttofromParma,Italy.
WhattheCourtconsideredimportantonthedistinctivenessargumentwere
thecontinuingsalesmadeovertheyearbytheRespondentandits
predecessorsofitsmeatproductsunderthe“PARMA”trade-mark.Thesesales
weremadeinthecontextofcontinuoususeofthetrade-markbythe
RespondentinCanada.Asnotedearlier,theApplicantonlystarteddoing
businessinCanadain1997,atthetimewhenitinitiatedtheexpungment
proceedings.Thus,ontheevidence,whiletheremighthavebeenan
increasedrecognitionovertimeofthereputationofprosciuttoproducedin
Parma,Italy,thisdidnotresultinhavingthe“PARMA”trade-markinCanada
loseitsdistinctiveness.TheCourtwrotethatforthepurposeofseeingwhether
amarkisdistinctive,theCanadianmarketalonemustbeconsidered.
Astotheargumentofthe“faux-Italian”packaging,itwasrejectedbythe
Courtasbeingirrelevanttothequestionofdistinctiveness,assaidpackaging
wasnotpartoftheregistration.
Inthiserawheresomelocallyornationallyknownspecialityproductsundera
specifictrade-markaregoing“global”,theissuessuchasthoseraisedbythe
ConsorzioandtheCanadian“PARMA”ownercanbeseenasatasteof
thingstocome.However,conflictingclaimstothesametrade-markappear
fornowtobedecidedinfavourofthebonafideowneranduserinthe
Canadianmarket.
Communiqué:
ThefollowingisanupdatetothearticleappearingintheMarch2001edition
oftheWIPR(Volume15,Number3)writtenbyStellaSyrianosregardingthe
FederalCourtofAppealdecisioninUnitelInternationalInc.vs.TheRegistrarof
Trade-Marks,A-83-99,September28
th,2000,Rothstein,J.A.).
TheauthorhadmentionedthattheCanadianTrade-MarksOfficehadtaken
theFederalCourtofAppeal’srulingunderadvisement.However,sincethat
articlewaspublished,theTrade-MarksOfficehasclarifieditsposition
regardingtheUniteldecision.InaNoticefirstpublishedintheCanadian
Trade-marksJournalonMarch7
th,2001(Issue48,Number2419,p.162),itwas
statedthatthepreviouspracticeoftheTrade-MarksOfficeconcerning
entitlementremainsunchangedbytheUnitelruling:
TheTrade-marksOfficehasreviewedthedecisionofthe
FederalCourtofAppealinUnitelInternationalInc.v.Registrar
ofTrade-marks(unreported,A-83-99)andhasconcludedthat
nochangesarerequiredtothecurrentpracticewithrespect
toparagraph37(1)(c)andsection16oftheTrade-marksAct.
PleaserefertosectionIII.8oftheTrade-marksExamination
Manualfortheexistingofficepracticerelatingtosection16of
theTrade-marksActandtheissueofco-pendingapplications.
Publishedat(2001),15-5W.I.P.R.5-6underthetitleCourtRejectsBidfor
ExpungementOfCanadian”Parma”Trade-Mark.
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2001.
ROBIC,ungrouped avocatsetd agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd origine;droitsd auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu ailleursdanslemonde.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
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