Federal Court Sets Out Test for Geographical Descriptiveness in Leyda Case

2008-01-01

F
EDERALCOURTSETSOUTTESTFORGEOGRAPHICALDESCRIPTIVENESS
INLEYDACASE

BARRYGAMACHE*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS
Inadecisionthatclarifiestherulesregardingtheregistrabilityoftrade-marks
composedofgeographicalplaces,Canada’sFederalCourtrecentlyallowedthe
appealofChileanwineproducerswhoseoppositionagainstthetrade-markLEYDA
filedbyanotherChileanwineproducerhadbeendismissedbytheRegistrarofTrade-
marks.Insodoing,theCourtdecidedthatcleargeographicaldescriptivenessis
examinedfromanobjectivepointofview,ratherthanasubjectiveone(Sociedad
AgricolaSantaTeresaLtda.etal.v.VinaLeydaLimitada,2007FC1301(F.C.,
HarringtonJ.,December12,2007)).
OnApril4,2001,VinaLeydaLimitada(hereafter“VLL”)filedanapplicationtoregister
thetrade-markLEYDAtobeusedinassociationwithwinesinCanada.Afterthe
applicationwaspublishedforoppositionpurposes,SociedadAgricolaSantaTeresa
Ltda.andVicenteIzquierdoMenéndez(hereafterthe“opponents”)jointlyfileda
statementofoppositionwheretheyallegedthatinviewofparagraph12(1)(b)of
Canada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13(hereafterthe“Act”),thetrade-mark
LEYDAwasnotregistrablesinceitwaseitherclearlydescriptiveordeceptively
misdescriptiveintheEnglishorFrenchlanguageofthecharacterorqualityofthe
waresinassociationwithwhichitwasproposedtobeused(namelywines)oroftheir
placeoforigin,namelyLeydaValleyorLeydainChileandthetrade-markshould
thereforeberefusedunderparagraph38(2)(b)oftheAct.
Paragraph12(1)(b)isaprovisionthatdescribesinwhatcircumstancesatrade-mark
isnotregistrable.Itprovidesthatatrade-markisregistrableifitisnot“whether
depicted,writtenorsounded,eitherclearlydescriptiveordeceptivelymisdescriptivein
theEnglishorFrenchlanguageofthecharacterorqualityofthewaresorservicesin
associationwithwhichitisusedorproposedtobeusedoroftheconditionsoforthe

©CIPS,2008.*BarryGamacheisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,LLP.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,
patentandtrademarkagentswhichrepresentedtheopponentsinthiscase.PublishedintheFebruary
2008IssueoftheWIPR.Publication142.209
.

2
personsemployedintheirproductionoroftheirplaceoforigin”Inthecircumstances,
wasthetrade-markLEYDAforwinesregistrableornotunderparagraph12(1)(b)?
FromthefactsfiledintoevidencebythepartiesbeforetheRegistrar,itwas
establishedthattheLeydaValleyisasubsectionoftheSanAntonioValley,thatisin
turnasubregionoftheAconcaguaValley,thatisasubsectionoftheGreater
AconcaguaRegionincentralChile.Moreover,VLL’swinewastheonlyone
commercializedinCanadathatwasproducedintheLeydaValleyofChile;thefact
thatVLL’swinesoriginatedfromLeydainChilewasfurtherconfirmedbyvarious
indicationstothateffectappearingonsomeofthelabelsitusedinCanada.
Inhisreasons,theRegistrarnotedthattheevidencefiledbeforehimestablishedthat
LeydaorValleyofLeydawasawineproducingregioninChile.Underthe
circumstances,hehadtodecidewhetherthetrade-markLEYDAwasclearly
descriptiveoftheplaceoforiginofthewinesassociatedtheretoandtherefore
unregistrableunderparagraph12(1)(b)oftheAct.
TheRegistrarnotedtheparties’disagreementontheapplicabletestunderparagraph
12(1)(b)oftheActtodetermineifthetrade-markLEYDAwasclearlydescriptiveof
theplaceoforiginofthewares,i.e.wines.VLL(whoappliedtoregisterthetrade-
markLEYDA)tookthepositionthattheRegistrarmustdetermineiftheaverage
CanadianconsumeronafirstimpressionwouldperceivethemarkLEYDAasthe
locationoforiginofthewares;ontheotherhand,theopponentswereoftheviewthat
onceithasbeenestablishedthatthetrade-markcorrespondstotheplaceoforiginof
thewares(suchasthecasehereforthetrade-markLEYDA),thetrade-markisthen
clearlydescriptivewithinthemeaningofparagraph12(1)(b)andthegroundof
oppositionshouldbemaintained.
Ontheapplicabletestunderparagraph12(1)(b)–anissueoflaw–theRegistrar
sidedwithVLLanddecidedthat,undersaidtest,hehadtodeterminethatitwasself
evident,asamatteroffirstimpression,thattheaverageCanadianconsumerwould
associatethetrade-markLEYDAwiththeplaceororiginofVLL’swines.He
concludedthattheevidenceintherecorddidnotsupportthatconclusionandhe
rejectedtheopposition.Indoingso,theRegistrarfoundsupportina1968decisionof
theExchequerCourt(theFederalCourt’spredecessor)inthecaseofDrackettCo.of
CanadaLtd.v.AmericanHomeProductsCorp.(1968),55C.P.R.29(Ex.Ct.).Inthat
case,Mr.JusticeCattanachstatedthatitwasnotaproperapproachtothe
determinationofwhetheratrade-markisdescriptivetocarefullyandcriticallyanalyse
thewordorwordsatissuetoascertainiftheyhavealternativeimplicationswhen
usedinassociationwithcertainwaresbutrathertoascertaintheimmediate
impressionconveyedthereby.Hence,accordingtotheRegistrar,theneedto
considertheimpressionoftheaverageCanadianconsumer.

3
TheopponentsappealedtheRegistrar’sdecisionbeforetheFederalCourtunder
section56oftheAct.However,VLLdidnotappearbeforetheCourt.
Ontheapplicabletestregardingcleargeographicdescriptiveness,Mr.Justice
HarringtonconcludedthattheRegistrarerredinlawinthathemisappliedthe
Drackettdecisionhandeddownnearlyfourdecadesago.IntheCourt’sview,Mr.
JusticeCattanach,inDrackett,wasspeakingofthe“character”or“quality”ofthe
wares,not“theirplaceoforigin”.Thegeneralityofhislanguagehadtobelimitedby
context.Indeed,the1968casebeforeMr.JusticeCattanachwasanappealfroma
decisionoftheRegistrarwherebythelatterrejectedanoppositiontoanapplicationto
register“ONCE-A-WEEK”foruseinassociationwithafloorcleaner.Theplaceof
originofthewareswasnotanissueinthatcase.Furthermore,Mr.JusticeCattanach
wasspeakingofapositivefirstimpression,ratherthantheabsenceofimpressionof
one“whomaybegeographicallyorvinaculturallychallenged”.Consequently,
accordingtoMr.JusticeHarrington,oncetheRegistrarfoundasafact,ashedid,that
LeydaisawineproducingregioninChile,asamatteroflawhewasrequiredto
concludeontherecordbeforehimthattheoppositionwaswellfounded.
WhiletheCourtdecidedthatthetesttodeterminewhetheratrade-markisclearly
descriptiveoftheplaceoforiginofthewaresassociatedtheretoisanobjectiveone
(inacase,suchasthisone,wherethetrade-markLEYDAwasappliedtowines
originatingfromtheLeydaValleyinChile),thesituationmightbedifferentwerethe
Courttodecideifatrade-markisdeceptivelymisdescriptiveofaplaceoforigin.
Paragraph12(1)(b)doesnotprohibittheregistrationoftrade-marksthatare
misdescriptiveof,amongotherthings,theplaceoforiginofwaresassociated
therewithbutratheronlydoessowhentheyaredeceptivelymisdescriptive(for
example,orangessoldunderthetrade-mark“SOUTHPOLE”mightbemisdescriptive
oftheplaceoforiginofsuchwaresbutnotdeceptivelysoasonewouldnotconsider
theSouthPoleahospitableclimatetogroworanges).Thus,section12(1)(b)callsfor
anassessmentoftheimpressionleftbyatrade-markincertaincircumstances,when
consideringdeceptivemisdescriptiveness.Forexample,inAtlanticPromotionsInc.v.
RegistrarofTrade-marks(1984),2C.P.R.(3d)183(F.C.T.D.),theCourthadto
decidewhetherthegeneralpublicinCanadawouldbemisledintothebeliefthatthe
productwithwhichthetrade-markwasassociatedhaditsorigininthegeographical
placefoundinthetrade-mark(inacasewhereMILANsoapdidnotoriginatefrom
Milan,Italy);inthatcase,itconcludedthatthepublicwouldindeedbemisled.
Mr.JusticeHarrington’sdecisiondismissingtheLEYDAapplicationconfirmsthat
certainwords,geographicalnamesamongthem,shouldbeavailabletoalltraders
whosellwarescomingfromspecificplaceswhosenamesareusedtopromote
products(animportantconsiderationinsomecasessuchasthewineindustry).A
geographicalwordshouldthereforenotbemonopolizedbyasingleentitytothe
detrimentofotherswhoseproductsalsocallhomethatsameplace.

4

5
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.
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.
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