Free Distribution Of Newsletter Does Not Qualify As Use Under Canada’s , Senior Trade-Mark Hearing Officer Rules

2002-01-01

FREEDISTRIBUTIONOFNEWSLETTERDOESNOTQUALIFYASUSEUNDER
CANADA’STRADE-MARKSACT,SENIORTRADE-MARKHEARINGOFFICERRULES

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
Inarecentdecision,SeniorTrade-markHearingOfficerDeniseSavardofthe
Section45DivisionofCanada’sTrade-marksOfficefoundthatthefree
distributionofanewsletterwasnotdoneinthenormalcourseoftradeas
describedinSubsection4(1)ofCanada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.(1985)c.T-
13(Inre:Barlow,Menard&Associates-ADivisionofFlansberry,Menard&
AssociatesInc.,registrationTMA343,172,D.Savard,T.M.S.H.O.,February14,
2002).
OnOctober18,2000,followingarequestmadeby88766CanadaInc.,
Canada’sRegistrarofTrade-marksforwardedanoticeunderSection45of
Canada’sTrade-marksActtoBarlow,Menard&Associates-ADivisionof
Flansberry,Menard&AssociatesInc.,theregisteredownerofthedesign
trade-markTHETRADEMARKERregisteredforaperiodicalpublication.
Section45oftheTrade-marksActprovidesthat,followingthewrittenrequest
madebyanypersonwhopaystheprescribedfees,theRegistrarshallgive
noticetotheregisteredownerofatrade-markrequiringsuchownertofurnish
anaffidavitwithrespecttoeachofthewaresorservicesspecifiedinthe
registrationshowingwhetherthetrade-markwasinuseinCanadaatany
timeduringthethree(3)yearperiodimmediatelyprecedingthedateofthe
notice.ByreasonoftheevidencefurnishedtotheRegistrar,ifitappearsthat
atrade-mark,eitherwithrespecttoallorsomeofthewaresorservices
specifiedintheregistration,wasnotusedinCanada,theregistrationofthe
trade-markisliabletobeexpungedoramendedaccordingly.Essentially,the
procedureunderSection45isdesignedtogetridoftrade-markswhichcan
bedescribedas”deadwood”ontheregister.

LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.*OftheLawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andthePatentandTrademarkAgencyFirmROBIC,
g.p.Publication142.138.

Inthiscase,theregistrantfiledtheaffidavitofitsmanagingdirectorwhich
describedthecircumstancesinwhichthedesigntrade-markTHETRADE
MARKERappearedinassociationwithaperiodicalpublication.Theaffiant
explainedthatreportingservicesunderthedesigntrade-markTHETRADE
MARKERwereperformedfreeofchargetotheregistrant’sclients,seminar
attendees,selectivenon-profitorganisationsandpotentialclients.Healso
mentionedthattheperiodicalpublicationusingthetrade-markhadbeen
availableontheinternetsince1994:Thosewhoreceivedtheperiodical
publicationunderthetrade-markTHETRADEMARKERwouldvaryfrom1,000
to2,000dependingonthenumberofinternethits.Thepublicationwas
alwaysgivenfreeofchargeandvariousclientsreceivedthe500copiesthat
weredistributedonayearlybasis.Thetrade-markTHETRADEMARKERwas
clearlyvisibleonthefrontandallsubsequentpagesofthepublicationwhich
wasalsosentouttoclientsviaemail,uponrequest.
Underthesecircumstances,didtheevidencerevealuse”inthenormalcourse
oftrade”withinthescopeofSubsection4(1)oftheTrade-marksAct?TheAct
providesthatatrade-markisdeemedtobeusedinassociationwithwaresif,
atthetimeofthetransferofthepropertyinorpossessionofthewares,inthe
normalcourseoftrade,itismarkedonthewaresthemselvesoronthe
packagesinwhichtheyaredistributedoritisinanyotherwaysoassociated
withthewaresthatnoticeoftheassociationisthengiventothepersonto
whomthepropertyorpossessionistransferred.
Regardingservices,theActprovidesthatatrade-markisdeemedtobeused
inassociationwithservicesifitisusedordisplayedintheperformanceor
advertisingofthoseservices.
TheActalsoprovidesthat”wares”includeprintedpublications.Accordingly,
theperiodicalpublicationmentionedintheregistrant’sregistrationwas
consideredasaware.Thus,inordertomaintaintheregistration,Senior
HearingOfficerSavardhadtomakeafindingthattheregisteredtrade-mark
THETRADEMARKERwasusedinassociationwithperiodicalpublicationsas
providedforinSubsection4(1)oftheAct.
Couldthecircumstancesdescribedbytheregistrantinitsevidence,i.e.the
distributionfreeofchargeofaperiodicalpublicationbeconsideredasusein
thenormalcourseoftrade?SeniorHearingOfficerSavardconcededthatin
somecases,thefreedistributionofapublicationonwhichatrade-markis
clearlyfoundcouldqualifyasuseinthenormalcourseoftrade,forexample,
whenamagazineisdistributedfreetothepublicwiththepurposeofgaining
profitfromthesaleofadvertisingspaceinsaidmagazine(Now
CommunicationsInc.v.ChumLtd.(2000),5C.P.R.(4th)275(T.M.O.B.)).In
othercases,accordingtotheSeniorHearingOfficer,thefreedistributionofa

publicationmadeinanticipationofsecuringordersandsaleswithrespectto
suchpublicationcouldestablishanintentionofacquiringprofitsfromsuch
wares(LinTradingCo.v.CBMKabushikiKaisha(1985),5C.P.R.(3d)27
(HearingOfficer-T.M.),affirmed(1987),14C.P.R.(3d)32and(1988),21C.P.R.
(3d)417).
However,inthecaseunderconsideration,theevidencedidnotrevealsuch
circumstances.Tothecontrary,SeniorHearingOfficerSavardcomparedthe
circumstancesofuseofTHETRADEMARKERtrade-marktothefactsinRenaud
Cointreau&Ciev.CordonBleuInternationalLtd.(1993),52C.P.R.(3d)284
(T.M.O.B.),affirmed(2000),188F.T.R.29(F.C.T.D.,Rouleau,J.).Inthelatter
case,alsoanexpungementproceedingunderSection45,theevidence
revealedthatbookletsandleafletsonwhichtheregistranthadputitstrade-
markweredistributedfreeofcharge;consumerscouldobtainthemwhen
theypurchasedfoodproducts;theywerealsodistributedinexhibitionalhalls
andweresentdirectlytoconsumerswhorequestedthem.Infindingthatthis
patternoffreedistributionofbookletsandleafletsinassociationwithatrade-
markasrevealedbythefactsinthatcasedidnotconstituteuseinthenormal
courseoftrade,Mr.JusticeRouleauhadmadereferencetotheUKdecision
inHospitalWorldTradeMark[1967]R.P.C.595(Pat.Off.)wheretheCourt
wrote:”Thefreedistributionofajournalcontainingmattersofinterestof
prospectivecustomersandotherswhocomeincontactwiththeapplicants
intheirmainbusinessasmanufacturersofsurgicalandmedicaldressingsand
hospitalsupplies,isundoubtedlyanaidintheirgeneralpublicrelationsand
helpstocreategoodwillinthefirm;butIdonotthinkthatthefreedistribution
canberegardedastradinginthegoodsoftheapplicationwithinthecontext
ofthedefinitionofatrademark(sic).Thegoodsarenotbeingputonthe
marketforpeopletobuyasamatterofchoiceinpreferencetosomeone
else’spublications.Thepersonswhoreceivethefreecopiesare,Ithink,most
likelytoregardthemaspartoftheapplicant’spublicityandadvertisement
campaignconcernedwiththesalesofdressingsandhospitalsuppliesrather
thantheproductsofabusinessofpublishers.”.
TheCourtinRenaudCointreau&Ciethereforeconcludedthat,absentother
circumstances,thefreedistributionofwaressuchasbookletsandleafletsof
recipescouldnotberegardedasatransactioninvolvingthetransferofthe
propertyinorpossessionofthesewaresinthenormalcourseoftradeinsuch
awayastosupporttheapplicationofthepresumptionofSubsection4(1)of
theAct.
SeniorHearingOfficerSavardconsequentlyconcludedthatno”use”ofthe
trade-markTHETRADEMARKERwasshowninassociationwithaperiodical
publicationandsheorderedthattheregistrationbeexpunged.However,she
didmentionthathadtheactivitiesoftheregistrantbeendescribedasa

service,i.e.theserviceofkeepingtheregistrant’sclientsinformedofvarious
changesintrade-marklaw,thismighthaveledtoafindingofuseofthe
trade-markinassociationwithservices(asuseinassociationwithservices
doesnotrequireuseinthenormalcourseoftrade).
Thisdecisionisaninvitationtocarefullyconsidertheprotectionrequestedina
registrant’strade-markapplication:InCanada,therequirementsforuseofa
trade-markinassociationwithservicesappeartobelessrestrictivethanthose
inassociationwithwares.Consideringthechangesbroughtaboutby
technologyinrecentyears,suchasthee-mailingofnewsletters,suchactivity
shouldnowbemoreproperlycharacterizedasaservice.Atrade-markowner
seekingtoprotectthistypeofactivity(thesendingofnewsletterstoclients)
shouldthereforedescribeitasaserviceinitstrade-markapplication.
Publishedat(2002),16-5W.I.P.R.5-6underthetitleFreeDistributionof
NewsletterIsNotUseUndertheTrade-marksAct
LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.

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