Grappling with the nuances of Trademark Law – 2016 Trade-mark Law Review
1
GRAPPLINGWITHTHENUANCESOFTRADEMARKLAW2016TRADE-MARK
LAWREVIEW
LAURENTCARRIÈRE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS
Asitisoftenthecasewithanyyearlyreview,itcanbechallengingtosingleoutthe
mostinfluentialdecisionswhensomanyinterestingcaseshavecomebeforethe
courts.Nevertheless,belowareaselectionofwhatwebelievetobesomeofthe
mostnoteworthytrademarkcasestocomeoutofCanadiancourtsin2016.
Administrativeproceedings
Section45oftheTrademarksActprovidesforasummaryadministrativeproceeding
underwhichtheregistrarissuesaNoticerequestingtheownerofaregistered
trademarktoprovefulluseofthemarkinCanada,failingwhichtheregistrationmay
becancelledormodified.
Variationsoftrademarks
Aregisteredtrademarkshouldbeusedinitsregisteredformsincethepracticeof
departingfromthepreciseformofatrademarkasregisteredisobjectionableand
dangerousforaregistrant.However,providedthatthedeviationdoesnotcause
injuryordeceptiontoanyoneandthemarkisnotaffectedasawhole,useofthe
modifiedtrademarkmaybeheldtoconstituteuseoftheregisteredtrademark.The
propertesttobeappliedconsistsofdecidingwhetherthenewformhasbeenaltered
soastoloseitsidentityanddistinctivenessinthemindofthepublic.
©CIPS,2017.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrièreisapartnerwithROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirm
oflawyers,patentandtrade-markagents.SpecialthankstoGabrielSt-Laurent,anarticlingstudent.
EveniftheCanadianTrade-marksAct(RSC1985,cT-13)spells“trade-mark”withanhyphen,for
easeofreference,theform“trademark”isusedthroughoutthiscontribution.Asamatterofchoice,the
200decisionsrenderedonthemeritsbytheOppositionBoardwerenottakingintoaccount.Published
intheJune/July2017issueofWorldTrademarkReview105-108.Publication062.077
BauerHockeyCorpvEastonHockeyCanada,Inc(2016FC1373)wasanappeal
againstadecisionfromtheregistrarinwhichthecentralissuewaswhetherthe
registrant’strademarkasusedwasthetrademarkasregistered.
Inordertoestablishthis,theregistrarhadtocomparethetrademarkasregistered
withthetrademarkasusedinordertodeterminewhetherthedifferencesbetween
themweresounimportantthatapurchaserwouldbelikelytoinferthatbothgoods
hadthesameorigin,despitethesedifferences.
Onappeal,theregistrantarguedthatageometricshapecouldcreateacommercial
impressionontheconsumerseparatefromthatcreatedbyanyadditionalmaterial[ie,
theword‘bauer’].Thecourtfoundthatthetrademarkasusedwasconsistentwiththe
trademarkasregistered,sincethedifferenceswerenotsuchthataconsumer,froma
distance,“wouldnotbeabletorecognizethatthehockeyskateswiththetrademark,
asused,aremadebyBauer”.Italsoindicatedthatarectangleisaformof
parallelogram.Withregardtowhowasusingthetrademark,thecourtaddedthat
“whenalicensingagreementcontainsacontrolprovision,itispresumedthatthe
registeredownerofthetrademarkexerteddirectorindirectcontroloverthecharacter
orqualityoftheproducts”,andthattheusebythelicenseeinurestotheowner.
Goodsversusservices
InSpecialtySoftwareIncvBewatecKommunikationstechnikGMBH(2016FC223),
thecourthadtodealwiththewaythatagoodcanbetransferredforthistocountas
‘use’.Thetrademarkatissuee–whichwassubjecttosummarycancellation
proceedings–wasregisteredforcomputersoftwarewhichwasnotphysically
delivered,butwasaccessiblethroughtherightsholder’swebserver.
Intheabsenceofaphysicaltransferofthesoftware,theregistrarheldthatsucha
transactionmightconstituteusewithrespecttotheservicesforwhichthecomputer
softwarewasdesigned,butnotwithrespecttothegoodsthemselves,sincethere
wasnoassociativetransferofpropertyorpossessionofthegoods.
Onappeal,theFederalCourtdisagreed,notingthatthemeansofdeliveringthe
softwarewasirrelevant.Itpostulatedthateventhoughtherightsholderpreviously
solditscomputersoftwareondisks,inreality,ithadalwaysbeensellingalicenceto
usethecomputersoftware,which,evenifintangible,wasconsideredtobegenuine
goods.Basedontherightsholder’sevidence,itwasclearthattheimpugned
trademarkwasassociatedwiththecomputersoftwarewhenaccessedby
purchasers,notablybywayofalog-inscreenshowingthetrademark.The
registrationwasthereforemaintained.Thisdecisionhasbeengreetedwithreliefby
rightsholderswhichavailthemselvesofnewbusinessmodels–particularlyinthe
solfwaresector.However,itshouldalsoserveasacautionarytalethatitcanbe
helpfultoupdatethedescriptionsofgoodsandservicesfortrademarks.
ThecaseisnowunderappealbeforetheFederalCourtofAppeal.
Oppositions
Onceanapplicationfortheregistrationofatrademarkhasbeenacceptedbythe
registrar(examinationsection),itmustbeadvertisedintheTrademarksJournalso
thatanypersonmayfileastatementofoppositionwhich,apartfromtechnical
grounds,willgenerallyrevolvearoundconfusionbetweentheappliedfortrademark
andthetrademark(s)ortradename(s)allegedbyanopponent.Anappealfromthe
decisionoftheregistrar(oppositionboard)lieswiththeFederalCourt,inwhichcase
additionalevidencemaybepresentedbyeitherparty.
Fullscopeofprotection
InPizzaioloRestaurantsIncvLesRestaurantsLaPizzaiolleInc(2016FCA265),the
FederalCourtofAppealwascalledontodeterminewhethertheFederalCourthad
properlyappliedthereasonablenessstandardwhenitallowedtheappealbrought
forthbyLesRestaurantsLaPizzaiolleInc.
In2013LaPizzaiollehadsuccessfullyopposedtheregistrationofthePizzaiolo
RestaurantsInc’sproposedtrademarkPIZZAIOLO(awordmark)onthebasisofits
LAPIZZAIOLLEregisteredandusedtrademark.However,atthesametime,the
boardhadrejectedLaPizzaiolle’soppositioninrespectofPizzaiolo’sproposed
designtrademarkonthebasisthattherewasnolikelihoodofconfusionbetween
Pizzaiolo’sdesigntrademarkandLaPizzaiolle’sLAPIZZAIOLLEmark.
LaPizzaiolleappealedbeforetheFederalCourt.Thecourtappliedthe
reasonablenessstandardandconcludedthattheregistrarhaderredindismissingLa
Pizzaiolle’sopposition,asLaPizzaiollewasentitledtouseitswordmarkinany
format.
Itwasthereforenotreasonablefortheregistrartoconcludethattherewasno
likelihoodofconfusion,especiallyafterhavingfoundconfusionbetweenPizzaiolo’s
designtrademarkandLaPizzaiolle’sLAPIZZAIOLLEmark.
PizzaioloappealedtheFederalCourt’sdecisiontotheFederalCourtofAppeal,
whichsidedwiththeFederalCourt,reiteratingthattheregistrarhadfailedtoconsider
thattheregistrationofthetrademarkLAPIZZAIOLLEentitledLaPizzaiolleto“use
theletteringandcoloursidenticaltotheonesusedby”Pizzaiolo.Theappealcourt
furtherconsideredthetwotrademarksinthesamecontext–thatis,“thewords
‘Pizzaiolle’and‘Pizzaiolo’insquareletteringinalightershadeinadarkoval”–the
resultofwhichwasafindingoflikelihoodofconfusion.Theadditionofthewords
“GourmetPizza”intheopposedtrademarkwasheldirrelevantasthosewordswere
purelydescriptive.
Nameofgoodsinaforeignlanguage
CEDCInternationalSPZOOvUnderbergAG(2016FC1172)concernedanappeal
fromadecisionoftheboardwhichrefusedanapplicationtoregisterthetrademark
ŻUBRÓWKAforavodkaflavouredwithbuffalograss.Theregistrarheldthatsucha
registrationwasprohibitedsinceitwasthenameofthegoodsinconnectionwith
whichthetrademarkwasproposedtobeused.Itconcludedthat,ontheevidenceas
awhole,theapplicanthadnotmetitsburdentoestablishthattheterm‘Żubrówka’
wasnotagenericPolishwordusedtodescribethegoods.
Onappeal,theFederalCourtfoundRegistrar’sdecisionreasonableastheapplicant
wasattemptingtoappropriateawordthathadbeenlongusedinPolandtodescribe
aspecificandknowntypeofvodkaflavouredwithbuffalograss.Itfurtherheldthat
“[t]hefactthataforeignwordlike‘Żubrówka’isnotuniversallyincludedinEnglish
languagedictionariesisnotaparticularlystrongindicationofitsmeaningorusein
theEnglish-speakingworldorelsewhere”,andasamatteroffirstimpressionthe
everydayconsumer–evenifheorshedidnotspeakPolish–wouldunderstandthe
descriptivesignificanceofthetrademark.
Normalcourseoftrade
ThedecisioninL’OréalvCosméticaCabinas,SL(2016FC680)revolvedaroundthe
notionof‘thenormalcourseoftrade’.Section4(1)oftheTrademarksActprovides
thatatrademarkisdeemedtobeusedinassociationwithgoodsifthereisan
associationbetweenthegoodsandthetrademarkatthetimeoftransferofproperty
orpossessionofthegoods,inthenormalcourseoftrade.
Inthiscase,CabinashadsuccessfullyopposedtotheregistrationbyL’Oréalofthe
trademarkINOAonthegroundthattherewasalikelihoodofconfusionwithitsown
trademarkAINHOA.L’OréalappealedbeforetheFederalCourtandadducednew
evidence,whichaccordingtoL’Oréalwouldhavemateriallyaffectedtheregistrar’s
decisionsothatthestandardofreviewbytheFederalCourtwouldbeoneof
correctnessratherthanreasonableness.Thenewevidenceaimedtocounterthe
allegationsofprioruseofthetrademarkAINHOAinCanadaandtheuseofsaid
trademarkinthenormalcourseoftrade.
Initsnewevidence,L’Oréalchallengedtheextentofsalesofgoodsunderthe
AINHOAtrademarkandconcludedthatitcouldnothavegeneratedasignificant
amountofgoodwill.ThiswasheldirrelevantbytheFederalCourt,sincemakinga
trademarkwellknowntoCanadiansshouldnotbeconfusedwithuse.Withregardto
useofatrademark,itisthequalityoftheuse(ie,todistinguishone’sgoodsfrom
thoseofothers)thatisimportant.EveniftheCanadiansalesofCabinaswerenot
significant,thesalesofAINHOAgoodstoadistributorconstitutedatransferof
propertyoftheproductinthenormalcourseoftrade.
Asanadditionalground,L’OréalarguedthattheuseoftheAINHOAmarkcouldnot
havebeenheldtobeinthenormalcourseoftradesincethegoodsassociatedwith
thetrademarkwerenotauthorisedbyHealthCanadaandwerethereforeinviolation
oftheCanadiancosmeticregulations.TheFederalCourtrejectedL’Oréal’s
reasoningandfoundthat“theuseofatrade-markcannotbefoundunlawfulunlessit
clearlyappearsassuchonthefaceoftherecordand,ifapplicable,itisdecidedas
suchnotbytheRegistrar,whodoesnothavejurisdictionoversuchmatters,butby
therelevantauthorities”.AnappealfromL’OréalisnowpendingbeforetheFederal
CourtofAppeal.
Infringementanddefence
Clearlydescriptiveofplaceoforigin
InMCImportsIncvAFODLtd(2016FCA60),theplaintiffcommencedanactionfor
trademarkinfringementonthebasisofitsregisteredtrademarkLINGAYEN.The
defendantcounterclaimed,requestingexpungementofthetrademarkasbeing
descriptiveoftheplaceoforiginofthegoodsandthereforenotregistrable.
TheplaintiffimportedandsoldfoodproductsunderthetrademarkLINGAYEN,a
municipalityinthePhilippinesknownforitsbagoongshrimppasteproducts,
characterisedbytheirdistinctaromaandflavour.
Attrial,theFederalCourtdismissedtheappellant’sactionforinfringement,finding
thatitstrademarkwasnotregistrablebecauseitwasclearlydescriptiveoftheplace
oforiginofthegoods.Onappeal,theFederalCourtofAppealagreedwiththe
FederalCourt,butdismissedtheactionforreasonsthatdepartedfromthoseofthe
trialjudge,adoptingtheviewthattheconsumer’srecognitionofthebrandwas
irrelevant.Theonlyrelevantquestionwaswhetherthetrademarkclearlydescribed
theactualplaceoforiginofthegoods.
TheappealcourtsidedwiththedefendantandagreedthatLeydaistheproper
authoritytorelyonwhenfacedwithaclearlydescriptivecaseastotheplaceoforigin
ofgoodsorservices.Accordingtothecourt:“ifthewaresorservicesoriginateinthe
placereferredtobythetrade-mark,thenthetrade-markisclearlydescriptiveofplace
oforigin.Thereisnoambiguitywhenthetrade-markisthenameoftheplaceof
originthatwouldinvitefurtherinquiry:referringtotheplaceoforiginbyitsnameis
thepinnacleofclarity.Thisiswhytheperspectiveoftheordinaryconsumerofthe
waresorservicesisunnecessary”.Thus,theperspectiveoftheordinaryconsumer
willberelevantonlywhenthereisambiguityastowhetheratrade-markactually
referstoaplace.
Havingestablishedthis,theFederalCourtofAppealfoundthatLINGAYENwas
clearlydescriptiveoftheplaceoforiginofthegoods.GiventhatMCImportsIncwas
unabletoprovethatitsmarkhadacquireddistinctivenessthroughasecondary
meaning,thecourtdismissedtheappealandaffirmedthetrialjudge’sconclusionthat
thetrademarkregistrationwasinvalidunderSection18(1)(a)oftheTrademarksAct.
Thisdecisionclarifiesanimportantissuefortrademarkpractitioners,confirmingthatit
isnotnecessarytoconsidertheperceptionoftheordinaryCanadianconsumerwhen
determiningwhetheratrademark(withnosignificanceotherthanageographic
location)providesacleardescriptionoftheplaceoforiginofthegoodsorservices.
Thispositionappearstobebasedonpracticalconsiderations.Geographical
locationsshouldnotbeappropriatedbyasingletrader.Further,despitesuchan
appropriation,othertraderscouldstillmentionthisplaceinsofarasthisisnotto
distinguishtheirgoodsorservices,butmerelytoindicatetheirorigin(whichwould
thennotbeconsideredasaninfringinguseofatrademark).
Passingoffanddepreciationofgoodwill
InCanada,eitheratcommonlaworunderSection7(b)oftheTrademarksAct,a
plaintiffthatwishestosucceedinapassingoffactionmustestablish:
·theexistenceofgoodwillinitstrademarkorindicia;
·deceptionofthepublicduetoamisrepresentationbythedefendant;and
·actualorpotentialdamagetotheplaintiff.
InSadhuSinghHamdardTrustvNavsunHoldingLtd(2016FCA69),theappellant,
SadhuSinghHamdardTrust,soughttosetasidepartsofajudgmentoftheFederal
Courtwhichdismisseditsclaimsofcopyrightinfringementandpassingoff.
TheappellantwastheownerandpublisheroftheAjitDaily,anIndianPunjabi-
languagenewspaperwhichiswellknownamongthePunjabipopulationinIndiaand
whichhasbeenpublishedsince1955.Therespondentswerethepublishersofafree
CanadianPunjabi-languagenewspapercalledtheAjitWeekly.
Attrial,theFederalCourthaddismissedtheplaintiff’sclaimofpassingoffonthe
groundthatithadfailedtoestablishanyofthethreenecessaryelementsofa
passingoffclaim.
Onappeal,theFederalCourtofAppealdisagreedwiththisfindingasitdidnot
consideralltherelevantfactsorapplythecorrectlegalprinciples.First,itwaswrong
forthetrialjudgetoascertaintheexistenceofCanadiangoodwillonlybyreferenceto
thefewCanadiansubscriberswhoboughtAijtDaily,sinceuseofatrademarkin
Canadaisnotanecessarypre-conditionfortheexistenceofgoodwillinCanadian
law:goodwillinatrademarkmayexistbyvirtueofthereputationoftheplaintiff’s
trademarkinthedefendants’market,“evenwheretheplaintiffdoesnotusethetrade-
markinthatmarket”.Second,indeterminingconfusion,theTrialJudgeshouldhave
consideredthewaythetrademarkwaspresentedbyeachpartyandthedeliberate
usebythedefendantsofthesamestylizedversionoftheword‘Ajit’inthemasthead
ofAjitWeekly.Third,withregardtodamages,thetrialjudgedidnotconsider
damagesthatcouldflowfromalossofcontroloverreputation,imageorgoodwill.
TheFederalCourtofAppealthusremittedthecasebacktotheFederalCourtforre-
determination.
ThoiBaoIncv1913075OntarioLimited(VoMedia)(2016FC1339)revolvedaround
aVietnamesenewscompanywhichhasbeenofferingitsservicesinCanadasince
1987underthetrademarksTHOIBAOandvariants.Thedefendant,whichwas
ownedbyformeremployeesoftheplaintiff,startedasimilarwebsitecalled
‘www.thoibaotv.com’.Apartfromafindingofcopyrightinfringementandpassingoff,
thecourtfoundthatthedefendants’activitiesweredepreciatingthevalueofthe
goodwillattachedtotheplaintiff’sregisteredtrademarks,sincetheirwebsitewasof
inferiorqualityandprojectedanunprofessionalcharacter.Thecourtalsofoundone
oftheindividualdefendantspersonallyliableasithadhands-onandpersonal
involvementintheoperationofthecorporatedefendant.Withoutanyspecificproofof
damagesfortrademarkinfringement,thecourttookaroyaltyapproachandheldthat
theplaintiffwasentitledtoC$15,000.Finally,apartfromtheusualinjunctivereliefs,
thecourtorderedoneofthepersonaldefendantstotransfertotheplaintiffthe
“ownershipandallrightsofaccess,administrationandcontroloverthedomainname
Twitteraccount,orsocialmediaaccount”containingtheplaintiff’smarks.
Officialmarks
Section9oftheTrademarksActoffersparticularprotectiontopublicauthorities.On
publication,thesemarksbecomeprohibited–thatis,noonecanadoptthem,asa
trademarkorotherwise,foranygoodsorservices.Theseprohibitedmarksneednot
toberenewedorstatespecificgoodsorservices,andtheycannotbechallengedfor
non-useoropposed.However,publicationcanbechallengedbywayofan
applicationforjudicialreviewbeforetheFederalCourtofCanadawithin30daysof
theirpublication.Theonlygroundsforsuchachallengeisthattheholderwasnota
publicauthorityorwasnotusingthemarkatthetimeofpublication.
InStarbucks(HK)LimitedvTrinityTelevisionInc(2016FC790),thecourtexercised
itsdiscretiontoallowtheapplicanttomakeanapplicationforjudicialreviewmore
than14yearsafterpublicationoftheofficialmark.Althoughthemarkwaspublished
inJune2001,itwasonlyinJuly2014thatanexaminer’sreportobjectedtothe
applicationonthebasisoftheofficialmarkanditwasinOctober2015thatthe
applicanttookitsrecourseforjudicialreviewonthebasisthattheholderwasnota
publicauthority.Thecourtheldthattheapplicantcouldnothaveactedbeforethe
examiner’sreportagainstitsownapplicationandwhendoingso,theapplicant
proceededwithdiligence.Thecourtalsostatedthat:“itwouldbeunfairifapartythat
isnotapublicentitycouldenjoytheexceptionalrightsconferredontheholderofan
officialmark.”Anothercircumstancemayalsobethattheholderdidnotparticipatein
thejudicialreview.
Forthoseconfrontedwiththiscuriousbeast,thisdecisionisareliefasitopensthe
wayfordiligentapplicantstoseekthecancellationofadverseofficialmarks,wellafter
theirpublication.
Legislativeupdates
SinceJune2016clientsoftrademarkagentshavebeenentitledtoaprivilegeakinto
thatgrantedtolawyers.
Otherchangescomingdownthelegislativepipeline(butprobablynotinforceuntil
early2019)include:·anexpandeddefinitionof‘trademark’;
·theallowanceofdivisionalapplications;
·theadoptionoftheNiceclassification(whichcancurrentlybeusedinformally);
·theendofthefilingbasisofthedeclarationofuserequiredforregistration;and
·areductioninthetermofregistration(from15yearsto10fromtheregistration
date).
ThedomesticimplementationoftrademarkprovisionsflowingfromCanada’s
accessiontotheMadridProtocol,theSingaporeTreatyandotherbilateraland
internationaltradeagreementsiscertainlytobewatched(inthelattercase,
protectionwillbeextendedtoanygeographicalagriculturalgoodandnolonger
limitedtowinesanspirits).
Pourdesservicesdeconseilsdansledomainedelapropriété
intellectuelleetdestechnologiesdel’informationetdescommunications
(incluantlesservicesd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce)
demêmequedesservicesjuridiques.
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriété
intellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèles
utilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellations
d’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetde
l’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéet
étiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.ROBIC,
agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892to
theprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,
industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;
biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-
how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnology
transfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityand
labelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.
®/MD
COPYRIGHTER
TM/MC
IDEASLIVEHERE
®/MD
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
®/MD
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
®/MD
LEGERROBICRICHARD
®/MD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
®/MD
PATENTER
®/MD
ou«R»
®/MDstylisé
ROBIC®/
MD
OustyliséROBIC++++
®/MDstylisé
ouROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
®/MDstylisé
ouROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
®/MDstylisé
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TM/MC
TRADEMARKER
TM/MC
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE
®/MD
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
®/MD
MarquesdecommercedeROBIC,S.E.N.C.R.L.poursesservicesde
conseilsdansledomainedelapropriétéintellectuelleetdes
technologiesdel’informationetdescommunications(incluantles
servicesd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce)demême
quesesservicesjuridiques
*************************************************************************************************
*
Forservicespertainingtointellectualproperty,technologyand
communicationlawandrelatedmatters(includingpatentandtrade-mark
agencyservices)aswellaslegalservices.
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriété
intellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèles
utilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellations
d’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetde
l’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéet
étiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.ROBIC,
agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892to
theprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,
industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;
biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-
how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnology
transfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityand
labelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.
®/MD
COPYRIGHTER
TM/MC
IDEASLIVEHERE
®/MD
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
®/MD
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
®/MD
LEGERROBICRICHARD
®/MD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
®/MD
PATENTER
®/MD
orstylizedR
®/MD
ROBIC®/
MD
orstylizedROBIC++++
®/MD
orstylizedROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
®/MD
orstylizedROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
®/MD
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TM/MC
TRADEMARKER
TM/MC
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE
®/MD
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
®/MD
Trade-marksofROBIC,LLPforitsservicespertainingtointellectual
property,technologyandcommunicationlawandrelatedmatters
(includingpatentandtrade-markagencyservices)aswellaslegal
services