Grill Gear Mark Not Descriptive, Federal Court Rules

1
GRILLGEARMARKNOTDESCRIPTIVE,FEDERALCOURTRULES

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
Whatistherelevantdatetodecidewhetheratrade-markisregistrablein
oppositionproceedingsunderCanada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13
(the”Act”)?Manywouldhaveansweredthatthisquestionwasdefinitelysettled
byCanada’sFederalCourtofAppealinParkAvenueFurnitureCorp.v.
Wickes/SimmonsBeddingLtd.(1991),37C.P.R.(3d)403wheretheCourt
decidedthatregistrabilityofatrade-markistobeassessedatthedateofthe
Registrar’sdecisiondisposingoftheoppositionandinLubricationEngineers,Inc.
v.CanadianCouncilofProfessionalEngineers(1992),41C.P.R.(3d)243where
theCourtdecidedthatregistrabilityasitconcernsmoreparticularly
descriptivenessisalsotobeassessedatthedateoftheRegistrar’sdecision(in
lightoftheCourt’spreviousParkAvenuedecision).Thisdecadeoldprinciplehas
nowbeenquestionedintherecentcaseofFiestaBarbequesLimitedv.General
HousewaresCorporation,2003FC1021,(September4,2003,RussellJ.).Itisworth
notingthatregistrabilityofatrade-markinCanadaisassessedatsection12of
theActwhichprovides,forexample,thatatrade-markisregistrableifitisnot
clearlydescriptiveordeceptivelymisdescriptiveor,underanotherheading,ifitis
notconfusingwithapreviouslyregisteredmark.
OnJune24,1996,FiestaBarbequesLimited(“Fiesta”)filedanapplicationto
registerthedesignmarkGRILLGEARinassociationwith”barbequeaccessories,
namelybarbequecookingutensils,barbequerotisseriesandbarbeque
replacementparts”.Thistrade-markwaspublishedforoppositionpurposesand
wasopposedbyGeneralHousewaresCorporation(“General”).Initsopposition,
GeneralallegedthattheGRILLGEARtrade-markwasnotregistrableinthat,
whensounded,itisclearlydescriptiveofthewarescoveredintheapplication,
thewholecontrarytotheprovisionsofsubsection12(1)(b)oftheAct.The
RegistraragreedwithGeneralandrejectedFiesta’sapplicationeventhoughits
trade-markincludedthedesignofaflameintheplaceoftheletterA;thisdid
notchangethefact,intheRegistrar’sview,thatwhentheaverageconsumer
soundedoutthemark,itstillcontravenedtheprovisionsofsubsection12(1)(b)
whichstates,inpart,thatatrade-markisregistrableifitisnot,whetherdepicted,
writtenorsounded,eitherclearlydescriptiveordeceptivelymisdescriptiveinthe

2
EnglishorFrenchlanguageofthecharacterorqualityofthewaresorservicesin
associationwithwhichitisused.
InitsdecisiondismissingtheGRILLGEARapplication,theRegistrarreferredto
Fiesta’sowncatalogueswhichusedthewords”GRILL”and”GEAR”ina
descriptivefashion.Additionally,adoubledisclaimerforthewords”GRILL”and
“GEAR”inFiesta’sapplicationwasseenasanadmissionthatthewordsasa
wholewere”clearlydescriptive”.Ontheissueofthedesigncomponentof
Fiesta’sGRILLGEARmark,theRegistrarconcludedthat”theaverageconsumer
oftheapplicant’swareswouldnotsoundtheapplicant’smarkbyreferenceto
alltheelementsformingthemark”;inotherwords,thedesignelementswould
notbereferredtowhenthemarkwouldbesounded.Mostimportantly,the
RegistrarconsideredthematerialdatefordecidingtheregistrabilityofFiesta’s
trade-markasthedateofhisdecision(inlinewithwhatwasdecidedbackin
1992intheaforementionedLubricationEngineerscase).
FiestaappealedtheRegistrar’sdecisionbeforetheTrialDivisionofCanada’s
FederalCourt:italsofiledfreshevidencethatwasnotbeforetheRegistrar,as
allowedundersection56oftheAct.
Afterconsideringthefreshevidencefiledbeforeit,theCourtallowedFiesta’s
appealforseveralreasons:Ontheissueofthedisclaimers,theCourtpointedout
thattheRegistrarshouldnothaveplacedrelianceuponFiesta’sdisclaimersof
thewords”GRILL”and”GEAR”inthatsection35oftheAct(whichprovidesfor
disclaimers)specifiesthatthesedonotprejudiceoraffecttheapplicant’sright
thenexistingorthereafterarisinginthedisclaimedmatter.
TheCourtthenconsideredthattheissueofthe”relevantdate”toassessthe
registrabilityofFiesta’smarkwashighlyimportantinthatallthematerialpointing
tothedescriptivenatureoftheGRILLGEARtrade-markpostdatedthefilingof
Fiesta’sapplication.Thus,itisonlyifthe”relevantdate”isconsideredtobethe
dateoftheRegistrar’sdecisionthatsuchmaterialbecomesrelevant.
Ontheotherhand,asFiestaargued,ifthe”relevantdate”isconsideredthefiling
date,thematerialregardingtheso-calleddescriptivenatureoftheGRILLGEAR
trade-markwhichdidnotexistasofFiesta’sfilingdatemustthennotbe
considered.TheCourtconsideredtheissueofthe”relevantdate”regardingthe
registrabilityofatrade-markasitrelatestodescriptivenessinopposition
proceedings:IntheCourt’sview,thisissuehadalreadybeenpreviouslydecided
inAssociationofProfessionalEngineersv.RegistrarofTrade-Marks(1959),31
C.P.R.79(Ex.Ct.),atpages87-88.Inthatcase,theCourtdecidedthatthe
applicabledateforconsideringagroundofoppositionbasedon
descriptivenesswasthedateoftheapplication:”Thereisarulewhichisfollowed
ingrantingordenyingregistrationofawordoracombinationoftwowords:

3
LightningFastenerCo.v.Can.GoodrichCo.,[1932],1D.L.R.297atpp.301-2,
S.C.R.189atp.197itisstated:”But,inordertodenyregistrationofawordonthe
groundthatitisdescriptive,itmustbeshownthat,atthedateoftheapplication
(whichisthedatetobetakenintoconsideration),thewordwasadescriptive
nameincurrentuse,descriptiveofthearticleitselfasdistinguishedfromaname
exclusivelydistinctiveofthemerchandiseofaparticulardealeror
manufacturer.”Thus,theCourtapparentlyacceptedFiesta’sargumentthatPark
Avenuediscussedthematerialdateregardingregistrabilityinobiter,whichwas
thenreferredtoinLubricationEngineers,butagaininobiter.
Finally,theRegistrarconsideredthefreshevidencefiledbeforeitbywayofan
affidavitofFiesta’sPresidentwhotestifiedthatnoneofFiesta’scompetitorshad
everemployedthewordsGRILLGEAR,”whetherasatrade-mark…orasaterm
tomerelyidentifyordescribetheinherentcharacterorqualityof…wares,in
Canada,priortothefilingofthesubjectapplication…oratall”.
ItisworthnotingthatFiesta’sappealwentunopposedbyGeneralbeforethe
Court.Itremainstobeseenhoweverifthisdecisionwillbeapprovedbythe
FederalCourtofAppealwhenanothercaseinvolvingtheissueof
descriptivenessofatrade-markcomesbeforeit.Thefinalwordhasthereforeyet
tobewrittenregardingthedeterminationofthedateofregistrabilityofatrade-
mark,asitconcernsdescriptiveness,inoppositionproceedings.

LEGERROBICRICHARD,2003.
Publishedat(2003),17-11WorldIntellectualPropertyReport3-4underthetitle’GrillGear’MarkIs
NotDescriptive,FederalCourtDecides.Publication142.154.

4

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