Guidelines Issued by Canadian Trade-Marks Office Regarding Extensions of Time are not Binding, Rules Federal Court in Opposition Case That Never Was
1
GUIDELINESISSUEDBYCANADIANTRADE-MARKSOFFICEREGARDING
EXTENSIONSOFTIMEARENOTBINDING,RULESFEDERALCOURTINOPPOSITION
CASETHATNEVERWAS
BarryGamache*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,LLP
Lawyers,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Victoria-Square–BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
info@robic.com-www.robic.ca
Inwhatappearstobeacautionarytaleastotheenforcementofguidelines
thatmanyCanadiantrade-markpractitionersappeartotakeforgrantedand
havecometorelyon,theFederalCourtofCanadarecentlyruledthat
guidelinesissuedbytheCanadianTrade-marksOfficewhichallowextensions
oftimetofileastatementofoppositionaresimplythat,i.e.guidelineswhich
havenoforceoflawandshouldaccordinglyberequestedwitheyeswide
open.(SadhuSinghHamdardTrustv.RegistrarofTrade-marksandAjit
NewspaperAdvertising,MarketingandCommunicationsInc.,2006FC171
(F.C.vonFinckenstein,J.,February9,2006)).
OnJanuary20,2004,AjitNewspaperAdvertising,Marketingand
CommunicationsInc.(“AjitNewspaper”)filedanapplicationwiththe
CanadianTrade-marksOfficetoregisterthedesigntrade-markAJITWEEKLY
(“AJITWEEKLY”)inassociationwithwaresandservicesdescribedasprinted
andelectronicpublicationsnamelynewspapersandmagazinesaswellasthe
operationofanonlinewebsitedevotedtothepromotionofIndianbusiness
andcultureandtheprovisionofanonlineelectronicnewspaper,thewhole
onthebasisofuseofthetrade-markinCanadasinceOctober15,1993.The
prosecutionoftheAJITWEEKLYtrade-markapplicationappearstohavebeen
uneventfulandtheTrade-marksOfficeeventuallyadvertisedthetrade-mark
foroppositionpurposesintheCanadianTrade-markJournal,onNovember10,
2004.
OnDecember23,2004,withinthestatutorytwomonthdeadlinetooppose
theapplication,SadhuSinghHamdardTrust(“SadhuTrust”)filedan
applicationwiththeRegistrarrequestingathreemonthextensionoftime
(beyondthestatutorytwomonthdeadline)toeventuallyopposetheAJIT
©CIPS,2006.*BarryGamache,lawyer,isamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirm
oflawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.(April2006),20-4WIPR4-.Publication142.187
2
WEEKLYtrade-mark.Thetwomonthdeadlinewithinwhichtofileastatement
ofoppositionisprovidedforbysubsection38(1)ofCanada’sTrade-marksAct
(R.S.C.1985,c.T-13)whichreadsasfollows:“Withintwomonthsafterthe
advertisementofanapplicationfortheregistrationofatrade-mark,any
personmay,onpaymentoftheprescribedfee,fileastatementofopposition
withtheRegistrar.”Foritspart,therequestforathreemonthextensionoftime
appearstofindsupportinaPracticeNoticeissuedbytheTrade-marksOffice,
regardingproceedingsbeforetheTrade-marksOppositionBoard.This
PracticeNoticehasbeenrelieduponbypractitionerstorequestextensionsof
timebeyondthetwomonthdeadlinesetoutinsubsection38(1)oftheTrade-
marksAct.Indeed,theaforementionedNoticeprovidesforspecificextensions
oftimeatvariousstagesinanoppositionprocessandmorespecifically,foran
additionalthreemonthextensionoftimetofileastatementofopposition,
whichextensionisusuallygrantedthroughanoticesentoutbytheRegistrarto
boththetrade-markapplicantandtheentityrequestingtheextensionoftime;
itistobenoted,however,thatthepossibilityofobtainingathreemonth
extensionbeyondthetwomonthdeadlinetofileastatementofoppositionis
notstatutorilygrounded;thisbeingsaid,section47oftheTrade-marksAct
doesallowtheRegistrartograntextensionsoftimebutwithoutspecifyingthe
lengthoftheseextensions.
SadhuTrust’sDecember23,2004requestforathreemonthextensionoftime
wasindeedreceivedbytheRegistrar;however,itisunclearwhateventually
happenedtoitasnoacknowledgementnorresponsewaseverissuedbythe
Trade-marksOfficetoSadhuTrust.Inanyevent,theRegistrardidnotactin
anyfashionuponSadhuTrust’srequest.Consequently,asitappearedtothe
RegistrarthatnooppositionwasfiledbyJanuary10,2005,attheexpiryofthe
twomonthstatutorydeadlineprovidedforbysubsection38(1)oftheTrade-
marksAct,theRegistrarproceededtoregistertheAJITWEEKLYtrade-markon
March3,2005.Asthetrade-markAJITWEEKLYwasnowregistered,Sadhu
Trust’srequestforanextensiontooppose(orforanyapplicationtofilea
statementofoppositionforthatmatter)wasnowwithoutobject.
Afewmonthslater,onSeptember27,2005,SadhuTrustbroughtan
applicationbeforeCanada’sFederalCourtundersection56oftheTrade-
marksActinordertoobtainanextensionoftimetoissueandserveanotice
ofapplicationappealingtheRegistrar’sMarch3,2005decisiontoregisterthe
AJITWEEKLYtrade-mark.Section56uponwhichSadhuTrust’sapplicationwas
foundedreadsinpart:“AnappealliestotheFederalCourtfromanydecision
oftheRegistrarunderthisActwithintwomonthsfromthedateonwhich
noticeofthedecisionwasdispatchedbytheRegistrarorwithinsuchfurther
timeastheCourtmayallow,eitherbeforeoraftertheexpirationofthetwo
months.”
3
Foritspart,AjitNewspaperopposedSadhuTrust’sapplicationandargued
thatsincetheAJITWEEKLYtrade-markwasnowregistered,theonlyavenue
availableforSadhuTrustwasjudicialexpungementproceedingsunder
section57oftheTrade-marksAct,whichreadsinpart:“TheFederalCourthas
exclusiveoriginaljurisdiction,ontheapplicationoftheRegistrarorofany
personinterested,toorderthatanyentryintheregisterbestruckoutor
amendedonthegroundthatatthedateoftheapplicationtheentryasit
appearsontheregisterdoesnotaccuratelyexpressordefinetheexisting
rightsofthepersonappearingtobetheregisteredownerofthemark.”
Afterconsideringtheparties’respectivepositions,theCourtcametothe
conclusionthatsection56oftheTrade-marksActwasnotapplicableunder
thecircumstancesanddismissedSadhuTrust’sapplication.IntheCourt’s
view,section56impliesadecisionaffectingtherightsofaparty.However,in
thecasebeforetheCourt,therewasnodecisionoftheRegistrarvis-à-vis
SadhuTrust.Thoughitmadeanapplicationforanextensionoftimetofilea
statementofopposition,SadhuTrustneverreceivedareplyfromtheRegistrar.
WhentheJanuary10,2005deadlinecameandwent,SadhuTrustcouldnot
haveexpectedthatitsrequestforanextensionoftimewouldautomatically
begrantedbecausetheRegistrarisnotlegallyboundbytheguidelinesthat
theTrade-marksOfficehasputintoplace.Astherewasnodecisionofthe
RegistraraffectingSadhuTrust’srightstoappealorreview,theonlyalternative
foritwastocommenceexpungementproceedingsundersection57ofthe
Trade-marksAct.(UnderCanada’sTrade-marksAct,oppositionproceedings
againsttheAJITWEEKLYtrade-markwouldhavebeenmoreappealingto
SadhuTrustbecauseitisatrade-markapplicant–here,thiswouldhavebeen
AjitNewspaper–whichmustestablishitsrighttoregistrationduringopposition
proceedingswhileinjudicialexpungementproceedings,theonusof
establishingthatanentryintheregistermustbeexpungedrestswiththe
personorentityseekingexpungement,whichrolewouldpresumablybe
takenupinthiscasebySadhuTrust,shoulditinitiatesuchproceedings).
TheCourt’sdecisioncanbeseenasawarningfortrade-markpractitioners
whohavecometorelyonthepossibilityofobtainingvariousextensionsof
timebasedsolelyonguidelinesissuedbytheTrade-marksOffice.Obviously,
becausetheguidelineshavenolegalforce,anyadministrativeproblem
whichcausestheRegistrartooverlookordisregardarequestforanextension
oftimedoesnothaveitsautomaticlegalremedywiththeCourtasthelatter
willconsideritselfboundbythedeadlineschosenbyParliamentandsetoutin
theTrade-marksAct.Ifpractitionersaretorelyonextensionsoftime(which
arestillsoughtandgranted),theyshouldmakesurethattheRegistrarhas
grantedanysuchrequestedextensionbeforetheexpirationofastatutorilyset
deadline,oratleastmonitortheirfilesclosely.
4
5
ROBIC,ungrouped avocatsetd agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsd origine;droitsd auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademark
agentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofall
fieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;
trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplant
breeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,
franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusiness
law;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD