1
ISSUEOFCREDIBILITYPRECLUDESTHEGRANTINGOFSUMMARYJUDGEMENT,
FEDERALCOURTRULESINLEPAGETRADE-MARKINFRINGEMENTCASE
By
BarryGamache*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Laywers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca–info@robic.com
ArecentdecisionofCanada’sFederalCourtconsideredcircumstanceswhen
asummaryjudgementcannotbegrantedtoaplaintiff,inatrade-mark
infringementcasebroughtbeforetheCourt.(HenkelCanadaCorporationv.
ConrosCorporation,2004FC1747(December17,2004,HugessenJ.)).
PlaintiffHenkelCanadaCorporation(“Henkel”)istheownerinCanadaofthe
trade-markLEPAGEwhichhasbeenusedthereinsincethe1880’sin
associationwithavarietyofadhesiveproducts(albeitnotontransparent
adhesivetape).Transparentadhesivetapeistheproductthatdefendant
ConrosCorporation(“Conros”)begansellinginCanada,in2002,in
associationwiththetrade-markLEPAGE’S.
InitsactionbeforeCanada’sFederalCourtagainstConros,Henkelalleged,
interalia.thatConros’useoftheLEPAGE’Strade-markwascontraryto
sections19and20ofCanada’sTrade-marksAct(R.S.C.1985,c.T-13).Section
19providesthattheregistrationofatrade-markinrespectofanywaresor
servicesgivesitsownertheexclusiverighttotheusethroughoutCanadaof
thetrade-markinrespectofthosewaresorservices.Foritspart,section20
statesthattherightoftheownerofaregisteredtrade-marktoitsexclusive
useshallbedeemedtobeinfringedbyapersonnotentitledtoitsusewho
sells,distributesoradvertiseswaresorservicesinassociationwithaconfusing
trade-markortrade-name.
HenkelappliedtotheCourtforasummaryjudgementandputforward
evidenceofitsvariousregistrations,initsname,foritsmanyLEPAGE-type
trade-marks;however,noneoftheseregistrationswereconsideredrelevant
underitssection19claim.Section19allowsaregisteredtrade-markownerto