“JAVACAFE” Not Descriptive, Federal Court Rules

1
“JAVACAFE”NOTDESCRIPTIVE,FEDERALCOURTRULES

By
StellaSyrianos*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.
Lawyers,PatentandTrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca–info@robic.com
ArecentjudgmentofCanada’sFederalCourtconfirmedadecisionrendered
bytheRegistrarofTrade-marksrejectinganoppositiontotheapplicationfor
thetrade-markJAVACAFEinassociationwithavarietyoffoodwares,
includingcoffeeproducts,basedonthegroundsthatthetrade-markwas
descriptive,non-distinctiveandthereforenotregistrable(ShellCanada
Limitedv.P.T.SariIncofoodCorporation,T-2163-03,July27
th,2005,MacKay,
J.).UndertheCourt’sapplicablestandardofreview,suchadecisionwas
foundtobereasonable.
Thefacts
OnJanuary15
th,1998,theRespondent,P.T.SariIncofoodCorporation(“Sari”)
filedanapplicationtoregisterthetrade-markJAVACAFE,inassociationwith
awidevarietyoffoodproducts,includingthewaresinissueraisedinthe
oppositionbytheApplicant,ShellCanadaLimited(“Shell”)namely,“coffee
powder,cookedcoffeebeans,instantcoffee,freezedriedcoffee,granular
coffee”.
OnMay8
th,2000,ShellfiledaStatementofOppositiontoSari’sapplicationfor
thetrade-markJAVACAFE,basedonthegroundsthatthetrade-markwas
notregistrableduetoitsdescriptiveandnon-distinctivenatureinrespectof
thewaresinissue.
TheoppositionwasrejectedbytheTrade-MarksOppositionBoardandon
November18
th,2003,ShellfiledthepresentappealunderSection56of
Canada’sTrade-marksAct,(R.S.C.1985,c.T-13).Bothpartiesfiledadditional



















































CIPS,2005*Lawyer,StellaSyrianosisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,
andpatentandtrademarkagents.Publishedat(September2005),19-8WIPR

2
evidence,ShellinsupportofitsappealandSariinsupportofitspositionthat
theappealbedismissed.
TheRegistrar’sdecision
ThemainquestionputbeforetheOppositionBoardforbothofShell’sgrounds
ofoppositionwaswhetherornotthetrade-markJAVACAFEwasclearly
descriptiveinEnglishorinFrenchofthecharacterorqualityofthewaresin
issueoroftheirplaceoforigin.
ItwasdeterminedthattheevidencebeforetheBoarddidnotsupporta
conclusionthattheimmediateimpressionofthetrade-markJAVACAFEona
Canadianfrancophonewouldbethatthewaresinissue,namelycoffee
products,comefromJava.Itwasalsoheldthattheevidencefailedto
demonstratethattheordinaryCanadianAnglophonerecognizesJAVAasa
placeknownforitscoffeeorthatthefirstimpressiononsuchaconsumer
wouldbeonewherethemarkJAVACAFEwouldbedescriptiveofcoffee
products.Finally,itwasalsostatedthatwhiletheword“java”isunderstoodas
“coffee”andtheword“café”issimilarlyunderstood,thecombinationof
thesetermsresultinginthetrade-markJAVACAFE,wasnotclearlydescriptive
ofcoffeeproducts.
Issuestobedeterminedonappeal
Theappealraisedthefollowingissues:
1.WhatistheappropriatestandardofreviewapplicabletoShell’s
appeal?
2.DidtheRegistrarerrinfindingthetrade-markJAVACAFEisnotbarred
fromregistrationbyparagraph12(1)(b)oftheTrade-marksAct?
3.DidtheRegistrarerrinfailingtofindthatJAVACAFEisnotdistinctive
pursuanttoparagraph38(2)(d)andsection2oftheTrade-marksAct?
Standardofreview
Despitethefilingofadditionalevidencebybothparties,theCourt
concludedthatitwouldnothavemateriallyaffectedthedecision.Assuch,
theCourtappliedthereasonablenessstandardofreview.
Descriptiveness

3
InassessingtheadditionalevidencefiledbyShell,theCourtdecidedthatthe
definitionsof“café”and“java”providednonewinformation.Moreover,the
Courtstatedtherewasnoevidenceoftheapplicabilityoftheevidence(filed
bybothparties)atthematerialdateforassessingtheregistrabilityofamark
intermsofitsdescriptiveness,namelythedateoftheapplication.
ShellalsoattemptedtoconvincetheExaminerthedescriptivenessofthe
trade-markJAVACAFEshouldbeconsideredasifitwere,whensounded,as
twowords.TheCourtrejectedthisargumentsincetherewasnoevidence
thatthemarkissoundedastwoseparatewordsmerelybecauseitssyllables
couldbeseparatedtoformtwowords.TheCourtalsoopinedthatthe
meaningsofthetwosuggestedseparatewordsdidnotprovideaparticular
meaningfortheonecoinedwordmarkthatisclearlydescriptiveofthe
characterorqualityofcoffeeproductsoroftheirplaceoforigin.
Distinctiveness
Shellarguedthatthetrade-markJAVACAFEwasnotdistinctivebecauseit
wasclearlydescriptive,asoutlinedabove.TheCourtreiteratedthat
distinctivenessisassessedasofthedateofthefilingofthestatementof
opposition,inthiscase,May8th,2000.TheCourtheldtheRegistrar’sdecision
torejectthisgroundofoppositionbecausetheevidencedidnotsupportthe
conclusionthatJAVACAFEwasclearlydescriptiveasofanydate,wasnot
broughtintoquestionbyanyoftheevidenceorargumentsraisedonappeal.
Assuch,theCourtdismissedShell’sappealcitingthereasonablenessofthe
Registrar’sdecisiononthetwoconclusionsonwhichitwasbased.

Conclusion
TheCourt’sdecisionremindsusthattheword”clearly”hasbeenintroduced
inparagraph12(1)(b)oftheTrade-marksActtopreservetheregistrabilityof
suggestivemarks.Whenfacedwiththequestionofdescriptiveness,theissue
isnotwhetherthetrade-markisdescriptiveorsuggestivebutwhetheritis
“clearly”descriptive.Thisanalysismaybeparticularlyfavourableincases
wheretwowordsarecombinedtomakeacoinedword.However,when
suchwordsarepartofcompositemarks(i.e.marksthatcontainbothword
anddesignelements)careshouldbegiventoCIPO’sPracticeNoticeof
February16
th,2005,regardingdescriptivenessandthe“whensounded”test
applicabletocaseswherethewordelementisthedominantfeatureofthe
compositemark.

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