“L’AMADEI” trade mark not “dead wood” rules Federal Court in summary expungement case

“L’AMADEI”TRADE-MARKNOT“DEADWOOD”RULESFEDERALCOURTIN
SUMMARYEXPUNGEMENTCASE

BARRYGAMACHE*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

Inacasethatreviewedtheapplicableprinciplesinsummaryexpungement
proceedingsundersection45ofCanada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13
(hereafter:the“Act”),theFederalCourtorderedthatthetrade-markL’AMADEI,
registeredforvariousclothingitems,remaininpartonthetrade-markregister
(VêtementMulti-WearInc.v.Riches,McKenzie&HerbertLLP,2008FC1237(F.C.,
ShoreJ.,November5,2008)).

OnAugust7,1998,VêtementMulti-WearInc.(hereafter:“MULTI-WEAR”),aclothing
manufacturer,securedregistrationinCanadaofthetrade-markL’AMADEIin
associationwithladies’clothing,namelypants,vests,skirts,dresses,blousesand
sweaters.

Nearlyadecadelater,attherequestofRiches,McKenzie&HerbertLLP,(hereafter:
“RMH”),theRegistrarofTrade-marksissuedonMarch28,2007asection45notice
againstMULTI-WEAR’s1998registrationforthetrade-markL’AMADEI.

Section45oftheActprovidesinpartthattheRegistrarmayatanytimeand,atthe
writtenrequestmadeafterthreeyearsfromthedateofregistrationofatrade-markby
anypersonwhopaystheprescribedfee,shallgivenoticetotheregisteredownerofa
trade-markrequiringittofurnishevidenceofuseofsaidtrade-markwithrespectto
eachofthewaresorservicesspecifiedintheregistration,whetherthetrade-markin
questionwasinuseinCanadaatanytimeduringthethreeyearperiodimmediately
precedingthedateofthenoticeand,ifnot,thedatewhenitwaslastsoinuseand
thereasonfortheabsenceofsuchusesincethatdate.Ifnoevidenceofuseisfiled,
orifonlypartialevidenceissubmitted,theregistrationofthetrade-markisliabletobe
expungedoramendedaccordingly.

ThepowergrantedtotheRegistrarundersection45isquiteconsiderableashecan
ordertheexpungementofatrade-markifitdoesnotseemtobeinuse.Such
appearedtobethefatesetfortheL’AMADEItrade-markbeforetheRegistrar.

©CIPS,2009.*Lawyer,BarryGamacheisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmof
lawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.PublishedintheFebruary2009issueoftheWorld
IntellectualPropertyReport.Publication142.220

2
Indeed,uponreceiptoftheMarch28,2007noticeissuedbytheRegistrar,MULTI-
WEARconsulteditsattorneyand,byitsowninadvertence,neglectedtosupplyits
legalrepresentativewithalltheinformationanddocumentationrequiredtorespondto
thenotice.ThisleadtoafailurebyMULTI-WEARtofileatimelyresponse.
Accordingly,asprovidedforundertheAct,theRegistrarhandeddownashort
decisionbywhichitorderedtheexpungementofMULTI-WEAR’sregistration.It
appearedthatMULTI-WEARwasabouttoloseitsregistrationbecauseofthelackof
evidenceofuseofitstrade-markinthese“useitorloseit”proceedings.

Asallowedbysection56oftheAct,MULTI-WEARfiledanappealagainstthe
Registrar’sdecisionbeforeCanada’sFederalCourt.There,aspermittedby
subsection56(5),itsubmitteditsevidenceofuseallowingtheCourttoreview
documentsthatwerenotbeforetheRegistrar.Ineffect,undersection56,MULTI-
WEARhadasecondchancetoprovideevidenceofuseandmakeitscasewhyits
registrationshouldnotbeexpunged.

Whatkindofevidenceisrequiredinsection45proceedings?ShoreJ.referredtothe
wordsoftheFederalCourtofAppealinEclipseInternationalFashionsCanadaInc.v.
ShapiroCohen,2005FCA64,whereaunanimousCourtstatedthat“itisnot
necessary,inthecontextofanexpungementrequestundersection45,toprovidean
over-abundanceofevidenceofuseorutilizationofthemark.Thepurposeofsection
45istoridtheregisterof“deadwood””.Additionally,asShoreJ.noted,even
evidenceofasinglesaleinanormalcourseoftradehasbeenfoundtobesufficient
solongasitisconsideredtobeagenuinecommercialtransaction,andnotcontrived
toprotecttheregistrationofatrade-mark.

Withtheseguidelines,ShoreJ.reviewedtheevidencefiledforthefirsttimebefore
theCourt.ShoreJ.wassatisfiedthattheevidencesupporteduseofthetrade-mark
L’AMADEIinrespectofladies’clothing,namelypants,skirts,dressesandblouses.
However,noevidenceofusewasfoundforvestsandsweaters.Thesewareswere
thereforeexpungedassection45requiresproofofuse“withrespecttoeachofthe
waresorservices”.Howevercloselyrelatedtwoitemsmaybeinastatementof
wares(suchasblousesandvests),evidenceofusemustbesubmittedforeachitem
theregistranthasidentifiedinhisstatementofwares.

Apartfromthelegislativerequirement,theunderliningreasonforthisrulewas
highlightedbyStoneJ.A.inJohnLabattLtd.v.RainerBrewingCo.(1984),80C.P.R.
(2d)228(F.C.A.),acasewheretheregistranthadregistereditstrade-markin
associationwithsimilartypesofalcoholicbeverages,atpp.236-7:“Itisapparentthat
‘beer’,‘ale’,‘porter’and‘stout’arerelatedwares,belongingtoasinglefamilyof
breweryproducts…Specificationofthewaresotherthanbeersuggests,inthe
absenceofprooftothecontrary,thateachisindeeddifferentinsomedegreefrom
theothersandfrom‘beer’itself,asotherwisethewords‘ale,porter,stout,malt
beverages,maltsyrupandmaltextracts’aresuperfluous…Inthiscase,the
respondenthasnotshownthatthetrade-markRAINIERisinuseinCanadawith

3
respecttoallthewaresspecified.Ithasshownonlythatthemarkisinusewith
respectto‘beer’.Thefactthattheotherwaresspecifiedfallwithinagroupofwares
thatareinsomewayrelatedtobeerisnotsufficient,inmyview,topreservethe
registrationintact.Thatcouldonlybedoneiftherespondenthadalsoshownthatthe
trade-markisinuseinCanadawithrespecttoeachoftheseotherwares”.

Theimportantlessontotradersisthatthephrase“useitorloseit”appliestoeach
registeredwareorservice.Caremustthereforebeshownwhendraftingatrade-mark
applicationtoensurethatprotectionisnotsoughtformultiplevariationsofthesame
item.Otherwise,insection45cases,whataresupposedtobesummary
proceedingsmightturnouttobeverycostlyforaregistrant.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.

COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER

4
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD

Trade-marksofLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP(“ROBIC”)