Licensee May Be Named Predecessor in Title in Trade-Mark Application



LICENSEEMAYBENAMEDASPREDECESSORINTITLEINTRADE-MARK
APPLICATION,FEDERALCOURTRULES

by
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

ArecentdecisionoftheFederalCourtofAppealofCanadahasexpanded
thepoolofpredecessorsintitlewhichmustbenamedwhenfilingatrade-
markapplicationinCanada,byincludinglicensees(PernodRicard,société
anonymev.MolsonBreweries,apartnership,No.A-1214-91,November23,
1995).
AppellantPernodRicardfiledanapplicationonSeptember26,1984for
registrationofadesigntrade-markRICARDbasedonuseofthetrade-markin
Canadasince1954inassociationwithwines,aniseed-basedaperitifs,spirits,
andalcoholicbeverages.Thereafter,PernodRicardfiledanamended
applicationalleginguseinCanadasince1954byitselfanditspredecessorsin
title,RicardandS.E.G.M.UponpublicationofPernodRicard’sapplication,
MolsonBreweriesfiledbeforetheOppositionBoardastatementofopposition
alleging,amongothergrounds,thattheapplicationdidnotconformto
paragraph30(b)ofCanada’sTrade-MarksAct(R.S.C.1985c.T-13)inthat
neitherPernodRicardnoritsallegedpredecessorsintitledidusethetrade-
markinCanadasince1954;furthermore,MolsonBreweriesspecificallydenied
thatS.E.G.M.hadbeenapredecessorintitleofPernodRicard.
Section30oftheTrade-MarksActlistsvariousrequirementswhichan
applicantmustrespectwhenfilingatrade-markapplication;amongothers,
paragraph30(b)statesthatanapplicantfortheregistrationofatrade-mark
shallfilewiththeRegistraranapplicationcontaininginthecaseofatrade-
markthathasbeenusedinCanada(suchastheapplicationfiledbyPernod
Ricard),thedatefromwhichtheapplicantorhisnamedpredecessorsintitle,
ifany,havesousedthetrade-markinassociationwitheachofthegeneral
classesofwaresorservicesdescribedintheapplication.Thefactthatan
applicationdoesnotconformtoSection30oftheActisagroundof
oppositionprovidedforbySection38oftheAct,whichwasallegedby
MolsonBreweriesinitsstatementofopposition.



Caselawisclearthatwhereanapplicant’scompliancewithSection30ofthe
Actisinissue,thereisalegalburdenontheapplicanttoshowcompliance
andanevidenciaryburdenontheopponenttoleadevidenceinsupportof
theallegationsofnon-compliancepleadedbythatparty.Theevidencial
burdenistheburdenofadducingsufficientevidencetopersuadethetrierof
factthattheallegedfactsaretrue.However,asthisisoftenthecaseforthis
groundofopposition,anapplicantobviouslyhasmoreopportunitiesof
knowledgeoftheallegedgroundsthantheopponenthas;consequently,the
evidencialburdenontheopponentislessthaninordinarycases[JohnLabatt
Ltd.v.MolsonCompaniesLtd.(1990),30C.P.R.(3d)293(F.C.T.D.,McNair,J.)].
Forvariousreasons,MolsonBreweriesdidnotfileanyevidenceconcerningits
groundofoppositionbasedonSections38and30oftheActbeforethe
OppositionBoard.Ultimately,forlackofevidence,theRegistrarrejected
MolsonBreweries’sopposition[reportedat(1990)31C.P.R.(3d)42
(T.M.Opp.B.)].
MolsonBreweriesappealedtheRegistrar’sdecisionand,aspermittedbythe
rules,itfiledevidencebeforetheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtregarding
theallegednonconformityofPernodRicard’sapplicationwithregardsto
paragraph30(b)oftheAct.Thisevidenceconsistedofvariousexcerptsof
affidavitsthathadbeenfiledbyPernodRicardinotherproceedingsinvolving
MolsonBreweries.Intheseaffidavits,onecouldlearnthatS.E.G.M.isaFrench
corporation,constitutedin1975andonehundredpercent(100%)affiliatedto
PernodRicardofwhichitistheexclusiveworldwidelicenseefortheRICARD
trade-mark.ItwasMolsonBreweries’sargumentbeforetheTrialDivisionthat
S.E.G.M.,aslicensee,couldnotbetheapplicant’spredecessorintitleas
claimedbyPernodRicardinitsapplication.Inhisdecision,Mr.JusticeDubé
sidedwithMolsonBreweriesandconcludedthatPernodRicard’sapplication
didnotconformtoparagraph30(b)oftheTrade-MarksAct(bynamingan
entitythatcouldnotbepredecessorintitle),allowedtheappealand
rejectedPernodRicard’sapplication[reportedat(1991)40C.P.R.(3d)102
(F.C.T.D.)].
PernodRicardappealedthetrialjudge’sfindingsand,initsdecisionof
November23,1995,theFederalCourtofAppealsetasidethedecisionofthe
trialdivisionandrestoredtheRegistrar’sdecision.IntheCourtofAppeal’s
opinion(PratteJ.A.withDécaryandChevalierJJ.A.,concurring),an
applicationfortheregistrationofatrade-markcannotbesaidnottoconform
totherequirementsofparagraph30(b)oftheTrade-MarksActforthesole
reasonthattheapplicanthasnamed,asoneofhispredecessorsintitle,a
personwhohasusedthemarkmerelyasalicenseeofonethenamed
predecessorsintitle.AlthoughtheCourthasstatedthatitisnotanerroneous
affirmationtonameaspredecessorintitleanentitywhohasusedthemark
asalicensee(thereforeexpandingthepoolofpredecessorsintitle),ithasnot
specificallydecidedifalicenseemustbenamedaspredecessorintitle.



Inanyevent,theovercautiousapplicantwhonamesaspredecessorintitlea
licenseewhohassimplyusedtheappliedformarkwillnotbepenalizedsince
itmightbearguedthatitistechnicallynotrequiredbyparagraph30(b),but
notforbiddeneither.Indeed,paragraph30(b)doesnotrequirethelistingof
licensees;however,providingthislistwillnotjeopardizetheapplication.The
CourtofAppeal’sdecisionsignalsthatonemustnotadoptanoverly
technicalapproachtorefuseanapplicationwhichotherwiseconformstoall
otherprovisionsoftheAct.
Publishedat(1996),10W.I.P.R.41underthetitleLicenseemaybenamed
predecessorintitleintrademarkapplication.

LEGERROBICRICHARD,1996.



ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
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.Ideaslive
here.
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