Monopoly Rights Cannot be Examined During Summary Trade-Mark Expungement Proceedings, Rules Federal Court of Appeal in Omega Case

1
MONOPOLYRIGHTSCANNOTBEEXAMINEDDURINGSUMMARYTRADE-MARK
EXPUNGEMENTPROCEEDINGS,RULESFEDERALCOURTOFAPPEALINOMEGA
CASE

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
Inanimportantdecisionwhichdescribestheextent(andlimits)ofthe
authorityexercisedbytheRegistrarofTrade-marksduringsummary
expungementproceedingsundersection45oftheTrade-markAct,R.S.C.
1985,c.T-13(hereafter:the”Act”),Canada’sFederalCourtofAppealruled
thatthescopeofmonopolyrightsconferredbyaregistrationcouldnotbe
examinedduringasection45inquiry(OmegaSA(OmegaAG)(OmegaLtd.)
v.Ridout&MaybeeLLP,2005FCA306(F.C.A.,Desjardins,Létourneauand
Noël,JJ.A.,September20,2005)).
Section45istheAct’s”useitorloseit”provisionwhichallowstheRegistrarof
Trade-markstoexpungetrade-markregistrationswhicharenotinuse;
followingarequestmadebyanythirdparty,theRegistrarwillissueanotice
requiringthatanownershowuseofitsregisteredtrade-mark,failingwhich
suchmarkwillbeexpunged.Thus,section45providesinpart:
45.(1)TheRegistrarmayatanytimeand,atthewrittenrequestmade
afterthreeyearsfromthedateoftheregistrationofatrade-markbyany
personwhopaystheprescribedfeeshall,unlesstheRegistrarseesgood
reasontothecontrary,givenoticetotheregisteredownerofthetrade-
markrequiringtheregisteredownertofurnishwithinthreemonthsan
affidavitorastatutorydeclarationshowing,withrespecttoeachofthe
waresorservicesspecifiedintheregistration,whetherthetrade-mark
wasinuseinCanadaatanytimeduringthethreeyearperiod
immediatelyprecedingthedateofthenoticeand,ifnot,thedatewhen

CIPS,2005.*BarryGamache,lawyer,isamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmof
lawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.PublishedunderthetitleAllegedUseNoLonger
RelevantWhenExaminingTrademarkApplicationintheissueof(October2005),19-10WIPR4-5.
Publication142.180.

2
itwaslastsoinuseandthereasonfortheabsenceofsuchusesincethat
date.
Itisworthmentioningthatthepartyrequestingtheissuanceofasection45
noticedoesnothavetoestablishanyinterestintheregistrationitwishesto
attack:thisconfirmsthepublicnatureoftheprovisionwhichaimstoensure
thattheregisterreflectstherealityofthemarketplace:Onlytrade-marks
whichareusedshouldremainontheregister;onecannotsavearegistration
forarainyday.
OmegaSA(OmegaAG)(OmegaLtd.)(hereafter:”OmegaSA”),thewell-
knownmanufacturerofwatchesandothertiminginstruments,istheownerin
CanadaofregistrationTMDA05009,securedonJuly24,1894,fortheOMEGA
DESIGNtrade-markwhichcovers,amongotherthings,watches.Morethan
halfacenturyago,onOctober24,1952,OmegaSAcauseditsregistrationto
beamendedinordertoprotectotherwaresincludingchronographsusedfor
sportingeventsalongwithotherwaresdescribedinthefollowingfashion(and
translatedfromtheoriginalFrenchtextoftheregistration):technicaland
scientificapparatusforelectricity,optics,telegraphy,cinema,radio,
telephony,namelyelectricphotocells,startinggates,phototimerecorders
andstartingpistols.
OnAugust2,2001,attherequestofRidout&MaybeeLLP,attorneysactingon
behalfofaclientwhowishedtoremainanonymous,theRegistrarofTrade-
marksissuedasection45noticetoOmegaSArequiringthatitestablishuseof
itsOMEGADESIGNtrade-markinassociationwitheachofthewares
mentionedinitsregistration.BeforetheRegistrar,OmegaSAprovided
evidenceofuseofitstrade-mark,interalia,inassociationwithchronographs
ontheonehandandwithelectricphotocells,startinggates,phototime
recordersandstartingpistolsontheother.
ThoughitdidnotcontestOmegaSA’sevidenceregardingthelastfour
particularizeditems,Ridout&MaybeeLLPsubmittedthattheseitemswere
not,infact,technicalandscientificapparatusforelectricity,optics,
telegraphy,cinema,radioandtelephony,butwereratherwaresusedinthe
sportstimingindustry.Therefore,accordingtoRidout&MaybeeLLP,the
statementofwaresshouldbeamendedtoreflectthisrealitybydeletingthe
generalclass”technicalandscientificapparatus…”andaddinganew
generalclass,i.e.”sportstimingdevices”ormoregenerallydevicesforusein
sports.Foritspart,OmegaSAarguedthatitsevidenceofusewasproperlyput
forwardbeforetheRegistrarandthatthelatterdidnothavetheauthorityto
limitaparticularstatementofwaresonceusewithsuchwareshasbeen
shown.

3
InherdecisionofSeptember30,2003,theRegistraragreedwithOmegaSA:
Theevidencefiledclearlyidentifiedtheelectricphotocells,thestartinggates,
thephototimerecordersandthestartingpistolsastechnicalandscientific
apparatusforelectricity,optics,telegraphy,cinema,radioandtelephony.
Onceitwasdecidedthatproofofuseofthefourparticularizeditemshad
beenmade,theRegistrarconcludedthatitdidnothavetheauthoritytolimit
orredefinethegeneralcategoryintroducingthefouritems.OmegaSA’s
statementofwareswasaccordinglymaintained.
Ridout&MaybeeLLPappealedtheRegistrar’sdecisionbeforetheFederal
Court.InherdecisionofDecember3,2004(Ridout&MaybeeLLPv.Omega
SA(OmegaAG)(OmegaLtd.)(2004),39C.P.R.(4th)261(F.C.,Tremblay-
Lamer,J.)),theFederalCourtjudgeallowedtheappealandsuggestedthat
theRegistrarhadappliedthewrongtestundersection45:Inthejudge’s
words,forthepurposeofsection45,evidenceisrequiredtoshowuseofevery
warespecifiedintheregistrationunlessdemonstrateduseofaparticularware
orwarescanserveasevidenceofuseofanentirecategoryofwaresona
plainreadingoftheregistration.Inthatscenario,showinguseofeverysingle
wareidentifiedisnotstrictlyrequiredandwhetherawareorwarescan
legitimatelyserveasacategoryrepresentativeistobecasespecific.
Thus,inthejudge’sview,theevidentiaryissuewaswhetherevidenceofthe
saleofcertainwareswassufficienttosupportthebroadercategoryofwares
describedinregistrationTMDA05009.Inotherwords,wereelectricphotocells,
startinggates,phototimerecordersandstartingpistolsrepresentativeofthe
broadercategoryofwaresdescribedastechnicalandscientificapparatus
forelectricity,optics,telegraphy,cinema,radioandtelephony?
Accordingtothejudge,theywerenotinthatthefourparticularizeditems
weredesignedforuseinthesportstimingindustryandnotexamplesofthe
broaderclassofscientificandtechnicalapparatusspecificallyidentifiedin
theregistration.TheFederalCourtjudgeaccordinglyorderedthatthefour
itemsandtheirgeneralclassbeexpunged.
OmegaSAfiledanappealbeforetheFederalCourtofAppealagainstthe
FederalCourtdecision.Amongotherthings,itarguedthatnothingstopped
itswaresfrombeingscientificandtechnicalapparatus(forthevarious
applicationsmentionedintheregistration)andsportstimingdevices.The
FederalCourtofAppealagreedwithOmegaSAandalloweditsappeal;it
orderedthattheFederalCourtjudge’sdecisionbesetasideandthe
Registrar’sdecisionberestored.
IntheCourt’sview,section45existstoascertainwhetheratrade-markisused.
Itspurposeisnottodeterminewhetheraregistrationaccuratelyexpressesor

4
definesaregistrant’srights.ThismustbedoneunderanothersectionoftheAct
(section57)whichgivestheFederalCourtexclusiveoriginaljurisdictionto
strikeoutoramendanentryintheregisterwhenit”doesnotaccurately
expressordefinetheexistingrightsofthepersonappearingtobethe
registeredownerofthemark”.Infact,theanalysisconductedbytheFederal
Courtjudgewasseenmoreasasection57investigationthanasection45
inquiryregardingtrade-markuse.Inanyevent,ontheissueofRidout&
MaybeeLLP’sallegations,theCourtofAppealfoundthattherewasevidence
onrecordlinkingthefouritemstosomeoftheapplicationslistedinthe
generalclassofOmegaSA’sregistration.
IntheCourt’sview,whiletheRegistrarwasrespectfuloftheFederalCourt’s
exclusivejurisdictionandrefusedtoembarkonananalysisofthemonopoly
rightsconferredbythegeneralclassofwaresfoundinregistrationTMDA05009,
theFederalCourtjudge’sdecision,ineffect,underminedtheCourt’sexclusive
originaljurisdictionbyexamining,underasection45inquiryconductedbythe
Registrar,ifelectricphotocells,startinggates,phototimerecordersand
startingpistolswererepresentativesofthebroadercategoryofwares
describedinOmegaSA’sregistration.
Thatissuewasbeyondthescopeofsection45;thus,onceitwasestablished
thatproofofusehadbeenpresentedregardingelectricphotocells,starting
gates,phototimerecordersandstartingpistols,theinquiryundersection45
wasover.Inthiscase,sincethetrade-markwasused,therewasnoquestion
ofitsowner”losingit”.

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