Mootness Issue Examined by Federal Court in Appeal from Opposition Board’s Decision

2015-12-21

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006

MOOTNESSISSUEEXAMINEDBYFEDERALCOURTINAPPEALFROM
OPPOSITIONBOARD’SDECISION

BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

Inadecisionthatappliedthebrakestoatrade-markdisputebetweenaCanadian
federationofassociationsofprofessionalengineersandanAmericanfabriccompany,
Canada’sFederalCourtdeclinedtohearanappealagainstadecisionbyCanada’s
Trade-markOppositionBoardinvolvingatrade-markthatwaswithdrawnduringthe
appealprocess.Indoingso,theCourtexaminedthedoctrineofmootnessasit
appliestotrade-markmatters(EngineersCanada/IngénieursCanadavMMI-IPCO,
LLC,2015FC839(F.C.,BrownJ.,July9,2015)).

OnOctober15,2007,theRespondentMMI-IPCO,LLC(“MMI-IPCO”orthe
“Respondent”),afabriccompanyfromtheU.S.,appliedtoregisteradesigntrade-
markthatincludedthewords“polartececo-engineering”(the“trade-mark”)forvarious
textilefabricstobeusedinthemanufactureofclothing,homefurnishings,upholstery,
furniture,housewares,furnishings,carpets,floorcoverings,wallcoverings,curtains,
furniturecovers,blankets,pillows,bedlinens,bathlinensandkitchenlinensaswell
astextilefabricpiecegoodssoldasacomponentofclothing,namelycoats,jackets,
parkas,raincoats,pullovers,shirtsandothersimilarclothingproducts.

FurthertotheRegistrar’sdecisiontoadvertiseMMI-IPCO’strade-markforopposition
purposes,EngineersCanada/IngénieursCanada(“EngineersCanada”orthe
“Appellant”)filedastatementofoppositionagainstMMI-IPCO’strade-mark
applicationonthebasisthattheRespondentwasnotregisteredtopractice
engineeringinanyjurisdictioninCanada,nordiditemploylicensedengineersinany
Canadianjurisdiction.Forthatreason,theAppellantallegedthatthetrade-markwas
deceptivelymisdescriptive.
EngineersCanada’soppositionwasconsideredbytheTrade-marksOpposition
Board(the“Board”)andonJune12,2014,theBoarddeterminedthatMMI-IPCO’s
trade-markwasnotdeceptivelymisdescriptive;italsofoundthemarktobe
distinctive.EngineersCanada’soppositionwasthereforedismissed.

©CIPS,2015.*LawyerofROBIC,LLP,afirmoflawyers,patentandtrade-markagents.Publishedunderthetitle
CanadaCourtRulesUseofCompanyNameDistinctFromUseasTrade-Mark(2015)29:8World
IntellectualPropertyReport.Publication142.299.

2
EngineersCanadaappealedtheBoard’sdecisiononAugust12,2014undersection
56ofCanada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13,(the“Act”).

Asallowedalsobysection56oftheAct,bothpartiesfiledsubstantialadditional
evidencebeforetheCourtandthematterwassettobeheardbytheCourtonJune
1
st,2015.

However,onMay14,2015,theRespondentMMI-IPCOwrotealettertotheRegistrar
ofTrade-marksadvisingitthatitwaswithdrawingitsapplicationfortheregistrationof
itstrade-mark.TheRespondentthereforetookthepositionthattheAppellant’sappeal
wasmootandthat,inanyevent,itwouldnotbeappearingatthehearingofthe
appealscheduledforJune1
st,2015.

TheCourtadvisedEngineersCanadathattheissueofmootnesswouldbefrontand
centreatthehearingofJune1
stasadecisiononthisissuewouldmostlikelydecide
thefateoftheappeal.
TheAppellantarguedthatitsappealwasnotmootandthatevenifitwas,theCourt
shouldexerciseitsdiscretiontoheartheappealnonetheless.

Initsanalysis,theCourtreferredtothetestprovidedbytheSupremeCourtof
CanadainBorowskivCanada(AG),[1989]1SCR342(“Borowski”).InBorowski,the
SupremeCourtexaminedthedoctrineofmootnessanddescribedtheprocessto
determinewhethermootnessappliesinaspecificcase.AccordingtotheSupreme
Court,whenmootnessisalleged,itisnecessarytodeterminewhatisthefateofthe
tangibleandconcretedisputebetweentheparties.Hasthisdisputedisappearedand
theissuesbetweenthepartiesbecomeacademic?Inotherwords,istherestilla“live
controversy”betweenthepartiesthatrequirestheCourt’sintervention?

TheCourtalsoreferredtothe1998FederalCourtcaseofDuraUndercushionsLtd.v
BASFCorp(1998),154FTR233(“Dura”)whereamateriallysimilarsituationwas
examined.InDura,atrade-markapplicationwasopposedandfurthertotheBoard’s
decisiontorejecttheopposition,anappealwaslaunchedtohavetheBoard’s
decisionsetaside.DuringtheappealtotheFederalCourtfromtheRegistrar’s
decision,theRespondentinDuraabandoneditstrade-markapplication.TheCourt
concludedthattheappealwasmootanddeclinedtoexerciseitsdiscretiontohearit.

ThedecisioninDurawasconsideredrelevanttodisposeofEngineersCanada’s
arguments.JustlikethecaseinDurain1998,theCourtdecidedtherewasnolive
controversybetweenthepartiessincetherewasnolongeralivetrade-mark
applicationthatgaverisetoadispute.
EngineersCanadaarguedthatatangibledisputeremainedbetweentheparties,
namelywhetherMMI-IPCO’strade-markwasdeceptivelymisdescriptiveandthus
likelytomisleadthepublicwheninuse.However,sincethequestionofusewas
distinctfromtheissueofregistration,theCourtmadeitclearthatanydecisiononan

3
applicationtoregisteratrade-markcouldnotbeadecisionontheseparateand
specificissueofuseofthesametrade-mark.Onlyasuccessfulinfringementaction
coulddealwiththeissueofuseraisedbytheAppellant.

EngineersCanadafurtherarguedthatwithouttheCourt’swillingnesstohearits
appeal,thiswouldcreateasituationwheretheincorrectdecisionoftheBoardwould
surviveandberelieduponbythosewhoseinterestsareadversetoEngineers
Canada.Onthispoint,theCourtconcludedthattheAppellant’sconcernsappearedto
beunfoundedasanyfuturedisputewouldbedecidedontheparticularmeritsofany
caseandinaccordancewiththeAct.
Inanyevent,theCourtemphasizedthatitsconclusiononmootnesswasnotinany
wayafindingthattheBoard’sdecisionwascorrectlydecided.

DespitetheCourt’sconclusiononmootness,theAppellanturgedtheCourtto
exerciseitsdiscretionandheartheappealnonetheless.Whilethiscouldtechnically
bedone,intheCourt’sview,thecircumstancesofthecasewerenotsuchastoinvite
adeparturefromtheusualpracticeofdecliningtohearamootissue.Moreover,the
extensiverecordinthiscaseandtheabsenceofanadversarialcontextleadthe
CourttodeclinetoexerciseitsdiscretioninfavouroftheAppellant.Inanyevent,the
interestsofjudicialeconomydidnotfavourhearingthemeritsofthecasesincethe
uniquecircumstancesofthelitigationbetweenthepartiesnolongerexisted.

Thiscaseraisesinterestingissues.Whileatrade-markownerwhoforcefullydefends
hisorherrightsobviouslywishestohavethelastwordconcerninganytrade-mark
dispute,thecircumstancesofacasemaynotalwaysallowthisdespitethepresence
ofvalidarguments.Thiscasemakesclearthatthewithdrawalofatrade-mark
applicationduringtheappealprocessleavestheunsuccessfulopponentwithvery
littleoptions.Whileeachcaseisuniqueandmustbedecidedonitsownmerits,the
presenceofanunfavorabledecisionaspartofthebodyofthecaselawcancertainly
beanareaofconcernfortrade-markowners.However,thepolicyissuesraisedby
thedoctrineofmootnessappeartooverridetheseconcerns.Insomecases,itdoes
appearthatanopponenttoatrade-markapplicationcannotalwayshavethelast
word.