No Trade-Mark Infringement in Use of Word “Wood Conservator” Rules Federal Court in Decade-Long Litigation Involving Maker of Wood Primer-Sealer

2013-09-23

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

NOTRADE-MARKINFRINGEMENTINUSEOFWORDS“WOOD
CONSERVATOR”RULESFEDERALCOURTINDECADE-LONGLITIGATION
INVOLVINGMAKEROFWOODPRIMER-SEALER

BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

ArecentdecisionbyCanada’sFederalCourthasdismissedatrade-mark
infringementactioncommencedin2002byaplaintiffwhohadregisteredadesign
trade-markthatincludedtheword“conservator”andwhoallegedthatadefendant
wascreatingconfusionbecauseofitsuseoftheexpression“WOOD
CONSERVATOR”inthesaleofitsproduct(Osmose-PentoxInc.v.Société
LaurentideInc.,2013FC626(F.C.),MartineauJ.,June11,2013).

OnOctober21,1994,Osmose-PentoxInc.(hereafterthe“Plaintiff”or“Osmose-
Pentox”),asmallfamilyrunMontreal-basedbusinessthathasdevelopedoverthe
yearsaparticularexpertiseinwoodpreservativesandvariouscoatings,appliedto
registeratrade-markcomposedoftheword“conservator”,withthelast“o”ofthe
wordbeingreplacedbytherepresentationofahardhatorconstructionhelmet
(hereafterthe“conservatordesign-mark”).Registrationoftheconservatordesign-
markwasgrantedtothePlaintiffonMarch29,1996inassociationwith“Surface
coatings,namelycoatingsfortheprotectionofwood”.

During1996,Plaintiffstartedsellingaprimer-sealerproductinassociationwiththe
conservatordesign-mark.AnimportantcharacteristicofthePlaintiff’sproductisthatit
providesatransparentcoating;furthermore,itdoesnotcontainanypesticide.

Foritspart,SociétéLaurentideInc.(hereafterthe“Defendant”or“Laurentide”)isthe
manufacturerofarangeofproductsincludingpaints,woodcoatings,varnishes,
enamelsanddiluents,lacquersolventsandvarnishes.AmongtheDefendant’s
productlinesarewaressoldunderthetrade-markPERMATEC.Inthemarketingof
itsPERMATECproducts,Defendantsoldcontainersofclearandbrownprimer-
sealersforexteriorwoodonwhichappeared,justunderthenamePERMATEC,the
words“CONSERVATEURPOURBOIS”(appearinginFrench)and“WOOD
CONSERVATOR”(inEnglish).
In2002,thePlaintiffobjectedtosuchusebytheDefendantbyformalnoticedated
March6,2002.ItfiledastatementofclaimagainsttheDefendantonApril30,2002

©CIPS,2013.*BarryGamacheisamemberofROBIC,LLP,afirmoflawyers,patentandtrademarkagents.
PublishedintheAugust2013issueoftheWorldIntellectualPropertyReport.Publication142.279.

2
andbaseditslegalclaimonits1996registration,allegingthattheDefendantwas
creatingconfusioninthemarketplace.InJanuary2003,theFederalCourtissuedan
interlocutoryinjunctionprohibitingthesaleoftheDefendant’sprimer-sealersbearing
thewords“CONSERVATOR”and/or“CONSERVATEUR”and/or“WOOD
CONSERVATOR”and/or“CONSERVATEURPOURBOIS”,untilafinaljudgmenton
themeritofthecase.
Adecadelater,in2013,duringthetrialonitsclaimforapermanentinjunction,the
Plaintiff’spositionwasstraightforward.Itsubmittedthatitscompetitors(includingthe
Defendant)cannotusethewords“CONSERVATOR”and“CONSERVATEUR”in
respecttosurfacecoatings,namelycoatingsfortheprotectionofwoodbecauseof
theexclusiveprotectiongrantedbytheregistrationin1996oftheconservatordesign-
mark.
TheDefendantarguedthatitdidnotusethewords“CONSERVATEUR”and
“CONSERVATOR”asatrade-markupto2003andthat,inanyevent,theuseofthe
words“CONSERVATORFORWOOD”and“CONSERVATEURPOURBOIS”didnot
causeanyconfusionwiththePlaintiff’sregisteredtrade-mark.Finally,theDefendant
pointedoutthatitdidnotusetheconservatordesign-markregisteredinthePlaintiff’s
name.
Essentially,theDefendantarguedthatitsuseofthewords“CONSERVATOR”and
“CONSERVATEUR”onitslabelswaspermittedbylaw.AsnotedbytheCourt,under
Canada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13,atsubparagraph20(1)(b)(ii),no
registrationofatrade-markpreventsapersonfrommakingthebonafideuse,other
thanasatrade-mark,ofanaccuratedescriptionofthecharacterorqualityofthe
waresinissue.IntheDefendant’sview,thisiswhatithaddone.Tomakeitspoint,
DefendantreliedonthejudgementbytheFederalCourtinPepperKingLtd.v.
SunfreshLtd.,[2000]FCJNo1455.Inthatcase,PepperKingownedaregistration
forthetrade-markVOLCANOthatitusedonitspeppersauce;whileSunfreshand
othersusedtheword“volcano”onthelabelsoftheirsalsas,suchusewastoidentify
thedegreeofspicinessoftheirproductratherthanitssource.Defendantsubmitted
thatitsuseofthewords“CONSERVATOR”and“CONSERVATEUR”wassimilarto
theusebySunfreshandothersoftheword“volcano”inthePepperKingcase.They
wereusedasdescriptives,notasidentifiersofsource.

TheCourtagreedwiththeDefendantandconcludedthattheexpressionsusedby
theDefendantprovidedameredescriptionoftheDefendant’sproduct.Underthe
circumstances,theDefendant’susecamewithintheambitoftheexceptionprovided
insubparagraph20(1)(b)(ii)oftheTrade-marksAct.

Inanyevent,eveniftheDefendanthadbeenusingthecontestedwordsastrade-
marks,theCourtconcludedthattherewasnolikelihoodofconfusioninthiscase
basedinpartontheverylowdegreeofprotectionthatshouldbeattributedtothe
conservatordesign-mark.Infact,theCourtconcludedthatwhatmakesthe
conservatordesign-markreallydistinctiveistheconstructionhelmetusedtoreplace

3
thelast“o”inthemark.Suchdistinctiveelementwasnotfoundintheexpressions
usedbytheDefendanttodescribeitsproducts.
Thiscasehighlightsthefactthatregistrationofaveryweakmarkcanonlygosofar
inprotectingitsownerinthepromotionofitsgoodsorservices.Ifothersareusing
themarktodescribethecharacteristicsoftheirownproducts,suchmarkmightnot
betheidealvehicletoidentifyaspecificsource.Aswehaveseenhere,aCourtwill
thereforebereluctanttopermanentlyenjoinadefendantfromusingdescriptivewords
topromoteitsproducts.Sucharetherisksassociatedwithchoosingatrade-mark
thathasadescriptivecomponent.
À

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;vérificationdiligenteet
audit.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
R
ROBIC

4
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)