Notion of “Services” Must Receive Broad Interpretation, Federal Court Rules in Summary Trade-Mark Expungement Case


NOTIONOF”SERVICES”MUSTRECEIVEBROADINTERPRETATION,FEDERALCOURT
RULESINSUMMARYTRADE-MARKEXPUNGEMENTCASE

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
ArecentdecisionoftheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanada
confirmedthattheconceptof”services”inrelationtotrade-markuse,
mentionedinCanada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.,1985c.T-13,mustbeliberally
interpreted(RenaudCointreau&CievsCordonBleuInternationalLtd.,T-972-
93,June16,2000(FederalCourt,TrialDivision,Tremblay-Lamer,J.)).
RespondentCordonBleuInternationalLtd.isaCanadiancorporation
involvedinthepreparationandsaleofvariousfoodproductsunderthetrade-
markCORDONBLEUinCanadaandelsewhere.Itisalsotheregisteredowner
ofthetrade-markCORDONBLEU,Canadianregistrationsecuredin1975
underno.TMA204,269,forthefollowingservices:”recipes,suggestionsand
otherinstructivematterprintedonthefoodproductlabels,saidprinted
matterbeingapplicabletothepreparation,thecookingand/orimprovement
ofsaidfoodproducts”.In1988,underCanada’ssummarytrade-mark
expungementproceedingsoutlinedatsection45oftheTrade-marksAct
(“section45proceedings”),AppellantRenaudCointreau&Cieasked
Canada’sRegistrarofTrade-markstoissueanoticetoCordonBleu
InternationalLtd.requestingthatthelatterfurnishanaffidavitorstatutory
declarationshowingwithrespectoftheservicesspecifiedinregistrationTMA
204,269,whetherthetrade-markwasinuseatthattimeinCanada,andifnot,
thedatewhenitwaslastsoinuseandthereasonfortheabsenceofsuchuse
sincethatdate.TheRegistrarissuedthesection45noticeonOctober12,
1988.
Inresponsetothenotice,CordonBleuInternationalLtd.’spresidentfiledan
affidavitbeforetheRegistrarexplainingthatthetrade-markCORDONBLEU
wasusedinCanadainthenormalcourseoftradeinassociationwiththe
servicesmentionedintheregistration.Inordertodescribetheusemade,the
Respondent’spresidentsubmittedasamplingoffoodproductlabelsshowing
thetrade-markCORDONBLEUinassociationwithrecipes,suggestionsand


otherinstructivematter.TheRespondent’spresidentalsosubmittedcopiesof
invoicesevidencingthesaleoftheproductswithlabelsofferingrecipesor
suggestionsunderthetrade-markCORDONBLEU.
InadecisionrenderedonMarch1
st,1993,theRegistrarconcludedthatthe
trade-markwasinuseinassociationwiththeservicesmentionedinthe
registrationandconsequentlyorderedthatthetrade-markremainonthe
register.
RenaudCointreau&CieappealedtheRegistrar’sdecisiontotheTrialDivision
oftheFederalCourt.InanorderhandeddownonJune16,2000,Madame
JusticeTremblay-LamerconfirmedtheRegistrar’sdecisionandrejectedthe
Appellant’sappeal.
Indismissingtheappeal,theCourtnotedthatthepurposeofsection45
proceedingsistoprovideasummaryprocedurewherebytheregistercanbe
clearedoftrade-markswhichhavefallenintodisuse(seeRe:WolfvilleHolland
BakeryLtd.(1964),42C.P.R.88,Ex.Ct.).QuotingfromMeredithandFinlayson
vsCanada(RegistrarofTrade-marks)(1991),40C.P.R.(3d)409,theCourt
notedthat”section45providesasimpleandexpeditiousmethodofremoving
fromtheregistermarkswhichhavefallenintodisuse.Itisnotintendedto
provideanalternativetotheusualinterpartesattackonatrade-mark
envisagedbysection57.Thefactthatanapplicantundersection45isnot
evenrequiredtohaveaninterestinthematter…speakseloquentlytothe
publicnatureoftheconcernsthesectionisdesignedtoprotect”.
Subsection4(2)ofCanada’sTrade-marksActdefinesthatatrade-markis
deemedtobeusedinassociationwithservicesifitisusedordisplayedinthe
performanceoradvertisingofthoseservices.BeforetheCourt,Appellant
arguedthatRespondentwasnotperformingservicesofsupplyingrecipes
underthetrade-markCORDONBLEUbutthatitwasonlysellingfoodproducts
underthattrade-mark.Inotherwords,accordingtotheAppellant,the
Respondentwasnotexecutinganyservicebutwassimplysellingproducts.
TheCourtdismissedthisargumentnotingthattheconceptof”services”inthe
Trade-marksActwasnotdefined.Insuchacase,nothingjustifiedgivingthe
word”services”arestrictivedefinitionandtheCourtagreedwiththe
statementofMr.JusticeDubéinHartcoEnterprisesInc.vsSpectrumInc.(1989)
24C.P.R.(3d)223(F.C.T.D.)wheretheCourtindicatedthattheword”services”
forthepurposesofsubsection4(2)oftheActmustbegivenaliberaland
broadinterpretationandisnotobjectionableifmerelyincidentalorancillary
tothesaleofgoods.


InthecasebeforetheCourt,thedraftingofthedescriptionoftheservicesin
registrationTMA204,269clearlymentionedthattheservicesofrecipesand
suggestionswereprintedonthefoodproductlabels.Sinceitwasimpossible
todisassociatethesaleofproductsfromthesupplyingofservices,thefilingof
foodproductlabelsbearingthetrade-mark,inassociationwiththerecipes,
suggestionsandotherinstructivematterwasconsideredacceptable
evidencetomeettherequirementsoftheAct.
OntheissueoftheservicesofferedbytheRespondent,theCourtnotedthat
theAppellantappearedtoquestionthevalidityoftheregistrationperse
ratherthantheevidenceofuseforwardedbytheRespondent.Indismissing
theappeal,theCourtremindedthepartiesthatsummaryexpungement
proceedingsarenottheappropriateforumtodiscussthevalidityofatrade-
mark.Thoughtheservicesmightappearunusual,theevidenceofusemetthe
descriptionoftheservicesmentionedintheregistrationandthatwasallthat
wasrequired.
TheCourt’sdecisionconfirmsthatnorestrictionsshouldbeputontheconcept
of”services”,whethertheseservicesaremerelyincidentalorancillarytothe
saleofgoodsornot,inorderforthesetoberecognizedas”services”underthe
Trade-marksAct.However,ifthereistobetrade-markuseinassociationwith
services,thetrade-markmustbedisplayedintheperformanceofthese
services,asrequiredundertheAct.
Publishedat(2000),14W.I.P.R.259-260underthetitleNotionof‘Services’Must
ReceiveBroadInterpretation.
LEGERROBICRICHARD,2000.



ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
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.Ideaslivehere.
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