Old Havana Trade-Mark for Rum Found Deceptively Misdescriptive by Opposition Board
1
OLDHAVANATRADE-MARKFORRUMFOUNDDECEPTIVELYMISDESCRIPTIVEBY
OPPOSITIONBOARD
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
Canada’sTrade-marksOppositionBoardrecentlyrejectedfourapplications
inthenameofBacardi&CompanyLimitedforthetrade-marks“OLD
HAVANA”,“HAVANASELECT”,“OLDHAVANALABELDESIGN”and“OLD
HAVANA&DESIGN”,allfordistilledalcoholicbeverages,namelyrum,onthe
basisthatallfourtrade-marksweredeceptivelymisdescriptiveoftheplaceof
originofthewaresassociatedwitheachtrade-mark(HavanaClubHolding
S.A.v.Bacardi&CompanyLimited,docket795803,February6,2004,Carrière,
J.;HavanaClubHoldingS.A.v.Bacardi&CompanyLimited,docket795804,
February6,2004,Carrière,J.;HavanaClubHoldingS.A.v.Bacardi&
CompanyLimited,docket818546,February6,2004,Carrière,J.;HavanaClub
HoldingS.A.v.Bacardi&CompanyLimited,docket821459,February6,2004,
Carrière,J.).
BetweenOctober25,1995andAugust30,1996,Bacardi&CompanyLimited
(hereafter:“Bacardi”)filedwiththeCanadianTrade-marksOfficefour
applicationstoregistertwowordmarks(“OLDHAVANA”and“HAVANA
SELECT”)andtwodesignmarks(“OLDHAVANALABELDESIGN”and“OLD
HAVANA&DESIGN”),allinassociationwithdistilledalcoholicbeverages,
namelyrum.Threeapplicationswerebasedontheproposeduseofeach
correspondingtrade-markinCanadawhiletheOLDHAVANA&DESIGN
applicationwasfiledonthebasisofuseofthetrade-markinCanadasinceat
leastasearlyasAugust1,1996.
TheseapplicationswereacceptedbytheTrade-marksOfficewhoallowed
themtoproceedtopublicationforoppositionpurposesinCanada’sTrade-
marksJournal.UponpublicationofBacardi’sfourapplications,HavanaClub
HoldingS.A.(hereafter:“HCH”)filedfourstatementsofoppositionalleging,
interalia,thateachtrade-markfiledbyBacardiwasnotregistrableinviewof
theprovisionsofSection12(1)(b)ofCanada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.
T-13aseachofBacardi’strade-marks,whetherdepicted,writtenorsounded,
2
eitherclearlydescribedorwasdeceptivelymisdescriptiveintheEnglishor
Frenchlanguageofthecharacterorqualityoftheruminassociationwith
whicheachwasproposedtobeused(or,infact,used)oroftheconditionsof
itsproductionorofitsplaceoforigin,namelyCubawhereinHavanaisthe
capital.
DuringtheevidentiaryphaseofHCH’sfouroppositions,uncontradicted
evidencewassubmittedtotheeffectthatBacardi’srumwasnot
manufacturedinHavana,Cubanorinsuchcountry.Moreover,itwas
establishedthatBacardi’slabelsbearingtheOLDHAVANAtrade-markhad
thefollowinginscription:“Blendedinthetraditionofpre-revolutionaryCuba”.
Aspartofitsevidence,Bacardifiledvariousbottlesofalcoholpurchasedat
oneoftheOttawalocationsoftheLiquorControlBoardofOntario.It
appearedfromthelabelsaffixedonsuchbottlesthatso-calleddomestic
rumswereeitherbottledinCanadaordistilledinCanada.However,these
labelscontainedoneortheotherofthefollowinginscriptions:“Light
Caribbeanrum”;“AblendofimportedrumwithCanadianrum”;“Ablendof
JamaicarumwithCanadianrum”;“BlendedandbottledinCanada”;“A
premiumqualityrumblendedandbottledunderCanadianGovernment
supervision”;“MaturedandbottledinCanada”.Thelabelsalsocarried
Caribbean-relatedimages.Fromtheselabels,theOppositionBoard
concludedthatrumisoftenassociatedwiththeCaribbeanthrougheitherthe
useofimagesorinscriptionsonlabels.
Underthecircumstances,didBacardi’sappliedfortrade-marksviolatethe
provisionsofSection12(1)(b)oftheTrade-marksActwhenusedinassociation
withrumthatdidnotoriginatefromCuba?Inordertoanswerthisquestion,
theOppositionBoardremindedthepartiesthattheissueastowhethera
markisclearlydescriptiveordeceptivelymisdescriptivemustbeexamined
fromtheviewpointoftheaverageCanadianconsumer,inthiscasethe
averageconsumerofrum.
AstheuncontradictedevidencerevealedthatBacardi’srumsoldinCanada
inassociationwiththeappliedfortrade-markswasnotmanufacturedin
HavanaorinCuba,thosemarkswereobviouslynotconsideredclearly
descriptiveoftheplaceoforiginofBacardi’srum.However,couldthetrade-
marksbeconsidereddeceptivelymisdescriptiveoftheplaceoforiginofthe
ruminquestion?Theconceptof“deceptivelymisdescriptive”wasintroduced
bytheCanadianParliamenthalfacenturyagointhecurrentTrade-marks
Act.ThelateHaroldG.FoxinhisCanadianLawofTradeMarksandUnfair
Competition,Toronto,Carswell,1972,describedtheintroductionofthis
concept,atpages93-94:“The1953Acthasmadeanimportantchangein
providingthatatrademarkisnotregistrableifitiseither“clearlydescriptiveor
3
deceptivelymisdescriptive…ofthecharacterorqualityofthewaresor
servicesinassociationwithwhichitisusedorproposedtobeused”.This
changeinverbiageconstitutesanotherinstanceofanefforttoarriveata
realisticsolutionoftrademarkproblems.Manywordsmaybeclearly
misdescriptiveofthewaresorservicesinassociationwithwhichtheyareused
butarebynomeansdeceptivelymisdescriptive.Inasenseaclearly
misdescriptivewordmaybequitedistinctive.Itsverymisdescriptiveness
attractsthesensesandthusmakesfordistinctiveness.Insuchacaseaword
ofthattypeoughttoconstituteagoodtrademarkandoughttobe
registrable.If,ontheotherhand,amarkisdeceptivelymisdescriptive,the
reverseisthecase.Thus,themark“NorthPole”mightwellbedescriptiveof
thecharacterorqualityofthewaresifusedinassociationwithicecreamor
frozenfoods,justastheword“Frigidaire”hasbeenheldtobedescriptiveof
refrigeratorsandrefrigeratingsystems.Butwhiletheuseofthewords“North
Pole”wouldbemisdescriptiveofbananasororanges,itwouldnotbe
deceptivelymisdescriptive.Itwouldbetheuseofageographicalname
dislocatedordisconnectedfromtheoriginofthegoods.Inthesamemanner,
themark“Frigidaire”asappliedtostovesandheatingappliances,whileit
mightbeconsideredclearlymisdescriptive,couldhardlybeconsidered
deceptivelymisdescriptive.”
Underthecircumstances,theOppositionBoardconcludedthattheevidence
filedintotherecordestablishedthat,onabalanceofprobabilities,the
averageCanadianconsumerofrumwouldrecognize,onfirstimpression,
HavanaasacityinCubaandassumethattherumsoldinassociationwith
eachofthetrade-marksunderoppositionwouldoriginatefromHavana,
Cuba.TheBoard’sconclusionwasbased,interalia,onthefactthatHavana
islocatedintheCaribbeanwhichinturnisknownasasourceoforiginofrum.
Moreover,Bacardi’slabelsforitsOLDHAVANArumdidrefertoCuba.
Bacardi©sfourtrade-marksappeartofollowthesamefateasthe
CASABLANCAtrade-markapplicationforwineswhichhadbeenrefusedas
beingdeceptivelymisdescriptivebyCanada©sRegistrarofTrade-marksnearly
twodecadesago(T.B.Bright&Co.v.Canada(RegistrarofTradeMarks)
(1985)4C.P.R.(3d)64(F.C.T.D.,McNair,J.).TheOppositionBoardalsorelied
onthisdecisionwhenitrejectedthefourapplications.OnApril6,2004,
BacardiappealedtheBoard©sdecisionsbeforeCanada©sFederalCourt
whichwillnowtakeupthismatter.