Olympic Trade-Marks: See you in… Court!

2007-01-01

O
LYMPICTRADE-MARKS:SEEYOUIN…COURT!

ALEXANDRASTEELE*
LEGER
ROBICRICHARD,LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS
TheFederalCourtofCanadarecentlygrantedajudicialreviewapplicationquashing
adecisionoftheRegistrarofTrade-markstopublishnoticesofofficialtrade-marks.
[SeeYouIn-CanadianAthletesFundCorporationv.CanadianOlympicCommittee,
2007FC406(Phelan,J.,April18,2007),noticeofappealfiledMay17,2007].
TheLaw
TheCanadianTrade-marksAct(R.S.C.1985c.T-13)containsprovisionswhereby
certainmarksarereservedfortheexclusiveuseofgovernmentsandcertainnational
andinternationalorganisations.Forexample,markswhichwouldreproducetheRed
CrossemblemorthearmouriesoftheCanadiangovernmentareprohibitedmarksin
Canada.
Section9(1)(n)(iii)Trade-marksActalsoprovidesthat:
9.(1)Nopersonshalladoptinconnectionwithabusiness,asatrade-markor
otherwise,anymarkconsistingof,orsonearlyresemblingastobelikelytobe
mistakenfor,
…
(n)anybadge,crest,emblemormark
…
(iii)adoptedandusedbyanypublicauthority,inCanadaasan
officialmarkforwaresorservices,
Organisationswhichhavequalifiedas“publicauthorities”,suchastheCanadian
OlympicCommittee,havereliedonthisprovisioninordertorapidlyobtainthe
exclusiveuseofcertainmarksforthepurposesoftheiractivities.Officialtrade-marks
inCanadaareregardedasmarkswith“superpowers”astheprocessbywhichthey
areobtainedisfast-trackedandtherequirementsmuchlessonerousthanfora
“regular”trade-mark:infact,anofficialmarkcanissueeventhoughitmayhavebeen
previouslyusedand/orregisteredbyanotherpersoninassociationwithsimilarwares

©CIPS,2007.*Lawyer,AlexandraSteeleisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmof
lawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.Publication142.201.

2
orservices!Twomainrequirementsmustbemetbyanofficialmarkapplicantunder
Section9(1)(n)(iii)Trade-marksAct:1)theapplicantmustbeapublicauthorityand2)
itmustdemonstratethatthemarkhasbeenadoptedandusedatthetimeoffilingof
theapplication.
OncetheRegistrarofTrade-marksgivespublicnoticeofanofficialmark,thereis,in
principle,nomannerinwhichapersoncanrequestthatanofficialmarkbestruck
fromtheregister.
TheFacts
TheApplicant,CanadianAthletesFundCorporation,existssince2002.Itsmain
objectiveistoraisemoneytosupportCanadianathletesininternationalcompetitions.
In2003,theApplicantfiledfourtrade-markapplicationswiththeprefix“SEEYOUIN
…”,namelyasSEEYOUINATHENS,SEEYOUINTORINO,SEEYOUINBEIJING
andSEEYOUINVANCOUVER.
Approximatelytenmonthslater,theRespondentrequestedthatpublicnoticebe
giveninrelationtothetrade-marksSEEYOUINTORINO,SEEYOUINBEIJING
andSEEYOUINVANCOUVER.Twomonthslater,theRegistrarofTrade-marks
gavepublicnoticepursuanttoSection9(1)(n)(iii)Trade-marksActintheCanadian
Trade-marksJournaloftheadoptionanduseoftheRespondent’sofficialtrade-
marks.

ThepracticaleffectoftheaforementionedpublicnoticebytheRegistraristhatthe
Applicantwasprecludedfromobtainingtheregistrationofitsfourpendingtrade-mark
applications.However,totheextentthattheApplicanthaduseditsfourtrade-marks
priortothepublicnotice,itcouldcontinuetousethem,butonlyinassociationwith
thesamewaresandservicesthatithadofferedforsaleorsoldpriortotheissuance
ofthepublicnotice.
ApplicantfiledanapplicationofjudicialreviewofthedecisionoftheRegistrarof
Trade-marksonthebasisthattheRespondenthadnotfulfilledthelegalrequirements
toobtaintheofficialtrade-marksandthattheRegistrarofTrade-markshasnot
appliedtherelevanttestinitsanalysisoftheRespondent’sofficialtrade-mark
application.
TheFederalCourtJudgement
JusticePhelanoftheFederalCourtofCanadawasseizedoffivesub-issuesinorder
toruleontheapplicationforjudicialreview,namely:
“1.CantheApplicantbringforwardevidencenotbeforetheRegistrar?

3
2.CantheCourt(andshouldtheCourt)drawanadverseinferencefromthe
COC’sfailuretoanswerrelevantquestions,particularlyastoadoptionand
use?
3.HastheCOCadoptedandusedtheCOCmarksotherthanasalicensee?
4.IstheCOCalicensee(agentortrustee)oftheIOCandifitis,hasit
adoptedandusedthemarks?
5.IstheCOCapublicauthority?”
Onthefirstquestion,JusticePhelanruledthatinlightoftherelevantcaselaw,the
additionalaffidavitevidencefiledbyboththeApplicantandtheRespondentwas
admissibleandthattheapplicationforjudicialreviewshouldbedecidedtakinginto
considerationthisevidence.IntheCourt’sview,sinceapublicnoticeofanofficial
trade-markmaycurtailthirdpartyrights,itwouldbeunfairtopreventtheseparties
fromputtingforwardevidencechallengingthedecisionoftheRegistrarofTrade-
markssincetheyhavenopriorabilitytoparticipateintheprocess.
Inthepresentcase,theaffidavitfiledbytheApplicantaddressedtheprocedural
unfairnessoftheRegistrar’sdecisionandpurportedtohighlightthelackofevidence
ofadoptionanduseoftheRespondent’sofficialtrade-marks.
Onthesecond,thirdandfourthquestions,theCourtwritesthatwhentheApplicant
putinissuetheadoptionanduseoftheofficialtrade-marks,theburdenthenshiftsto
theRespondenttoadduceevidenceofsuchadoptionanduse.Afterreviewingthe
evidenceoftheRespondent,theCourtnotedthatinitsofficialmarkapplication,only
anunsupportedassertionbycounselfortheRespondentoftheadoptionanduseof
theofficialtrade-markswasputbeforetheRegistrar.IntheCourt’sview,thiswould
beinsufficienttomeettherequirementssetoutintheTrade-marksActandthe
jurisprudence.Inaddition,onjudicialreview,theRespondenthadfiledonlysummary
affidavitevidenceofitsadoptionanduseoftheofficialmarks,andoncross-
examination,ithadnotansweredanyquestionsrelatingtotheissueofadoptionand
useoftheofficialtrade-marks.
AsfortheRegistrar’sinitialdecisiontogivepublicnoticeoftheofficialmarks,the
CourtstatedthattheRegistrarhadgoneintogreatdetailinitsanalysisofthe
Respondent’spublicauthoritystatus,butthattherewasnotrainofinquiryonthe
issueofadoptionanduseoftheofficialmarks(whichasmentionedpreviously,was
limitedtoastatementbycounselfortheRespondent).InJusticePhelan’swords:
ThepotentialeffectonthirdpartiesoftheRegistrar’sdecisionto
publishcertainlyjustifiessomebetterlevelofdiligence.
JusticePhelandeterminedthattheRegistrar’sdecisionwasthereforeunreasonable
andthepublicationofthenoticeofofficialtrade-marksneithercorrectnorreasonable.
Finally,onthefifthquestion,theCourtnotedthattheRegistrarhadengagedinanin-
depthreviewofallofthefactorsrelatingtothepublicauthoritystatusofthe

4
RespondentandthereforedeferenceshouldbegiventotheRegistrar’sdecisionon
thisissue.
JusticePhelangrantedtheapplicationforjudicialreviewandquashedtheRegistrar’s
decisiontopublishnoticesoftheofficialtrade-marks.
Conclusion
Canadacontinuestomaintainitsofficialtrade-marksschemeforpublicauthorities,
i.e.entitieswhocomeunderthecontrolofgovernment,butSection9(1)(n)(iii)Trade-
marksActcontinuestogeneratemuchcontroversy.
Thisjudgementhighlightsthefactthatbecauseoftheextensivecaselawthat
emphasizesanofficialtrade-markapplicant’sresponsibilitytodemonstratethatitisa
publicauthority,littleattentionhasbeengiventothelevelofevidencerequiredto
demonstratethattheofficialmarkhasbeenadoptedandused.Inthisjudgement,the
FederalCourtnotesthattheRegistrarofTrade-markshasalsoerroneouslyapplied
thelawbyfailingtoinsistonbetterevidenceofadoptionanduseoftheofficialmarks
andthereforeifthesituationisnotcured,thirdpartyrightsmaybeprejudicedwithout
properjustification.
Oneoftheconsequencesofthisjudgment,ifitisupheldonappeal,isthatofficial
trade-markapplicantswillfromthispointforwardhavetopresentmorecomplete
recordstodemonstratethat,notonlyaretheyentitledtoanofficialmarkbecause
theyareapublicauthority,butalsobecausetheyhaveinfactadoptedandusedthe
marksforwhichtheyseekpublicnotice.Thiswillhaveasaconsequencetoincrease
thecostsrelatingtoofficialtrade-markapplications.However,intheoveralltrade-
markschemeofthings,thismaybeasmallpricetopayinordertoensurethatboth
theapplicant’sandthirdpartyrightsarerespected.

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