Opposition Proceedings Not Necessarily The Appropriate Forum To Decide Issue Of Unlawful Use Of Trade-Mark, Federal Court Rules
OPPOSITIONPROCEEDINGSNOTNECESSARILYTHEAPPROPRIATEFORUMTO
DECIDEISSUEOFUNLAWFULUSEOFTRADE-MARK,FEDERALCOURTRULES
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
ArecentdecisionoftheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadarejected
anappealagainstafindingofconfusionbetweenthetrade-markMR.
COFFEEinassociationwithcoffeeandthetrade-markMISTERCOFFEEin
associationwithcoffeeequipment,coffeeandothercoffeesupplyservicesin
circumstanceswherethelawfulnessoftheopponent’suseofitstrade-mark
wasquestioned.(SunbeamProducts,Inc.v.MisterCoffee&ServicesInc.,
2001FCT1218(November7,2001,Kelen,J.).
OnDecember14,1990,SunbeamProducts,Inc.’spredecessorintitle
(hereinafter”Sunbeam”,whetherreferringtoSunbeamProducts,Inc.orits
predecessor)filedanapplicationwiththeRegistraroftrade-markstoregister
thetrade-markMR.COFFEEinassociationwithcoffeeonthebasisof
proposeduseofthetrade-markinCanada.
SunbeamwasalreadytheownerofotherMR.COFFEEtrade-markscovering
“coffeebrewersanddisposablecoffeefilters”aswellas”decanters”.
WhenSunbeam’s1990applicationwaspublishedforoppositionpurposesa
yearlater,MisterCoffee&ServicesInc.(hereinafter”MCS”)filedastatement
ofoppositionandallegedconfusionwithitspreviouslyusedtrade-mark
MISTERCOFFEE.TheevidencefiledbyMCSrevealedthatithadbeenusing
thistrade-markandtrade-nameMISTERCOFFEEinassociationwithitsbusiness
sinceitsinceptionin1980.Itofferedacompletecoffeesupplyservicefor
officesunderthetrade-markMISTERCOFFEE.MCSfurtherestablishedthatit
haduseditsnameMISTERCOFFEEspecificallyinassociationwithcoffee
equipment,coffeeandothercoffeesupplyservicesforaperiodoften(10)
yearspriortoSunbeam’sapplicationfiledin1990.
LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.*OftheLawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andthePatentandTrademarkAgencyFirm
ROBIC,g.p.Publication142.135.
Ontheotherhand,theevidencefiledbySunbeamrevealedthatitselfandits
predecessorsmanufactured,distributedandsoldMR.COFFEEbrewing
equipment,decantersanddisposablecoffeefilterssinceapproximately1972
inCanada.
Initsdecision,theRegistrarwonderedaboutthelawfulnessofMCS’useofthe
trade-markMISTERCOFFEEbutultimatelyconsideredthatthisissuewasnot
withinhisjurisdiction.TheRegistrarfurtherexpressedsurprisethatSunbeam
hadnottakenanystepstopreventMCSfromusingtheMISTERCOFFEEtrade-
markortrade-name.However,theRegistrarconcludedthattheprioruse
madebyMCSofitstrade-markMISTERCOFFEEconstitutedanobstacletothe
registrationbySunbeamoftheproposedtrade-markMR.COFFEEforcoffee.
Sunbeam’sotherregistrationsdidnotgiveittheautomaticrighttofurther
registrations.
SunbeamfiledanappealbeforetheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtagainst
theRegistrar’sdecisionand,asallowedbytheFederalCourtRules,itfiledinto
evidencethepleadingsinapending1995FederalCourtcaseinitiatedby
SunbeamagainstMCS.
Initsdecision,theCourtconsideredthatthisevidencewasoflittleweightas
thematerialdatefordeterminingwhetherMCSwasentitledtoregisterits
trade-markwasthedateoftheapplication,i.e.December14,1990.The1995
FederalCourtactionwasobviouslynotinitiatedatthetimeandwasdeemed
irrelevantinthecircumstances.
AstotheissueofwhethertheRegistrarhasjurisdictiontofindtheuseofa
trade-markunlawfulinoppositionproceedings,theCourtdidrefertoother
caseswheretheRegistrarhadfoundthatspecificcircumstancesofuseofa
trade-markbyanopponentinoppositionproceedingswereunlawful:In
McCabev.Yamamoto&Co.(America)Inc.(1989),23C.P.R.(3d)498
(F.C.T.D.),therewasevidenceofafindingbyaU.S.Courtthataparty’suseof
atrade-markwasaninfringementoftheotherparty’srights.InLunettes
CartierLtéev.Cartier,Inc.(1991),36C.P.R.(3d)391(T.M.O.B.)theOpposition
Boardacceptedtheevidencethatapartywassubjecttoaninjunctionfrom
theFederalCourtenjoiningitsuseofatrade-mark,anidenticalmarkwhich
thatpartywasrelyinguponinsupportofitsopposition.
Inthecaseatbar,theCourtnotedtheabsenceofclearevidencethatany
usebyMCSofitstrade-nameMISTERCOFFEEwasunlawful.Theforumto
decidesuchissuewasnottheOppositionBoardasthelatterlacksthe
jurisdictiontoconductafullhearingwithvivavoceevidencetodetermine
thelawfulnessofaparty’suseofatrade-mark.TheCourtwrotethatonly
whenthelawfulnessissueisclearwilltheRegistrarhavethejurisdictionto
makeafindingthatapartycannotrelyonitsuseofatrade-markbecause
suchuseisnotlawfullycarriedout.
Inlightofthesecircumstances,theCourtconfirmedtheRegistrar’sfindingof
confusionbetweentheparties’trade-marks.Astotheotherissuesraisedby
thiscase,includingtheco-existenceoftheparties’trade-marksandthelegal
consequencesflowingtherefrom,theCourtmentionedthattheserequireda
fulllegalhearing.
ThislatestdecisionisareminderthattheRegistrarwillonlymakeafindingof
unlawfulusewhenthefactssupportingsuchunlawfuluseareclear,for
examplewhentheRegistrarhasalreadyaCourtfindingtothateffect.Inthe
absenceofsuchcircumstances,theRegistrarwillconsiderhimselfwithout
jurisdictiontoexamineissueswhichtheparties’evidencedoesnotalways
address.
Publishedat(2002),16-2W.I.P.R.3-4underthetitleOppositionProceedings
MayNotBeBestForumtoDetermineUblawfulUse
LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002
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