Placement of a Trade-Mark at the Top of an Invoice is Trade-mark Use, Rules Federal Court of Appeal in Hortilux Case

2013-01-02

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

PLACEMENTOFATRADE-MARKATTHETOPOFANINVOICEISTRADE-
MARKUSE,RULESFEDERALCOURTOFAPPEALINHORTILUXCASE

BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

ArecentdecisionbyCanada’sFederalCourtofAppealhasdismissedanappeal
againstaFederalCourtdecisionthathadallowedanappealagainstanearlier
decisionoftheTrade-marksOppositionBoard;theendresultwasthatanapplicant’s
applicationforthetrade-markHORTILUXinassociationwithelectriclampswas
refused.TheFederalCourtdecided,andtheFederalCourtofAppealagreed,thatthe
trade-markHORTILUXshouldnotberegisteredbecauseanopponenthadmade
earlieruseofthesametrade-markforsimilarwares(IwasakiElectricCo.Ltd.v.
HortiluxSchrederB.V.,2012FCA321(F.C.A.),BlaisC.J.,SharlowandWebbJJ.A.,
December7,2012).
OnJune23,2000,IwasakiElectricCo.Ltd.(the“applicant”or“Iwasaki”)appliedto
registerthetrade-markHORTILUXonthebasisofuseofthetrade-markinCanada
sinceDecember31,1997inassociationwithelectriclamps.OnMay31,2002,
HortiluxSchrederB.V.(hereafterthe“opponent”or“Schreder”)opposedthe
applicationallegingthatIwasakiwasnotentitledtoregistrationofthetrade-mark
HORTILUXsinceithadusedthesametrade-markinCanadainassociationwith
lightingreflectorsbeforeIwasaki’sdateoffirstuse.

BeforetheOppositionBoard(2010TMOB179),HearingOfficerPelletierconcluded
thatIwasakihadinfactuseditstrade-markinCanadaasearlyasOctober1997.She
alsodecidedthatSchrederhadnotestablishedthatithadusedthetrade-mark
HORTILUXinCanadapriortoIwasaki’sallegeddateoffirstuse.Sheconsequently
dismissedtheopposition.
SchrederappealedbeforetheFederalCourt(2011FC967);afterconsideringthe
evidence,JusticeRussellallowedSchreder’sappealandconcludedthatthefactsdid
notsupportIwasaki’sdateoffirstuseofOctober1997;moreover,healsodecided
that,inanyevent,SchrederhadestablisheduseoftheHORTILUXtrade-markin
associationwithitslightingreflectorspriortoOctober1997.

IwasakiappealedinturntotheFederalCourtofAppealandarguedthatSchreder’s
evidenceofusedidnotsupportafindingofpriorusebySchrederofitstrade-mark.

©CIPS,2013.*BarryGamacheisamemberofROBIC,LLP,afirmoflawyers,patentandtrademarkagents.Published
inthe(May2013),27:5issueofWorldIntellectualPropertyReport.Publication142.275.

2
OneofthemainissuesbeforetheFederalCourtofAppealwaswhethertheevidence
ofusebySchrederpriortoOctober1997wasinfact“use”withwaresinaccordance
withsection4(1)oftheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13.Section4(1)provides
thata“trade-markisdeemedtobeusedinassociationwithwaresif,atthetimeof
thetransferofthepropertyinorpossessionofthewares,inthenormalcourseof
trade,itismarkedonthewaresthemselvesoronthepackagesinwhichtheyare
distributedoritisinanyothermannersoassociatedwiththewaresthatnoticeofthe
associationisthengiventothepersontowhomthepropertyorpossessionis
transferred”.Inthepresentcase,Schreder’sevidenceofprioruseofitstrade-mark
forwaresrestedoninvoicesthatshowedthetrade-markHORTILUXinverylarge
font,differentfromthesurroundingtext,inastylizedformthatcouldbedistinguished
fromothermatterontheinvoices.ThepresenceofHORTILUXatthetopofthe
invoiceswasaclearreferencetothetrade-markHORTILUXandnotareferenceto
thecompanynamethatappearedelsewhereonthedocument,abovethecompany’s
address.Noothertrade-markwasmentionedontheinvoices(eitherinthebody,at
thetoporelsewhere).Finally,theinvoicesonlyreferredtotheproductsofasingle
manufacturer.
HearingOfficerPelletierfoundthatthesecircumstancesdidnotestablishuseofthe
trade-markHORTILUX.Ontheotherhand,JusticeRussellconcludedthatprioruse
hadbeenproven.TheFederalCourtofAppealagreedwithJusticeRusselland
referredtootherdecisionsoftheTrade-markOppositionBoardconfirmingthatthe
placementofatrade-markatthetopofaninvoicecouldberecognizedastrade-mark
useinassociationwithwares(GowlingLafleurHendersonLLPv.BulovaWatchCo.
(2006),51C.P.R.(4th)470;88766CanadaInc.v.Phillips,2008CarswellNat2206;
88766CanadaInc.v.TexinvestInc.,2008CarswellNat767;Messrs.Stewart
McKelveyStirlingScalesv.PeninsulaFarmLtd.,2006CarswellNat4228).

Theissueofatrade-markappearingonaninvoicehasalwaysbeenproblematicin
caselawbecauseaninvoicethatdoesnotaccompanywaressolddoesnotprovide
therequirednoticeofassociationundersection4(1)oftheTrade-marksAct.When
theinvoicedoesaccompanythewaressold,ithasbeenarguedthatwhileatrade-
markappearinginthebodyofaninvoice,nexttothedescriptionofthewaressold,
couldbedescribedasanacceptablenoticeofassociationbetweenthetrade-mark
andthewaresatissue,thepresenceofthetrade-markatthetopofaninvoicedoes
notprovidetherequirednoticeofassociation,especiallyifthereareothertrade-
marksmentionedinthebodyoftheinvoice,nexttothedescriptionofthewaressold.

Gradually,however,recentcaselawhaspermittedtorelyonatrade-markappearing
onthetopofaninvoice,incertaincircumstances,toestablishtrade-markuseunder
section4(1).Theevolutionofrecentcaselawisillustratedbythefollowingreasonsof
HearingOfficerSavardinthedecisionofMessrs.StewartMcKelveyStirlingScalesv.
PeninsulaFarmLtd.,2006CarswellNat4228(mentionedbytheFederalCourtof
Appealinitsownreasons):“Further,Ialsoacceptthatthedisplayofthetrade-mark
PENINSULAFARMatthetopofeachinvoicewouldalsobeperceivedasauseof
thetrade-markinassociationwiththewaresbeingsoldconsideringthattheregistrant

3
isthemanufacturerandthatnoothertrade-markappearsinassociationwiththe
waresbeingsold.FurtherIampreparedtoacceptthattheinvoiceswould
accompanythegoodsatthetimeofdeliveryconsideringtheregistrantistheentity
makingthedeliveries.Consequently,theinvoiceswouldalsoserveasnoticeofthe
associationbetweenthetrade-markandthewaresatthetimeoftransferofthewares
tothecustomers.”
Tradersthereforehaveaninterestindisplayinginaprominentfashiontheirtrade-
markatthetopoftheirinvoicesifalltheaboveconditionsarepresent.Suchpractice
couldthenallowatradertoestablishtrade-markuseinassociationwithitswares
sold,ifrequired.
TheFederalCourtofAppeal’sdecisionconfirmsthatatrade-markappearingonthe
topofaninvoicecanbereliedupontoestablishuseofatrade-markifsuchinvoice
accompaniesthewaressoldandthetrade-markinquestionisclearlylinkedtothe
wares.Forsuchafindingtobemade,thetrade-markmustclearlystandout.Finally,
noothertrade-markshouldbepresentontheinvoicetoavoidmuddlingthelink
betweenthetrade-markandthewares.

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

4
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;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)