Robic's Newsletter

CLICK FOR LEGAL NOTICE

Publications Back to the newsletter

Protecting Intellectual Property in a World Getting Smaller: The Treatment of Well Known Trade-Marks in Canada

1999-01-01

P
ROTECTINGINTELLECTUALPROPERTYINAWORLDGETTINGSMALLER:THE
TREATMENTOFWELLKNOWNTRADE-MARKSINCANADA

By
HuguesG.Richard*
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

Introduction:Fastercommunication,fasterflowofinformation.
1.Whatisawellknownreade-mark?
1.1Generalcriteriatodeterminewhenisatrade-markfamousorwell-known?
1.1.1TheDegreeofrecognitionandreputationacquiredbythemark.
1.1.2Extentanddurationofuse,publicityandadvertising.
1.1.3Geographicalrecognitionofthetrade-markandthetradingareawhere
themarkisused.
1.1.4Degreeofinherentoracquireddistinctivenessandthedegreeof
exclusivity.
1.1.5Commercialvalueofthemark.
1.2Famous/well-known:synonyms?
2.Therecognitionandprotectionofwellknowntrade-marksinCanada
2.1Supranationalandnationallaw
2.1.1Treaties
2.1.2WIPO
2.1.3INTA
2.1.4Canada
3.DiscussionofselectedCanadiancases
3.1OrkinExterminatingCo.Inc.v.PestcoofCanadaLtd.
3.1.1Summary
3.1.2Comment
3.2EntrepriseCarandTruckRentalsLtd.v.EnterpriseRent-A-CarCompany
3.2.1Summary
3.2.2Comment
3.3UnitedArtistsCorp.v.PinkPantherBeautyCorp.
3.3.1Summary
3.3.2Comment
3.4BaylorUniversityv.Hudson’sBayCo.
3.4.1Summary
3.4.2Comment

©LEGERROBICRICHARD,1999.*Lawyerandtrademarkagent,HuguesG.RichardisaseniorpartnerwiththelawfirmLEGER
ROBICRICHARD,g.p.andwiththepatentandagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Theresearchworkof
IsabelleThibaultisacknowledged.

4Conclusion
Bibliography
INTRODUCTION:Fastercommunication,fasterflowofinformation.
Asalawyer,whenIstartedmypractice,mostwrittencommunicationswith
clientsandcolleaguesweredonethroughmail.Inexceptionalcasesresort
wasmadetothetelexmachine.Inmyofficenoteveryoneknewhowto
operatethetelexmachine,wehadaspecialclerkwhosejobwastooperate
thatmachine.
Generally,whenaletterwassentbymailwecouldexpectnottohaveto
reopenthefilebeforethefollowingweekwhenaresponsewouldcomeback
bymail.
Thencamethefaxmachine,atfirstitwasusedsomewhatlikethetelex
machine,inexceptionalcases,especiallytoreachpeopleabroad.Then,the
usebecamemorefriendlytoapointwheretodaylettersaresentbyfaxeven
nextdoor.Nevertheless,whenusingthefax,aletterneedstobedictated,it
needstobetyped,itneedstobebroughttothefaxmachine.Undernormal
circumstances,wecouldexpectnottohavetoreopenthefilebeforetwoor
threedays.
Today,withtheincreasinguseofe-mailandtheInternet,amessageissent
andthereplycomesbackwithinminutesdirectlyfromthepersonthe
messageisaddressedtowithoutanytimelost.
Shortly,wewillhavenopaperfilestoreopenorclose,everythingwillbedone
electronically.
Whatwe,aslawyers,experimentinthisfastmovingworldistrueforeveryone.
Communicationofinformationisfasterandbetterthananyonecouldhave
dreamed10yearsago.ThepotentialoftheInternetandwhatitcanofferas
amediumtocarryinformationisyetunknown.Whatiscertainisthat
communicationofinformationontheInternetwillbeevenfasterandbetterin
yearstocome.
WhentelevisionwasintroducedinMontrealinthefifties,therewasone
channel,itwasbilingual,thenwehadtwochannels,oneEnglishspeaking,
theotherFrenchspeaking.Afterafewyears,twootherchannelswereadded
andformanyyearsitremainedthatway.WithcableTVaccesswasgivento
Americanchannels,maybe4orfive,todaywithsatelliteTVdishes,onecan

h
aveaccesstomorethanfiftychannels.Whatwillitbein10yearsfromnow,I
donotevenwanttoknow.Onethingissure,wewillnothavelesschannels.
Inthiscontext,trade-markshavenotescapedthefasttrackmovement,
trade-markssuchas”Viagra”becamefamousinCanadawithinafewdaysof
beingputonthemarketintheUSA.ItonlybecameavailableinCanadaa
fewweeksago,butcommunicationofinformationofallkindshadalready
madeitafamoustrade-markbeforeitcouldbesoldinCanada.

Hence,thepaperIwillbedeliveringyoutodaywilldiscusstodefinewhatand
whenisatrade-markconsideredtobewell-knownandhowhavethe
CanadianCourtsinterpretedandappliedthelawstoprotectprimarilythe
consumerpublicaswellastheownersofsucheconomicallyvaluable
intellectualpropertyknownaswell-knowntrade-marks.
2.WHATISAWELL-KNOWNTRADE-MARK?
ThereisnodefinitionintheTrade-MarksAct(R.S.C.1985,Ch.T-13,hereafter
referredtoastheAct)ofwhatconstitutesawell-knowntrade-mark.Section5
infinetalksofforeigntrade-markswhichhavebecome”well-known”in
Canada,butnowhereintheActisitsaidwhenatrade-markwillhave
becomewell-known.Toassistusindeterminingwhatconstitutesawell-known
trade-mark,itwillbeusefultorefertointernationalagreementswherein
memberstatessuchCanadahaveundertakentogranttoforeignwell-known
trade-markssomeprotection.Weassumethattheconceptof”well-known”
trade-marksintreatiestowhichCanadahasadheredisthesameasthe
conceptof”well-known”trade-marksfornationalpurposes.
Itmustfirstbesaidthattheprimaryfunctionofatrade-markistoindicatethe
originofthegoodsorservices,however,atrade-markisnolongermerelyan
indicatorofsourcebutisalsoameansofcommunication,amessagebearer,
acarrierofgoodwillandanasset.Althoughindicationoforiginisstillthe
primaryfunctionofatrade-mark,theexistenceoftheadditionalfunctionsno
longercanbeignored.
1Theymayrepresentthesurvivalordeathofa
companywhosegoodwillisitsmostvaluableasset.
1.1Generalcriteriatodeterminewhenisatrade-markfamousorwell-
known?

1SeeRoncaglia,P.L.,“Shouldweusegunsandmissilestoprotectfamoustrade-marksin
Europe?”(1996)86T.M.R.103.

T
heprotectionofforeignwell-knowntrade-markshasbeenintroducedinour
nationallegislationfollowingtreatyobligations.AsforCanadianwell-known
trade-marks,thebroaderscopeofprotectioncomesfromthejurisprudence
andsection6oftheActwhichrecognisesthattheextenttowhichatrade-
markhasbecomeknownisoneofthecriteriatotakeintoconsideration
whenevaluatingwhethertwotrade-marksareconfusing,whetherornotthe
waresorservicesareofthesamegeneralclass(seepara.6(2),(3),(4)and
(5)(a)).
WithrespecttoCanadastreatyobligations,referencecanbemadeto
article6bisoftheParisConvention,toarticle16oftheAgreementonTrade-
RelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights(TRIPSAgreement)andto
article1708(6)oftheNorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement(NAFTA),those
threearticlesreadasfollows:
Article6bisoftheParisConvention:
“(1)ThecountriesoftheUnionundertake,exofficioiftheirlegislation
sopermits,orattherequestofaninterestedparty,torefuseorto
canceltheregistration,andtoprohibittheuse,ofatrademark
whichconstitutesareproduction,animitation,oratranslation,
liabletocreateconfusion,ofamarkconsideredbythecompetent
authorityofthecountryofregistrationorusetobewellknownin
thatcountryasbeingalreadythemarkofapersonentitledtothe
benefitsofthisConventionandusedforidenticalorsimilargoods.
Theseprovisionsshallalsoapplywhentheessentialpartofthemark
constitutesareproductionofanysuchwell-knownmarkoran
imitationliabletocreateconfusiontherewith.”

Article16oftheTRIPSAgreement:
“1.Theownerofaregisteredtrademarkshallhavetheexclusive
righttopreventallthirdpartiesnothavinghisconsentfromusingin
thecourseoftradeidenticalorsimilarsignsforgoodsorservices
whichareidenticalorsimilartothoseinrespectofwhichthe
trademarkisregisteredwheresuchusewouldresultinalikelihoodof
confusion.Incaseoftheuseofanidenticalsignforidenticalgoods
orservices,alikelihoodofconfusionshallbepresumed.Therights
describedaboveshallnotprejudiceanyexistingpriorrights,nor
shalltheyaffectthepossibilityofMembersmakingrightsavailable
onthebasisofuse.

2.Article6bisoftheParisConvention(1967)shallapply,mutatis
mutandis,toservices.Indeterminingwhetheratrademarkiswell-

k
nown,accountshallbetakenoftheknowledgeofthetrademark
intherelevantsectorofthepublic,includingknowledgeinthat
Memberobtainedasaresultofthepromotionofthetrademark.

3.Article6bisoftheParisConvention(1967)shallapply,mutatis
mutandis,togoodsorserviceswhicharenotsimilartothosein
respectofwhichatrademarkisregistered,providedthatuseofthat
trademarkinrelationtothosegoodsorserviceswouldindicatea
connectionbetweenthosegoodsorservicesandtheownerofthe
registeredtrademarkandprovidedthattheinterestsoftheowner
oftheregisteredtrademarkarelikelytobedamagedbysuchuse.”
Article1708(6)ofNAFTA:

“Article6bisoftheParisConventionshallapply,withsuch
modificationsasmaybenecessary,toservices.Indetermining
whetheratrade-markiswell-known,accountshallbetakenofthe
knowledgeofthetrade-markintherelevantsectorofthepublic,
includingknowledgeintheParty’sterritoryobtainedasaresultof
promotionofthetrade-mark.NoPartymayrequirethatthe
reputationofthetrade-markextendbeyondthesectorofthe
publicthatnormallydealswiththerelevantgoodsorservices”.
WithrespecttoCanadiannationallegislation,referencecanbemadeto
differentsectionsoftheActdealingwith”themakingknown”oftrade-marks
inCanadasuchas:section3,section5,section6,para.16(1)(2)(3)(5)and
para.30(c).
ItmustbepresumedthatCanadadoesrespectitstreatyobligationsandthat
theprovisionsoftheActarecompatiblewiththeParisConvention,theTRIPS
AgreementandNAFTA.
Manyauthorshavewrittenonthissubject.Themostrecentandthorough
work(1997)dealingwithfamoustrade-marksistheworkofFrederickW.
Mostert
2.Inthatwork,DanielR.BereskinhaswrittenontheRecognitionand
ProtectionofFamousandWell-knownMarksinCanada.Thisworkis
authoritativeandmypaperhasgreatlybeeninfluencedbyit.
Thecriterialistedinthispaperdonotpretendtobeexhaustiveanddonotin
anywayrepresentacompletelistingofallpossiblecriteriathatmaybeused

2F.W.Mostert,FamousandWell-KnownMarks,aninternationalanalysis,(Toronto:
Butterworths,1997),at11.

i
nordertodetermineifatrade-markiswell-known.Herearesomeofthe
criteriagenerallyrecognisedbythecourtsandtheauthors.

2.1.1TheDegreeofrecognitionandreputationacquiredbythemark.
Thiscriterionreferstothedirectrecognitionofthemarkbythirdparties.The
recognition,bytherelevantsectorofthepublicofthemarkisthe
fundamentalattributeofafamousorwell-knownmark.
DanielR.Bereskininhispaper
3presentedatthe1995INTAmeetingtalks
aboutthedegreeofnotorietyandaskswhatistheprecisedegreeof
notorietythatisrequiredinordertoprovethatatrademarkhasbecome
“wellknown”inCanada?Theauthormentionsthatthereisverylittlecaselaw
onthesubjectoftherequireddegreeofmakingknownbutthatsomecases
suggestthatestablishingmakingknownisverydifficult,forexample,inWianv.
Mady,
4Mr.JusticeCattanachexpressedtheviewthatmakingknown
suggests:
“suchwellknowntrademarksas“Coca-Cola”,“Esso”,“Chevrolet”,
and“Frigidaire”,namesthatareseeninmagazineadvertisingin
homesineverypartofthecountry,orareheardorseenonradioor
ontelevisionineverypartofthecountry.”
Mr.JusticeCattanachindicatesthatinordertoprovemakingknown,a
trade-markmusthavebecomewell-knownacrossCanadaamongpotential
dealersorusersofthewaresorserviceswithwhichitisassociated.Atrade-
markcannotberegardedas”well-knowninCanada”whenknowledgeofitis
restrictedtoalocalareainCanada.Isthisstandardofmakingknownhigher
thanwhatisprovidedinarticle16(2)oftheTRIPSAgreementtowhich
Canadaisapartywhichrefersonlytoofthe”relevantsectorofthepublic”?
Couldsuch”relevantsectorofthepublic”berestrictedtoalocalareain
Canada?Isgeographyalimitingfactorunderarticle16(2)oftheTRIPS
Agreement?Thesamequestionscanbeaskedwithrespecttoarticle1708(6)
ofNAFTAwiththeadditionalcommentthatunderNAFTA,nopartymay
requirethatthereputationofthetrade-markextendbeyondthesectorofthe
publicthatnormallydealswiththerelevantgoodsorservices.
Now,thedegreeofreputationacquiredbyatrade-markmayrefertovarious
aspectsoftheproductsorservicesinvolved,oneofwhichbeingthequalityof

3D.R.Bereskin,“Theprotectionoffamousforeigntrade-marksinCanada”,117thInternational
Trade-markAssociationAnnualMeetingCoursebook,1995at187.
4[1965]2Ex.C.R.3.

t
heproductorservices,i.e.ROLEXforsuperiorqualitywatches,MONTBLANC
foroneofthemostrenownedqualityfountainpens,LouisVUITTONfor
expensiveleatherhandbags.Thefactthatamarksymbolisesaspecific
qualitymaybeparticularlyrelevantincasesundersection22oftheAct
wheredepreciationofgoodwillisalleged.Atrade-markmaybewell-known
inagivengeographicalareaofCanadasuchasaprovinceoraregionof
Canadaandnotwell-knownelsewhereinCanada.Suchatrade-markshould
beawardedabroadambitofprotectioninthegeographicalareawhereitis
well-know
5.
Anotherquestionisbywhomdoesthetrade-markneedtobewell-known?
Oneansweristobefoundagaininarticle16(2)oftheTRIPSAgreementi.e.,
therelevantsectorofthepublic.Therelevantsectorofthepublicwillvary
accordingwiththetypeofgoodsorservicesbeingdealtwith.Wesuggest
thattherelevantsectorofthepublicshouldbethosepersonswhonormally
dealwiththerelevantgoodsorservices.Thiswouldseemtobeafair
interpretationofarticle1708(6)ofNAFTA.Thesepersonswouldincludethose
whobuyorconsumethegoodsorservices,itcouldalsoincludeothers,such
aspersonswhorecommendthepurchaseorconsumptionofgivengoodsor
services,suchasphysicians,dentistsorpharmacistsforprescriptiondrugs
6.

2.1.2Extentanddurationofuse,publicityandadvertising.
Thevolumeofsalesduringpastyearsandtheirprogression,theamounts
spentonpublicityandpromotionareallelementstobeconsideredwhen
evaluatingwhetheratrade-markiswell-knownornot.Inthecaseofforeign
trade-marknotdistributedinCanada,section5oftheActrestrictsthetypeof
advertisingadmissibleasevidencetoprintedpublicationcirculatedin
Canadaintheordinarycourseofcommerceamongpotentialdealersinor
usersofthewaresorservices,orradiobroadcastsordinarilyreceivedin
Canadabypotentialdealersinorusersofthewaresorservices.Thiscouldbe
qualifiedas”spilloveradvertising”.
Withfastandwidespreadcommunication,atrade-markmaybecome
famousandwell-knownalmostovernightthroughmodernadvertisingand
advancedtechnology.However,morefrequently,amarkwillbecomewell-
knownwiththepassageoftimeandafterinvestmentsinmoney,timeand
effort.

5VallesSteakHousev.Tessier[1981]F.C.441,MarceauJ.6Ciba–GeigyCanadaLtd.v.ApotexInc.44C.P.R.(3d)289.Thiscaseisnotdirectlyonthe
pointbutitdiscuseswhoarethepersonspartofthepublictobemisleadinapassingoff
actionconcerningaprescriptiondrug.

2
.1.3Geographicalrecognitionofthetrade-markandthetradingarea
wherethemarkisused.
Thiscriteriagoeshandinhandwiththeextentofadvertisingandexposure
thatamarkmayenjoy.Atrade-markmaybewell-knowninpartsofCanada
andnotknowninotherparts.Thisisparticularlytruewiththetrade-markswell
knownintheprovinceofQuebecwhereforcultural,politicalandlanguage
reasonsthepeopleofQuebeccouldgivehighrecognitiontocertaintrade-
markswhicharenotknowntootherCanadians.Ontheotherhand,some
trade-marksnotyetusedinCanadabutusedinotherpartsoftheworldare
well-knowntotherelevantsectoroftheCanadianpublicbecauseofspill
overadvertisement.Thefactthatatrade-markiswellknowinotherpartof
theworldshouldnotbeignoredbyourcourtswhendeterminingwhetheror
notatrade-markdeservessomedegreeofprotectioninCanada.Thisis
particularlytrueoftrade-markswell-knownincountriessharingthesame
languages,similarcultures,similarconsumerhabitsorhavingphysical
proximitywithCanada.Alloftheseelementsmaytendtoshow,depending
onthecircumstances,thatthetrade-markisalsowell-knowninCanada.Ina
worldoffastcommunications,itisharderthanbeforetoconsiderCanadaas
isolatedfromforeigninfluencesandpropaganda.
ShouldParliamentamendpara.5(b)(i)tomakesureprintedpublicationswill
includecommunicationsbyInternet?Orwillthecourtsgivetothisparagraph
adynamicinterpretationandconsidertheInternetasamediumequivalent
toprintedpublications?Thesequestionsareopenfordebate,itishowever
surethattheInternetisapowerfulmeansofcommunicationwhichknowsno
boundariesandshouldnotbeignored.Televisionbroadcastswhicharenot
mentionedinpara.5(b)(ii)oftheActalsoposeaproblem.
“Section5referstoradiobroadcastsbutdoesnotrefertotelevision
broadcasts.Section5(b)(ii)previouslyreferredto”radiobroadcasts,
asdefinedintheRadioAct”.Itwasacceptedthattelevisionwas
includedin”radio”asdefinedintheRadioAct.Section5(b)(ii)has
beenamendedtoomitanyreferencetotheRadioAct.Itmightbe
arguedthattelevisionbroadcastsarenolongerincluded,butthere
seemstobenogoodreasonwhythatshouldbeso”
7.
3.1.4Degreeofinherentoracquireddistinctivenessandthedegreeof
exclusivity.

7TrademarkLawinCanada,Henderson,Carswellon”AcquisitionofTrade-markRights”by
DonaldH.MacOdrump.153.

D
istinctivenessrefersorpointsouttosomequalityinthetrade-markwhich
earmarksthegoodssomarkedasdistinctfromthoseofotherproducersof
suchgoods.
8Inherentdistinctivenessreferstomarkswhichareinvented,
arbitraryorcoinedsuchastheKODAKandXEROXbrandsandareinherently
distinctiveoftheproductstheyareaffixedto.Acquireddistinctivenessrefers
tomarkswhicharenotinherentlydistinctiveandwhichcouldbesuggestive
orcouldhavebeendescriptivebutbecamedistinctivepursuanttohaving
beenused(seepara12(2)oftheAct).Atrade-markwhichisnotinherently
distinctivebutwhichhasacquireddistinctivenessthroughuse,isgenerallya
trade-markwhichhascomealongway.Thisacquireddistinctivenessisproof
ofitsstrengthonthemarketplaceandforthatreason,itmaydeservea
widerambitofprotection.
However,afamouscoinedtrade-marksuchas”KODAK”,maymoreeasily
obtainprotectionagainstuseofanidenticalorsimilartrade-mark,evenifthe
waresorservicesusedinassociationtherewitharedifferent.Thescopeofthis
protectionwilldependonmanyfactors,oneofwhichistheextenttowhich
thecoinedtrade-markhasbecomeknown.Ontheotherhand,itmaynotbe
aseasyforafamoussuggestivemarkorafamousdescriptivemarkwhichhas
acquireddistinctivenesstoachievethesameresult.Itmayencountermore
difficultytoobtainprotectionbeyondthescopeoftheclassesofwaresand
servicesinassociationwithwhichithasbeenused.
Exclusivityisanotherfactorwhichisintimatelylinktothedistinctivenessofa
trade-mark.Somewordsareusedbydifferentownersastrade-marksfor
differentwaresandservices;e.g.thetrade-markDELTAforwhichthereare
309entriesontheTrade-MarksRegister,manyofwhichinreferenceto
differentowners.Thefactofhavingmorethanonetrade-markusingagiven
expressionopensthedoortootherstodothesame.Itis,undersuch
circumstancesverydifficulttopreventtheuseofanidenticalorsimilartrade-
markifthetrade-markisalreadyusedbymanyowners.Conversely,anowner
whohaspolicedtheusebyothersofhistrade-markandhasbeenableto
keeptheexclusivityoftheuseofagivenexpressionashistrade-mark,willbe
inamuchbetterpositiontopreventthirdpartyuseofhistrade-mark.
Thestrengthofthemarkisobviouslyitsdistinctiveness,i.e.acombinationof
vowels,syllablesandsoundwhichhasaninherentqualitythatconjuresa
directassociationnotonlywiththespecificwareswhichmightotherwisebe

8Fox,H.G.,TheCanadianLawofTradeMarksandUnfairCompetition,(Toronto:Carswell),
1972,at25.

l
istedinthemark’sregistration,butwiththeproprietaryimageofallthe
diverseoperationsofitsowner
9.
1.1.5Commercialvalueofthemark.
Insomecases,theeconomicvalueplacedonamarkcouldbereflectiveof
itsreputationandfame.Ifthemarkisworthbillionssolelyasintellectual
propertyassetsasisthecaseofCoca-ColaandMarlborobrands,itbecomes
difficulttopretendsamearenotveryfamous.However,thiscriterionis
impossibletodefineasitisunthinkabletoplaceaminimumvalueatwhich
trade-markmustbeevaluatedinordertobeconsideredfamousorwell-
known.Therearedifferentmethodsusedtoevaluatetrade-marksbutuntila
trade-markisactuallysoldinanarmslengthtransaction,anyevaluationofa
trade-markshouldbesubjecttocaution.
1.2Famous/well-known:synonyms?
Famous,well-known,verywell-known,highlyrenowned,highlyreputed,
exceptionallywell-knownandnotoriousareonlysomeoftheadjectivesused
toqualifyatrade-mark.Thesemanyadjectivesseemtobeusedwithno
particularorderinthelegislation,doctrineandjurisprudence.Are-theyonly
synonymsusedbycreativewritersordotheyactuallypossessadistinctive
andfundamentalmeaning?
TheadjectivesbelowhavethefollowingmeaningaccordingtoTheCollins
EnglishDictionary:
10
·Famous:Knowntoorrecognisedbymanypeople;renowned.
·Well-known:Widelyknown;famous;celebrated.
·Notorious:Generallyknownorwidelyacknowledged.
·Renowned:Widespreadreputation,esp.ofagoodkind;fame.
·Reputation:Theestimationinwhichapersonorthingisgenerallyheld;
opinion.Ahighopiniongenerallyheldaboutapersonor
thing;esteem.Notorietyorfame,esp.forsomespecified
characteristics.

9PolysorLtd.v.GescoDistributingLtd.(1985),6C.P.R.(3d)289(F.C.T.D.)at298-9,citedwith
approvalbyMcDonaldJ.inUnitedArtistsv.PinkPanther(1998),80C.P.R.(3d)247at273.
10CollinsDictionaryoftheEnglishLanguage,2nded.(Glasgow:WilliamCollins&SonsCo.Ltd,
1986).

M
anyauthorshaveattemptedtomakedistinctionsbetweenthesedifferent
adjectivesofqualifications.Theyhavewrittenlongdissertationsonthesubject
onlytocometotheconclusionthattheyhavenospecificmeaningand
meanbasicallythesamething.TheParisConvention,theTRIPSAgreement,
GATTandtheActspeakofwell-knowntrade-marks,ifanything,thisexpression
seemstobe,fromalegalpointofview,preferable.
AnauthorfromFrancereferstothefollowingdistinctionsbetween“well-
known”and“famous”marks:(1)The“well-known”brandproper,whichisa
“trademarkrecognisedbyalargefractionofthecircleconcernedwiththe
production,saleoruseofthegoodsinquestionandwhichisclearly
perceivedasindicatingaparticularoriginofthesegoods”and(2)The
“famous”(renommée)or“veryfamous”(dehauterenommée)brandwhich
would,sotospeak,beatrademarkknowninternationallyorworld-wide.”Itis
submittedthattodefineeither“famous”or“well-known”marksalongthe
linesthattheyareknowndomesticallyorinternationallyisaredherringwhich
canonlyservetoincreaseconfusion.Thegeographicalextentofamark’s
reputationisafactualdeterminationwhichwilldifferfromcasetocase.Both
“famous”aswellas“well-known”marksmaybeknowneitherinthedomestic
jurisdictiononlyorinanumberofcountriesthroughouttheworld(i.e.
internationally).Themoreappropriateenquiryseemstobewhetherthe
particularmarkis“famous”or“well-known”inthejurisdictionwherereliefis
soughttoqualifyfortherelevantprotectiongrantedto“famous”markson
non-competinggoodsorservicesontheonehandand“well-known”marks
withareputationbutnouseinrelationtosimilargoodsorservicesonthe
other.Itisalsosuggestedthatthedichotomybetween“famous”and“well-
known”marksissufficientandthatanyfurtherpermutationsonthedegrees
ofreputationrequiredwouldbesuperfluous.
11
Thisattemptasotherattemptstodistinguishwell-knowntrade-marksfrom
famoustrade-marksisarelativefailure.Article16(3)oftheTRIPSAgreement
speakingofawell-knowntrade-mark(andnotofafamoustrade-mark)says
thatitshouldbeprotectedagainstuseinassociationwithgoodsorservices
whicharenotsimilartothoseinrespectofwhichthetrade-markisregistered.
ItwouldseemthattheauthorsoftheTRIPSAgreementdidnotknowofthe
theoryproposedabove,sincetheyusetheexpression”well-known”marksin
relationtomarkswhichshouldbeprotectedbeyondtheclassesofgoodsor
servicesinassociationwithwhichthe”well-known”marksareused.

11SeeAndréBertrand(1993)”FrenchTradeMarkLaw:FromtheWell-KnowntotheFamous
Brand”,4EIPR142.

4
.THERECOGNITIONANDPROTECTIONOFWELL-KNOWNTRADE-MARKS
INCANADA.

2.1SupranationalandNationalLaw:

2.1.1T
REATIES
TheParisConventionfortheProtectionofIntellectualPropertyisthebasisfor
theworld’slegislationontheprotectionofwell-knownmarksandsameis
foundinArticle6bisoftheParisConvention.
Thisarticledoesnotprovideanydefinitionorcriteriaforestablishingwhich
trade-markiswell-knownandwhichisnot.
TheTRIPSAgreementformspartoftheGeneralAgreementonTariffsand
Trade(GATT)andrecognisesthewell-knowntrade-markdoctrine.More
specifically,theTRIPSAgreementispartoftheFinalActEmbodyingthe
ResultsoftheUruguayRoundofMultilateralTradeNegotiations(Uruguay
GATT)onwhichagreementwasreachedinDecember1993.
Article16(3)oftheTRIPSAgreementextendstheprovisionsofarticle6bisof
theParisConvention(1967)sothattheywillapplytogoodsorserviceswhich
arenotsimilartothoseinrespectofwhichawell-knowntrade-markis
registered,providedthattheuseofthattrade-markinrelationtothosegoods
orserviceswouldindicateaconnectionbetweenthosegoodsorservices
andtheownerofthewell-knownregisteredtrade-markandprovidedthat
theinterestsoftheownerofthewell-knownregisteredtrade-markarelikelyto
bedamagesbysuchuse.
Article16(3)oftheTRIPSAgreementhasnodirectlegalforceinCanada.It
createsanobligationonthegovernmentofCanadatoadoptlegislation
whichcomplieswiththeprovisionsoftheAgreement,thereisnoneedto
adoptnewlegislationifthealreadyexistinglegislationcomplieswiththe
Agreement.Itissubmittedthatourlegislationwhichhasnotbeenamended
inthatregardpursuanttothesigningoftheTRIPSAgreementhadalreadythe
flexibilityneededtocomplywiththeprovisionsoftheAgreement.Paragraph
6(2),(3)and(4)alreadyprovidedthattherecouldexistconfusionbetween
twotrade-marksandatrade-markandatrade-name,whetherornotthe
waresorserviceswereofthesamegeneralclass.Article16(3)oftheTRIPS
Agreementsimplyputsmoreemphysisonthisaspectofsection6oftheAct
whichseemsnottohavealwaysbeenfullytakenintoconsiderationbyour
courts.

A
rticle16(3)oftheTRIPSAgreementaddstwoelementswhichtheActdoes
notspecificallydealwith,i.e.thattherehastobeanindicationofa
connectionbetweenthegoodsorservicessoldbytheallegedtrespasserand
theowneroftheregisteredtrade-mark.Furthermore,theregisteredowner
musthavesuffereddamagesbysuchuse.Thesetwoelementsarenot
incompatiblewiththeActandshouldbeconsideredtobeimplicitlyincluded
intheprovisionsofsection6asfurthersurroundingcircumstancestowhichthe
courtortheRegistrarshouldhaveregardto.
NorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement(“NAFTA”),article1708(6)expressly
incorporatesArticle6bisoftheParisConventionandisotherwiseverysimilar
toarticle16(3)oftheTRIPSAgreement.
Accordingtoarticle1708(6)ofNAFTA,inordertodetermineifatrade-markis
well-knowninCanada,onemusttakeintoconsiderationtheknowledgeof
thosepersonswhonormallydealwiththegoodsorservicesinquestionin
Canada,includingtheknowledgetheyhaveobtainedasaresultof
promotionofthetrade-mark.
ItmustbetakenintoconsiderationthatNAFTAandTRIPSprovisionsrepresent
theminimumstandardsrequiredofthesigningpartiesfortheprotectionof
intellectualproperty.Canadacouldbylegislationlimittherecognitionor
knowledgetoanevensmallergroupofpersons,suchas:manufacturersor
wholesalers,butcouldnotexpandtherecognitiontothepublicatlarge.
2.1.2WIPO
WIPO(theWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganisation)in1995conveneda
meetingofexpertstodiscussthecreationofaninternationalregisterofwell-
knowntrade-marks.
Atsuchmeeting,manycountriesshowedtheirdisagreementwiththeideaof
settingupanInternationalRegisterforwell-knownmarkshowever,apositive
responsewasgiventotheestablishingofguidelinesandcriteriatodetermine
ifamarkisornotwell-known
12.
Article2oftheDraftProvisionsestablishestheconditionsofprotectionand
readasfollows:

12ExtractsfromWIPODraftProvisionsonWell-KnownMarksreproducedfromMostert,F.W.,
FamousandWell-KnownMarks,at597.

(
1)Forthepurposesofdeterminingwhetheramarkistobeprotectedasa
well-knownmark,registrationoruseofthemarkin,orinrespectof,the
territoryinwhichitistobeprotectedasawell-knownmarkmaynotbe
required.
(2)Forthepurposesofdeterminingwhetheramarkistobeprotectedasa
well-knownmark,itshallsufficethatthemarkbewell-knownbythe
relevantsectorofthepublicintheterritoryinwhichitistobeprotectedas
awell-knownmark.
(3)Forthepurposesofdeterminingwhetheramarkistobeprotectedasa
well-knownmark,atleastthefollowingshallbetakenintoaccount:
(i)thepotentialcustomersofthegoodsand/orservicestowhichthe
markapplies;
(ii)thechannelsofdistributionofthegoodsand/orservicestowhich
themarkapplies;
(iii)theduration,extent,andgeographicalareaofanyuseofthemark;
(iv)theduration,extent,andgeographicalareaofanyadvertisingof
themark;
(v)themarketshare,intheterritoryinwhichthemarkistobeprotected
asawell-knownmarkandinotherterritories,ofthegoodsand/or
servicestowhichthemarkapplies.
Article3oftheDraftProvisionsestablishesthecontentsofprotectionand
readsasfollows:
1.(a)Theprotectionofawell-knownmarkshallbegrantedagainstanymark
orotherbusinessidentifierwhichisinconflictwiththewell-knownmark.
(b)Amarkorotherbusinessidentifiershallbedeemedtobeinconflict
withawell-knownmarkwherethatmarkorotherbusinessidentifier,oran
essentialpartthereof,constitutesareproduction,animitationora
translation,liabletocreateconfusion,ofthewell-knownmarkandisused,
filedforregistrationorregisteredinrespectofgoodsand/orserviceswhich
areidenticalorsimilartothosegoodsand/orservicestowhichthewell-
knownmarkapplies.
(c)Notwithstandingsubparagraph(b),amarkorotherbusinessidentifier
shallalsobedeemedtobeinconflictwithawell-knownmarkwherethat
markorotherbusinessidentifier,oranessentialpartthereof,constitutesa
reproduction,animitationoratranslation,liabletocreateconfusion,of
thewell-knownmarkandisused,filedforregistrationorregisteredin
respectofgoodsand/orserviceswhicharenotidenticalorsimilar

(
“dissimilargoodsand/orservices”)tothosetowhichthewell-knownmark
applies,whereatleastoneofthefollowingconditionsapplies:
(i)useinrelationtodissimilargoodsand/orserviceswouldindicate
aconnectionbetweentheownerofthewell-knownmarkand
thosegoodsand/orservices;
(ii)useinrelationtodissimilargoodsand/orservicesislikelytoimpair
thedistinctivecharacterofthewell-knownmark;
(iii)useinrelationtodissimilargoodsand/orserviceswouldtake
unfairadvantageofthedistinctivecharacterofthewell-known
markorisotherwiselikelytodamagetheinterestsoftheownerof
thesaidmark.
2.1.3INTA
TheInternationalTrade-markAssociation’s(“INTA”)ResolutiononWell-known
MarkswasadoptedonSeptember18,1996.
ThisResolutionfirstdescribesthesituationoftheprotectionofwell-known
marksintheworld,suchasthelackofconsistencyintheirprotection,the
impositionofuserequirementsincertainjurisdictions,theexistenceofpublic
deceptionandcommercialdishonesty,theriskthatacompanymaybe
precludedfromdoingbusinessunderitsownmarkincertainjurisdictions
becauseofpiracy,thefactthatmanycountriesdonotextendsufficient
protectiontowell-knownmarksandthewideapplicationofdifferentand
conflictingcriteriafordeterminingwhatconstitutesawell-knownmark.
TheResolutionthengoesontoresolvethatINTAendorsestheprotectionof
well-knownmarkswithoutrequiringregistrationand/oractualuseintheform
ofsalesofgoodsorservicesbearingthemarkinthejurisdictioninquestionif
suchmarkhassufficientlocalreputationtobeconsidered“well-known”.
INTA’sResolutionfinallyliststhecriteriathataretobeconsideredinorderto
determineifamarkiswell-known,sameareasfollows:
(a)Theamountoflocalorworldwiderecognitionofthemark;
(b)Thedegreeofinherentoracquireddistinctivenessofthemark;
(c)Thelocalorworldwidedurationofuseandadvertisingofthemark;
(d)Thelocalorworldwidecommercialvalueattributedtothemark;
(e)Thelocalorworldwidegeographicalscopeoftheuseand
advertisingofthemark;
(f)Thelocalorworldwidequalityimagethatthemarkhasacquired;
(g)Thelocalorworldwideexclusivityofuseandregistrationattainedby
themark,andthepresenceorabsenceofidenticalorsimilarthird

p
artymarksvalidlyregisteredfororusedonidenticalorsimilargoods
orservices.

2.1.4CANADA
Now,theCanadiannationallegalprovisionstobeconsideredareSections5,
6and7(b)oftheTrade-marksAct.Samereadasfollows:

Section5.Atrade-markisdeemedtobemadeknowninCanadabya
persononlyifitisusedbythatpersoninacountryoftheUnion,other
thanCanada,inassociationwithwaresorservices,and
(a)thewaresaredistributedinassociationwithitinCanada,or
(b)thewaresorservicesareadvertisedinassociationwithitin
(i)anyprintedpublicationcirculatedinCanadaintheordinarycourseof
commerceamongpotentialdealersinorusersofthewaresorservices,
or
(ii)radiobroadcastsordinarilyreceivedinCanadabypotentialdealers
inorusersofthewaresorservices,
andithasbecomewellknowninCanadabyreasonofthedistributionor
advertising.
Section3oftheActsaysthatatrade-markisdeemedadoptedinCanadaif
itis,interalia,madeknowninCanada.Section5oftheActdefineshowa
markisdeemed“madeknown”inCanada.Thissectionrestrictstheproofsto
advertisinganddistribution.Now,theinternationalconventionsdonotlimit
theproofofthe“makingknown”ofamarktosolelyadvertisingand
distribution.Section5oftheActistoonarrowandshouldbeamended.As
Bereskinmentions,theimportantconsiderationiswhetherthemarkiswell-
knowntothepublic,nothowthetrade-markbecamewell-known.
13
Furthermore,aswehaveseenabovefromthetextsofTRIPSandNAFTA,the
“public”towhichamarkisawellknowndoesnotrefertothepopulationof
Canadaasawholebutonlythe“relevantsectorofthepublic”.Thisisan
importantfactortobeconsideredineachandeverycaseinorderforwell-
knownmarkstoobtaintheprotectiontheydeserveinCanadaandalsofor
CanadatocomplywithitsTreatyobligationsconcerningwell-knownmarks.
Paragraph6(2).Theuseofatrade-markcausesconfusionwithanother
trade-markiftheuseofbothtrade-marksinthesameareawouldbe
likelytoleadtotheinferencethatthewaresorservicesassociatedwith
thosetrade-marksaremanufactured,sold,leased,hiredorperformed

13SeeBereskin117thINTAAnnualMeetingCoursebook,1995atp.219.

b
ythesameperson,whetherornotthewaresorservicesareofthe
samegeneralclass.
Paragraph6(5).Indeterminingwhethertrade-marksortrade-namesare
confusing,thecourtortheRegistrar,asthecasemaybe,shallhave
regardtoallsurroundingcircumstancesincluding;
(a)theinherentdistinctivenessofthetrade-marksortrade-namesand
theextenttowhichtheyhavebecomeknown;

Section7.Nopersonshall
(b)directpublicattentiontohiswares,servicesorbusinessinsuchaway
astocauseorbelikelytocauseconfusioninCanada,atthetimehe
commencedsotodirectattentiontothem,betweenhiswares,services
orbusinessandthewares,servicesorbusinessofanother.
Paragraph7(b)oftheActisconsideredtobeabroadcodificationof
commonlaw’stortofpassing.
5.DISCUSSIONOFSELECTEDCANADIANCASES:
3.1OrkinExterminatingCo.Inc.v.PestcoofCanadaLtd.
14
3.1.1SUMMARY
AU.S.companynamedOrkinExterminatingCompanyoperatesinmost
states,includinganumberontheCanadianborder.Ithascustomersin
CanadawhouseitsservicesfortheirAmericanresidences.Orkinhasnotyet
commenceddoingbusinessinCanadabutintendstodoso.Orkinhasan
outstandingreputation,itadvertisesextensivelyintheUnitedStates;
CanadianstravellingintheU.S.canseeitstrucksonwhichappearstheOrkin
trade-mark.OrkinsadvertisingonradioandtelevisionisreceivedinCanada.
ThedefendantPestcolisteditsbusinessinthealphabeticalandYellowPages
underthenameOrkin.Itfiledadeclarationofintentiontocarryonbusinessin
thenameOrkin.CustomerswhocalledOrkinhadtheirbusinesslookedafter
byPestcoemployees.ItattemptedtoadopttheOrkinnameinared
diamondasalogo.
ThedefendantsubmitsthatanygoodwillinCanadainthenameOrkin
belongstoPestcoandastheplaintiffhasnotcarriedonbusinessinCanada,
itdoesnothaveanygoodwillwhichthecourtcanprotect.

14(1985)5C.P.R.(3d)433(Ont.C.A.).

T
heOntarioCourtofAppealdismissedtheappealandfoundinfavourof
Orkin.EventhoughtheplaintiffdidnotcarryonbusinessinCanada,itdid
haveareputationinCanadawhichdeservedtobeprotected.TheCourtof
Appealwrote:
“ThespectrofOrkinhavingamonopolyinOntarioinitsnameand
distinctivelogo,eventhoughitisnotnowcarryingonbusinesshere,is
considerablylesstroublingthanthedeceptiveuseofitsnameand
symbolbyanother”.
15
3.1.2COMMENT
TheOrkincsasecouldbequalifiedasalandmarkcase,sinceitisthefirstcase
whereanon-residentpartywasabletoobtainaninjunctioninapassingoff
actionwithouthavingestablisheduseofitstrade-markinCanadaorwithout
havingestablishedthatitstrade-markwaswell-knowninCanadabyreason
ofthedistributionoradvertisingofitswaresorservicespursuanttosection5of
theAct.
3.2EntrepriseCarandTruckRentalsLtd.v.EnterpriseRent-A-Car
Company
16
3.2.1SUMMARY
ThisisadecisionoftheFederalCourtofAppealconfirmingajudgement
renderedin1996bytheTrialDivisionwhichdecidedoftwoactionsfor
“passing-off”unders.7(b)oftheActconcerningtheuseoftheunregistered
trade-markENTERPRISEforcarandtruckrentalandleasingservices.
17
ThecomplaintinEnterprisewasbasedons.7(b)oftheActsincetheFederal
Courthasjurisdictiononlyinrespectoffederalstatutesandnotcommonlaw.
Theplaintiff(“EnterpriseUS”)hadestablishedasuccessfulchainof
automobilerentallocationsthroughtheUnitedStates.EnterpriseUShadmany
Canadiancustomerswhorentedorleasedautomobilesduringtripstothe
UnitedStates,andhadgrantedsomeleasesforautomobilesthatwere
operatedinCanada.Thecourtfoundthatthedefendant,theownerofa

15(1985)5C.P.R.(3d)433(Ont.C.A.).16(1996)66C.P.R.(3d)453(F.C.T.D.).17S.J.Keri,“Canada:DeemingClausesintheTrade-markActConfirmedasInterpretation
ToolsonlyinPassingOffAction”,(1998)INTABulletin,August5,Vol.53,No.14,p.3.

c
hainofautomobilerentalcompaniesinCanada,haddeliberatelyadopted
theplaintiff’strade-markwiththeintentionofdivertingcompetition.This
appreciationofthefactsappearstohavebeenafactorwhichthecourt
tookintoconsiderationinmakingitsdetermination.Thetrialjudgecitedwith
approvalastatementfromRestatementoftheLawofTortsasfollows:
“Ifheimitatestheother’strade-markortradenameknowinglyand
actsinotherwaystoconveytheimpressionthathisbusinessis
associatedwiththeother,theinferencemayreasonablybedrawn
thatthereareprospectivecustomerstobemisled.”
18
3.2.2COMMENT
InfindingforEnterpriseUS,thecourtexpresslyrejectedthedefendant’s
submissionthatintheabsenceofactualuseinCanada,aforeignplaintiff
cannotrelyons.7(b)unlesstheplaintiffisabletoprovethatthemarkhas
become“well-known”withinthemeaningofs.5oftheAct,i.e.well-known
acrossCanada.
3.3UnitedArtistsCorp.v.PinkPantherBeautyCorp.
19
3.3.1SUMMARY
InPinkPantherBeautyCorporationv.UnitedArtistsCorporation,theFederal
CourtofAppealconcludedthatPinkPantherBeautyCorporation’s
applicationtoregisterthetrade-mark“PinkPanther”inassociationwithhair
careandbeautysupplieswasnotconfusingwithUnitedArtistsCorporation’s
registeredmark“ThePinkPanther”inassociationwithmotionpicturefilms.
Inthiscase,therespondentfirstopposedtheapplicationtoregisterthetrade-
markPinkPantherbeforetheRegistrar.TheRegistrarfoundtherewasno
confusionbetweenappellant’sandrespondent’smarkssincethe
respondent’smarkwasnotawell-knownmarkinCanadaandeachmark
wasusedondissimilarproducts.
IntheappealbeforetheTrialDivision,theRegistrar’sdecisionwasoverturned.
TheTrialJudgefoundthattherewasindeedalikelihoodofconfusionand
thattheappellant’smarkwouldbeconfusedinthemindoftheaverage
consumerwiththatoftherespondent’s.TheTrialJudgefoundthe
respondent’smarktobefamousandtherebyworthyofawideambitof

18(1996),66C.P.R.(3d)453at478.19(1998)80C.P.R.(3d)247(F.C.A.).

p
rotection.Thiswideambitofprotection,intheTrialDivisionjudge’smind
extendedwellbeyondmotionpicturefilmstoincludetheappellant’sbeauty
andhaircareproducts.TheTrialDivision’sdecisionwasappealedandinan
interestingsplitdecision,theFederalCourtofAppealoverturnedtheTrial
Judge’sdecision,holdingtherewasnolikelihoodofconfusionbasedonthe
differenceinthenatureofthewaresassociatedwiththemarksbut
recognisedthatindeedtheregisteredtrade-markThePinkPantherwasa
famousmark.
ThemajorityopinionwasrenderedbyLindenJ.A..LindenJ.A.referstotheline
ofthinkinginBerryBros.&RuddLtd.v.PlantaTabak-ManufacturDr.(1980),53
C.P.R.(2d)130(F.C.T.D.),whereitwasstatedthataconnectionbetweenthe
waresandservices,inthiscasescotchwhiskyandpipetobacco,maylead
consumerstopresumethattheproducerofCuttySarkTobaccowasthe
sameastheproducerofCuttySarkWhisky
20.Thiswasfurtherdevelopedinthe
Seagram’scase.SeagramRealEstateLtd.wishedtoregisteratrade-mark
usingthetitleSeagramRealEstateLtd.alongwithadesignedlogo.TheTrial
Judgefoundthatthevarioustrade-markregisteredbytheopponent,the
well-knownliquorproducercalledSeagram’s,allincorporatedtheword
Seagram,wereveryfamous.Nevertheless,thisdidnotautomaticallyresultin
protectionofthatmark“overeveryconceivablefieldofactivity”(emphasis
added).Hestated:

“Inmyview,unlessintheirover-allassessmentIshouldconclude
thereislikelihoodofconfusion,theappellant’smarksarenot
entitledtoextendedprotectionsimplybecausetheyhavebecome
well-known,indeedfamous,inassociationwiththemanufacture
andsaleofalcoholicbeverages”.[supraat466.]
Thecourtfoundthisconclusiontobeconsonantwiththeoverallpurposeof
theAct,whichistoprovidetheregisteredownerofatrade-markwithits
exclusiveuseinassociationwithspecifiedwaresandservices
21.
TheTrialJudgeintheSeagramcasewentontosaythat:
“UndertheTrade-markActthecorrespondenceoftheclassesof
goodsorservicesinassociationwithwhichthedisputedtrademark
isusedisnolongerthevitalquestionitoncewas.Itisoneofthe
matterstobetakenintoconsiderationwiththeotherfactorssetout
ins.6.Nevertheless,someregardmustbehadtotheclassofgoods
orservicestowhichthemarkisapplied,anditisstillpertinent

2037,(1998)80C.P.R.(3d)247(F.C.A.)at266.21(1998)80C.P.R.(3d)247(F.C.A.)at266.

w
hetherthegoodsarecheaporexpensiveandwhethertheyare
purchasedquicklyoraftercarefulconsideration.
22
LindenJ.A.furtheranalysedthecaseofPlayboyEnterprises,Inc.v.Germain
23,
wheretheapplicantGermainwantedtoregisterPLAYBOYMEN’SHAIRSTYLIST
forservicesdefinedas“unsalondecoiffurepourhommes.”Inthiscase,
MarceauJ.upheldthedecisionoftheRegistrarthatthisproposedmarkwas
notconfusingwiththeopponent’smarkPLAYBOY,usedinrelationto
magazines.Hestated:
“Indealingwiththesefactsandtheevidenceasawhole,the
Registrarfoundnothingthereinthatcouldbetakenasestablishing
anyreputationorinvolvementonthepartoftheappellantwith
servicessimilarorrelatedtothoseoftherespondent.Therewasno
proofwhatsoeverofanyuse,ormakingknown,oftheopponent’s
trademarkPLAYBOYinassociationwithbarberingorhairdressing
servicesinCanadaatanytimepriortotheapplicant’sadoptionof
histrademark”.
24
LindenJ.A.wentontosaythatthefactthattheopponent’smarkwasworld-
renownedcouldnotbeafactorsoimportantastomakethedifferencesin
waresandservicesirrelevant.InanothercaseinvolvingPlayboyEnterprises,
thatcompanywasalsounsuccessfulinpreventingtheregistrationofthe
trade-markPLAYBOYforuseinassociationwithautomobiletires.Fameisnot
everything,apparently.Itispossibletouseafamousmarkforadifferent
productinadifferentcontextwithoutinfringing.
25
LindenJ.A.clearlyacceptedthatThePinkPantherisafamousandinherently
distincttrade-mark.HehadnodoubtthatThePinkPantherisafamousand
strongtrade-mark.Ifitdoesnothaveinherentdistinctiveness,thenitcertainly
hasacquiredgreatdealofdistinctivenessinthethirtyyearsorsothatithas
beenpartofpopularculture.However,theissuetobedecidedisnothow
famousthemarkis,butwhetherthereislikelihoodofconfusioninthemindof
theaverageconsumerbetweenUnitedArtists’markandtheoneproposed
bytheappellantwithrespecttothegoodsandservicesspecified.That
questionmustbeansweredbythenegative.Thereisnolikelihoodof
confusionastothesourceoftheproducts.Thekeyfactoristhegaping
divergenceinthenatureofthewaresandinthenatureofthetrade.

22(1998)80C.P.R.(3d)247(F.C.A.)at266.23(1979)39C.P.R.(2d)32(F.C.T.D.).24(1998)80C.P.R.(3d)247(F.C.A.)at267.25Ibidpp267-268.

S
hampooisnotsoldinmovietheatresorvideostoresandvideosarenot
availableinbeautyparlours.
26
ThedissentingopinionwasrenderedbyJusticeMcDonald.Itisastrong
opinion.Hestatesthatitispreciselybecauseofthefameandgoodwill
associatedwiththenamePinkPantherthattheAppellanthaschosenthat
nameforitsbusiness.WhattheAppellantseekstodoisprofitfinanciallyfrom
thegoodwillassociatedwiththeRespondent’stradename.TheAppellant
anticipatesthattheaverageconsumerwillassociateitsproductswiththe
namePinkPantherandbemoreapttobuythem.Tocometoanyotherresult
inthecaseofsuchafamousandwidespreadtradenameasthePink
Panther,inthedissentingjudgesopinion,tipsthebalancetoofarinfavourof
thecopycatartistseekingtoprofitfinanciallyfromsomeoneelse’screative
fortune.
27
Subsection6(2)oftheActsetsoutwhentrade-marksortradenamesare
confusing.Itprovidesthat:Theuseofatrademarkcausesconfusionwith
anothertrade-markiftheuseofbothtrade-marksinthesameareawouldbe
likelytoleadtotheinferencethatthewaresorservicesassociatedwiththose
trade-marksaremanufactured,sold,leased,hired,orperformedbythesame
person,whetherornotthewaresorservicesareofthesamegeneralclass.
28
Thefactorstobeconsideredwhenmakingadeterminationastowhetheror
notatrade-markisconfusingarefoundinsubsection6(5)oftheAct.These
are:(a)theinherentdistinctivenessofthetrade-markortrade-namesandthe
extenttowhichtheyhavebecomeknown;(b)thelengthoftimethetrade-
markortrade-nameshavebeeninuse;(c)thenatureofthewares,services
orbusiness;(d)thenatureofthetrade;and,(e)thedegreeofresemblance
betweenthetrade-markortrade-namesinappearanceorsoundorinthe
ideassuggestedbythem.Theonusisontheapplicanttoshownoreasonable
likelihoodofconfusion.
29
OneexampleofconfusionfounddespiteadissimilarsettingistheCarsonv.
Reynolds
30casewhereMahoneyJ.foundthattheuseofthemark“Here’s
Johnny”forportabletoilets,outhousesandlavatoryfacilitieswouldsuggestto
a“significantnumberofpeopleinCanada,aconnectionwiththe
Appellant.”TheAppellant,ofcourse,wasJohnnyCarsonfromtheTonight
Show.
31

26Ibidpp.268-269.27ibidpp271-272.28Ibidpp272-273.29Ibidp273.30(1980)49C.P.R.(2d)57(F.C.T.D.)31(1998)80C.P.R.(3d)247(F.C.A.)at274.

S
imilarly,inDanjaqS.A.v.Zervas
32,LutfyJ.refusedtoallowtheregistrationof
thetrademarks007,007PIZZA&SUBSDesignand007SUBMARINE&Designon
thegroundthatitmightleadtoconfusionwiththeRespondent’strademark
intheJamesBondcharacteragent007.InthatcaseLutfyJ.extensively
reviewedthelawsurroundingtheissueofthetrademarksindissimilarsettings.
Thefollowingremarksatpage303-4ofhisdecisionareapt:
“Atfirstglance,onemightbeattractedtothedisparitybetweenthe
parties’goodsandservicesanddecidethattherespondent’strade
markisdistinctive.Therespondentproposes,however,tousethe
trademarkwithotherpromotionalproducts.Moresignificantly,the
respondentacknowledgesthatheis“…reasonablywellawareof
themoviesfeaturingBONDor007andinthosemovies,Ineverdid
seeanyrestaurantservicesperformedby007.”Fromthis,Ifindthat
therespondentadopted007withknowledgeoftheprioruseofthe
appellant’strademarks.Therespondent’schoiceof007was
deliberateandnotunrelatedtothemark’sfame.Inmyview,a
chainof007pizza,pastaandsubmarinesandwichcutletswouldnot
necessarilybedistinguished,withinthemeaningofsection2,bythe
publicfromtheappellant’swaresandservices.Inthose
circumstances,Icannotconcludethattherespondent’smarksare
distinctiveeventhoughtheyhavebeenusedwithsubstantially
differentwares”.
33
Inhisdecision,LutfyJ.quotesfromadecisionofJoyalJ.inGlen-Warren
ProductionsLtd.v.GertexHosieryLtd
34.Thatcasealsodealtwithcompletely
dissimilarwaresandservices:ladieshosierybusinessandabeautypageant.
JoyalJ.foundthatdespitethisfact,theremightstillbeconfusioninconsumers
mindstotheextentthattheymightbelievetheMissCanadaPageant
endorsedtheApplicant’shosieryproduct[atp.12]:

“Inmyview,inthecaseatbar,evenifsalesofhosierywouldnot
appearatfirstblushtoberelatedtoabeautypageant,itislikely
thatconsumersmightassumetheorganisersoftheMissCanada
Pageanthadinsomewayapproved,licensed,orsponsoredthe
useofitstrademarkbyabusinesswhichmarketshosieryunderMiss
Canadatrademark,orthattherewassomebusinessconnection
betweenhosieryandtheMissCanadapageant…Therefore,Imust
concludethatHosieryhasnotdischargedthelegalburdenuponit

32(1998)75C.P.R.(3d)295(F.C.T.D).33(1999)80C.P.R.(3d)247(F.C.A.)at274.34(1990)29C.P.R.(3d)7(F.C.T.D.).

o
festablishingthatitstrademarkMISSCANADAisreallydistinctive
ofitswares”.
35
GiventhepopularityoftheRespondent’strademark,theextenttowhichit
hasprevailedintheCanadianmarket(over30years)anditswidespread
diversification(fromcomicbookstoadvertisementsofFiberglas),Iamofthe
viewthatallowingtheAppellanttousethenamePinkPantherwillalmost
certainlybeconfusionfortheaverageconsumer.Theaverageconsumeris
likelytobelievethatthereisanassociationwiththebeautyproductssoldby
theAppellantandtheRespondent’smarktotheextentthattheproductsare
beingsoldby,approvedbyorendorsedbytheRespondent.
36
TheAppellantsurelybelieves,justasthedissentingjudgebelieves,thatthe
averageconsumerwill,attheveryleast,uponseeingthenamePinkPanther
onitsbeautyproductsberemindedofandassociateitsproductswiththe
Respondent’smark.Seeingthewordsalonewillleavetheaverageconsumer
wonderingiftheRespondentisthepromoterbehindthesenewproducts.
37
Inthedissentingjudgesview,thisjudgementcanonlybeviewedasa
warningtothecreatorsofthesenamesandtheassociatedimagesto
beware,asthebalancebetweentrademarkprotectionandthefreemarket
hastippedinfavouroftheinfringer.
38
3.3.2COMMENT
Renderingsuchadecision,themajorityofjudgesoftheCourtofAppealheld
itwaspermissibletoregisteranduseafamoustrade-markinassociationwith
waresorserviceswhicharenotofthesamegeneralclasswithoutinfringing
thatmark.
Intrade-marklaw,notalltrade-marksareequal.Therearethosetrade-marks
whicharegivensomewhatbroaderscopeofprotectionbecausetheyare
“well-known”marks.Thequestionis,however,howmuchextraprotection
shouldtheybegivenandforhowlong.Attheoutsetofthereasons,Linden
J.A.forthemajorityofthecourtnotedthatthecourtsmustbecarefulwhen
theydeterminepropertyrightssothatthelineisdrawnfairlybetweentheright
totheexclusiveuseofanideaandtherightofindividualstocompeteand
earnalivelihood.ThisappearstobewhattheCourtwasdoinginaccepting

35(1998)80C.P.R.(3d)247(F.C.A.)at274-275.36Ibidpp276-277.37Ibidp277.38Ibidp277.

t
hemarkasafamousone,butensuringthatitsnotorietydidnotextendthe
scopeofprotectionofthetrade-marktoofar.
Nevertheless,iftherewasnobadfaithandnointentionatalltogetafree
rideoffsomeoneelse’sfameandallthehardworkinvestedinmakingsucha
trade-markfamousthanwhychoosea“pinkpanther”forhaircareand
beautyproducts?Whynotuse“bluetiger”or“greengiraffe”oreven“purple
elephant”?TheonlyanswerIcancomeupwithisthatthecolourfulanimals
listedbeforearenotfamous,whereasthePinkPanthertrade-markisfamous
andconsumerswillobviouslyassociatethedefendantsproductswiththat
image.
Acommentwhichimmediatelycomestomindwhenreadingthereasonsof
LindenJ.A.,isthatlittleweightisgiventothefactthatfortheuseofatrade-
markoratrade-nametocauseconfusionwithatrade-mark,thewaresor
servicesinassociationwithwhichthetrade-markorthetrade-nameisused
neednotbeofthesamegeneralclass
(seesection6(2)oftheAct).
Itistruethatundersection19itisstipulatedthattheexclusiveusegrantedto
theownerofaregisteredtrade-mark,islimitedtothewaresandservicesin
associationwithwhichthetrade-markisregistered.Itcanbeinferredfrom
section19thatanythirdpartywhousesatrade-markidenticaltoaregistered
trade-markinassociationwithidenticalwaresorserviceslistedinthe
registrationwill,subjecttosections21,32and67,infringetheregisteredtrade-
mark.Section19hasnothingtodowithconfusion.
Undersection20paragraph1,thingsarequitedifferent.Herereferenceis
madetothesale,distributionoradvertisementofwaresorservicesin
associationwithaconfusing
trade-mark.Nowheredoesitsaythatthewares
needtobeidentical.Onthecontrary,thetrade-markneedonlybe
confusing.Thisexpressionisdefinedinsection6where,aswehaveseen,the
waresandservicesneednotbeofthesamegeneralclass
forconfusionto
arisebetweentwotrade-marksoratrade-markandatrade-name.
ThesamerationalwillapplywherevertheActmakesreferencetoaconfusing
trade-marksuchasinsection7(b),section12(1)(d),section14(1)(a),section
15,section16,section21(1),section24,section37,etc…
WherevertheActmakesreferencetoconfusingtrade-marksortrade-names,
referenceshouldbemadetosection6oftheActinordertodetermine
whetherornottheuseofatrade-markcausesconfusionwithanothertrade-
markoratrade-namewhetherornotthewaresorservicesareofthesame
generalclass.

T
henextitemwhichneedstobecommenteduponisthereferencetowhat
MadameJusticeMcLachlinwrotewhichisreproducedatpage257ofthe
judgment.WesubmitthatthecommentsofMadameJusticeMcLachlinare
moreproperlyapplicabletosuchstatutesasthePatentAct,theCopyright
ActortheIndustrialDesignActwhere,onewayortheother,theprotectionis
appliedtoorisattachedtoathingwhichhasamaterialform.Itisthething
whichisprotectedunderthestatute.UndertheTrade-MarksActandthe
commonlawprinciplesunderlyingtheTrade-MarksAct,thethingperseisnot
protected.Itisthemarkwhichthethingbearswhichisprotectedorthemark
inassociationwithwhichaserviceisofferedwhichisprotected.Thesame
thingandthesameservicecanbesoldbyanyoneifitdoesnotbearthe
mark.WedonotbelievethatthecommentsofMadameJusticeMcLachlin
applytotrade-marks.Whereatrade-markisconcernedtherearereallyno
creators,inventors,researchorcreativity.Therearenoideasperseattaching
toatrade-mark.Ultimately,aproductoraservicecouldbesoldwithoutany
referencetoanytrade-mark.Basically,atrade-mark,fromthepointofview
ofitsowner,isacarrierofgoodwill.IfPinkPantherBeautyCorporationhad
beenpreventedfromusingthePinkPanthertrade-mark,itcouldhave
continuedtosellthesameproductsunderanothertrade-mark,andthereis
aninfinitepossibilityoftrade-markswhichitcouldhavechosen.Therefore,we
failtounderstandhowaprohibitiontousethePinkPanthertrade-markcould
haveaffectedthelivelihoodofanybodyunlessthefactofusingthePink
Panthertrade-markgivesitsuseranadvantageofsomekind,ifitdoesthenit
isbecauseitcarriesgoodwill,goodwillwhichbelongstoUnitedArtists.
Anothercommentwhichcomestomindisinreferencetopage268where
LindenJ.A.writes:

“Thetrade-markownedbyUnitedArtistsisclearlyafamousand
inherentlydistinctone.IthasbeeninuseinCanadaforthirtyor
moreyears.Whilethismaynotbeaverylongtime,itcannotbe
deniedthatitisalongertimethanthemarkproposedbythe
appellant,whichhasnotbeenusedatall”.

Howcanitbesaidthatuseofatrade-markformorethan30yearsisnota
verylongtime?Wesubmitthatonthecontrary,30yearsisaverylongperiod
ofuseforatrade-markandshouldbeappreciatedassuchintheoverall
evaluationofthesurroundingcircumstances.
Thenextcommentwewishtomakeiswithrespecttothequestionwhichis
beingaskedatpage269:

“However,theissuetobedecidedisnothowfamousthemarkis,
butwhetherthereisalikelihoodofconfusioninthemindofthe

a
verageconsumerbetweenUnitedArtists’markandtheone
proposedbytheappellantwithrespecttothegoodsandservices
specified”.
Wesuggestthatthequestionshouldhavebeenaskeddifferently,asfollows:
“However,theissuetobedecidedisnothowfamousthemarkis,butwhether
thereisalikelihoodofconfusioninthemindoftheaverageconsumer
betweenUnitedArtistsmarkandtheoneproposedbytheappellantwhether
ornotthewaresorservicesareofthesamegeneralclass?”
Anotherquestionwhichalsocouldhavebeenaskedis:”Doestheuseofthe
markproposedbytheappellantinrelationtobeautysuppliesindicatea
connectionbetweenthebeautysuppliesandUnitedArtists,andarethe
interestsofUnitedArtistslikelytobedamagedbysuchuse?”
Wearecomfortedinthisinterpretationofwhattherightquestionshouldhave
beenbytheprovisionsofarticles16(2)and16(3)oftheTRIPSAgreementto
whichCanadaisaparty.
ItistobenotedthatanapplicationforleavetoappealtotheSupremeCourt
ofCanadawasgrantedinDecember1998.Itwillbeinterestingtoseehow
thisappealwillberesolved.
3.4BaylorUniversityv.GovernorandCo.ofAdventuretradinginto
Hudson’sBay(c.o.b.Hudson’sBayCo.)
39
3.4.1SUMMARY
In1992,BaylorUniversity,ofWaco,Texas,appliedtoregisterthetrademark
BAYLORinCanadaonthebasisofproposeduseinrelationtoclothingitems
suchassweaters,sweatshirts,t-shirts,jacketsandthelike.Theapplicationwas
opposedbyHudson’sBayCompany,relyingonitsregisteredmarks
BAYCREST,BAYCLUB,THEBAY,BAYMART,andothers,inassociationwitha
widerangeofclothingitems,encompassingthosesoughtbyBaylorUniversity.
TheRegistrarrefusedtheapplication,andBaylorUniversityappealedtothe
FederalCourt.InBaylorUniversityv.TheGovernorandCompanyof
AdventurersTradingintoHudson’sBay,commonlycalledHudson’sBay
Company(December15,1998,yetunreported,FederalCourtno.T-2590-97,
JusticeFrancisMuldoon),theCourtconsideredtheparties’evidence,asitis

39Unreported,(1998)F.C.J.(F.C.T.D.)CaseNo.T-2590-97.

e
ntitledtodoonappeal.(InanappealfromtheRegistrar’sdecisioninan
oppositionmatter,theparties’proofconsistsoftheevidencefiledbeforethe
OppositionBoard,plusanycomplementaryevidencefiledonappeal.)
TheappellantBaylorUniversitysubmittedevidencetotheeffectthatthe
Canadianregistercontainsover90markswiththeprefixandword“bay”,in
ordertoshowthatthemarketmaybeinferredtoaboundinthisword.
However,uponcloserreviewofthisstate-of-the-registerevidence,therewere
fewerthantenmarkswiththeinitialelementBAY,apartfromHudson’sBay’s
marks,inassociationwithclothing.
Onappeal,BaylorUniversityfiledevidencefromD.E.Warrington,the
exclusivelicensingagentinCanadaofsomeU.S.colleges,includingBaylor
University,totheeffectthathisannualCanadianretailsalesofcollegiate
merchandiseaveragewellover$10million(C.).
Mr.WarringtonstatedinteraliathatthepopularityofU.S.collegiate
merchandiseisattributabletotheincreasedpopularityinCanadaofU.S.
collegeathletics,anditsmediacoverage.Whilethesalesofwaresbearing
thetrademarksofBaylorUniversityhadbeenlimitedoverrecentyears,
accordingtotheaffiant,Baylorisawell-knownschool,andarenewed
successofitsfootballteaminthefuturewouldleadtoincreasedsalesof
licensedmerchandiseinCanada.
JusticeMuldoonqualifiedthisviewofthestateofthemarketplaceas“almost
impressionistic”.ThefamiliarityofCanadianswithBaylorUniversitywasnot
proven,andwithouttheappositionoftheword“University”,“BAYLOR”alone
“solacksdistinctioninCanadaastobegoodonly,orlargely,forconfusion
withtherespondent’smany,alreadyhistoricallyfamousmarks.”
Fataltotheappellant’scasewasevidencefiled(beforetheRegistrar)byan
Hudson’sBaysalespersoninTheBay’sCalgarydepartmentstore.SandraRick
recountedthatbetween1989and1991,onaverageonceeverytwoweeks,
anindividualwouldcomeintothestoreandaskthathisorherBAYLORbrand
watchberepairedorserviced.TheBAYLORwatchwasnotaproductof
Hudson’sBay,butofPeoplesJewellersLimited.Ms.Rickobservedthatin
manyinstances,thesecustomers“expressedsurprisethatthe“BAYLOR”
watchwasnotaproductofTheBay,andoftenpointedtothe“BAY”portion
ofthenameofthewatch”.
Ms.Rickalsoindicatedthatinher(presumablysubsequent)positionassales
personinthestore’swomen’sweardepartment,customersfrequentlyasked
herforTheBay’sbrand-nameclothing.Shespeculated,basedonher

p
reviousexperiencewiththeBAYLORwatches,thatclothingmarkedwitha
BAYLORtrademarkwouldleadtothesametypeofconfusion.
TheCourtfoundthat,intermsoftheultimateissueofconfusion,thisevidence
wascredibleandtelling,andthespeculationfact-basedandplausible.The
instancesofactualconfusionreportedhadnotbeenchallengedbycross-
examination.ItdidnotmatterthattheBAYLORlineofwatchesdidnot
originatefromtheappellant:thewordBaylorwasobjectivelyconfusingwith
Hudson’sBay’strademarks,inthejudge’sview.
TheCourt,therefore,foundthattheRegistrarhadcorrectlyattributedweight
andsignificancetothisevidence,amongalllaidbeforetheCourtonappeal.
Inconcludingthattheappellant’sproposedtrademarkwouldcause
confusionwiththerespondent’smarks,JusticeMuldoonpointedoutthatthe
resultmightbedifferentiftheapplied-formarkwereBAYLORUNIVERSITY.He
alsoreiteratedthewidescopeofprotectionaffordedtofamoustrademarks
whenthereisaconnectionbetweenanapplicant’sandanopponent’s
tradeandservices,inaccordancewiththeFederalCourtofAppeal’s
judgmentinUnitedArtistsCorp.v.PinkPantherBeautyCorp.(1998),80C.P.R.
247(see12WIPR221,July1998).
However,onJanuary13,1999,BaylorUniversityfiledanoticeofappealofthe
decision.
3.4.2COMMENT

TheconsequenceofthisdecisionisthataUniversitycalledBaylorcannotuse
itsnameinthemarketingofitscollegiatemerchandiseinCanada.Could
BaylorUniversityhaverequestedtheRegistrartogivepublicnoticeofthe
adoptionanduseofthemarkBaylorundersection9(n)(ii)oftheAct?This
wouldcreateaninterestingdebate:whichshouldprevail,theofficialmarkor
thefamousmark?
4CONCLUSION
Itisclearthatguidelinesandaglobalapproachtoprotectingwell-known
trade-marksisgreatlyneededtoensuretheprotectionoftheconsumer
publicandtheownersofsuchvaluableassetsagainstpiracy.Itisnotclear
whetherCanadahascompliedtoallitstreatyobligations,forinstancein
section5oftheAct,proofofmakingknownhastobethroughdistributionof
waresortheadvertisementofwaresorservices.Suchlimitationsdonotexist

u
nderarticle6bisoftheParisConvention,undertheTRIPSAgreementnor
underGATT.Inparagraph5(b)(i),onlyprintedpublicationcirculatedin
Canadaintheordinarycourseofcommerceisadmissibletoprovethata
trade-markbecamewell-knowninCanada.Thisisalimitationwhichisnot
compatiblewiththebroadtermsusedinarticle16(2)oftheTRIPSAgreement
whichrefersto”promotionofthetrademark”withoutindicatingthemedium.
LeavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadahasbeengrantedinthe
Pinkpanthercase.TheSupremeCourtwillhavetodecideifinCanada
famoustrade-markswillenjoyawideambitofprotectionwhichincludes
waresandservicesnotofthesamegeneralclassassuggestedbythe
dissentingjudgeoramorenarrowambitofprotectionwhichreachesonly
identicalorsimilarwaresandservices.Therewouldbealotmoretosayabout
famoustrade-marks,butconsideringthetimegiventomeIbelieveIshould
nowthankyouforyourattentionandfortheinvitationtodeliverthispaperto
youtoday.
B
IBLIOGRAPHY
Legislation
·Trade-marksAct,R.S.C.,1985,Chap.T-13
Jurisprudence
·ReAndresWinesLtd.andE.&J.GalloWinery,(1974)14C.P.R.(2d)204
(F.C.T.D.),revsdin(1976)25C.P.R.(2d)126(F.C.A.).
·BaylorUniversityv.GovernorandCo.ofAdventureTradingintoHudson’s
Bay(c.o.b.Hudson’sBayCo.),[1998]F.C.J.(F.C.T.D.),CaseNo.T-2590-97.
·Carsonv.Reynolds,(1980)49C.P.R.(2d)57(F.C.T.D.).
·CartierInc.v.CartierOpticalLtd.,(1988)20C.P.R.(3d)68(F.C.T.D.).
·CondeNastPublicationsInc.v.GozlanBrothersLtd.,(1980)49C.P.R.(2d)
250(F.C.T.D.).
·Danjaq,S.A.v.Zervasetal.,(1998)75C.P.R.(3d)295(F.C.T.D.).
·EnterpriseRent-A-CarCo.v.EnterpriseCar,(1996)66C.P.R.(3d)453
(F.C.T.D.)affd(1998)79C.P.R.(3d)45.
·JeanCacharelS.A.v.BarmishInc.,(1991)37C.P.R.(3d)516(F.C.T.D.),affd
(1993)46C.P.R.(3d)510(F.C.A.).
·JosephE.Seagram&SonsLtd.etal.v.RegistrarofTradeMarksetal.,
(1991)33C.P.R.(3d)454(F.C.T.D.).
·Motel6,Inc.v.No.6MotelLtd.etal.,(1981)56C.P.R.(2d)44(F.C.T.D.).

·
OrkinExterminatingCo.Inc.v.PestcoofCanadaLtd.etal.,(1984)80
C.P.R.(2d)153(OntarioHighCourtofJustice),affd(1985)5C.P.R.(3d)433
(Ont.C.A.).
·PhilipMorrisIncorporatedv.ImperialTobaccoLtd.etal.,(1986)7C.P.R.
(3d)254(F.C.T.D.)affd(1988)17C.P.R.(3d)237(F.C.A.).
·PlayboyEnterprisesInc.v.Germain,[1979]39C.P.R.(2d)32(F.C.T.D.).
·UnitedArtistsCorp.v.PinkPantherBeautyCorp.etal.,[1997]67C.P.R.(3d)
216(F.C.T.D.),revsd(1998)80C.P.R.(3d)247(F.C.A.),appealgrantedto
theSupremeCourtofCanada.
·Valle’SteakHousev.Tessier,[1981]1F.C.441(F.C.T.D.).
MonographsandCollectionsofEssays
·D.Bereskin,TheprotectionoffamousforeigntrademarksinCanada,117th
InternationalTrademarkAssociationAnnualMeetingCoursebook,1995at
187.
·H.G.Fox,TheCanadianLawofTradeMarksandUnfairCompetition,3rd
ed.(Toronto:Carswell,1972).
·R.T.Hughes,HughesonTrademarks,looseleaf,(Toronto:Butterworths,
1984).
·S.McCormack&M.Chromecek,WorldIntellectualPropertyGuidebook:
Canada,(NewYork:MatthewBender&Company,1991).
·F.W.Mostert,FamousandWell-KnownMarks,anInternationalAnalysis,
(Toronto:Butterworths,1997).
·M.Pinsonneault&S.Moscowitz,The1995AnnotatedRobic-LégerTrade-
marksAct,looseleaf,(Toronto:Carswell,1991).
Articles
·Bereskin,D.A.,”AcomparisonofthetrademarkprovisionsofNAFTAand
TRIPs”,(1993)83T.M.R.1.
·Bruzga,C.,”Sophisticatedpurchaserdefenseavoidedwherepre-sale
confusionisharmful-Abriefnote”,(1988)78T.M.R.
659.
·Burshtein,S.&Tackaberry,P.,”PassingOffinCanada”,(1996)86T.M.R.851.
·Burshtein,S.&Tackaberry,P.,”PassingOffinCanada”,(1997)87T.M.R.963.
·Carney,J.A.,”Settingsightsontrademarkpiracy:theneedforgreater
protectionagainstimitationofforeigntrademarks”,(1991)81T.M.R.30.
·Collen,J.M.,”SecondaryMeaningandtheInternetMega-Brand”,
(1998/1999),TrademarksWorld,December/Januaryp.23.
·Cooper,D.,”Canada-Copyingfamousmarkdoesnotleadtoautomatic
assumptionofconfusion”,(1998),Vol.12No.7W.I.P.R.p.221-222.

·
Hartman,S.,”BrandEquityImpairment-TheMeaningofDilution”,(1997)87
T.M.R.418.
·HeinC.,”Confusedaboutfederaltrademarkdilution?”,(1997)87T.M.R.

370.
·Hitchman,C.,”Howfamousisfamous?”,(1998),IntellectualProperty,Vol.
V.,No.2,p.266.
·Hornick,J.andGelchinsky,J.,”EvolvingInternetIntellectualPropertyIssues”,
(1998/1999),TrademarksWorld,December/Januaryp.26.
·Keri,S.J.,”Canada,DeemingClausesinTrade-MarksActConfirmedas
InterpretationToolsOnlyinPassing-OffAction”,(1998)INTABulletin,August
5,Vol.53,No.14,p.3.
·Mostert,F.W.,”Well-knownandfamousmarks:Isharmonypossibleinthe
globalvillage?”,(1996)86T.M.R.103.
·Roncaglia,P.L.,”Shouldweusegunsandmissilestoprotectfamous
trademarksinEurope?”,(1998)88T.M.R.551.
·Ryan,Christopher,J.L.,”FamousMarksintheUnitedKingdom”,(1997)87
T.M.R.1175.
·SchwartzA.andMorfesiD.,”Dilutioncomesofage:TheUnitedStates,
EuropeandSouthAfrica”,(1997)87T.M.R.436.
·Shimeall,W.G.,”DevelopmentsinprotectionoffamousmarksinJapan”,
(1998)INTABulletin,October1,Vol.53,No.18,p.3.
·Tichane,D.M.,”Thematuringtrademarkdoctrineofpost-salesconfusion”,
(1995)85T.M.R.
399.
·Vida,A.,”PsychologicalElementinTrademarkInfringement-Court
PracticeinFrance”,(1997)87T.M.R.
469.
InternationalMaterial
·AgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights”TRIPs”
·INTAResolutiononWell-KnownMarks
·NorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreementbetweentheGovernmentof
Canada,theGovernmentofMexicoandtheGovernmentoftheUnited
States,17December1992,Can.T.S.1994No.2,32I.L.M.289(enteredinto
force1January1994)[hereinafterNAFTA].
·ParisConventionfortheProtectionofIndustrialProperty(“TheParis
Convention”)
·WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganisationsDraftProvisionsonWell-Known
Marks.

ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaquailleursdanslemonde.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
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD