Quebec Superior Court ruling confirms meaning of French language charter exception for “recognized” marks

QUEBECSUPERIORCOURTRULINGCONFIRMSMEANINGOF
FRENCHLANGUAGECHARTEREXCEPTIONFOR“RECOGNIZED”MARKS

STELLASYRIANOS*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

ThosewhoconductbusinessinQuebecarenormallypreventedfromusingatrade-
markintheEnglishlanguage,subjecttoseveralexceptions,suchastheuseofa
“recognized”trade-markwhichallowsbusinesseswithoutaregisteredEnglishtrade-
marktouseitinEnglishintheircommercialadvertisinginQuebec.Inaveryrecent
decision,theSuperiorCourtofQuebecconfirmedthatthe“recognized”trade-mark
exceptionundertheRegulationRespectingtheLanguageofCommerceand
Businessincludesbothregisteredandunregisteredtrade-marks[CENTRESPORTIF
ST-EUSTACHEv.PROCUREURGÉNÉRALDUQUÉBEC(2009QCCS3307)July
21
st,2009].

PreliminarycommentsonlinguisticconsiderationsinQuebec

ThosewhoseektoselltheirproductsoroffertheirservicesintheProvinceof
QuebecshouldbearinmindofthelinguisticrestrictionsimposedbytheCharterof
theFrenchLanguage(the“Charter”).Bywayofabriefhistoricalbackgroundandthe
creationofsuchbarriers,theCharterwasadoptedbytheNationalAssemblyofthe
ProvinceofQuebec,Canada,in1977withthegoalofensuringthequalityand
influenceoftheFrenchlanguagebothintheworkplaceandincommerce.The
CharterandtheRegulationRespectingtheLanguageofCommerceandBusiness
haveanimpactonthoseconductingbusinessinQuebec,includingchoiceof
businessnames,trade-marks,trade-names,packagelabelingandcommercial
signage,insofarasthegeneralruleisthattheFrenchlanguagepredominates.

TheCharterprovidesthateveryinscriptiononaproduct,onitscontaineroronits
wrapping,oronadocumentorobjectsuppliedwithit,includingthedirectionsforuse
andthewarrantycertificates,aswellascommercialdocumentation/publicitymustbe
draftedintheFrenchlanguage,althoughanotherlanguagemayalsoappearaslong
asthisotherlanguageisnotgivengreaterprominencethantheFrenchlanguage
inscriptions.

©CIPS,2009.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,StellaSyrianosisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,a
multidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.Publication142.227.

2

Thisgeneralruleissubjecttonumerousexceptions,includingonerelatingtotrade-
marksthatallowsbusinessestocircumventuseoftheFrenchlanguage.Indeed,
wheninthepresenceofa”recognized”trade-markwithinthemeaningoftheTrade-
marksAct,unlessaFrenchversionhasbeenregistered,thereisnoobligationtouse
atrade-markintheFrenchlanguage.
Whatconstitutesa“recognized”trade-marktherebyallowingbusinessestofallunder
thisexemption?TheCanadianTrade-MarksActdoesnotcontainspecificprovisions
astowhatconstitutesa”recognized”trade-mark.Whilearegisteredtrade-mark
undoubtedlyqualifies,debateshavebeenraisedregardingpendingtrade-marksor
commonlawmarks.Jurisprudencehasconfirmedthata“recognized”trade-mark
neednotberegistered.Eitherway,theburdenrestsonanybusinesstoarguethat
thepresentationofitsmarkissuchthatitqualifiesasa“recognized”trade-mark.

TheFacts
TheAppellant,CentreSportifSt-Eustache(“CentreSportif”)ownsandoperatesa
largesportscenter.Variouscommercialenterprises,alsoownedbyCentreSportif,
operatewithinit.Onesuchenterpriseconsistsofabowlingalleywhoseregistered
businessnameis“AmmusementsBowl-Mat”whiletheotherconsistsofarestaurant
whoseregisteredbusinessnameis“RestaurantOhDaddy”.

CentreSportifwaschargedandconvictedofviolatingcertainprovisionsofthe
Charterdealingwithcommercialadvertisinginsofaras:
(i)AmusementsBowl-Matusedtheterm“BOWL-MAT”initssignsonsite,
withoutincludingtheword“AMUSEMENTS”
(ii)RestaurantOhDaddyusedtheterm“OHDADDY”initssignsonsite
withoutincludingtheword“RESTAURANT”andhadasignonsitewhich
stated“OysterBar”.

TheJudgementbeforetheCourtofQuebec
Atfirstinstance,CentreSportifsubmittedthattheterms“OhDaddy”and“Bowl-Mat”
were“recognized”trade-markswhichfellwithintheexceptionfoundintheRegulation
RespectingtheLanguageofCommerceandBusiness.InrejectingCentreSportif’s
submissions,thetrialCourtruledtheterms“OHDADDY”and“BOWL-MAT”didnot
constitute“recognized”trade-marksundertheTrade-marksAct.

TheAppealbeforetheSuperiorCourtofQuebec
CentreSportifrenewedits“recognized”trade-markexceptionargumentbyasserting
thetrialjudgeerredinlawinadoptingtoorestrictiveaninterpretationoftheTrade-

3
marksAct.AccordingtoCentreSportif,thetrialjudgecompoundedthiserrorby
holdingthatarestaurantwouldhavetomarketfoodproductsunderitsnamebefore
thatnamecouldbeaffordedtrade-markprotection.
TheRespondentsubmittedthatwhenthenameofanenterpriseisusedinits
publicity,theregisteredFrenchversionmustbeused–inthiscase“Amusements
Bowl-Mat”and“RestaurantOhDaddy”.Itadditionallyarguedthattheterms“BOWL-
MAT”and“OHDADDY”arenot“recognized”trade-marks.

AsconcernedRestaurantOhDaddy,theCourtnotedCentreSportif’sconcession
thatthe“OysterBar”signbreachedtheCharterandthatnodefencewaspresented
onthispoint.TheconvictionwasconfirmedandtheOhDaddytrade-markargument
wasnotaddressedsincetheCourtheldthat“criminalorpenallawprosecutionsare
nottheappropriateforumstoseekunenforceabledeclaratoryjudgements.”

Turningtotheportionoftheappealchallengingtheconvictionenteredinthe
AmusementsBowl-Matfile,theCourtconsideredthetrade-markexceptionargument.
TheCourtagreedwithCentreSportif’sargumentthatatrade-markdoesnothaveto
beregisteredtoreceivetheprotectioncontainedintheTrade-marksActand
thereforeanon-registeredtrade-markcanfallwithinthelanguagecharterexceptions.

However,thetrade-markargumentwasneverthelessdismissedbecausetheCourt
agreedwiththefirstinstancejudgewhoruledthattheexceptiondoesnotapplyto
trade-namesbutonlytotrade-marks.Inthatregard,thelowerCourtjudgestatedthat
CentreSportif’suseofitsnamewastrade-nameuseandnottrade-markusewhich
wasdirectedatprotectingthegoodwillofitsbusiness.TheSuperiorCourtjudge
additionallystatedthatevenifiterredonthispoint,CentreSportifwouldnotsucceed
onthisgroundofappealbecausetheentireregisteredname“AmusementBowl-Mat”
andnot“Bowl-Mat”isthetrade-markthatwouldfallunderthestatutoryexception.

Conclusion
ThosewishingtoconductbusinessinQuebecshouldkeeptheCharteroftheFrench
Languageinmindwhenselectingnewmarks.Whilethiscaseservesasanother
confirmationthatthe“recognized”trade-markexceptionincludesbothregisteredand
unregisteredtrade-marks,onemayconsidersecuringatrade-markregistrationforan
Englishlanguagetrade-markinordertoavoidconfrontationwiththemeaningof
“recognized”trade-mark,bearinginmindtheburdenofestablishinganexception
restswithadefendant.