Recent Development Regarding Public Authority Status in Canada

1
RECENTDEVELOPMENTREGARDINGPUBLICAUTHORITYSTATUSINCANADA

By
CatherineBergeron*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.
Lawyers,PatentandTrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
info@robic.com-www.robic.ca
1.Introduction

Thereareimportantadvantagesforabodythatisabletoclaimamarkas
anofficialmark,whichislargelyaCanadiancreation,ratherthanasa
“traditional”trade-mark.Forinstance,anofficialmarkneednotserveto
distinguishwaresorservices,itmaybemerelydescriptive,anditmayalsobe
confusingwiththemarkofanother.Asindicatedbythemarginalnoteof
paragraph9(1)oftheTrade-marksAct1,markslistedinsaidparagraph,
includingofficialmarks,mustbeconsideredbythirdpartiesas“prohibited
marks”.The“prohibited”attributeofthistypeofmarksformingacategoryof
V.I.P.orprivilegedmarksclearlyshowstheparticularnatureoftheirscopeof
protection.

However,onlyapublicauthoritymayregisteranofficialmarkunder
subparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheAct.Themeaningoftheexpression“public
authority”,whichisnotdescribedintheAct,hasbeendiscussedseveral
timesbyourCanadiancourts,in,amongstothers,thefollowingcases:
OntarioAssociationofArchitectsv.AssociationofArchitecturalTechnologists
ofOntario2andCanadianJewishCongressv.ChosenPeopleMinistriesInc.3

©CIPS,2006.*CatherineBergeronisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmof
lawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.Publication173.017.
1R.S.C.1985,c.T-13(hereinafter“theAct”).2(2002),19C.P.R.(4th)417(F.C.A.;EvansJ.A.)(hereinafter“OntarioAssociationofArchitects”).3(2002),19C.P.R.(4th)186(F.C.;BlaisJ.);confirmed(2003),27C.P.R.(4th)193(F.C.A.;SextonJ.A.)
(hereinafter“CanadianJewishCongress”).FurthertothedecisionsOntarioAssociationof
ArchitectsandCanadianJewishCongress,theTrade-marksOfficepublished,onOctober12,
2002,apracticenoticeentitled“PublicAuthorityStatusunderSub-paragraph9(1)(n)(iii)”(said
practicenoticehasbeenreplaced;seenote25).Alsoseeonthissubject:«OfficialMarksand
PublicAuthorities:theNooseTightens»byStellaSyrianospublishedintheIPNationalSection
NewslettersoftheCanadianBarAssociation,June2003(availableonthewebsite
www.cba.org)and«Marquesofficielles:devéritablesmarques«V.I.P.».Survoldedécisions
marquantesdescinqdernièresannées»byJean-FrançoisNadon,publishedinCARRIÈRE
(Laurent)dir.,Développementsrécentsendroitdelapropriétéintellectuelle(2005),Servicesde
formationpermanenteduBarreauduQuébec(Cowansville,Blais,2005).

2
Morerecently,theFederalCourtturneditsattentiontoatrickyquestionof
interpretation,namelythedefinitionof“publicauthorityinCanada”forthe
purposesofsubparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheActinanapplicationbroughtby
CanadaPostCorporation(“CPC”)tojudiciallyreviewdecisionsofthe
Registrartogivepublicnoticeoftheadoptionanduseofthirteenofficial
marksbytheUnitedStatesPostalService(“USPS”).(CanadaPostCorporation
v.UnitedStatesPostalServices4)

Itisimportanttonotebeforehandthatthefollowinginterpretationsand
analysisdonotconcerntheotherprovisionsofparagraph9(1)oftheAct
applyingtoothercategoriesof“prohibitedmarks”,suchasprovisions
preventinguseofaspecificmarkorsymbol5,provisionsthatParliament
clearlyintendedtoapplytoforeignentities6andprovisionsintendedto
applytoanyentityregardlessoflocation7.

2.Thedecision

2.1Thepartiesandfactualbackground

CPCisaCrownCorporationestablishedin1981bytheCanadaPost
CorporationAct8.Itsobjectsincludetheestablishmentandoperationofa
postalserviceinCanada,themanufactureandprovisionofsuchproducts
andservicesasarenecessaryorincidentaltothepostalservice,andthe
provisionofsuchotherservicesasarecapableofbeingconveniently
providedinthecourseofcarryingouttheotherobjectsoftheCPC.

Onitspart,theUSPSisanindependentestablishmentoftheexecutive
branchoftheGovernmentoftheUnitedStates,establishedtoprovide
universalmailanddeliveryservices,aswellasancillaryservicessuchas
consultingservices.

BylettersdatedJune21andOctober17,2001,theUSPSrequestedthatthe
Registrargivepublicnotice,pursuanttotheprovisionsofsubparagraph
9(1)(n)(iii)oftheAct,thattheUSPShadadoptedandusedthemarksinissue
as”officialmarks”forvariouspostalservices.TheRegistraracceptedthatthe
USPSisapublicauthorityforthepurposesofsaidsubparagraph,aspublic
noticesweregivenforthethirteenmarks(onDecember12,2001and
January9,2002).

42005FC1630(F.C.;MactavishJ.).5Seeforinstancesubparagraphs9(1)a),b),c),f),g),h),h.1),j),k),l)andm)oftheAct.6Seeforinstancesubparagraphs9(1)l),l.1),l.2)andl.3)oftheAct.7Seeforinstancesubparagraph9(1)(n)(ii)oftheActapplyingtoUniversities.8R.S.,1985,c.C-10.

3
2.2Proceduralissue:applicationforjudicialrevieworappeal?

CPCinitiallycommencedproceedingsagainstUSPSasanapplicationfor
judicialreviewand/orappealundersection56oftheAct.However,asa
resultofthedecisionoftheFederalCourtofAppealinOntarioAssociationof
Architects9,CPCrecognizedthatitdidnothavestandingtoappealthe
decisionsinissue,asitwasnotapartytotheoriginalproceedingsbeforethe
Registrar.Therefore,thematterbeforetheFederalCourtproceededsolelyas
anapplicationforjudicialreview.

2.3GeneralprinciplesgoverningofficialmarksandfindingsoftheFederal
Court

Officialmarks,alargelyCanadianconcept,aregovernedbytheprovisions
ofsubparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheAct,whichprovidesthat:

9.(1)Nulnepeutadopteràl’égardd’une
entreprise,commemarquedecommerce
ouautrement,unemarquecomposéede
cequisuit,oudontlaressemblanceest
tellequ’onpourraitvraisemblablementla
confondreaveccequisuit:[…]
9
.(1)Nopersonshalladoptinconnection
withabusiness,asatrade-markor
otherwise,anymarkconsistingof,orso
nearlyresemblingastobelikelytobe
mistakenfor,[…]

n)toutinsigne,écusson,marqueou
emblème:[…]
(
n)anybadge,crest,emblemormark[…]

(iii)adoptéetemployéparuneautorité
publiqueauCanadacommemarque
officiellepourdesmarchandisesou
services,
(
iii)adoptedandusedbyanypublic
authority,inCanadaasanofficialmarkfor
waresorservices,

àl’égardduquelleregistraire,surla
demandedeSaMajestéoudel’université
ouautoritépublique,selonlecas,a
donnéunavispublicd’adoptionet
emploi.
i
nrespectofwhichtheRegistrarhas,atthe
requestofHerMajestyoroftheuniversityor
publicauthority,asthecasemaybe,given
publicnoticeofitsadoptionanduse.

Besidesthequestionofadoptionanduseofanybadge,crest,emblemor
markasanofficialmark,theessentialconditionofapplicationresidesinthe
factthattheentityclaimingsaidprotectionmustbea“publicauthority”.

9Supranote2atparagraph26:“Thedecisionunderappealinthecaseatbaristhusthefirst
occasiononwhichaJudgeoftheTrialDivisionhasunequivocallyheldthatapersonwhodidnot
participateinapublicnoticeproceedingbeforetheRegistrarhasnostandingtoappeal.Any
challengemustbemadebywayofanapplicationforjudicialreview.”

4
AlthoughCPCraisedanumberofissuesinrelationtotheUSPS’entitlementto
theofficialmarksinquestion10,thethresholdquestionbeforetheFederal
CourtwaswhethertheRegistrarerredinfindingthattheUSPSisapublic
authorityforthepurposesofsubparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheAct.Thus,thefirst
questionbeforetheFederalCourtwaswhether,properlyinterpreted,
subparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheActrequiresthat,inordertobeabletoclaim
thebenefitoftheprovision,thepublicauthorityinissuemustbeapublic
authorityinCanada.

Inansweringthisquestion,theCourtmusthaveregardtothewordingofsaid
subparagraphoftheActaswellastotheadmonitionoftheSupremeCourt
ofCanadathatwhendealingwithaquestionofstatutoryinterpretation,the
wordsofanActaretobereadintheirentirecontext,intheirgrammatical
andordinarysense,harmoniouslywiththeschemeoftheAct,theobjectof
theAct,andtheintentionofParliament11.Also,consideringthattheholder
ofanofficialmarkbenefitsfromanextensibleprotection,andgiventhat
oncepublicnoticehasbeengivenwithrespecttotheadoptionanduseof
anofficialmarkthemarkbecomeshardlyexpungeable,theFederalCourt
reiteratesthatsubparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheActshouldnotbegivenan
expansivemeaning,asstatedinOntarioAssociationofArchitects12.

Inthiscase,theCourtisfacinganadditionalconsiderationofinterpretation
giventhattheEnglishandFrenchlanguageversionsofthelegislationarenot
identical.Inthisregard,itshouldbenotedthattheEnglishversionof
subparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheActstatesthatinorderforamarktobea
properofficialmark,itmusthavebeen”adoptedandusedbyanypublic
authority,inCanadaasanofficialmarkforwaresorservices”.However,the
Frenchversionofthesameprovisionstatesthatthemarkinquestionmust
havebeen”adoptéetemployéparuneautoritépubliqueauCanada
commemarqueofficiellepourdesmarchandisesouservices”.Thus,contrary
totheFrenchversion,thereisacommaafterthephrase“publicauthority”in
theEnglishversion.Asaresult,thisprovisionissomewhatambiguous,asitis
10Amongstothers,CPCalsoassertedthati)theUSPSneitheradoptednorusedthemarksin
questionforwaresorservicesinCanadapriortothepublicationdates;ii)theUSPSisnotentitled
torelyonanyusethatitmayhavemadeofthedisputedmarksinCanadaasthisusewas
unlawfulasitviolatedprovisionsoftheAct;iii)theacceptanceofcertainofthemarksfor
publicationbytheRegistrarwascontrarytothepublicorder,asthemarksinquestionare
identical,oressentiallyidentical,toterminologyincommonusebyotherpostalauthoritiesto
describepostalproductsandservices.11Rizzo&RizzoShoesLtd.(Re)[1998]1S.C.R.27,atparagraph21:“Todaythereisonlyone
principleorapproach,namely,thewordsofanActaretobereadintheirentirecontextandin
theirgrammaticalandordinarysenseharmoniouslywiththeschemeoftheAct,theobjectofthe
Act,andtheintentionofParliament.”12Supranote2atparagraph64.

5
notclearastowhetherthewords“inCanada”areintendedtomodifythe
words“adoptedandused”or“byanypublicauthority”.

Followingtheprinciplethatbilinguallegislationistobeinterpretedby
applyingthesharedorcommonmeaningrule(thatis,wheretwoversionsof
bilinguallegislationdonotsaythesamething,thesharedmeaning,whichis
normallythenarrowermeaning,oughttobeadopted,unlessforsome
reason,thatmeaningisunacceptable;Medovarskiv.Canada(Ministerof
CitizenshipandImmigration13),theFederalCourtruled:

Inthiscase,theEnglishversionofthelegislationiscapableofsustainingtwo
differentmeanings,whereastheFrenchversionisonlycapableofone
meaning.Applyingthesharedorcommonmeaningrule,Iamthussatisfied
thatthewords”inCanada”/”auCanada”modifythephrase”byanypublic
authority”/”paruneautoritépublique”.Asaconsequence,inordertobe
entitledtoanofficialmark,thepublicauthorityinquestionmustbeapublic
authorityinCanada.14

TheconclusionoftheCourtisalsobasedonthelegislativehistoryof
subparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheAct,anditspredecessorprovisionsinthe
UnfairCompetitionAct15,whichdisclosesthatthecommaintheEnglish
versionoftheprovisionwasnotoriginallypresentinthelegislation.The
commafirstappearedintheversionoftheTrade-marksActpublishedinthe
1985RevisedStatutesofCanada16furthertoanadministrativeactbythe
StatuteRevisionCommission17.

Furthermore,theCourtexpressestheviewthatifParliamentintendedthat
subparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheActapplytoforeignpublicauthorities,the
statutewouldhavesaidsoexplicitlyor,ataminimum,themodifier“in
Canada”shouldnothavebeenpresentinthelegislativetext.

Thisbeingestablished,theCourtturnedtothequestionofwhethertheUSPSis
apublicauthority“inCanada”andappliedthetwo-parttestarticulatedby
theFederalCourtofAppealintheOntarioAssociationofArchitects18case,
thatis,theCourtmustdeterminefirstwhethertheentityinquestionissubject
13[2005]SCC51,atparagraph25.14Supranote4atparagraph45.15S.C.1932,c.38.16R.S.C.1985,c.T-13.17Byvirtueofthepowersconferredbysubparagraph6(e)oftheStatuteRevisionAct(R.S.,1985,
c.S-20):“Inpreparingarevision,theCommissionmay(…)makesuchalterationsinthelanguage
ofthestatutesasmayberequiredtopreserveauniformmodeofexpression,withoutchanging
thesubstanceofanyenactment.”
18Supranote2atparagraphs47to53.

6
togovernmentalcontrol,andsecond,theextenttowhichtheorganization’s
activitiesbenefitthepublic.

TheCourtruledthatthegovernmentcontrolreferredtointheOntario
AssociationofArchitects19casehastobeexercisedbyaCanadian
government;itisnotsufficientiftheentityinquestionissubjectto
governmentcontroloutsideofCanada.Amongstotherconsiderations,the
Court’sfindingwasbasedonthedecisionCanadianJewishCongress20and
onthefactthatextensivebenefitsaffordedtotheholdersofofficialmarks,
existingonlywithinthegeographicconfinesofthecountry,imposelimitsand
interdictionstoCanadiantrade-markownersandtotheCanadianpublic.In
thiscontext,inordertomeetthetestestablishedbytheFederalCourtof
AppealintheOntarioAssociationofArchitects21case,thepublicauthority
mustbesubjecttogovernmentalcontrolinCanada.

GiventhattherewasnoevidencebeforetheCourtthatanylevelof
governmentinCanadaexercisesanymeasureofpowerorcontroloverany
aspectoftheUSPS’operations,theCourtruledthattheUSPSisnotapublic
authorityforthepurposesofsubparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheAct.
Consequently,thedecisionsoftheregistrartogivepublicnoticeofthe
adoptionanduseofthemarksinissueweresetaside.

3.Conclusion

Theprovisionsofsubparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheActofferauniqueandwide
protectionavailabletopublicauthorities.However,followingthespiritofthe
previousdecisionsCanadianJewishCongress22andOntarioAssociationof
Architects23,theCourtsseemtoputemphasisonthefactthatsaid
provisionsshouldnotbegivenanexpansivemeaningandshouldbe
narrowlyconstrued.Historically,theRegistrarwasusuallymoreproneto
acceptanentity’sclaimthatitwasapublicauthority.However,inlightof
therecentdevelopmentsdiscussedabove,itistobeanticipatedthatthe
Trade-marksOfficewillnowbeexamininganentity’scontentionthatitisa
publicauthorityinadifferentlight.Besides,theTrade-marksOffice,onlytwo
monthsaftertheissuanceofthedecisionCanadaPostCorporationv.United
19Supranote2.20Supranote3:theFederalCourtfoundthatanAmericanreligiousorganizationwasnota
publicauthorityforthepurposesofsubparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheActsincetheGovernmentof
Canadacouldnotinterveneinthewaythatchurchesconducttheiraffairs.
21Supranote2.22Supranote3.23Supranote2.

7
StatesPostalServices24,publishedapracticenoticeonthestatusofpublic
authorityforthepurposesofsubparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheAct25.

AlthoughCanadiancourtshavecertainlynotfinisheddiscussingthequestion
ofpublicauthority,itremainsthatthedecisionCanadaPostCorporationv.
UnitedStatesPostalServices26constitutesanimportantcomplementtothe
interpretationofsubparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)oftheActregardingthepublic
authoritystatus27.

24Supranote4.25Saidpracticenotice,entitled“PublicAuthorityStatusunderSub-paragraph9(1)(n)(iii)”,has
beenpublishedintheFebruary1st,2006editionoftheTrade-marksJournal(Vol.53,No.2675)
anditreplacesthenoticepublishedintheTrade-marksJournaldatedOctober2,2002(seenote
3).
26Supranote4.27ItistobenotedthattheUSPSfiledanoticeofappealonDecember22,2005.

8
ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagents
dedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectual
property:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certification
marksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsand
performers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;
biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,
competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;
prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.
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;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHE
WORLD