Recent Developments in the Area of Grey Marketing: Tougher Times for Licensees After Smith & Nephew



RECENTDEVELOPMENTSINTHEAREAOFGREYMARKETING:TOUGHERTIMES
FORLICENSEESAFTERSMITH&NEPHEW

by
BarryGamache*

LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

Inwhatitcalledaclassiccaseofgreymarketing,theFederalCourtof
AppealhasrecentlydecidedinSmith&NephewInc.v.GlenOakInc.and
al.
1thatgoodswhichoriginateinthestreamofcommercewiththeownerof
atrade-markarenotinfringinggoodssimplybecausetheymayhavearrived
inaparticulargeographicalmarketwherethetrade-markownerdoesnot
wishthemtobedistributed.Inreachingitsdecision,theCourtofAppeal
indicatedthatlicenseesactingasexclusivedistributorsinCanadacouldfind
nosupportintheisolatedcaseofMattelCanadaInc.v.GTSAcquisitionsand
NintendoofAmericaInc.
2whichwas,intheCourt’sview,wronglydecided
backin1989
3.
HISTORICALOVERVIEW
GreymarketgoodsaregoodsthatareimportedanddistributedinCanada,
againstthewishesofatrade-markorcopyrightowner,authorizedimporteror
distributor,andthatoriginatefromasourcehavingsomerelationshiptothe
intellectualpropertyrightowner.Theyhavebeencalled”grey”becausethey
werelegitimatelymarketedandacquiredabroadbutdoubtsexistasto
whethertheycanbeimportedinCanadawithoutinfringingalocaltrade
markorcopyright.However,aftertherecentdecisionoftheFederalCourtof


































































!”






#$
%&
’

$%
(
!&”!)
#%*+
!”



#$



,-
./%

,
/#00%
01!&%0
%&
%&%
.


2-3
4
5
2&3
6-

7
/#/0

*!&

 

 



8

%&%

%0/
9+

:
!%

!!’!0
’

 
*0
!
&%’/%*&



AppealinSmith&Nephewthe”grey”ingreygoodsseemstohavefaded
somewhatinlightoftheunambiguousdecisionreachedbytheCourt.
Historically,theproblemraisedbygreymarketingistwofold:goodsthat
attractgreymarketersarethosethatcanbepurchasedontheworldmarket
atpricessubstantiallylowerthanthepriceschargeddomesticallybythe
intellectualpropertyownerorhisauthorizeddistributorsenjoyingaquasi-
monopoly.Lowerpricesbeingevidentlymoreattractivetoconsumers,the
greymarketers’businesswillthriveandthe”legitimate”distributorcaneasily
bedriventofinancialdifficulty.Fromtheperspectiveofconsumersandfree
competitionadvocates,agreymarketsituationistobeencouraged.
However,fromtheintellectualpropertyownerperspective,highlocalprices
maybeperfectlyjustified,forexample,byhigheroverheadandcosts,
expensiveafter-saleservice,theestablishmentofalargedistributionnetwork
tocovertheterritoryorcompliancewithlocallegislationandregulations.
Onceitsnetworkiswellestablished,itisembarrassingandcostlyforthetrade
markorcopyrightownertocompetewithitsowngoods,possiblyhaving
differentcomponentsandpackagingandsoldatalowerprice.Therefore,
fromtheperspectiveofinternationalintellectualpropertyowners,agrey
marketsituationisfar-offfromonetobeencouraged.
Greymarketingissometimesreferredtoas”paralleldistribution”or”parallel
import”.Tryingtoprevent,bywhateverlegalmeans,greymarketingcauses
problemsandwillmostassuredlycauseproblemsinthefuture,inlightofthe
Court’sdecisioninSmith&Nephew.
I.P.RIGHTSASATOOLTODEFEATGREYMARKETING
Inthepast,trademarkshavebeenusedtostopgreymarketingscenarios
andpreventtheflowofgoodsbearingthetrademarksevenifsuchgoods
weregenuine,providedthatappropriatelegalprotection(flowingfroma
combinationofthelawandthefacts)existed.
Inthe1960’s,whengreymarketingwasnotaspopularasitistoday,itwas
believedthatownershipofatrademarkbyaCanadianoperationwould,in
allcases,besufficienttopreventgreymarketing.Inthesimplestcases,a
trademarkownerwouldbeabletodefeatgreymarketingofitsproductsby
bringinganinfringementaction.UnderSection19oftheTrade-MarksAct
1,
theownerofavalidCanadiantrademarkregistrationhastheexclusiveright
tousethetrademark,throughoutCanada,inassociationwiththewaresfor



















































-6
7
*
8



whichthetrademarkisregistered,andthisrightisinfringedbythe
unauthorizeduseofthetrademark.
ThiswasthescenarioinRemingtonRandLimitedv.TransworldMetal
CompanyLimited
1,whereaninterlocutoryinjunctionwasgrantedtothe
plaintiffontheaboveprincipletopreventtheparallelimportationinCanada
ofelectricshaversfromtheUnitedStates.Inthatcase,thetrademarkswere
ownedbytheplaintiff,aCanadiancompany.Thevalidityoftheregistrations
wasnotcontestedandthewareswerenotoriginatingfromtheplaintiffbut
fromacommonmanufacturingsourceintheUnitedStates.Commentingon
thebalanceofconvenience,theCourtfoundthatapurchasercouldbe
deceivedif,buyingaU.S.shaver,helaterfoundthattheshaverwasnotsold
andnotwarrantedbytheplaintiff.
Inacasewherethefactsweresimilar,WilkinsonSword(Canada)Limitedv.
Juda
2,aninjunctionwasrefused,thetrademarkregistrationsinissuehaving
beenfoundinvalidforlackofdistinctivenessbytheCourt.TheWILKINSON
markshadbeenusedinCanadaforover40yearsbyaUnitedKingdom
companyandlaterassignedtoitsCanadiansubsidiary,in1965,priorto
bringinganactionagainstaparallelimporter.TheCourtfoundthatthetrade
marks,whentheactionwasbrought,signifiedtotheCanadianpurchasing
publicwhattheyhadalwayssignified,notwithstandingthetransfertothe
Canadiansubsidiary.
ThesameconclusionprevailedinBrecksSportingGoodsCo.Ltd.v.Magder
3.
TheSupremeCourtofCanada,confirmingtheFederalCourtofAppeal,
foundthattheregistrationforthetrademark”MEPPS”,ownedbythe
Canadiandistributorofthegoodsfollowingsuccessiveassignmentsofthe
mark,tobeinvalidforlackofdistinctiveness,themarkstillbeingassociated
bythepublictothemanufacturerofthewares,itsoriginalowner.
Inallthesecases,themarkwasownedbytheCanadiancompanydealing
withtheproductsonanexclusivebasisandinallcaseswherethevalidityof
theregistrationwasputinissue,itwasdeclaredinvalidorthevaliditywas
placedindoubt.InallcasestheCourtfoundthatthemarkwasstill
associatedbythepublicinCanada,withthemanufacturerofthegoods
abroad,theoriginalownerofthemark.
Asonecansee,lifewasbeingmadedifficultbyCanadianCourtsfor
exclusivecontractualdistributors,evenwhentheyownedatrademark



















































;6,<

='>
5


;,-<

>
4

;4,<

7
64


registration.Normally,exclusivedistributorshavenotrademarkinterestinthe producttheydistribute.Thefinancialandadministrativecommitmentof thesedistributorsishoweversubstantialsincetheyhavetheobligationto maintainatrainedsalesstaff,producepromotionalmaterialsandothers, expensesunknowntogreymarketers.Exclusivedistributorsarevulnerableto parallelimporterswhobenefitfromtheiradvertisingandpromotionexpenses. THESEIKOCASE Owningatrademarkregistrationbeinginsufficient,otheroriginalwayshadto befoundtoprotectlocalmarkets.Anattemptwasmadebyanauthorized distributortorelyuponthelawofpassing-offtopreventgreymarketing,when thefactsshowedthatthepubliccouldbedeceivedintothinkingitwas gettinggoodsprovidedbyanauthorizeddistributorwithallthebenefits attachedtothesegoodswheninfactitwasnot.Thiswastheeraofthe "extendedpassing-offaction". In1984,intheSEIKOcase,theSupremeCourtofCanadalimitedtherightof actionofauthorizeddistributorsagainstgreymarketers.Firstly,theCourt supportedthepolicyoffreedomofcompetitionandheldthatattemptsto restrictgreymarketingwouldbeinfluencedbythedoctrineofexhaustionor, inotherwords,therighttoresellgoodslegallyacquiredontheworldmarket. SeikoTimeCanadaLtd.wastheexclusivedistributorofSEIKOwatchesin Canadaandwasneithertheregisteredowneroraregistereduserofthe trademarkSEIKO.ThewatchesweremanufacturedbyK.Hattori&Company LimitedinJapan,theregisteredownerofthetrademark.Theproductwas marketedaroundtheworldthroughadistributionsystemconsistingof authorizeddistributorsandtheirauthorizeddealers.Bycontractual arrangements,SeikoTimeCanadawasanauthorizeddistributorandwas entitledtochooseauthorizeddealerswhowouldsellSEIKOwatchesin Canada,providetheserviceandrespectthemanufacturer'swarranty.The defendant,ConsumersDistributingCo.Ltd.,wasnotanauthorizeddealerof SEIKOwatches. Theproductssoldbythetwocompanieswerephysicallyidentical.Theonly differencewasthattheguaranteebookletaccompanyingthewatchessold byConsumersDistributingwasintendedfortheUnitedStatesandstatedthat theguaranteewouldbevalidonlyifproperlyfilledbyanauthorizeddealer. Theplaintiffwasaskingforapermanentinjunctionenjoiningthedefendant fromadvertisingorsellingSEIKOwatchesinCanadaor,alternatively,a permanentinjunctionrestrainingthedefendantfromholdingitselfoutasan authorizedSEIKOdealeroftheplaintiffbyadvertisingandsellingSEIKO watchesasinternationallyguaranteed,anddamages.
6
Mr.JusticeHollandoftheOntarioSupremeCourtfound 1thattheSEIKO productcomprisedthewatchitselfboxedwithaninstructionalbooklet,the pointofsaleservice,thewarrantyproperlyfilledoutbyanauthorizeddealer, andtheaftersaleservice.ThewatchessoldbyConsumersDistributingwere announcedandsoldasSEIKOproducts.Thedefendantwasmisleadingthe publicsinceitofferedonlyoneofthefourelementsofthe"product". HealsofoundthattheCommonLawactionof"passing-off"appliedtothe presentcaseforanumberofreasons.Thereisamisrepresentationtothe public,madebyatraderinthecourseoftrade,toprospectivecustomers, whichiscalculatedtoinjurethebusinessorgoodwillofanothertrade,and whichcausesactualdamagestothebusinessorgoodwillofthetraderby whomtheactionisbrought.Thejudgegranted,interalia,aninjunction permanentlyenjoiningthedefendantfromadvertisingandsellingSEIKO watchesinCanadaandawarded$5,000fordamagessufferedbythe plaintiff. ConsumersDistributingappealedtheinjunctiondescribedabove 2.The appealwasdismissedforthereasonsgivenbythetrialjudgeandparticularly becauseofthefactthattheproductmarketedbytheplaintiffwasnotsimply awatchalone. IntheSupremeCourt 3,Mr.JusticeEstey,fortheCourt,foundthattheconduct ofthedefendantdidnotamountto"passing-off",astheconceptisknownin Canada,formanyreasons: (a)First,elementssuchasthepointofsaleserviceandtheaftersale servicewhichwereofferedbySeikoTimeCanadaforitsauthorized dealersonlycannotbeincludedinthedefinitionofthe"product".The defendantwassellingpreciselythesamewatch,comingfromthe samesource,astheplaintiff. (b)Restraininggreymarketingof"legitimate"productscouldbeperceived tobearestrictiontotherightoffreecompetitioninthemarketplace andwouldhavethefollowingconsequences: -ThepublicwouldbedeprivedoftherighttopurchaseSEIKO watchesonthealternativebasisthatthewatchwouldbe unsupportedbythemanufacturer'swarranty;
















































2-3
6
5
2&3
4
2-3
,
5
2&3

2-3

5
2&3


,
-Amonopolywouldbeestablishedsimilartothatestablishedbya validlyissuedpatentexceptthatthemonopolywouldbeforan unlimitedperiodoftime. (c)Attemptstorestrictgreymarketingbyassertingtrademarkrightsmust beinfluencedbythedoctrineofexhaustion.Once"legitimate"goods aresoldintothemarketplaceanywhereintheworld,therecanbeno furtherrestrictionontheirphysicaltransferbytheassertionofintellectual propertyrightsthatresideinthegoods. (d)Thereisarequirementinpassing-offcasesthattheremustbea misrepresentationordeceitofsomekindtothepublicbyreasonofthe saleofgreygoods.InSEIKO,therewasnosuchmisrepresentationor deceitoncethedefendantwasorderedtowarrantthepublicbyway ofnoticespostedatpoint-of-purchaselocationsthatConsumers Distributingwasnotanauthorizeddealerandthatthewatchesitsold werenotinternationallyguaranteedbySeikoTimeCanada. (e)Theextendeddefinitionofthe"passing-off"actionwasnotapplicable becausethewatchessoldbyConsumersDistributingwerenotfalsely described;bothSeikoTimeCanadaandConsumersDistributinggave retailbuyersaformofguaranteeand,ineachcase,thetrademark SEIKOdistinguishedtheproductfromallothers. Theappealwasallowedandtheinjunctionpermanentlyenjoining ConsumersDistributingfromadvertisingorsellingSEIKOwatchesinCanada wasorderedtobedeletedfromthejudgementissuedattrial.However,the CourtnotedthatnothingwasadvancedbySeikoTimeCanadawith referencetoanyrightsflowingbywayofaregisteredtrademarkinthename oftheownerK.Hattori&CompanyLimited,orrightsflowingfroman appointmentasregistereduserofsaidmark. TheSupremeCourtofCanadadidnotruleout,ineverycase,thepossibilityof successofapassing-offactiontopreventgreymarketing.Any misrepresentationbygreymarketerscouldstillbeenjoined. ACLASSICALSCENARIOTODEFEATGREYMARKETING Morerecently,adecisionbytheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanada inH.G.HeinzCompanyofCanadaLtd.v.EdanFoodsSalesInc. 1confirmed thattheonlysolutiontopreventgreymarketingoflegitimategoodsliesinthe
















































23
6
5
2&3


4
earlyestablishmentofaseparateandindependentCanadianoperation exclusivelydealingintheproductswithintheterritoryandunderstoodassuch bytheconsumers,toprotectthedistinctivenessofthetrademark.Insuch circumstances,theCanadianoperationpreferablyfromthestartorasearly aspossiblewhentheworldmarketjustifiesit,becomesownerofthe registeredtrademark,byfilinganapplicationorthroughassignmentofthe marktogetherwiththegoodwill.Asseenfromabove,exclusivedistributorship willalwayscreateproblemswhendirectinterventionisneededtoprevent greymarketingofgoods,legallymarkedabroadwiththeregisteredowner's trademark. Therightsoftheregisteredownerofatrade-markshouldberecognizedwhen somedegreeofbusinessindependencefromthecontrolofaforeignparent canbeshownandthata"Canadian"goodwillinthetrademarkexistsinfact. Theabsenceofdistinctivenessofthetrademarkcanalwaysberaisedand maybeeasytoshowifthetrademarkwasrecentlyassigned,forthepurpose oflitigation,specificallytoprotecttheterritoryfromgreymarketing. THESMITH&NEPHEWCASE InitsrecentdecisioninSmith&Nephew,theFederalCourtofAppealrefused tocommentontheabovescenariotodefeatgreymarketing,notingthat suchcasesasRemingtonRandandH.G.HeinzCompanyofCanadaLtd. turnedonthefactthattheCanadiansubsidiariesofthemulti-nationals concernedweretheregisteredownersinCanadaofthetrademarksin question;theCourtindicatedthatthequestionastowhetheraCanadian subsidiaryofamulti-nationalcansufficientlydistanceitselffromitsparentso astoassertrightsinaCanadiantrademarkownedbythesubsidiaryagainst personsimportingsimilarlymarkedgoodsoriginatingwithaparentoffshoreis adifficultonewhichneednotbeansweredunderthecircumstances.Inits obiter,theCourtraiseddoubtsastowhethertheacceptedscenario describedabovetodefeatgreymarketingisindeedacceptable. ThefactsinSmith&NephewwerefarsimplerandallowedtheCourttoadopt anunequivocalsolutiontotheparties'greymarketingdispute:appellants GlenOakInc.("GlenOak")andDylexLimited("Dylex")wererespectivelythe importer/distributorandtheretailerofcertainproducts,namelyafacial creamandfacialsoapbearingthewell-knowntrademarkNIVEA.Thattrade markwasandisstillthesubjectofseveralregistrationsinCanadawhichare ownedbytheGermancompanyBeiersdorfAG("Beiersdorf").Therespondent andplaintiffSmith&NephewInc.("Smith&Nephew")wastheregistereduser and,sincethecomingintoforceofnewSection50oftheTrade-MarksActon June19,1993,alicenseeofthosetrade-marks.Thefacialcreamimported anddistributedbyGlenOakandretailedbyDylexbearingthetrademark
-
NIVEAwasmanufacturedandputonthemarketbyaMexicanaffiliateor subsidiaryofBeiersdorf.Thepackagingandlabellingproducedbythe MexicanaffiliateindicatedthatNIVEAwasa"marcaregistrada"andthatthe goodsoriginatedwithBeiersdorf.Thelabelalsoindicatedthatoneofthe ingredientswas"sol.formaldehidoyacidocitrico"andadvisedthatthe productwasmanufacturedby"Smith+Nephew"andsomebyBeiersdorfU.K. Ltd.;mentionwasalsomadethatthetrademarkNIVEAwasownedby BeiersdorfAG.Ontheotherhand,thegoodswhichweremarketedin CanadabySmith&NephewInc.,CanadianlicenseeofthevariousNIVEA trademarks,wereimportedbyitfromtheUnitedStateswheretheywere manufacturedbyBeiersdorfInc.awhollyownedsubsidiaryofBeiersdorf.The facialcreamimportedfromtheUnitedStatesdidnotcontainany formaldehyde.InlightoftheCourt'sdecision,itisimportanttonotethat differencesexistedinsourceandcompositionofbothparties'NIVEA products. BeforetheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourt,amotionjudgehadgranted Smith&Nephew'sapplicationforaninterlocutoryinjunctionenjoiningGlen OakandDylexfromsellinganddistributingproductsbearingtheNIVEAtrade marks.Onappeal,GlenOakandDylextookissuewithallbranchesofthe threeparttestforinterlocutoryinjunctions(aseriouscase;irreparableharm; balanceofconvenience).Essentially,theCourt'sattentionwasdrawntothe firstpartofthetest:DoesSmith&Nephewhaveaseriouscase?Cana plaintiffaslicenseeofaregisteredCanadiantrademarkassertanyrights againstpersonsimporting,distributingandsellinggoodsbearingthosesame trademarkswhichtheownerthereofhasputintothestreamofcommerce? Attheoutset,theCourtmadeitclearthatSmith&Nephewasplaintiffinthe TrialDivisioncouldnotassertanyrightsotherthansuchasmayflowtoitfrom theTrade-MarksActanditsstatusaslicenseeoftheregisteredNIVEAmarks. Therefore,itcouldnotbringapurelyCommonLawactionforpassing-offin theFederalCourt.AsalicenseeoftheNIVEAtrademarks,Smith&Nephew's rightsweregovernedbySection50(asitnowreadssinceJune9,1993)ofthe Trade-MarksAct.Fromareadingofsubsection50(3),theCourtindicated thatSmith&Nephew,asalicenseeofBeiersdorf,couldassertnohigherrights flowingfromthelatter'sregisteredtrademarksthancoulditslicensor.After reviewingU.K.jurisprudence,theCourtnotedthatSmith&Nephewasa CanadianlicenseeandimporterofgoodsbearingBeiersdorf'strademarks couldnotcomplainofthesaleinCanadaofothergoodswhichwerealso manufacturedbyorunderlicensefromBeiersdorfandexhibitedthesame trademarks;therecouldbenodeceptionastotheoriginofthegoods,which wereexactlywhattheypurportedtobe,thatisNIVEAfacialcreamandsoap whosequalityandcharacterwascontrolledbyBeiersdorf.IntheCourt's opinion,itwasmanifestthatSmith&Nephewcouldnotassertrightsas licenseeagainstgoodswhich,directlyorindirectly,originatedfromits

licensor.IfSmith&Nephewhadanycomplaintstomake,itshouldhave takentheissueupdirectlywithBeiersdorfitself. Havingreachedthisunambiguousconclusion,theCourtdiscussedSmith& Nephew'sargumentsthatitcouldassertrightstoastatutoryactioninpassing- offunderSection7oftheTrade-MarksActandmoreparticularlyunder paragraphs7(b)and7(e).Dismissingparagraph7(e)forobvious constitutionalreasons,theCourtnotedthatparagraph7(b)wasoflittle assistancetoSmith&Nephewinthecircumstancesofitscase:nodoubtthat GlenOakandDylexweredirectingattentiontothewarestheysoldinaway whichmightcauseconfusionwiththewaressoldbySmith&Nephew; however,inbothcases,thewaresinquestionwerenotthoseofGlenOak andDylexorSmith&Nephew,butratherthoseofBeiersdorfwhoistheowner ofthetrademarkandthegoodwillassociatedwithit;therefore,thestatutory passing-offactionlikeitsCommonLawcounterpartcouldonlybebroughtby itastheownerofsuchgoodwill.TheCourtthereforeallowedtheappealand dismissedSmith&Nephew'sapplicationforaninterlocutoryinjunction. TheCourt'sdecisionisunequivocalandevengoesabitfurtherthanthe SupremeCourtofCanada'sdecisioninSEIKO.OnerecallsthatMr.Justice EsteyinSEIKOspecificallynotedandleftopenthequestionofthepossible impactofaregisteredtrademarkandtheresultonapassing-offaction:"Ido notwanttoleavethissubject,dealingasitdoeswiththemarketingof manufacturedgoodsidentifiedbyaregisteredtrademark,withoutstating thatnothingwasadvancedhereinbytherespondentwithreferencetoany rightsflowingtoitbywayofatrademarkregisteredinthenameofHattori undertheTrade-MarksActofCanada.Indeed,Hattoriwouldbearequisite plaintiffifanysuchclaimweremade.Perhapstherespondent,ifitheldan appointmentasaregistereduseroftheregisteredtrademark,registered undertheTrade-MarksActofCanada,wouldhavetherequisitestatus".The CourtinSmith&NephewindicatingthatthesecommentsbyMr.JusticeEstey werenottobeenseenasopeningthedoortosomekindofextended statutorypassing-offaction;rather,hewassimplydrawingattentiontothe factthatthecasebeforehimwasnotconcernedwiththespecificstatutory rightswhichregistrationofatrademarkvestsintheownerorregistereduser thereof. CONCLUSION AfterSmith&Nephew,thelegaluncertaintycreatedbygreymarketinghas diminishedsomewhat.TheCourt'sdecisionisaconfirmationthatCanadaisa countrywherefreecompetitionistheruleandmonopolytheexception: whengoodsdistributedarelegitimate,whatevertheirsourceinatrademark owner'svariousaffiliates,licenseesorexclusivedistributorsofproductsin

Canadaoughttotakeuptheissueofgreymarketgoodswiththetrademark ownerabroadinorderto"secureleaks"ratherthanapplyingforinjunctions beforetheFederalCourtofCanada.AfterSmith&Nephew,thewritingon thewallforlicenseesandexclusivedistributorsinCanadaisasclearas... blackandwhite.


ROBIC,ungrouped'avocatsetd'agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques decertificationetappellationsd'origine;droitsd'auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique, droitsvoisinsetdel'artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés; biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know- howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite, litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu'ailleursdansle monde.Lamaîtrisedesintangibles. 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.Ideaslive here. COPYRIGHTER IDEASLIVEHERE ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL'INVENTER! LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES LEGERROBICRICHARD NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES PATENTER R ROBIC ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS ROBIC++++ ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART THETRADEMARKERGROUP TRADEMARKER VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD