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%&%&%.
2-3452&36-
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
-67*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,<764
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;
2-3652&34
2-3,52&3
2-352&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
23652&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