“Recognized Trade-marks” in Quebec, a different approach

2009-01-01

“RECOGNIZEDTRADE-MARKS”INQUEBEC,ADIFFERENTAPPROACH
CATHERINEBERGERON*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.
LAWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS
1.Introduction
TheCharteroftheFrenchlanguage1(alsowellknownas“Bill101”;the“Charter”)is
incontestablyoneofthemostimportantstatutesoftheprovinceofQuebecbeing
closelyrelatedtotheparticularsituationoftheonlyCanadianprovincewitha
predominantlyFrench-speakingidentity.AsstatedintheCharter,theFrench
languageistheinstrumentbywhichQuebechasarticulateditsidentity.
AdoptedbytheQuebecNationalAssemblyin1977,theCharter’saimistoensure
thequalityandinfluenceoftheFrenchlanguage.TheChartermakesFrenchthe
province’sofficiallanguage:thelanguageofthelaw,education,communications,
businessandtrade,aswellasthenormaleverydaylanguageintheworkplace.
Sinceitsadoptionin1977,theCharterhasevolvedandchangedtoreflectagrowing
multiculturalsocietyandalsotoadaptcertainrestrictionstothefundamentalfreedomof
speechprotectedbytheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms.Forinstance,oneof
themostimportant(andalsocontroversial)changeaffectedtheregulationofexterior
commercialsignswhich,inthefirstenactmentoftheCharter,madeitillegalforbusinesses
toholdcommercialexteriorsignsinalanguageotherthanFrench.Suchaprovisionhas
beenchangedin19932and,sincethen,commercialoutdoorsignscanbemultilingualso
longasFrenchispredominant.
Itisquiteachallengetostrikeabalancebetweenthelinguisticidentityofanationandits
constantevolvingcommercialreality.Thisshortarticlewillessentiallyfocusononeofsuch
strikingrealities,namelytheuseoftrade-marksinalanguageotherthanFrenchasan
exceptiontotheCharterwhichinterpretationmightbesettochange.
2.GeneralRulesandExceptions
©CIPS,2009.*LawyerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentand
trade-markagents.PublishedintheDecember2009issueofIntellectualProperty(FederatedPress).
Publication173.0221R.S.Q.,c.C-11.2WithBill86.

2
Asageneralrule,theCharterprovides,underChapterVIIrelatingtothelanguageof
commerceandbusiness,thateveryinscriptiononaproduct(whetherontheproductitself
oronitscontaineroronitswrappingoronadocumentorobjectsuppliedwithit),alongwith
catalogues,brochuresandsimilarpublicationsmustbedraftedinFrench3.Whilethe
inscriptiononaproductmaybeaccompaniedbyatranslation,saidtranslationmaynotbe
givengreaterprominencethantheinscriptioninFrench.Also,publicsigns,postersand
commercialadvertisingmustbeinFrench.TheymayalsobebothinFrenchandin
anotherlanguageprovidedthatFrenchismarkedlypredominant4.
TheRegulationrespectingthelanguageofcommerceandbusiness5(the“Regulation”)
createsexceptionstotheabovegeneralruleswithrespectto,amongstothers,thelanguage
oftrade-marks.Whetheronaproduct,incatalogues(brochures,foldersandthelike)oron
publicsigns,postersandincommercialadvertising,a“recognized”trade-markwithinthe
meaningoftheTrade-marksAct6mayappearexclusivelyinalanguageotherthanFrench,
unlessaFrenchversionhasbeenregistered7.
Untilrecently,theOfficequébécoisdelalanguefrançaise(the“Office”)hadadoptedthe
generallyacceptedlegalviewthat“recognized”trade-marksundertheTrade-marksAct
includedbothregisteredandunregisteredtrade-marks.Suchapositionwasobjectivelyin
linewiththeparticularwordingoftheexceptionvoluntarilymakingadifferencebetween
“recognized”(“reconnue”inFrench)and“registered”(“déposée”inFrench)trade-marks.
AccordingtotheTrade-marksAct,atrade-markisdefinedas“amarkthatisusedbya
personforthepurposeofdistinguishingorsoastodistinguishwaresorservices
manufactured,sold,leased,hiredorperformedbyhimfromthosemanufactured,sold,
leased,hiredorperformedbyothers”.Thatiswhatarecognizedtrade-markisor,perhaps,
shouldbe.WhiletheTrade-marksActconfersexclusiverightstotheownersofregistered
trade-marks(includingSection19(rightsconferredbyregistration),Section20
(infringement)andSection22(depreciationofgoodwill),ownersofunregisteredtrade-
marksalsobenefitfromacertainformofprotectionundertheAct(includingSection7
(codificationoftherecourseagainstpassing-off),Section8(warrantyoflawfuluseofa
trade-mark),Section21(concurrentuseofconfusingtrade-marks)andSections38(2)c)and
16(groundofoppositionbasedonprioruseofatrade-mark)).
Suchaninterpretationhasalsobeenendorsedbythecourts,particularlyinAttorney
GeneralofQuebecv.St-GermainTransport(1994)inc.8wheretheuseoftheexpression
“CoasttoCoastServices”inEnglishonlyonthedefendant’strailertruckswasconsidered
bytheCourtasacommonlawtrade-markusedtodistinguishthedefendant’stransportation
services,thusasatrade-markrecognizedwithinthemeaningoftheTrade-marksAct.While
3Sections51and52oftheCharter.4Section58oftheCharter.Whilethepreviousprovisionprohibitingpublicsignsinanyotherlanguage
thanFrenchwasconsideredtobeagainstfreedomofspeechintheSupremeCourtcaseFordv.
AttorneyGeneralofQuebec[1988]2S.C.R.712,theconstitutionalityofcurrentSection58ofthe
Charterhasbeenconfirmedinothercases,notablyinLesEntreprisesW.F.H.Ltéev.Attorney
GeneralofQuebec,2000R.J.Q.(C.S.)confirmedby2001R.J.Q.(C.A.).5R.Q.c.C-11,r.9.6R.S.,1985,c.T-13.7Sub-sections7(4),13(4)and25(4)oftheRegulation.8Drummond405-61-012384-049,J.E.2006-2143(C.Q.).

3
theCourtclearlyruledthattheregistrationofatrade-markwasnotaprerequisiteforthe
applicationofsuchanexception,ithasspecificallymentionedthattheburdenofshowing
useandgoodwillattachedtoatrade-markreliesonthedefendant.
3.StricterInterpretation
AccordingtothemostrecentOffice’sguidelinespublishedinthe2008annotated
Charter,theOfficenowconsidersthattheexceptionof“recognized”trade-marks
onlyappliestotrade-marksregisteredwiththeTrade-marksOffice(CIPO),
specificallyexcludingtrade-marksforwhichanapplicationforregistrationis
pending.Itisimportanttonotethatthisnewinterpretationreferstointernal
guidelinesandneithertheCharternortheRegulationhasbeenamended.Itis
nonethelessaclearindicationthattheOfficewillbecomemoresevereinits
enforcementoftheCharterrequirements.
AccordingtotheOffice,asignificantchangeintheinterpretationoftheexception
pertainingtotrade-marksinotherlanguageswasnecessarytoprovideanobjective
anduniformmeasure,bothfortheOfficeandtheusers.Differentconsiderations
leadtothedecisiontoadoptsuchastricterinterpretation.Asregardsthepromotion
oftheFrenchlanguageasthelanguageofcommerceandbusiness,theOfficeisof
theviewthatthepreviousinterpretationleadtoanabusivescopeofapplicationof
theexceptionprovidedbysub-sections7(4),13(4)and25(4)oftheRegulation,
especiallywithrespecttopublicsigns,constitutingathreattothemarked
predominanceofFrench.Byadoptinganarrowerinterpretation,oneoftheOffice’s
objectivesisunquestionablytosendaclearmessagetobusinessesusingtrade-
markscomposedofelementsthataredescriptive,inEnglishforinstance,oftheir
waresorservices.
TheOfficealsojustifiestheadoptionofastricterinterpretationaccordingto
administrativeconsiderations;theOfficecannotassumethatatrade-markis
recognizedwithinthemeaningoftheTrade-marksActandcannotruleonsucha
questionpertainingtotheinterpretationofafederalstatute.Itisincumbentonthe
Trade-marksOffice,competentontheseissues,todecidewhetheratrade-markis
registrableandwhetheritcanfunctionasatrade-markwithinthemeaningofthe
Act.Inotherwords,thesealofsatisfactionoftheTrade-marksOfficeismorelikely
toavoidgreyzonesanduncertainty.
4.Previousinterpretationconfirmedinrecentdecision
Untilthisday,nodecisionconfirmsthenewlyadoptedinterpretationoftheOffice.In
fact,thelatestdecisionontheissue,CentreSportifSt-Eustachev.AttorneyGeneral
ofQuebec9,reiteratesthepreviousinterpretation,namelythatanon-registered
92009QCCS3307(SuperiorCourt,CriminalDivision).

4
trade-markcanfallwithintheexceptionofa“recognized”trade-markusedonpublic
signs.
Inthismatter,theAppellantCentreSportifSt-Eustachewaschargedandconvicted
of,amongstothers,havingpermittedcommercialenterprisestoinfringeSections58
(requirementoncommercialadvertising)and205(penalsanctions)oftheCharterby
usingthenames“Bowl-Mat”and“OhDaddy”onsignsonsite,insteadofusingtheir
fullregisteredfirmnamesincludingthewords“Amusements”inthefirstcaseand
“Restaurant”inthelatter.
Atfirstinstance,thecourtrejectedthesubmissionsputforwardbytheAppellantand
heldthattheterms“Bowl-Mat”and“OhDaddy”didnotconstituterecognizedtrade-
marksundertheTrade-marksAct.Thetrialcourtmentionedthattrade-marksand
tradenamesshouldnotbeconfused.Atradenameisthenameunderwhicha
businessoperatesitscommercialactivitiesanduseofatradenamedoesnotcreate
trade-markrights.Atradenameoracorporatenamecannotberegisteredor
protectedasatrade-markunlessitisusedasatrade-mark,namelyforthepurpose
ofdistinguishingthewaresandservicesofitsownerfromthoseofothers.Inthis
particularcase,thetrialcourtconsideredthattheAppellantdidnotfileanyevidence
showingthatuseofthetradenames“Bowl-Mat”and“OhDaddy”alsoamountedto
trade-markuse.
OnappealbeforetheSuperiorCourt,theAppellantrenewedthetrade-mark
exceptionargumentandsubmittedthatthetrialjudgeerredinlawinadoptingatoo
restrictiveinterpretationoftheTrade-marksAct,particularlyinthecaseofaservice
mark.Initsanalysis,theCourtwrote:
TheAppellantarguesthatatrade-markdoesnothavetobe
registeredtoreceivetheprotectionscontainedintheTrade-marks
Act.Thisbeingso,anon-registeredtrade-markcanfallwithinthe
exceptionfoundatpara.25(4)oftheRegulation(…).TheCourt
wouldagree.(…)Alladefendanthastoestablishisthatthealleged
prohibitedphraseornamewhichistargetedforprosecutionunder
theCharteisatrade-mark.Itdoesnothavetoprovewhetheritisa
famousmarknortheextentofitsgeographicalreach,forinstance.10
TheCourtisoftheviewthatthedistinctionbetweentrade-marksandtradenamesis
relevantastheexceptionintheRegulationappliestotrade-marksonly.Asaresult,
thegroundofappealwasdismissedandthetrialjudge’sdecisionwasconfirmed,
namelythattheAppellant’suseofitsnamewasatradenameuseandnotatrade-
markusewhichwasdirectedtoprotectingthegoodwilloftheenterprise.
Althoughthiscasereliedonthepreviousinterpretationpertainingtothetrade-mark
exception,thereisnodoubtthattheregistrationofthemarks“Bowl-Mat”and“Oh
10Ibid,atpara.21and23.

5
Daddy”inassociationwiththeoperationofabowlingcentreandrestaurantservices
respectivelycouldhavechangedtheCourt’sdecision.ByvirtueofSection64ofthe
Codeofpenalprocedure,theburdenofestablishinganexceptionrestswiththe
defendantand,clearly,theevidencefiledbyCentreSportifSt-Eustacheinthiscase
wasnotsufficienttomeetthisburden.
5.Conclusion
ThechangeofinterpretationadoptedbytheOfficeisratherrecentanditisstillearly
toobserveanyconsequenceofsuchaturnaround.However,businesseswishingto
benefitfromthetrade-markexceptionarewelladvisedtoseekregistrationoftheir
trade-marks,particularlyiftheycontaindescriptivetermsinalanguageotherthan
French.Clearlydescriptivetermscannotberegisteredastrade-marks,sofilingof
descriptivetrade-markswillnotconstituteasuccessfulwaytocircumventtheFrench
languagerequirements.
GiventhattheexceptionsprovidedintheRegulationcoverinscriptionsina
“language”otherthanFrench,theadoptionoftrade-markscomposedofinvented
termswhichdonothaveanymeaninginanylanguageshouldnotbeproblematic.
Finally,itisimportanttokeepinmindwhenadoptingatrade-markfilingstrategy
that,whiletheOfficeencouragestrade-marksownersanduserstoregisteraFrench
versionoftheirmarks(unlesstheycannotbetranslatedorunlesssaidFrench
versionwouldnothaveanycommercialvalue),therecognizedtrade-markexception
cannotberelieduponifaFrenchversionhasbeenregistered.
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,
marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireet
artistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-
howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,
litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentand
trademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsof
intellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certification

6
marksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;
licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;
marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD
Trade-marksofLEGERROBICRICHARD,LLP(“ROBIC”)