Registrar’s Decision to Reject “Deli Snack” Trade-Mark Application Found Reasonable, Federal Court Rules


REGISTRAR’SDECISIONTOREJECT”DELISNACK”TRADE-MARKAPPLICATION
FOUNDREASONABLE,FEDERALCOURTRULES

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
ArecentjudgmentofCanada’sFederalCourtconfirmedadecisionrendered
bytheRegistrarofTrade-marksrejectinganapplicationtoregisterthetrade-
markDELISNACKinassociationwith,interalia,fish,shellfish,non-living
seafood,andseafoodbasedpreparations.(NeptuneS.A.v.AttorneyGeneral
ofCanada,2003C.F.P.I.715(June6,2003,Martineau,J.)).UndertheCourt’s
applicablestandardofreview,suchdecisionwasfoundtobereasonable.
OnFebruary11,1998,AppellantNeptuneS.A.filedwiththeCanadian
RegistrarofTrade-marksaproposeduseapplicationtoregisterthetrade-
markDELISNACKinassociationwiththeabove-mentionedwares.ThisDELI
SNACKapplicationwasexaminedbyanExaminerattheTrade-marksOffice
whoadvisedNeptuneS.A.ofitsobjectiontotheregistrationofsuchmark.This
objectionwasfoundedonsubsection12(1)(b)ofCanada’sTrade-markAct
(R.S.C.,1985c.T-13)whichprovides,inpart,thatatrade-markisregistrableif
itisnoteitherclearlydescriptiveordeceptivelymisdescriptiveinEnglishorin
Frenchofthecharacterorqualityofthewaresinassociationwithwhichitis
proposedtobeused.
TheExaminerwasoftheviewthatthetermsDELISNACKclearlydescribedin
Englishthatthewaresare«delicatessensnackfoods»,andthataneventual
purchaser,uponseeingthistrade-markassociatedwiththeproducts
mentionedinNeptuneS.A.’sapplication,wouldimmediatelyreactbythinking
thatsuchproductsare«delicatessensnackfoods».IntheExaminer’sopinion,
DELISNACKwasanexpressionthatshouldremainavailabletoall.On
December6,2001,theRegistrarthereforerejectedNeptuneS.A.’s
application.
NeptuneS.A.filedanappealagainsttheRegistrar’sdecisionbeforetheTrial
DivisionofCanada’sFederalCourt.


Onappeal,Mr.JusticeMartineauconsideredthestandardofreview
applicabletoadecisionsuchastheonerenderedbytheRegistrarofTrade-
marksrejectingtheDELISNACKtrade-markapplication;hereferredtothe
caseofMolsonBreweriesv.JohnLabattLtd.[2000]3F.C.145(F.C.A.)in
supportofthepropositionthat,unlessadditionalevidenceisproducedon
appealbeforetheCourt,adecisionbytheRegistrarshouldbeexamined
accordingtothestandardofreasonablenesssimpliciter.TheCourtalsonoted
thatthisstandardwasrecentlydescribedbyCanada’sSupremeCourtinLaw
SocietyofNewBrunswickv.Ryan[2003]S.C.C.20inthefollowingterms:
“Judicialreviewofadministrativeactiononastandardofreasonableness
involvesdeferentialself-discipline.Acourtwilloftenbeforcedtoacceptthat
adecisionisreasonableevenifitisunlikelythatthecourtwouldhave
reasonedordecidedasthetribunaldid(…).Thestandardofreasonableness
basicallyinvolvesasking”afterasomewhatprobingexamination,canthe
reasonsgiven,whentakenasawhole,supportthedecision?”(…).Deference
isbuiltintothequestionsinceitrequiresthatthereviewingcourtassess
whetheradecisionisbasicallysupportedbythereasoningofthetribunalor
decision-maker,ratherthaninvitingthecourttoengagedenovoinitsown
reasoningonthematter.(…).Thissignalsthatthereasonablenessstandard
requiresareviewingcourttostayclosetothereasonsgivenbythetribunal
and”looktosee”whetheranyofthosereasonsadequatelysupportthe
decision.Curialdeferenceinvolvesrespectfulattention,thoughnot
submissionto,thosereasons(…)”.
InLawSocietyofNewBrunswick,Canada’sSupremeCourtcomparedthe
standardofreasonablenesstothatofcorrectness,asfollows:”Attheoutsetit
ishelpfultocontrastjudicialreviewaccordingtothestandardof
reasonablenesswiththefundamentallydifferentprocessofreviewinga
decisionforcorrectness.Whenundertakingacorrectnessreview,thecourt
mayundertakeitsownreasoningprocesstoarriveattheresultitjudges
correct.Incontrast,whendecidingwhetheranadministrativeactionwas
unreasonable,acourtshouldnotatanypointaskitselfwhatthecorrect
decisionwouldhavebeen.Applyingthestandardofreasonablenessgives
effecttothelegislativeintentionthataspecializedbodywillhavetheprimary
responsibilityofdecidingtheissueaccordingtoitsownprocessandforits
ownreasons.(…).Adecisionwillbeunreasonableonlyifthereisnolineof
analysiswithinthegivenreasonsthatcouldreasonablyleadthetribunalfrom
theevidencebeforeittotheconclusionatwhichitarrived.Ifanyofthe
reasonsthataresufficienttosupporttheconclusionaretenableinthesense
thattheycanstanduptoasomewhatprobingexamination,thenthe
decisionwillnotbeunreasonableandareviewingcourtmustnotinterfere.”
Applyingastandardofreasonableness,Mr.JusticeMartineauwrotethatthe
Registrar’sconclusionthatDELISNACKclearlydescribedthecharacterofthe


waresassociatedtherewithwasreasonable.Healsoreferredtoevidencein
theRegistrar’sfilewhichindicatedthatothertraderswereapparentlyusing
expressionsincorporatingthetermsDELISNACKsuchas”ADeliSnackAttack”
forasandwichcomprisedofdeliturkey,delihamanddelicoleslaw.
Inrenderingitsjudgment,theCourtconsideredthatitcouldnotsimply
substituteitsownopiniontothatoftheRegistrarinlightoftheapparent
reasonablenessofthelatter’sdecision.ThislatestjudgmentoftheCourt
illustratestherecenttrendinappealsagainstdecisionsoftheRegistrarwhere
itisbecomingmoredifficulttocontestdecisionsemanatingfromthis
specializedadministrativebody.Subsection56(5)oftheTrade-marksAct
provideshoweverthatadditionalevidencemaybefiledbeforetheFederal
Court,onappealfromadecisionoftheRegistrar.Yetitisonlywhensuch
additionalevidencefiledonappealmateriallyaffectsafindingoffactmade
bytheRegistrarthatthestandardofcorrectnesscanthenbeappliedbythe
Court.Appellantshavethereforeaninterestinfilingrelevantadditional
evidenceonappeal;whethersuchevidencemateriallyaffectsafindingof
factmadebytheRegistraris,however,lefttotheCourt’sappreciation.

LEGERROBICRICHARD,2003.
Publishedat(2003),17-8WorldIntellectualPropertyReport.Publication142.151.



ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
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.Ideaslivehere.
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