Shades of purple do not constitute distinctive trade-mark rules Canada’s Federal Court in dispute involving indicia used for inhaler in the treatment of asthma

SHADESOFPURPLEDONOTCONSTITUTEDISTINCTIVETRAD
E-MARK
RULESCANADA’SFEDERALCOURTINDISPUTEINVOLVINGINDICIAUSED
FORINHALERINTHETREATMENTOFASTHMA

BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADE-MARKAGENTS

Inarecenttrade-markdisputeinvolvingvariouspharmaceuticalcompanies,
Canada’sFederalCourtrevisitedtheissueoftheambitofprotectiongrantedtotrade-
marksconsistingofshadesofcolourandconfirmedthatsuchambitisstillquite
limited(ApotexInc.etal.v.GlaxoGroupLimitedandtheRegistrarofTrade-marks,
2010FC291(F.C.,BarnesJ.,March12,2010)).
ThedisputebeforetheCourtcenteredonatrade-markregistrationsecuredin
CanadaonMay9,2007byGlaxoGroupLimited,apharmaceuticalcompany.The
trade-markinquestion(the“May9,2007”mark)consistedofthecoloursdarkpurple
andlightpurpleappliedtothevisiblesurfaceofportionsofaninhalerfor
administrationofpharmaceuticalsandwas,ofcourse,registeredforusewithinhalers.
This2007registrationresultedfromanapplicationpreviouslyfiledonJune18,2004
onthebasisofallegeduseofthetrade-markinCanadasinceatleastasearlyas
October1999.
Alsousedinassociationwiththeinhalerswerethetrade-marksADVAIRand
DISKUS(thatwerenotchallengedbeforetheCourt).Accordingly,whentheADVAIR
DISKUSinhalerwassoldtothepublic,itwaspresentedinaboxmarkedwiththe
wordsAdvairandDiskusandthatalsocontainedsomeinformationaboutGlaxo
GroupLimited,therecommendeddosagesoftheproduct,itsrecommendedstorage,
itslistofingredients,etc.Whilethetrade-marksADVAIRandDISKUSwere
apparentlyeasilydiscernable,thetrade-markprotectedbytheMay9,2007
registrationhadnotrade-nameorlabel;itwasratheramarkcomprisedoftheshape
andtwocomplementarypurplecolours.
ThisisthemarkthatApotexInc.andotherpharmaceuticalcompaniesattacked
beforetheFederalCourtonDecember21,2007.Theyrequestedthatits

©CIPS,2010.*BarryGamacheisamemberofROBIC,
LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrade-
markagents.PublishedintheMay2010issueofWorldIntellectualPropertyReport.Publication
142.237.

2
correspondingregistrationbeexpungedonthebasisthatthetrade-marklacked
distinctiveness.
Therefore,theissuebeforetheCourtwaswhetheronDecember21,2007,
physicians,pharmacistsandpatientswould,toanysignificantdegree,recognizethe
May9,2007markbyitsappearance(excludinglabelsandpackaging)andassociate
thatget-upwithasinglesource.
InordertodeterminewhethertheMay9,2007markwasdistinctiveofitsowner,the
Courtoutlinedthefollowingtestatparagraph13ofitsreasons:Itisinsufficientto
simplyshowthattheappearanceofaproductmayrepresentasecondarycheckof
productidentityorthatitmaycauseapersontowonderwhethertheexpected
productwascorrectlydispensed;rather,whatisrequiredisthatphysicians,
pharmacistsandpatientsrelatethetrade-marktoasinglesourceandtherebyuse
themarktomaketheirprescribing,dispensingandpurchasingchoices.Accordingly,
aneducatedguessaboutthesourceofaproductisnotenoughtoconstitute
distinctivenessandneitherisadesignthatissimplyuniqueinthemarketplaceand
recognizedassuch.
TheCourtnotedthatcolourandshapecanconstitutevalidtrade-marksinthatthey
canservetodistinguishthewaresofonetraderfromthoseofanother.However,
becausesuchmarksarealsousedwithmore“traditional”trade-marksconsistingof
wordsordesigns,thecommercialdistinctivenessofmarksconsistingofcolours
wouldnotsurprisinglybemoredifficulttoestablish.Thisisparticularlytrueinthearea
ofmedicationandhealthrelatedproductswherepatientswouldbemorealerttothe
presenceofwell-knowntrade-marksandotherwordingappearingonagiven
product’slabelling.Infact,inparagraph19ofitsreasons,theCourtnotedthatthe
distinctivenessofthemarkbasedoncolourandshapemaybeadverselyaffectedby
itsassociationwitharegisteredtrade-namethatwillbeusedbypatientsto
distinguishthesourceoftheproductlinkedthereto.Inotherwords,asmentionedin
paragraph20oftheCourt’sreasons,atrade-markbasedonget-upcannotacquireits
distinctivenessbyvirtueofitsuseinassociationwithadistinctiveword-mark.

TheCourtthenproceededtoexaminewhethertheMay9,2007markwasindeed
distinctiveofitsowner.Atparagraph22ofitsreasons,theCourtwrotethatthe
essentialprobleminsupportofthesupposeddistinctivenessofthemarkunderattack
wasthattheinhalerwasnevermarketedwithoutacorrespondinglabelsothat
witnesseseachgaveanopiniononahypotheticalsituationthatalmostnever
occurred,thatistheusesimpliciteroftheMay9,2007markinassociationwith
inhalers.
Forexample,inparagraph24ofitsreasons,theCourtwroteaboutonewitnesswho
candidlyacknowledgedthatitwasthetrade-nameADVAIRthatwasusedtoproperly
identifyGlaxoGroupLimited’sproductand,intheabsenceofalabel,hewouldbe
suspiciousaboutwhathehadinfrontofhim.

3
Indeed,whattranspiredfromthewholeevidencewasthatappearanceprovides“an
uncertainbasisfordrawingconclusionsaboutproductidentityorsource”.

Afterreviewingtheevidence,atparagraph33ofitsreasons,theCourtconcludedthat
noprudentmedicalprofessionalwouldrelyuponthecolourorshapeofaninhalerto
exerciseaprofessionaljudgmentaboutsuchaproduct;similarly,fewpatientswould
makeachoiceabouttheirinhalerbasedsolelyontheappearanceofanunlabelled
product.
Inshort,theCourtdecidedthatthePlaintiffshadmettheirburdenofestablishingthat
theDefendant’sMay9,2007marklackeddistinctivenessatthedatewhenthe
proceedingswerecommenced.TheapplicationwasallowedandtheCourtordered
thattheregistrationfortheMay9,2007markbestruckfromtheregisteroftrade-
marks.
Thiscaseisatimelyreminderofthelimitedscopeofprotectionaffordedto“trade-
marks”consistingofshadesofcolour;moreover,initsreasons,theCourtstatedan
obvious(butchallenging)reality:itisalwaysdifficultforcolourstoacquire
distinctivenesswhentheyareconstantlyusedwithacompaniontrade-markthatis
recognisedbyconsumersasdistinguishingthesourceoftheproductsassociated
thereto.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand

4
businesslaw;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;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)