Strategic Advice on Handling an Appeal from the Trade-marks Office to the Federal Court

STRATEGICADVICEONHANDLINGANAPPEALFROMTHE
TRADE-MARKSOFFICETOTHEFEDERALCOURT
BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

HereareafewthoughtsonstrategyinappealsfromtheTrade-marksOfficetothe
FederalCourt.Thesethoughtscomefromworkinthefieldoftrade-marksbeforethe
Trade-marksOfficeandtheFederalCourtforjustovertwodecades.Theyarealso
basedonexperienceinappealcaseswhereIpresentedargumentsonbehalfofone
ofthepartiesinvolved;Iwillaccordinglyrefertosomeofthesecasestoillustratea
fewpoints.
Let’sstartwithsomeadvicethatisrelevantwhenyoureceive,unfortunately,that
unfavourabledecisionfromtheRegistrar.
1.ReadtheRegistrar’sreasonswithacriticaleye

WhenyoureceiveanunfavourabledecisionfromtheTrade-marksOffice,beitfrom
theOppositionBoard,theSection45DivisionortheExaminationSection,youwillof
coursebereadingthedecisionandreportingonitscontenttoyourclientalongwitha
fewrecommendations.
ThefirstpieceofstrategicadvicethatIcangiveatthisstageistoreadthedecision
withacriticaleyeinordertodetermine,firstofall,whetheranymistakeinlawhas
beenmadeinthereasons.
AlthoughitisrecognizedthattheRegistrarisanexpertinthefieldoftrade-marksand
hisdecisionsareusuallynotoverturnedlightly,itmustalsobeacknowledgedthatthe
Registrarisnotanexpertinmattersofpurelaw.

IfyoucanidentifyamistakemadeinlawbytheRegistrar,itwillbemucheasier,on
appeal,togettheCourt’sattentioninarguingthattheRegistrar’sdecisioncannot
stand.

©CIPS,2011.*BarryGamacheisamemberofROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,patentandtrade-mark
agents.PublishedintheFall2011issueofIntellectualProperty(FederatedPress.Publication173.25

2

Forexample,inAttorneyGeneralofCanadav.EffigiInc.,2005FCA172(F.C.A.),the
FederalCourtofAppealindicatedthatonissuesofpurelaw,theRegistrarhasno
specialexpertise.Hisfindingsinlawarethereforenotsubjecttotheusualdeference
grantedtoothertypesoffindings.
TheEffigicase(whereIappearedonbehalfoftherespondent)offersagoodexample
ofreviewingtheRegistrar’sreasonswithacriticaleye.Thisisthecasethat
transformedCanadaintoa“firstcome,firstserved”countrywhenexaminingtrade-
markapplicationsbeforetheExaminationSection.Italsosetasideafiftyyearold
policywhereby(upuntilEffigi)thepriorityofapplicationswasdeterminedby
allegationsofuseratherthansequentialfiling;thismeantthatasubsequentlyfiled
applicationcould“bump”afirstapplicationbecauseofanallegationofearlierusein
thesubsequentapplication.Ineffect,theRegistrarwasinterpretingparagraph
37(1)(c)oftheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13(the“Act”)byattachingthereto
thevariousconditionsofsection16.ThiswasclearlystatedintheRegistrar’sreasons
refusingEffigiInc.’sapplication.TheRegistrar’sdecisionwasnotentirelyasurprise
sinceatthetime,thiswastheunderstoodandacceptedmethodofdetermining
prioritywhenexaminingapplicationsattheExaminationSection.

IcarefullyconsideredtheRegistrar’sreasonsrefusingEffigiInc.’sapplicationand
concludeditwasapracticethatapparentlyeverybodyfollowedbutitdidnothave,in
myview,abasisinlaw.Thankfully,theFederalCourtandtheFederalCourtof
AppealagreedbutthelessonItookfromthisisthatyoushouldalwaysreviewwitha
criticaleyeanydecisionrenderedbytheRegistrarandyoushouldnotbeafraidto
challengeapracticeorapolicyifyoucanarguethatsuchpracticeorpolicyisnot
whatParliamentwantedorintended.
WheneverIreceiveadecisionfromtheRegistrar,especiallyifthedecisionis
unfavourableandifIamabouttomakerecommendationstoaclient,Ialwaysread
thereasonstomakesurethatthereisnothinginlawthatcouldbechallengedsince
reviewingcourtssuchastheFederalCourtseemtomeveryinterestedinensuring
thatacreatureofstatutesuchastheRegistrarcorrectlyappliestheAct.

2.Examine(andprepare)theevidenceverycarefully

TheevidencefiledinanyproceedingsbeforetheRegistrarthatiseventuallyreviewed
bytheFederalCourtalsowarrantsaverycarefulreadinginafieldastechnicalas
trade-marklaw.Itismyexperiencethatsomecasescanbewonorlostbyacareful
analysisofthelanguageusedintheevidencesubmittedbytheparties.Forexample,
insection45proceedingsundertheAct,theregistrantmustfileevidenceofuse
duringaspecificperiod.Iftheevidenceisambiguousastowhentheusehasactually
occurred,whetherwithinoroutsidetherelevantperiod,IhavefoundthattheFederal
Courtisusuallyreceptivetothistypeofargument.Forexampleinthecaseof

3
Grapha-HoldingAGv.IllinoisToolWorksInc.,2008FC959(F.C.)whereIpresented
argumentsonbehalfoftherequestingparty,theCourtagreedthatthelanguageused
bytheregistrantinitsevidenceofusewasnotpreciseenough:
[22]Furthermore,referringtouseondatesthatarecontainedbothwithinand
outsidetherelevantperioddoesnotprovideclearevidence,becauseit
cannotbedeterminedifanyusehasoccurredspecificallyduringtherelevant
period.JusticePinardunderlinedthispointin88766CanadaInc.v.Monte
CarloRestaurantLtd.,2007FC1174,63C.P.R.(4th)391atparagraph9:
TheapplicantsubmitsthattheaffidavitofMr.Gallidoesnotestablish
thatthemarkwasusedduringtherelevantperiodwithrespecttoeither
theservicesorthewares.Iagree.Theonlyperiodestablishedbythe
affidavitonthispointisMr.Galli’sstatementthatthecircularshadbeen
distributedduringtheprecedingfiveyears.Therelevantperiodisthe
precedingthreeyears.Thereisnoevidencethatthecircularswere
distributedduringthelatterperiod.…

[23]Thebrochurescontainedintheaffidavitshowwherethemarkissituated
onthevarioustypesofwaressoldbytherespondent.But,theevidencedoes
notindicatethatthesebrochureshavebeengivenatthetimeoftransferof
thepropertyinorpossessionofthewares.Therelevantperiodisbetween
October30,2000andOctober30,2003.TheFederalCourtofAppealstated
thisrequirementinBMWCanadaInc.v.NissanCanadaInc.(2007),60
C.P.R.(4
th)181(F.C.A).

[24]InMr.Turfan’affidavit,thewords:•”currentlysoldinCanada…currentlyinuseandhasbeeninuse
sinceabout2002…”(paragraph4);
•”…currentlyinuse”(paragraph6);
•”…currentlysoldinCanada…currentlymarkedon…presentlyinuse
inCanada”(paragraph6);
•”…similarbrochuresregularlyaccompanythesalesofthewaresin
thenormalcourseoftrade…”(paragraph10);

donotmeetthetestofthejurisprudence.Thespecialcircumstancesin
section45createanobligationontheRegistrartoensurethattheevidence
adducedissolidandreliable(88766CanadaInc.v.MonteCarloRestaurant
Ltd.,above,citingatparagraph8BoutiqueLimitéInc.,above).Suchisnot
thecasehere.Theallegationsintheaffidavitarenotpreciseenough.

Inmyview,thispieceofadviceisveryimportantintrade-markcases,eitherbefore
theRegistraroronappealbeforetheFederalCourt:Alwaysreadverycarefullythe
evidencefiledbytheotherside.Ofcourse,alsoensurethattheevidencefiledon

4
behalfofyourownclientispreciseenoughtosurviveanychallengeofthetype
highlightedintheGrapha-Holdingcase(asthesayinggoes:whatissauceforthe
gooseissauceforthegander).
3.Knowyourstandardsorreviewandthenuancesrelatingthereto

AnyappealfromadecisionfromtheRegistrarwillraisetheissueofthestandardof
review.Itisthereforeimportanttoknowthesestandardsandtodeterminewhichwill
beapplicableinanygivencase.
Asageneralrule,theFederalCourtofAppealhasheldinChrisianDior,S.A.v.Dion
NeckwearLtd.,[2002]3F.C.405(F.C.A.)that:
[8]DecisionsoftheRegistrar,whetheroffacts,lawordiscretion,withinhis
areaofexpertise,aretobereviewedonastandardofreasonableness
simpliciter,whichissynonymousto”clearlywrong”.Whereadditional
evidenceisadducedintheTrialDivisionthatwouldhavemateriallyaffected
theRegistrar’sdecision,ajudgemustcometohisorherconclusionastothe
correctnessoftheRegistrar’sdecision(seeMolsonBreweries,APartnership
v.Labatt(John)Ltd.etal.(2000),252N.R.91(F.C.A.)perRothsteinJ.A.at
p.101:UnitedStatesPoloAssn.v.PoloRalphLaurenCorp.(2000),9C.P.R.
(4th)51,F.C.A.,perMaloneJ.A.atpara.13andIsaacJ.A.atpara.10;
GarboCreationsInc.v.HarrietBrown&Co.(1999),3C.P.R.(4th)224,
F.C.T.D.,perEvansJ.at234).

SeealsoforexampleUnitedGrainGrowersLtd.v.LangMichener,[2001]3F.C.102
(F.C.A.).
ThisdescriptionofthestandardofreviewwasquotedasrecentlyasNovember2010
byMr.JusticeShoreinDiamantElinorv.88766CanadaInc.,2010FC1184(F.C.)
whoreferredtotheMolsonBreweriescaseatparagraph38ofhisreasons.Itwas
alsoapprovedbytheSupremeCourtofCanadainMattel,Inc.v.3894207Canada
Inc.,[2006]1S.C.R.772,atparagraph41.

However,asMr.JusticeShoreexplainedintheDiamantElinorcase,furthertothe
SupremeCourtofCanada’sdecisioninDunsmuirv.NewBrunswick,[2008]1S.C.R.
190,thedistinctionbetweenthe“patentunreasonableness”and“reasonableness
simpliciter”standardswasabandonedandthesetwostandardsweremergedinto
one:[47]Injudicialreview,reasonablenessisconcernedmostlywiththeexistence
ofjustification,transparencyandintelligibilitywithinthedecision-making
process.Butitisalsoconcernedwithwhetherthedecisionfallswithinarange

5
ofpossible,acceptableoutcomeswhicharedefensibleinrespectofthefacts
andlaw.

Finally,whennewevidenceisfiledonappeal,theFederalCourtjudgewillcometo
hisorherownconclusionastothecorrectnessoftheRegistrar’sdecisiononlyifthis
additionalevidenceisimportantandaddssomethingnoteworthytotherecord.Where
thenewevidenceisonlyrepetitiveanddoesnotchangetheweightoftheevidence
alreadysubmitted,thestandardofreviewwillremainreasonableness.

AsIalludedtowiththeEffigicase,insomeinstances,thestandardofreviewwillbe
correctnessevenifthereisnoadditionalevidence.Thiswillbethecaseifthe
questionraisedisoneofpurelawanddoesnotinvolveissuesoffactorthe
Registrar’sexpertise.
Thatbeingsaid,theCourtinChristianDiorindicated,interalia,thatthedecisionsof
theRegistrar,onissuesoflaw,arealsotobereviewedonastandardof
reasonableness(describedassimpliciterpre-Dunsmuir).

However,onissuesoflaw,asIexplainedearlier,Ibelievethatdecisionsfromthe
Registrarshouldbereviewedonthecorrectnessstandard.

Infact,astheFederalCourtofAppealstatedinEffigi(acasepost-ChristianDiorand
post-MolsonBreweries),decisionsofpurelawshouldbereviewedaccordingtothe
standardofcorrectnessjustlikeanyextricablequestionoflawofgeneralimportance
(asexplainedbytheSupremeCourtinMattelatparagraph40).

Inshort,asImentionedearlier,alwaysreadanyunfavourabledecisionbythe
Registrarwithacriticaleyeinordertoidentifyanyerrororlawthatmightbefound
therein;furthermore,inanysubsequentappeal,donotforgettoreferthecaselaw
(suchasEffigi)thatidentifiesthestandardofcorrectnessforanyissueofpurelaw
(andnottoanypre-EffigiCourtdecisionthatmightsuggestthatissuesoflawarealso
tobereviewedonastandardofreasonableness).Thatiswhyitisimportanttoknow
thecaselawonthisissue.
4.Theimpactofadditionalevidence:Whattofileandforwhatissue?

InanyappealfromaRegistrar’sdecision,section56oftheTrade-marksActallows
forthefilingofadditionalevidenceonappeal.Dependingonitscontent,this
additionalevidencemayhaveanimpactonthestandardofreviewapplicabletothe
Registrar’sdecision.
IfadditionalevidenceisfiledthatwouldmateriallyaffecttheRegistrar’sfindingsof
fact,thenthestandardofreviewiscorrectness.However,thiswillnotbethecasefor
allaspectsoftheRegistrar’sdecision.Ifadditionalevidenceisfiledbeforethe

6
FederalCourtthataffectstheRegistrar’sfindingsoffactonaspecificissue,the
standardofcorrectnesswillonlyapplytothatspecificissuewhilethestandardof
reasonablenesswillapplytoalltheotherissues.Thismustbekeptinmindwhen
contemplatingthecontentandextentoftheadditionalevidenceonappeal.The
applicationofdifferentstandardsofreviewfordifferentissueswasexaminedbythe
FederalCourtinanothercaseIargued,GuidoBerlucchi&C.S.r.l.v.BrouilletteKosie
Prince,2007FC245,thistimeonbehalfoftheregistrantinasection45
expungementcase.
GuidoBerlucchiwasanappealfromthedecisionoftheRegistrarthathadexpunged
theregistrant’strade-mark.Inherdecision,thehearingofficeractingonbehalfofthe
Registrarconcludedthattheregistrant’susewasinthenormalcourseoftradebut
shewasnotsatisfiedthatthedesigntrade-markasregisteredwasusedduringthe
relevantperiod(sincenolabelswerefiledinevidence).Onappeal,additional
evidencewasintroducedexplainingtheregistrant’suseofalabelshowingavariation
ofthetrade-markasregisteredduringtherelevantperiod.Duringthehearingofthe
appeal,therequestingpartyarguedthatsinceadditionalevidencewasfiled,the
standardofreviewwasnowcorrectnessandtheissueofthenormalcourseoftrade
(foundtobeacceptablebythehearingofficer)couldalsoberevisitedonappealby
theCourt.
Theissueofdifferentstandardsofreviewwasnotarguedbythepartiesintheir
respectivememorandums.However,incasethemattermightberaisedatthe
hearing(astherequestingpartyalludedtotheissueofthenormalcourseoftradein
itsmemorandum),IhadwithmeatthehearingthreecopiesoftheFederalCourtof
AppealdecisioninFootlockerCanadaInc.v.Steinberg,2005FCA99(F.C.A.)where
Mr.JusticeRothsteinconfirmedthatdifferentissuesonappealmightwarrantdifferent
standardsofreview.TheCourtagreedandappliedtheprinciplesofFootlocker:
[26]Inthecaseathand,itisevidentfromtheRegistrar’sdecisionthatthe
determinativeissuetoberesolvedwaswhattrade-markappearedonthe
labelaffixedtothebottlessoldtoBrunelloImportsInc.Inparagraph10of
hisnewaffidavitandinexhibitAZ2,Mr.Zilianiprovidestheexactdetailsof
thetrade-markusedonthesaidbottles.Thereisnodoubtthatthis
evidencewouldhavemateriallyaffectedthefindingoftheRegistraronthis
issue.ThismeansthattheCourtmustexerciseitsdiscretiondenovoto
determinewhetherornotthetrade-markaffixedtothesparklingwinessold
toBrunelloImportsInc.issufficientlysimilartotheregisteredtrade-markto
constituteuseofthesaidtrade-mark.
[27]Butthisisnottheendofthematter.TheCourtmustalsodecidewhat
standardofreviewwillbeappliedtothesecondissueraisedbythe
respondentduringthehearingofwhetherornotthemarkwasusedinthe
ordinarycourseoftrade.

7
[28]BerlucchisubmitsthatitdidnotaddressthisissueinMr.Ziliani’s
secondaffidavitbecausethiswasnotacontentiouspoint.Thus,theCourt
shouldnotinterveneunlessitisconvincedthatthisfindingwasnotone
thatwasreasonablyopentotheRegistraronthebasisoftheevidence
initiallysubmitted.
[29]Inthisrespect,theapplicantreliesonthedecisionoftheFederalCourt
ofAppealinFootlocker(above),wheretheCourtofAppealreversedthe
trialjudgewhohadconfirmedanexpungementdecisionbutongrounds
thatweretotallydifferentfromthoserelieduponbytheRegistrar.

[30]InFootlocker,theRegistrarhadfoundthattheevidenceprovidedby
theregisteredownerabouttheuseofitstrade-markonasignaffixedto
thefrontofastorelocatedinTorontowasvaguebecauseitdidnot
expresslyspecifywhen
thatsignwasdisplayed.Theownerappealedand
producednewevidencethatspecifiedthatthesignhadbeenaffixedtothe
frontofthestoresince1999andthatithadremainedtherecontinuously
untilthedateofthes.45notice.
[31]TherespondentinFootlockerraisedanewargumentbeforethecourt
unrelatedtothetimingofthetrademark’suseonthesign.Therespondent
arguedinsteadthattherewasnoevidenceastoexactlywhichcorporate
entityoperatedthestore.Insoarguing,therespondentnotedthatthe
RegistrarhadnotspecificallyaddressedthisissueandthattheRegistrar
appearedtohavesimplyassumedthattheoperatorwastheregistered
owner.Meanwhile,theoriginaltrademarkholderarguedthattherewasno
newevidenceonthisissueandthatthisissuecouldnotberaisedaspart
oftheappeal,especiallywhenoneconsideredthattherespondenthad
chosennottocross-examinetheiraffiant.
[32]ThetrialjudgeinFootlockeracceptedthepositionoftherespondent
andfoundthat,giventhatitwasnowclearthatthesignhadbeenused
duringtherelevantperiod,theresolutionofthedisputewouldturnonthe
newissueraisedbytherespondent.Hefoundthatthiswasnotamere
technicalitybutpartoftheprimafaciecasethathadtobeestablishedby
theregisteredowner.Ultimately,thetrialjudgeconcludedthatthis
questionoffactcouldnotbeassumednorlogicallyinferredfromthe
evidencethatwasbeforetheRegistrarortheCourt.Thus,hedecidedto
confirmtheexpungement.
[33]OnappealintheFootlockercase,JusticeMarshallRothsteinspeaking
foraunanimousbenchsaidthattherehadbeennonewevidencerelated
tothisparticularissue(ieproofofwhichcorporateentitywastheregistered
owner)beforethetrialjudge.Therefore,thedecisionoftheRegistraron
thispointshouldhavebeenreviewedonthestandardofreasonableness

8
simpliciter.Hence,theCourtofAppealfoundthathadthetrialjudge
properlydeferredtotheRegistrar’sfindingonthisissue(aswasrequired
underthereasonablenessstandard),hewouldhaveallowedtheappeal.

InGuidoBerlucchi,theCourtthereforeresolvedthestandardofreviewissueas
follows:Thequestionoftheappearanceofthetrade-markwasdecideddenovowhile
thequestionoftheordinarycourseoftradewasreviewedonareasonableness
standard.
Ifyoufileevidenceonappeallimitedtoaparticularissue,theCourtwillprobably
revisitthatissueonthecorrectnessstandardifitconsidersthattheevidencewould
havemateriallyaffectedtheRegistrar’sdecision.Thisdoesnotmean,however,that
thecorrectnessstandardwillapplytoallissuesraisedbytheRegistrarinhisorher
decision.Thispointmustbecarefullyconsideredwhenfilingadditionalevidenceon
appeal.
5.Bereadyforanything
Thisbringsmetoanotherpoint:OnappealfromadecisionoftheRegistrar,you
shouldbepreparedforanyeventuality.Ialwaystrytoforeseeanyissuethatmight
comeupfromleftfieldatthehearing.ThatiswhyIalwaysbringalongwhatIcallmy
“justincase”caselaw.Mostofthetime,itgoesunused;however,insomecases,
suchasinGuidoBerlucchi,itcanhelptheCourttodealwithargumentsthatwerenot
initiallyforeseenbythepartiesthemselves.Sometimes,itwillbetheCourtthatwill
bringsomethingupevenifitisnotsomethingthepartiescoveredintheirwritten
arguments.YoumustalwaysrespondtoanysuchconcernsandthatiswhyIusually
trytoanticipatethemandhavewithmemy“justincase”caselaw.

Ihopethesethoughtswereusefulforanyupcomingstrategicdecisionaspartofan
appealfurthertoadecisionbytheRegistrar.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriété
littéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielset
circuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secrets

9
decommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,
publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892
totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,
industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindications
oforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;
computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsand
plantbreeders;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;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)