Substantial Spillover Advertising in Canada Not Always Required When Determining that a Mark Is Not Without Distinctive Character in Canada, Federal Court of Canada Rules
SUBSTANTIALSPILLOVERADVERTISINGINCANADANOTALWAYSREQUIRED
WHENDETERMININGTHATAMARKISNOTWITHOUTDISTINCTIVECHARACTERIN
CANADA,FEDERALCOURTOFCANADARULES
By
StellaSyrianos*
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
ArecentdecisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadaorderedthatthe
registrationforthetrade-markSUPERSHUTTLEbemaintainedafterafinding
thattheApplicantmetitsonusthatthemarkisnotwithoutdistinctive
characterinCanadapursuanttoparagraph14(1)(b)oftheCanadianTrade-
marksAct(R.S.C.1985,c.T-13)(SupershuttleInternational,Inc.vs.TheRegistrar
ofTrade-marks.T-111-00,April12th,2002McKeown,J.).
Thefacts
OnMarch14
th,1995,theApplicant,SupershuttleInternational,Inc.appliedto
registerthetrade-markSUPERSHUTTLE,inassociationwith“airportpassenger
groundtransportationservices”basedonproposeduseinCanadaand
foreignuseandregistrationintheUnitedStates.
TheApplicantisowneroftheregisteredtrade-markSUPERSHUTTLEinthe
United-States(Reg.No.1,422,276).ThemarkSUPERSHUTTLEhasbeenusedin
theUnitedStatessince1982inassociationwithairportpassengerground
transportationservices.TheApplicantisalsoowneroftheregistereddesign
marksSUPERSHUTTLEunderregistrationnumbers1,629,477and1,629,481
respectively.
TheExaminerobjectedtotheregistrationofthetrade-markSUPERSHUTTLE
basedonparagraph12(1)(b)oftheTrade-marksActinthatitwasclearly
descriptiveordeceptivelymisdescriptiveofthecharacterorqualityofthe
Applicant’sservices:themarkasawholedescribedashuttleserviceof
superiorquality.
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.*OftheLawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andthePatentandTrademarkAgencyFirmROBIC,
g.p.Publication142.140.
InresponsetotheExaminer’sreport,theApplicantarguedthatthemarkisa
fancifulandcoinedtermandthereforenotsubjecttothepurviewofSection
12(1)(b)oftheTrade-marksAct.OnSeptember18
th,1996,theExaminer
counteredthatthemeaningofthemarkmustbeassessedinassociationwith
theservicesappliedforandmaintaineditsdecisionthatthemark
SUPERSHUTTLEwasnotregistrablebecausetotheaverageconsumeritwas
indicativeofasuperiorshuttleservice.TheExamineralsoindicatedthatthe
Applicant’sregistrationintheUnitedStatesforthesamemarkwasnota
relevantconsiderationtoparagraph12(1)(b)oftheTrade-marksAct.
OnJanuary28
th,1997,theApplicantamendeditsapplicationtoclaimthe
benefitofparagraph14(1)(b)oftheTrade-marksActwhichprovidesthe
following:
14.(1)Notwithstandingsection12,atrade-markthattheapplicant
ortheapplicant’spredecessorintitlehascausedtobeduly
registeredinorforthecountryoforiginoftheapplicantisregistrable
if,inCanada,
…
(b)itisnotwithoutdistinctivecharacter,havingregardtoallthe
circumstancesofthecaseincludingthelengthoftimeduringwhich
ithasbeenusedinanycountry;
TheExaminerreviewedtheaffidavitevidenceoftheApplicantandinformed
thelatterthatitsevidencedidnotsupportitsclaimunderparagraph14(1)(b)
oftheTrade-marksActthatthemarkSUPERSHUTTLEwasnotwithoutdistinctive
characterinCanada.SincethemarkSUPERSHUTTLEhadnotbeenusedin
Canada,theExaminerrequestedevidenceofsubstantialspilloveradvertising
ofthemarkinCanada.
InsteadofprovidingtheExaminerwiththesoughtforevidence,theApplicant
contestedtheExaminer’srequestforproofofsubstantialspilloveradvertising
andcalledupontheRegistrartorefusetheapplicationsothattheApplicant
couldappealtheRegistrar’sdecision.
TheRegistrar’sdecision
OnNovember25
th,1999,theRegistrarrendereditsdecisionstatingfirstthat
themarkSUPERSHUTTLEinassociationwithairportpassengerground
transportationservicesindicatedthattheApplicantofferedshuttleservicesof
asuperiorqualityandsecond,thatitsevidencedidnotallowtheRegistrarto
concludethattherewassubstantialspilloveradvertisingofthemarkin
CanadatoestablishthatitwasnotwithoutdistinctivecharacterinCanada.
TheAppealtotheFederalCourtofCanada
TheApplicantsoughttooverturntheRegistrar’sdecisionbyfilinganappeal
beforetheFederalCourtofCanada.Onappeal,theApplicantfiled
additionalevidencecontainingsamplesofspilloveradvertisinginCanada.It
alsofiledstateoftheregisterevidencewithregardstotrade-markswiththe
prefix“SUPER”butthisevidencewasnotaddressedintheCourt’sdecision.
AtissuewaswhethertheRegistrarerredinfindingthattheApplicanthadnot
dischargeditsonusunderparagraph14(1)(b)oftheTrade-marksActandin
findingthatthetrade-markwasnotregistrableunderparagraph12(1)(b)of
theTrade-marksAct.
ItisworthnotingthattheCourtmadenofindingswithregardstoparagraph
12(1)(b)oftheTrade-marksActandforthepurposesofitsdecisionassumed
thatthetrade-markSUPERSHUTTLEwascontrarytoparagraph12(1)(b)ofthe
Trade-marksAct.
TheRespondenttooknopositiononwhethertheadditionalaffidavitevidence
provedthatthemarkSUPERSHUTTLEwasnotwithoutdistinctivecharacterin
Canadabutratherarguedthattheproperapproachwouldhavebeenfor
theApplicanttohavefileditsadditionalaffidavitevidencewiththeRegistrar
asinitiallyrequested.
WhiletheCourtagreedwiththeRespondent,itheldthattheApplicant’s
failuretodosowasnotfatalunderthecircumstancesofthecasebeforethe
Court.
TheCourtalsodisagreedwiththeRespondent’spositionthattheApplicant
hadtoprovideproofofsubstantialspilloveradvertisinginCanadasincethis
wasjustonepartofshowing,underparagraph14(1)(b)oftheTrade-marks
Act,thatatrade-markisnotwithoutdistinctivecharacterinCanada.The
Courtdecidedthattheamountofspilloveradvertisingvariesfromcaseto
casedependingonthecontextandthatinthepresentcase,substantial
spilloveradvertisingwasnotrequired.
Inreviewingalloftheevidencebeforeit,theCourtnotedthattheApplicant
hadannualrevenuesofover$80millioneventhoughnosalesweremade
directlyinCanada.ItalsonotedthattheApplicantsubmittedspillover
advertisingintoCanadabywayofadvertisementsinCanadiannewspapers,
onflightstoandfromVancouverandradioadvertisingheardinCanada.
TheCourtdecidedthatinlightoftheevidencebeforeitaswellthe
Applicant’suseofthemarkSUPERSHUTTLEintheUnitedStatesfor20years,the
markwasnotwithoutdistinctivecharacterinCanada.
Twoelementsshouldberetainedfromthepresentcase.First,substantial
spilloveradvertisingofatrade-markinCanadaisnotnecessarilya
requirementinordertovalidateaclaimunderparagraph14(1)(b)ofthe
Trade-marksAct.Thedeterminationoftheamountofsuchadvertisingistobe
establishedonacasebycasebasis.Secondly,andmostimportantly,thereis
neverthelessarequirementofatleastsomeknowledgeofthemarkin
questioninCanadasinceknowledgeorexclusiveuseinacountryotherthan
Canadawouldbeinsufficienttoclaimregistrabilityunderparagraph14(1)(b)
oftheTrade-marksAct.
Publishedat(2002),16-6W.I.P.R.3-4underthetitleSubstantialSpillover
AdvertisingInCanadaIsNotAlwaysRequired
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.
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