The Colour and Shape of a Pharmaceutical Tablet Deemed Not Distinctive Enough to Warrant Trade-Mark Registration, Federal Court Rules



THECOLOURANDSHAPEOFAPHARMACEUTICALTABLETDEEMEDNOT
DISTINCTIVEENOUGHTOWARRANTTRADE-MARKREGISTRATION,FEDERAL
COURTRULES

By
AlexandraSteele*
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
TheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadarecentlyruledthatthe
RegistrarofTrade-Marks(“Registrar”)hadmadeareasonabledecisionin
refusingtoallowtheregistrationofthetrade-markYELLOWTABLETDESIGNfor
theshapeandcolouroftheApplicant’sfelodipinepillsusedinthetreatment
ofhypertension(AstrazenecaABv.NovopharmLimitedandRegistrarof
Trade-marks,T-810-00,October30,2001,KelenJ.).
Thefacts
TheApplicant,AstrazenecaAB(“Astra”)appliedtoregisterthetrade-mark
YELLOWTABLETDESIGN(TMO783,267)foratabletcontainingfelodipine,a
drugusedinthetreatmentofpersonssufferingfromhypertension.Thetrade-
markapplicationdepictedatabletwhichwasroundinshapeandyellowin
colour.ThepillsweresoldundertheworkmarkPLENDIL.Therespondent
NovopharmLimited(“Novopharm”)opposedthetrade-markapplication
alleging,amongstotherthings,thatAstra’strade-markwasnotdistinctive
(Section38oftheTrade-MarksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13.).
TheRegistrar’sdecision
TheevidencesubmittedtotheRegistrarshowedthatAstrawastheonly
manufactureroffelodipine.Thetabletswerepackagedina”blisterbubble”
sleevewhichwasinsertedinaboxwhichwasmarkedasPLENDIL.The
evidencesubmittedbyNovopharmdemonstratedthattherewere
approximatelytwenty(20)yellowroundtabletsavailableontheCanadian
marketforthetreatmentofhypertension.



















































LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.*OftheLawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andthePatentandTrademarkAgencyFirm
ROBIC,g.p.Publication142.134.



Itwasarguedthatwhenpharmacistsdispensethetablets,theyrelynotonly
onthecolourandshapeofthetablets,butalsoontheidentificationofthe
productonthepackaging.Bothpartiesagreedthatthephysiciansgivelittle,
ifany,considerationtothecolourandshapeofthedrugstheyprescribeto
theirpatients.Astradidnotadduceanyevidenceshowingthatthattheend
consumersoffelodipine,namelythepatients,associatedthecolourand
shapeofthetabletswithPLENDIL.
TheRegistrarrejectedAstra’sargumentthat,sinceitwastheonly
manufactureroffelodipineinCanada,consumerswouldnecessarily
associatetheshapeandcolourofthetabletswiththePLENDILproduct.Inhis
view,Astra’sdefinitionoftherelevantmarketwastoonarrow.TheRegistrar
thereforeacceptedNovopharm’spositionthattheshapeandcolourofthe
PLENDILtabletswasnotdistinctive,thereforeunregisterableasatrade-mark.
TheFederalCourtruling
AstraappealedtheRegistrar’sdecisiontotheTrialDivisionoftheFederal
CourtofCanada(Section56oftheTrade-MarksAct).Onappeal,Astra
adducedadditionalevidence,specificallytheaffidavitofapharmacist
statingthatthecolourandshapeofthefelodipinetabletswereinspectedby
pharmacistspriortodispensingthem,butthatthesepharmacistsdidnotrely
solelyontheproduct’sappearancetoidentifythePLENDILproduct.The
affidavitalsostatedthatthepackagingofthePLENDILtabletsenabledthe
pharmacisttoobservethecolourandshapeoftheproduct,aswellas
identifythesupplier,theingredientsandthebrandname.Asforthe
additionalevidencesubmittedbyNovopharm,itsimplyreaffirmedthefact
thattherewereotherround,yellowtabletsforthetreatmentofhypertension
availableontheCanadianmarket.
SincetheadditionalevidenceadducedbeforetheCourtwasnotmaterially
differentfromtheevidenceadducedbeforetheRegistrar,theTrialJudge
ruledthatitwouldnothaveaffectedtheRegistrar’sfindingsontheissueof
distinctiveness.TheTrialJudgethereforeappliedtherulingoftheFederal
CourtofAppealinMolsonBreweriesv.JohnLabattLimited,[2000]3F.C.145
(Fed.C.A.)andruledthattheappropriatestandardofreviewofthe
Registrar’sfindingswasreasonablenesssimpliciter.
TheTrialJudgeconsideredtheapplicablecaselawwhichstatedthat
although”…thecolour,shapeandsizeofaproductmaytogetherbe
capableinlawofconstitutingatrade-mark,theresultingmarkis,asageneral
rule,likelytobeinherentlyweak…”(NovopharmLtd.v.BayerInc.,(1999)3



C.P.R.(4th)305,EvansJ.,atp.322).(Othercaseswherecolourandshape
werenotheldasdistinctive:EliLillyCo.v.NovopharmLtd,(1993)73C.P.R.(3d)
371,(F.C.T.D.),appealedat(2000)10C.P.R.(4
th)10,(F.C.A).;Novopharm
Limitedv.Astra,[2000]F.C.J.no.496,(F.C.T.D.),appealed[2001]F.C.A.no
296,(F.C.A.)).TheSupremeCourtofCanadahadconsideredthe“get-up”of
apharmaceuticaltablettobedistinctive,(Ciba-GeigyCanadaLtd.v.
ApotexInc.,(1992)44C.P.R.(3d)289(S.C.C.)),buttheTrialJudge
distinguishedthatcasefromtheoneatbar,astheoriginofthewaresinthe
SupremeCourtdecisioncouldonlybeestablishedbythepharmaceutical
tabletsthemselves.
ThefactthatpharmacistsrecognisedthecolourandshapeofthePLENDIL
tabletsinsidethepackagingwasinsufficienttoenabletheTrialJudgeto
concludethatthecolourandshapeofthetabletsweredistinctiveenoughto
warrantatrade-markregistration.Therewasnoevidencethatpatients,orthe
physicianswhoprescribedthemedication,identifiedthecolourandshapeof
thetabletswithAstra’sPLENDILproductwithoutverifyingtheactualboxand
dispenser.TheTrialJudgeagreedwiththeRegistrar’sfindingthatAstrahad
notdischargeditsburdenofproving,onabalanceofprobabilities,thatthe
colourandshapeofitsPLENDILtabletshadacquiredsecondarymeaning,i.e.
thattheordinaryconsumerwouldassociatethecolourandshapeofthe
tabletswiththePLENDILtrade-mark,brandname,orwithAstraasitssupplier.
Sinceitwasthepackagingthatmadethewaresdistinctive,notthecolour
andshapeofthetablets,theTrialJudgeruledthattheRegistrar’sfindings
werereasonableandconsequentlydismissedAstra’sappealwithcosts.
ThisdecisionthereforereaffirmstheheavyburdenofproofanApplicantmust
meetinordertoregisterthecolourandshapeofitswaresasatrade-mark.
FutureApplicants,especiallyinthepharmaceuticalindustry,shouldbeweary
ofthefactthat,althoughthecolourandshapeoftheirwaresmaybe
differentfromthoseofothers,colourandshapeshouldnotautomaticallybe
construedasdistinctive,thuswarrantingtrade-markregistration.
Publishedat(2002),16-1W.I.P.R.6-7underthetitleColor,Shapeof
PharmaceuticalTabletDeemedNotDistinctiveEnough
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