The question of distinctiveness appreciated by the Federal Court of Canada

2010-01-01

THEQUESTIONOFDISTINCTIVENESSAPPRECIATEDBYTHE
FEDERAL
COURTOFCANADA

CATHERINEDAIGLE**
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADEMARKAGENTS

ScottPaperLimitedv.Georgia-PacificConsumerProductsLP,2010FC478
(April30,2010)

InaproceedingbeforetheFederalCourtofCanada,ScottPaperLimited(“Scott
Paper”)successfullyappealedadecisionrenderedbytheOppositionBoardinwhich
wasrefuseditsapplicationtoregistertheDaisyFlower(Square)PatternDesignin
associationwithbathroomtissueduetolackofdistinctivenessoverGeorgia-Pacific
CosumerProductsLP’s(“Georgia-Pacific”)ownbathroomtissuedesignmark.

Initsdecision,theOppositionBoardrejectedGeorgia-Pacific’soppositiongrounds
basedonconfusion(Section12(1)(d)oftheTrade-marksAct(the”Act“))sinceit
wasfoundthatsmalldifferencesbetweenthemarksatissuewerelikelysufficientto
avoidconfusion.Moreover,Georgia-Pacific’sgroundbasedonentitlement(Section
16(3)oftheAct)wasalsorejected.Indeed,theOppositionBoardfoundthatScott
Paper’strade-markwasnotconfusingwithGeogia-Pacific’smarksinceatthetime
ofpurchaseoftheproductassociatedwithsame,thetrade-markwasnotvisibleto
theconsumerandthattherefore,therecouldnothavebeenprioruseinaccordance
withSection4oftheAct(definitionofuseinassociationwithwares).

Thisbeingsaid,theOppositionBoardacceptedthatthetrade-markofGeorgia-
Pacificmayhavebecomeknowntosomeextentduetoconsiderablesales,whereas
ScottPaperhadnotprovidedanyevidenceofitsreputationorthattheuseofcertain
designinassociationwithbathroomtissuewascommontothetrade.Thus,Scott
Paper’sapplicationwasheldtobenon-distinctive(Section38(2)(d)oftheAct).

BeforetheFedealCourt,ScottPaperfiledadditionalevidenceinorderto
demonstratecommonuseandcoexistenceonthemarketplaceofvarioussimilar
designsappliedtobathroomtissue.

©CIPS,2010.*Lawyerandtrade-markagentwithROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentand
trade-markagents.PublsihedinanAugust2010issueofWorldTrademarkReport.Publciation
276.067.

2
UponreviewofScottPaper’sevidenceandbasedonthestandardofreviewof
correctness,theFederalCourtnotedthatGeorgia-Pacifichadaninitialburdento
demonstratethatitsmarkwasknowntoacertainextentandhadasignificant
reputation.AsmentionedbytheCourt,thereputationrelatingtoatrade-mark
requiresthatsuchmarkisknownasanindicatorofsource.

TheevidencefiledbyScottPapershowedthatGeorgia-Pacific’swallpaperdesign
markwasonlyapparentoncethebathroompaperpackagingwasopened.

Inreviewingsuchevidence,theFederalCourtheldthattheOppositionBoardhad
erredinconcludingthatGeorgia-Pacifichadmetitsinitialburdenofproofregarding
thedistinctivenessissue.Indeed,theCourtnotedthateventhoughGeorgia-Pacific
hadprovensubstantialsalesofitsproducts,itwasinsufficienttoconcludethat
consumerswererecognizingGeorgia-Pacific’sbathroomtissuewallpaperdesignas
anindicatorofsource.
Inviewoftheforegoing,theCourtallowedScottPaper’sappealanddirectedthe
Registraroftrade-marktoallowitsapplication.

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
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.

3
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”)