The Registrant’s Burden of Proof in a Section 45 Proceeding Reviewed by the Federal Court

THEREGISTRANT’SBURDENOFPROOFINASECTION45PROCEEDING
REVIEWEDBYTHEFEDERALCOURT

CATHERINEDAIGLE*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
L.L.P.
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADEMARKAGENTS

BrouilletteKosiePrincev.OrangeCove-SangerCitrusAssociation,207FC
308(CanLII)
InanappealtotheRegistrarofTrade-marks’decisiontomaintaintheregistrationof
thePOM-POMtrade-markpursuanttosection45oftheTrade-marksAct
(hereinafterthe“Act”),theappellantBrouilletteKosiePrince(hereinafter
“Brouillette”)challengedthequalityoftheevidencesubmittedbyitsowner,the
OrangeCove-SangerCitrusAssociation(hereinafter“OrangeCove”).
AsproofofuseofitsPOM-POMtrade-markinassociationwith“freshcitrusfruits”in
Canada,OrangeCovefiledbeforetheRegistraranaffidavitevidencingthenatureof
theowner’sbusiness,namelyofgrowerandpackerofcitrusfruits.Assuch,Orange
Coveisagrower,memberofSunkistGrowersInc.,acooperativewhichassistsits
membersinthedistributionandinvoicingoftheircitrusfruits.Thisbeingsaid,the
POM-POMtrade-markneverthelessappearsonthefruitboxeswhensoldto
Canadiandistributors.
Althoughnewevidencewasadducedonappeal,theFederalCourtheldthatsaid
evidencewouldnothavemateriallyaffectedtheRegistrar’sdecision,thenew
evidencesimplybeingaconfirmationoftheevidencealreadyfiledwiththeRegistrar.
Therefore,thestandardofreviewappliedbytheFederalCourtwasthatof
reasonablenesssimpliciter.
InanalysingBrouillette’sargumentsthatthequalityoftheevidencesubmittedby
OrangeCovewasinsufficienttodemonstrateuseofthePOM-POMtrade-markin
associationwithfreshcitrusfruits,theFederalCourtfoundthattheRegistrar’s
decisionwasreasonableandthatoverall,thesubmittedevidencesupportedthe
determinationthatsaidtrade-markwasusedduringtherelevantperiod.Indeed,
whileitwouldhavebeenpossibleforOrangeCovetoproveuseofitstrade-mark



















































©CIPS,2008.*Lawyer,CatherineDaigleisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P..,amultidisciplinaryfirm
oflawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.Publication293.049.

2
withadditionalrelevantdocumentation,theCourtnotedthatthetrade-markowner’s
burdeninasection45proceedingwasnotastringentone.Moreover,asthe
evidencebroughtbyOrangeCovewentwellbeyondbeingamerebroadstatement
ofuseofthePOM-POMtrade-mark,theCourtwasunabletofindanyerror
warrantingitsinterference.Accordingly,Brouillette’sappealwasrejected.

3
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademark
agentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofall
fieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;
trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsand
plantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;
licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationand
arbitration;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;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD