The Statutory Protection of Non-traditional Trade-marks in Canada : A Few Reflections on their Registrability and Distinctiveness

1
THESTATUTORYPROTECTION
OFNON-TRADITIONALTRADE-MARKSINCANADA
AFEWREFLECTIONSONTHEIRREGISTRABILITYANDDISTINCTIVENESS

BobH.SotiriadisandLaurentCarrière*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
55St-Jacques,Montreal(Quebec),CanadaH2Y3X2
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
E-mail:marion@robic.com-WebSite:www.robic.ca

1
.Introduction
2.Reminders
2.1Distinctiveness
2.2Use
3Colours
4Sounds
5Odours
6Flavours
7Holograms
8Kineticmarks
9Telephonenumbers
10Tridimensionalmarks
11Miscellaneous
11.1Architecturalmarks
11.2Portraits
11.3Slogans
12Conclusion

AnnexA-Section28oftheTrade-marksRegulations(1998)
AnnexB-Illustrationsofafewregistrations
“Architectural”marks
“Kinetic”marks
Marksandcolours
Marksand“holograms”
Marks“bypositioning”
Distinguishingguises
“Sound”marks

©LaurentCarrière&LEGERROBICRICHARD,2000.
*Lawyer,BobH.SotiriadisisoneoftheseniorpartnersofthelawfirmLEGER
ROBICRICHARD,g.p.andofthepatentandtrademarkfirmROBIC,g.p.Thispaper
isanadaptation,translationandupdateofthepaperofLaurentCarrière,lawyerand
trade-markagentandoneoftheseniorpartnersofthesamefirmsentitled”La
protectionstatutairedesmarquesnontraditionnellesauCanada–Quelques
réflexionssurleurenregistrabilitéetdistinctivité”.

2
1.INTRODUCTION

Whatisatrade-mark?TheTrade-marksAct
1providesuswithacirculardefinition
fromwhichwecandeducethatitisasign2distinguishing3waresorservicesofa
personfromthoseofothers.

Wegenerallyconceiveatrade-markasconstitutedofoneormanyletters
4,oneor
manywords5-inventedornot-asentence6,armorialbearings7,seal,hallmark,label8,
numbers9,drawing10,orevenacombinationofthese.Somuchfortraditionaltrade-
marks.

1Trade-marksAct(R.S.C.1985,c.T-13);hereinaftertheActorTMA.2Section2TMA:”trade-mark”means:a)amarkthatisusedbyapersonforthe
purposeofdistinguishingorsoastodistinguishwaresorservicesmanufactured,
sold,leased,hiredorperformedbyhimfromthosemanufactured,sold,leased,hired
orperformedbyothers;b)acerificationmark;c)adistinguishingguise;d)a
proposedtrade-mark.The1998OxfordDictionarydescribesatrade-markasa
“deviceornamesecuredbylaworcustomasrepresentingacompany,product,etc.”.
3Section2TMA:“distinctive”Inrelationtoatrade-mark,meansatrade-markthat
actuallydistinguishesthewaresorservicesinassociationwithwhichitisusedbyits
ownerfromthewaresorservicesofothersorisadaptedsotodistinguishthem.
4TheperfumeÔof“Lancômeparfumsetbeauté&cie”[registrationTMA341813]or
theabbrevationRCMPfortheRoyalCanadianMountedPolice(fileTMO907125).
5Word:theKODAKcamerasofKodakCanadaInc.[registrationTMDA007446]or
theGEOautomobilesofGeneralMotorsCorporation[registrationTMA428036];
words:thebakingsodaCOWBRANDorARM&HAMMERofChurch&DwrightLtd.
[registrationTMA204654etTMA205758];sentence:NEPARTEZPASSANS
ELLEforthefinancialservicesofAmericanExpressCompany[registrationTMA
353254];name:PIERRECARDINclothingsofPierreCardin[registrationTMA
168669]orthefooditemsHEINZofJ.J.HeinzCompany[registrationTMDA056296].
6TUMEDONNESLEGOÛT!(registrationTMA331397)orIT’SWHEREYOUGO
WHENYOUKNOWABOUTCHICKEN!(registrationTMA316515)forfoodservices
ofGroupealimentaireSt-HubertInc.orDOITRIGHT.DOITPINKforinsulation
materialsofOwens-CorningCanadaInc.(applicationTMO806568).
7FortheRCMP:MAINTIENSLEDROITandtherepresentationofabuffalo(file
TMO907128).
8TheGRANDMARNIERliqueuroftheSociétédesproduitsMarnier-Lapostolle
[registrationTMA203249].
9The222analgesicofMerckFrostCanadaInc.(registrationUCA045131)orthe
222helicopterofBellHelicopterTextronInc.(registrationTMA389054).
10ThelabelofH.J.HeinzCompanyofCanadaLtd.(registrationTMA163484)orthe
roosterheadoftheGroupealimentaireSt-HubertInc.(registrationTMA506689).

3
Wealsoconceiveatrade-markasreferingtothepositioningofavisibleelementon
theproductitself11orrelatedtotheproduct12,orasadistinguishingguise13,a
shapingofthewares14oroftheircontainers15.

Butwhataboutsounds,odoursandtastes,hologramsorkineticmarks?Andwhat
abouttelephonenumbers,intheirnumericformorasacronyms?Trade-marksthat
weputonallkindsofpromotionalmaterials?Colors?Shapesorproduct
configurations?

Trade-marksarenothingmorethantwo-dimensionalstatisticalsigns,likethose
introducedbythefirstfactorymarksofcraftsmenandguildmembers,whichbecame
internationalwiththeadventoftheindustrialrevolution
16.Thenewtechniquesof

11Forinstance,thetieontheneckofthebottleofChampagneMoet&Chandon
(registrationTMA399889),thecoloursontheThorneburgsocks(RegistrationTMA
319504),thestripontherunningPumaAGRudolfDasslerSport(registrationTMA
264673)
12ThekeyholeshapeonthebrushesofNewellOperatingCompany(registration
TMA460749),theclipintheshapeofanarrowonthepenofTheParkerPen
Company(registrationTMA315448),thepieceofmaterialonclothingofLeviStrauss
&Co(registrationTMA194716)orthecentralnylonstriponthenotebooksofThe
MeadCorporation(registrationTMA473317).
13Asdefinedbysection13ofTMA.14ThepenofBicInc.(registrationTMA362414),thebugleshapedmunchies
BUGLESofGeneralMillsInc.(registrationTMA497479),theOREOcookiesof
NabiscoLtd.(applicationTMO840917),theTOBLERONEchocolateofKraftJacobs
Suchard(Switzerland)(registrationTMA164635).
15TheHEINZketchupbottle(registrationTMDA001177),theYOPLAITliquidyogurt
bottleofSodima(registrationTMA379043),thePERRIERbottleofwaterofPerrier
Vittel(registrationTMA488661),thesilhouettebottleofCoca-ColaLtd.(registration
UCA044193),thewrappingoftheTOBLERONEchocolateofKraftJacobsSuchard
(Switzerland)(applicationTMO832993).
16“Trademarkstraditionallyarecharacterizedasoutgrowthsoftheancientuseof
hallmarksbysilversmithsandothercraftsmen.Whathistoricallywastheproper
subjectoftrademarkprotection,however,isameresliveroftheexpansivescopeof
moderntrademarkprotection”:RussellH.FALCONER,“BigFutureforNontraditional
Marks”(1998-05-18)TheNationalLawJournalC-28andURL
http://test01.ljextra.com/na.archive.html/98/05/1998_0511_153.html;alsoavailableat
URLhttp://www.bakerbotts.com/practice/iptech/library/articles/bigfuture.html(website
consultedon19990401).HeinzDAWID,“PreservingHistory–TrademarkTimeline”
(1992),82TrademarkReporter1021;SidneyA.DIAMOND,“TheHistorical
DevelopmentofTrademarks”(1975),65TrademarkReporter265,republishedat
(1983),73TrademarkReporter222;ThomasD.DRESCHER,“TheTransformation
andEvolutionofTrademarks–FromSignalstoSymbolstoMyth”(1992),82
TrademarkReporter301;AbrahamS.GREENBERG,“TheAncientLineageof
Trade-Marks”(1951),33JournalofthePatentOfficeSociety876;BenjaminnJ.
PASTER,“Trademarks–TheirEarlyHistory”(1969),59TrademarkReporter551;

4
sale17relatedtotheexplosionofelectroniccommerceseetoitthattraditionaltrade-
marksarenotalwayssufficienttocatchamoresophisticatedconsumer18.

DoestheTrade-marksAct(andrelevantjurisprudence)permittheregistrationof
thosenon-traditionaltrade-marksinCanada?Itisthistopicthatwillbediscussedin
thisshorttext.

2REMINDERS

2.1DISTINCTIVENESS

Theessentialcharacteristicofatrade-markisnotsomuchthatitisvisuallyor
phoneticallypleasingorthatitisoriginal,butratherthatitreallydistinguishes
19wares
orservicesrelatedtoitsuseorisadaptedforsuchapurpose20.Acommon

EdwardS.ROGERS,“SomeHistoricalMatterConcerningTrade-Marks”(1910),9
MichiganLawReview29,republished(1972)62TrademarkReporter239;Gerald
RUSTON,“OntheOriginofTrademarks”(1955),45TrademarkReporter127.
17Especiallythroughelectroniccommercebusinesstoconsumer.18DanieldI.SCHLOSS,“SpecialProblemsinRegistrationofNontraditional
Trademarks”(1999),5-4IntellectualPropertyStrategist1.
19Hereitisusefultoremindthat,accordingtosection2TMA,atrade-markisamark
thatisusedtodistinguish(forthepurposeofdistinguishing)orthatisadaptedorapt
todistinguish(orsoastodistinguish).“Thus,bothintentionandresultapplyequally
indeterminingwhetherornotamarkisatrademark”;editor’snoteinW.J.Hughes&
Sons”CornFlower”Ltd.v.Morawiec[TWELVEPETALSFLOWER](1970),62
C.P.R.21,44FoxPat.C.88(Ex.Ct.),atp.89.Consequently,ifthetrade-mark
distinguishesaperson’swaresfromthoseofanother,itisnotrelevantthatitcanalso
beusedforanotherpurposes.:Chanel,S.A.(Re),(1988),[1988]T.M.O.B.215
(Registrar),D.Savardatp.2-3[COCO].
20Onthistopic:HaroldG.FOX,TheCanadianLawofTradeMarksandUnfair
Competition,3ded.(Toronto,Carswell,1972),atp.18,21and22(footnoteomitted):
“GeneralDefinition:Itmay,therefore,beshortlyputthatatrademarktodaymeansa
markthatispubliclyusedbyapersontoidentifyashisthegoodsthathemakesor
offersforsaleinthemarket,ortheservicesthatareperformedbyhim.Thewords”to
identify”intheabovedefinitionmustberead,atleastsofarasthestatutorydefinition
isconcerned,ineitheroneoftwosenses,namely,thattheownerofthemarkuses
thetrademarkforthepurposeof,orwiththeintentionof,distinguishinghiswaresor
servicesinthemarketfromthoseofothers,oralternatively,thatwhatevermaybethe
purposefor,ortheintentionwithwhichheusesthemark,itdoesactuallyandinfact
distinguishhiswaresorservicesinthemarketfromthoseofothers”.[p.18]
“ForthePurposeofDistinguishing”:Thewords”forthepurpose”ins.2(t)arenotto
bereadasnecessarilysynonymousunderallconditionswiththeexpression”withthe
intention”.ThiswaspointedoutbyRomerL.J.inNicholson’sApplication[(1931),48
R.P.C.227,at260)]whereheobservedthatifamanufacturerusesamarkin
associationwithhisgoodsformerelyaestheticordecorativemotives,orfor

5
appellationtoanindustryortoadegreeofquality21,adescriptivetermofaproduct
oranelementwithonlyafunctionalorornementalpurposerarelyincludethis
fundamentalcharacteristic
22.

Withrespecttothefunctionalityofatrade-mark,thejurisprudenceisrelativelyscarce
andforthisreason,mustbescrutinizedcarefullyinordertoextracttheapplicable
principles.Theinvalidityofatrade-markwithrespecttoitsfunctionalitydoesnot
haveanystatutorybasisandarisesfromthecaselaw
23.Considerthefollowing
commentsin:

ImperialTobaccoCompanyofCanada,Limited(The)v.RegistrarofTrademarks
[COLOUREDBANDCELLOPHANE][1939]2D.L.R.141,[1939]EX.C.R.(Ex.Ct.),
J.Macleanatpages143and144-145:
TheRegistrarrefusedregistrationofthemarkonthegroundsthatthecolouredband
performedthefunctionofindicatingwherethetearstripwaslocatedandthusfacilitating
theopeningoftheouterwrapper.[p.143]

Onemaysafelysaythatthebandwasprimarilydesignedandadoptedforthepurposeof
openingtheouterwrapper,anditisunlikelythatiftheouterwrapperwerenotmoisture
proofandthebanddidnotfunctionasatearingstrip,they,incombinationwouldeverbe

warehousepurposes,andthemarkcomestoberecognizedbythepublicas
indicatingorigin,thenthemarkhasbeenusedinsuchawayastohaveservedthe
purposeofindicatingoriginandcomeswithinthedefinition.Itmust,however,be
usedforthepurposeofdistinguishingtheowner’sgoodsorservicesandnotforthe
purposeofembarrassingorunfairlycompetingwithothertraders.[p.21]
“SoastoDistinguish”:Thenatureoftheusesufficienttofulfilthedefinitionofthe
functionofatrademarkisnottobeconsideredinanyrestrictivesense.Boththe
intentionoftheuserandrecognitionbythepublicarerelevantfactsandeithermay
besufficienttoshowthattherehasbeentrademarkuse:itisnotnecessarythat
thereshouldbeboth.Thisisinherentintheuseofthedisjunctiveinthedefinitionofa
trademark,thatitisused”forthepurposeofdistinguishingorsoastodistinguish.”
Nordoestheuseofthewords”forthepurpose”implythatanydeliberateresolution
tothateffectonthepartoftheuserofthemarkiscontemplated.Itisenoughifin
practicethemarkhasbeensousedastodenotetheoriginofthegoods.Itisnot
essentialtoproveinadditionthatthemarkethasaccepteditasadistinguishing
mark.Theintentionoftheuser,thatis,thepurposeofuse,is,undertheTradeMarks
Act,sufficienttocauseawordorothermarktobecomeatrademark.Thisisinherent
inthefirstpartofthedefinitioncontainedins.2(t)(i).[p.22]
21SeeforinstanceDecaturv.FlexibleShaftCo.[No.360](1930),[1930]EX.C.R.97
(Ex.Ct.),J.Macleanatpages99and101.
22IVGRubberCanadaLtd.v.GoodallRubberCompany[HELICALSTRIPE](1980),
48C.P.R.(2d)268,[1981]1F.C.143(F.C.T.D.),J.Dubéatpage146.
23RemingtonRandCorp.v.PhilipsElectronicsN.V[SHAVERHEAD](1993),51
C.P.R.(3d)392,69F.T.R.136,44A.C.W.S.(3d)579(F.C.T.D.);rev.(1995),191
N.R.204,[1995]A.C.F.1660,64C.P.R.(3d)467(F.C.A.),J.MacGuiganatpage
471;leavetoappealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadarefused(1996),[1996]2
S.C.R.ix(S.C.C.).

6
suggestedasatrademark.Itseemstomethatthetrademarkappliedforwasintended
toreplacethepatentsreferredto,iftheyshouldbefoundtobeinvalid,astheywere.In
myopinionanycombinationofelementswhichareprimarilydesignedtoperforma
function,here,atransparentwrapper,whichismoistureproofandabandtoopenthe
wrapper,isnotfitsubject-matterforatrademark,andifpermittedwouldleadtograve
abuse.[Ouritalics][pp.144-145]

Parke,Davis&Co.Ltd.v.EmpireLaboratoriesLimited[SEALEDBANDED
CAPSULES](1963),24FoxPat.C.88,38D.L.R.(2d)694,41C.P.R.121,[1964]É.
399(Ex.Ct.),J.Noëlatpages416,418-419and419:
[…]inthiscasethecolouredgelatinbandisusedtoclosethegelatincapsule.[…]We
haveseen[i.e.,thetestimonyandareferencetothecorrespondingU.S.patents]thatthe
colourbandedcapsulesoftheplaintiffhavemanyutilitarianfunctionsandthateventhe
presenceofcolouronthebandsisusefulinenablingtheeasydetectionofabreakonthe
band.[…]However,thisextensivecoverageofthevariouscoloursandshadestogether
withtheutilitarianuseofthecolouredbandsaroundthemiddleofthecapsules
(particularlythesealingandtheuseofcolouredbandsorstripstodetectthebreakageof
thebands)which,aswehaveseen,happenstobethebestplacethebandscanbe
placedinordertosealbothhalves,bringsmetotheconclusionthattheplaintiffbyusing
itstrademarksasitdoes,becauseitcouldhavemerelypaintedastriporabandaround
thecapsule,undoubtedlymonopolizes,withtheexceptionhoweveroftheirutilityas
simplecontainers,alltheformsofthefunctionalpartsofthecolourbandedsealed
capsulesandbecauseofthisIcannotbutfindthattheplaintiff’strademarksareinvalid.
[Ouritalics.]

Parke,Davis&Co.Ltd.v.EmpireLaboratoriesLimited[SEALEDBANDED
CAPSULES].(1964),27FoxPat.C.67,45D.L.R.(2d)97,43C.P.R.1,[1964]
S.C.R.351(S.C.C.),J.Hallatpage354:
Thevalidityofthetrademarksmay,inmyview,bedisposedofonthegroundthatthe
colouredbandshaveafunctionaluseorcharacteristicandcannot,therefore,bethe
subjectofatrademark.Thelawappearstobewellsettledthatifwhatissoughttobe
registeredasatrademarkhasafunctionaluseorcharacteristic,itcannotbethesubject
ofatrademark.[Ouritalics.]

ElginHandlesLtd.v.WellandValeMfg.Co.Limited[DARKERTOOLHANDLE]
(1964),43C.P.R.20,[1965]EX.C.R.3,27FoxPat.C.168(Ex.Ct.),J.Jackettat
pages171et172:

Inmyview,thismaybeparaphrasedaccuratelyasfollows:Darkercolouringofthegrain
ofthewoodoftoolhandlesaccomplishedbyfirehardening.[…]Inanyevent,fire
hardening,whateverelseitdoes,actuallyhardensthesurfaceofthewoodtoa
substantialextent.Ihavethereforecometotheconclusionontheevidencethatthefire
hardeningprocessisprimarilydesignedtoimprovewoodenhandlesasobjectsof
commerceandhasthereforeafunctionaluseorcharacteristic[Ouritalics.]

W.J.Hughes&Sons”CornFlower”Ltd.v.Morawiec[TWELVEPETALSFLOWER]
(1970),62C.P.R.21,44FoxPat.C.88(Ex.Ct.),J.Gibsonatpages98-99and100:
Apparentlyabodyofthepublicfindglasswarewiththiskindofornamentationcutonit
moreattractivethanplainglasswareofthesamequality.Thisornamentationcuton
glasswarewasnotadaptedbytheplaintiff,thedefendantortheseothersforthepurpose
ofidentificationandindividuality.Instead,suchornamentationbycuttingwasrelated
solelytotheconsumingpublic’sdemandsinconnectionwithsuchglassware.[…]The
plaintiffincuttingonglasswareblanksthisdesignorpattern[…]didso,inmyview,fora

7
utilitypurposeonly,namely,forthepurposeofincreasing,andsuchcuttingwassolely
designedtoincrease,theattractivenessofsuchwaresasobjectsofcommerceand,
therefore,thisdesignorpatternassoemployedhadafunctionaluseorcharacteristic
only.[Ouritalics.]

Adidas(Canada)Ltd.v.Colins[THREEPARALLELSTRIPES](1978),38C.P.R.(2d)
145(F.C.T.D.),J.Walshatpage169:
Moreover,asidefromthequestionofdistinctivenessthereisaveryseriousquestionasto
whetherthethreestripesdonotconstituteafunctionaldesign,servingthefunctionof
decorationandarenotproperlyregistrableasatrademark.

Thereissomeevidencetotheeffectthatstripingonthesleevesorlegsofgarments,and
athleticgarmentsinparticular,addstotheirattractivenessforapotentialbuyer.
Longitudinallyplacedstripeshaveaslenderizingeffectandmayperhapsgiveanillusion
ofspeedormotion.CertainlyIbelievethatitisfairtosaythatagarmentbearingsome
suchdecorativestripesismoreattractiveandhasmoreeyeappealthanaplaingarment.
[…]Foroneparticularmanufaturertoseizeupononeparticulartypeofstriping,andby
consistentuseofitincertainwidthsandspacingclaimthatthisparticulartypeofstripe
hasacquiredasignificancesoastoindicatetothepublicgarmentsofitsmanufacture
appearstobeanattempttoconvertwhatismerelyornementaldesignintoatrademark,
whichisnotpermissible.[Ouritalics.]

IVGRubberCanadaLtd.v.GoodallRubberCompany[HELICALSTRIPE](1980),48
C.P.R.(2d)268,[1981]1F.C.143(F.C.T.D.),J.Dubéatpage146:
Inmyview,however,thehelicalstripeontheGoodhallhosedoesnotplaythesametype
offunctionaluseasthebandontheParke,Daviscapsule.Inthelattercasethegelatine
bandfulfilsanessentialphysicalfunctionaswellasadistinguishingfeature.Theband
physicallyholdsthecapsuletogether.Withoutthebandthecapsulewouldfallapart.On
theotherhand,thespiralstriperunningalongtheGoodhallhoseisnotphysically
essentialtothehose.Itmerelydistinguishesitfromotherwares.[Ouritalics.]

Samannv.Canada’sRoyalGoldPinetreeMfg.Co.Ltd.[TREECARFRESHNER]
(1984),4C.I.P.R.17,3C.P.R.(3d)313(F.C.T.D.);rev.(1986),8C.I.P.R.307,65
N.R.385,9C.P.R.(3d)223(F.C.A.),JHealdatpage231:
Onthisrecord,itisnotpossibletoconcludethatthemarksinissueweremerelyorsolely
ornemental.Iagreewiththeappellant’scounselthatitislikelythatanydesignmarkwill
havesomeornamentalfeatures.However,thatcircumstancewillnot,perse,rendera
markunregistrablesolongasitpossessestheessentialrequirementsforregistrability.
[…]Whendeterminingtheregistrabilityofatrademark,theonlyrelevantconsiderationis
thetrademarkentryasitappearsontheregistry.Accordinglythemannerinwhicha
trademarkhasinfactbeenusedisirrelevanttothatdetermination.[Ouritalics.]

PizzaPizzaLtd.v.Canada(RegistrarofTradeMarks)24[967-1111](1985),7C.P.R.
(3d)428,6C.I.P.R.229(F.C.T.D.);(1989),26C.P.R.(3d)355,24C.I.P.R.152,101
N.R.378,16A.C.W.S.(3d)24,[1989]3F.C.379(F.C.A.),J.Pratteatpage381and
J.Urieatpages386-387:

24Alsocommented:MariePINSONNEAULT,«Votrenumérodetéléphoneest-il
enregistréàtitredemarquedecommerce?L’affairePizzaPizzaLimited»(1990),2
Lescahiersdepropriétéintellectuelle263.

8
CounselfortherespondenttriedtosupportthedecisionoftheTrialDivision[…]ononly
oneground,namely,thatatelephonenumberisnotregistrableasatrademarkbecause,
accordingtothejurisprudence[Parke,DavisetElginHandles],amarkthatisprimarily
designedtoperformafunctioncannotbethesubjectofatrademark.Thisposition,inmy
view,revealsacompletemisunderstandingofthatjurisprudence.Inthosecases,the
marksthatwereheldtobefunctionalwere,ineffect,partofthewaresinrespectofwhich
registrationwassoughtsothattheregistrationofthosemarkswouldhavegrantedthe
applicantsamonopolyonfunctionalelementsorcharacteristicsoftheirwares;the
applicantswould,ineffect,haveobtainedpatentsundertheguiseoftrademarks.The
situationhereisentirelydifferent.Thetrademarkappliedforbytheappellantisnot
functionalinthatsense;forthatreason,itsfunctionalcharacterdoesnotmakeit”not
registrable”.[pp.356-357]

AsIseeit,whileundoubtlythereisafunctionalelementinitsusebytheappellant,inthat
toplaceatelephoneorderforanyoftheappellant’sproductsthenumericalcombination
thatisthetelephonenumberallottedbythetelephonecompanytotheappellantmustbe
utilized,thatisnotitssolefunction.Rather,itistotallyunrelatedtothewaresthemselves
inthesensethat,forexample,anumberedpartofsomeproductwouldbesorelated
whichispurelyafunctionaluse.Itistruethattheselectionbytheappellant,ofthe
numericalcombinationthatisitstelephonenumbercannotbesaidtohavebeen
fortuitous.Itwasadeliberatechoice[…]”becauseitwasinherentlysuitedtousebyPizza
PizzaLimitedtoidentifytoitscustomersandpotentialcustomersthesourceofPizza
PizzaLimited’sproductsandthequalitystandardswhichhavebeenandarenow
associatedwiththoseproducts”,andthemarkisnow”highlyindicativeofPizzaPizza
LimitedanditsproductsanddistinguishesPizzaPizzaLimited’sproductsandservices
fromthoseofothers”.

Noneoftheforegoingevidencewascontradictednorevendisputed.Thatbeingso,itisa
trademarkandIfailtounderstandwhysimplybecauseitalsofunctionsastheappellant’s
telephonenumbercandepriveitofregistrabilityassuchatrademark.Itfulfilsthe
requirementsofthedefinitionof”trademark”ins.2oftheActinthatitis

a)amarkthatisusedbyaperson(acorporation),
b)thatitisusedforthepurposeofdistinguishingwaresmanufacturedorsoldbyit,
and
c)itdistinguishessuchwaresfromthosesoldbyothers.[pp.361-362][Ouritalics.]

SantanaJeansLtd.v.ManagerClothingInc.[CROSSSTICH](1993),72F.T.R.241,
52C.P.R.(3d)472(F.C.T.D.),J.Joyalatpages476-477and478:
Itookjudicialnoticeduringthehearing,forthecurrentcasebeforeme,thatacrossstitch
usedasastitchingmethodorasadecorationisinthepublicdomain.Theaffidavitand
testimonyofMmeAnnickVaudelleprovedthat.Thestitchhasbeenusedforsewing
garments,embroidery,folkcostumes,etc.Butasthecrossstitchispartofthepublic
domain,soisacircle,asquare,aline,etc.Thedistinctivenessinthiscaseismeasured
bythecapacityofthetrademarktodistinguishthewaresoftherespondentfromany
othermanufacturer’ssimilarwares.Doesaseriesof10crossstitchesdistinguishthe
denimclothingmanufacturedbyManagerfromdenimclothingmanufacturedbyothers?

Theuseofthestitch,notasastitchingmethodnorasasimpledecoration,butasa
distinguishingtrademarkisnovelanddistinctofanyprevioususeofthesaidstitch.The
respondentclaimedthatitsuseofthestitchissuchastodistinguishitsdenimclothing
fromtheothermanufacturers’similarwares.Iagreethatsuchuseofthestichmakesit
registrableundertheAct.

9
Althoughtherespondentisentitledtothetrademark,theuseofthesaidstitchasa
distinguishingfeaturewillgivenorighttotherespondenttopreventothersfromusingthe
stitch’sutilitarianfeaturessuchasfordecorationandstitching.[pp.476-477]

Inthiscase,therespondent’scrossstitchdidnotserveafunctionasitwasnotusedasa
methodofstitchingnorwasitmerelydecorative.Obviously,acrossstitchmadeofyellow,
orangeor
lightbluethreadhastheeffectofdecoratingthewarebutitsmainpurposewas
tobeusedasameanstodistinguishtherespondent’sware.ContrarytothecaseinW.J.
Hughes&Sons”CornFlowers”Ltd.v.Morawiec(1970),62C.P.R.21atp.34,44Fox
Pat.C.88(Ex.Ct.),thestitchisnotusedforfunctionalnorornamentationpurposesonly.
Icometotheconclusionthatthecrossstitch,inthiscase,isnotusedasastitchnorasa
decorationalthoughsuchpurposeshavebeenitscommonuseformanyyears.Rather,
therespondenthasusedthecrossstitchasadistinguishingmarkonthepockets,or
alongtheouterseamofthelegsofitsdenimware.Thetrademarkwillthereforenotbe
expungedfromtheregisteroftrademarks.[p.478][Ouritalics.]

SunIceLtd.v.KelseySportswearLtd.[V-STRIPE](1993),61F.T.R.136,47C.P.R.
(3d)443(F.C.T.D.),J.Joyalatpage447:
Theothertestiswhetherthemarkispurelyornementalorservesafunctionalpurpose.
Fromtheevidencebeforeme,Iseenogroundswhichwouldsubstantiatesucha
conclusion.Anexaminationofthephotographsattachedtotheaffidavitevidenceofthe
expertwitnessesindicatestomethatthemarkisneitherornamentalnorfunctional.[Our
italics.]

RemingtonRandCorp.v.PhilipsElectronicsN.V[SHAVERHEAD]25(1993),51
C.P.R.(3d)392,69F.T.R.136,44A.C.W.S.(3d)579(F.C.T.D.);rev.(1995),64
C.P.R.(3d)467,191N.R.204,[1995]F.C.1660(F.C.A.)[requestforleavetoappeal
totheSupremeCourtofCanadarefused(1996),67C.P.R.(3d)vi(S.C.C.).],J.
MacGuiganatparagraphs18-21:

[18][…]Iffunctionalitygoeseithertothetrademarkitself(ImperialTobacco,andParke,
Davis)ortothewares(ElginHandles),thenitisessentiallyorprimarilyinconsistentwith
registration.However,ifitismerelysecondaryorperipheral,likeatelephonenumberwith
noessentialconnectionwiththewares,thenitdoesnotactasabartoregistration.

[19][…]Ifamarkisprimarilyfunctionalas”partoftheware”,theeffectwouldbetogrant
applicantsforregistration”amonopolyonfunctionalelementsorcharacteristicsoftheir
wares”.Thiswouldbeeffectivelytocreateapatentorindustrialdesignratherthana
trademark:”theapplicantswould,ineffect,haveobtainedpatentsundertheguiseof
trademarks”.Inmyview,thatwouldbepreciselytheconsequenceofregistrationofthe
designtrademarkinthecaseatbar.Icannotthereforeagreewiththetrialjudgethatthe
designmarks”containnofunctionalelementsorcomponents”.Rather,theyhavean
25See:DianeLEDUC-CAMPBELL“Validityof’DistinguishingGuise’DoesNotTurn
OnFunctionality”(1994),8WorldIntellectualPropertyReport30,alsoavailableat
URLwww.robic.ca,underpublication142.45(websiteconsultedon19990401);
DianeLEDUCCAMPBELL“FederalCourtofAppealInvalidatesPhilips’Trademarks”
(1996),10WorldIntellectualPropertyReport69,alsoavailableatURLwww.robic.ca,
underpublication142.64(websiteconsultedon19990401);JustineWIEBEetal.
“Philips’TripleHeadShaver:WhenaShaveCanBeTooCloseForComfort”(1996),
3IntellectualProperty120.

10
intrinsincreferencetotheprincipalfunctionalfeatureofthePhilipsshaver,itscutting
heads,whichtheydepict.Ifthiswereamererepresentation,itcouldnothavetheeffect
ofpreventingtheappellantsfromproducingasimilarshaverwithadifferentdesignmark.
Buttherespondentagrees-indeedinsists-thatthisistheeffectofitsregistrationofthe
designmark.

[20]Moreover,Iamnotpersuadedbythetrialjudge’salternativeconclusionthatthere
wasnoevidencethat”utilitarianfunctionalitydictatedthedesignofthetripleheaded
shaver”.Shaverheadsingeneralareutilitarianinnature,andthetrialjudgefoundthat
the”equilateraltriangularconfigurationisoneofthebetterdesignsforatripleheaded
shaver”.Here,theshaverheadsarefunctionalandthethree-headedequilateral
triangularconfigurationisfunctional.Thedesignmark,bydepictingthosefunctional
elements,isprimarilyfunctional.

[21][…]Whatevertheportionofthesalesmarketinquestion,registrationofaprimarily
functionalmarkisarestraintonmanufacturingandtrade,sinceiteffectivelyamountstoa
patentorindustrialdesignintheguiseofatrademark.[Ouritalics.]

Thus,utilitarianfunctionalitymustbedistinguishedfromaestheticfunctionality26.

Wecanconcludefromthiscaselaw:

•Thatwhatisusedsolelyfordecorationpurposescannotconstitutea
registrable
27trade-mark.[whichdoesnotnecessarilypreclude
registrationofanaestheticallypleasingmark];
•Thatwhatissolelyfunctionalcannotconstitutearegistrabletrade-
mark
28[whichdoesnotprecludeamark,whoseutilityissecondary,
frombeingregistered];

26AwidelycommentedtopicintheUnitedStates;onutilitarianfunctionalityand
aestheticfunctionality,seeforinstanceDianaElzeyPINOVER,“Aesthetic
Functionality:TheNeedforaForeclosureofCompetition”(1993),83Trademark
Reporter571;ErinM.HARRIMAN,“AestheticFunctionality:TheDisarrayAmong
ModernCourts”(1996),96TrademarkReporter276;JohnE.McKIE,“Functionality
SurvivesIncontestabilityAsaTypeofConstructiveAbandonmentDespite
Shakespeare”(1996),86TrademarkReporter304.J.ThomasMcCARTHY,
McCarthyonTrademarksandUnfairCompetition,4
thed.(St.Paul,WestGroup,
1996),at§7:63to7:93(updatedon98/12/8)andtotheexcerptofQualitexCo.v.
JacobsonProductsCo.[GREEN-GOLDDRYCLEANINGPRESSPADS](1995),514
U.S.15,115S.Ct.1300,34U.S.P.Q.(2d)1161(S.C.),J.Breyeratpage1163:“The
functionalitydoctrinepreventstrademarklaw,whichseekstopromotecompetitionin
protectingafirm’sreputation,frominsteadinhibitinglegitimatecompetitionby
allowingaproducertocontrolausefulproductfeature”.
27W.J.Hughes&Sons”CornFlower”Ltd.v.Morawiec[TWELVEPETALS
FLOWER](1970),62C.P.R.21,44FoxPat.C.88(Ex.Ct.),J.Gibsonatpages98-99
et100;Adidas(Canada)Ltd.v.Colins[THREEPARALLELSTRIPES](1978),38
C.P.R.(2d)145(F.C.T.D.),J.Walshatpage169.SeealsoModernHouseware
Importsv.Verreriecristalleried’ArquesJ.G.Durand&cie[FLOWERSDESIGN]
(1998),[1998]T.M.O.B.74(Opp.Board)M.Herzig,at¶10-11.

11
•Thatifthecharacteristicistheresultofamanufacturingprocess,the
trade-markcannotberegistered29;
•Thatifthecharacteristicisnotmerelydecorativeorutilitarian,thenthe
trade-markcanberegistered
30;
•Thatthisfunctionalnature-aestheticorutilitarian-hastobelinkedto
thetrade-markitself
31;
•Thatthefunctionalityofthetrade-mark,beingaestheticorutilitarian,
mustbeanalyzedaccordingtotheapplicationforregistrationasfiledor
theobtainedregistrationbutnotaccordingtothemeansbywhichthe
trade-markisused
32;

28SeealsoCarlingO’KeefeBreweriesofCanadaLtd.v.Goyarzu[MOLDED
INDENTATION](1991),36C.P.R.(3d)377,[1991]T.M.O.B.166(Opp.Board]M.
Herzigat¶8-9.
29ElginHandlesLtd.v.WellandValeMfg.Co.Limited[DARKERTOOLHANDLE]
(1964),43C.P.R.20,[1965]Ex.C.R.3,27FoxPat.C.168(Ex.Ct.),J.Jackettat
pages171and172;SeealsoDotPlasticsLtd.v.GravenhurstPlasticsLtd.[UPPER
EDGESTRIPE](1988),[1988]T.M.O.B.279,22C.P.R.(3d)228(Opp.Board)G.
Partingtonatpage231.
30IVGRubberCanadaLtd.v.GoodallRubberCompany[HELICALSTRIPE](1980),
48C.P.R.(2d)268,[1981]1F.C.143(F.C.T.D.),J.Dubéatpage146;Samannv.
Canada’sRoyalGoldPinetreeMfg.Co.Ltd.[TREECARFRESHNER](1986),8
C.I.P.R.307,65N.R.385,9C.P.R.(3d)223(F.C.A.),J.Healdatpage231,leaveto
appealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadarefused(1986),[1986]2S.C.R.v(S.C.C.);
PizzaPizzaLtd.v.Canada(RegistrarofTradeMarks)[967-1111](1989),26C.P.R.
(3d)355,24C.I.P.R.152,101N.R.378,16A.C.W.S.(3d)24,[1989]3F.C.379
(F.C.A.),J.Urieatpage361;SantanaJeansLtd.v.ManagerClothingInc.[CROSS
STICH](1993),72F.T.R.241,52C.P.R.(3d)472(F.C.T.D.),J.Joyalatpage478.
31ImperialTobaccoCompanyofCanada,Limted(The)v.RegistrarofTrademarks
[COLOUREDBANDCELLOPHANE](1939),[1939]2D.L.R.141,[1939]Ex.C.R.
(Ex.Ct.),J.Macleanatpages144-145;Parke,Davis&Co.Ltd.v.Empire
LaboratoriesLimited[SEALEDBANDEDCAPSULES](1963),24FoxPat.C.88,38
D.L.R.(2d)694,41C.P.R.121,[1964]Ex.C.R.399(Ex.Ct.),J.Noëlatpage416;
IVGRubberCanadaLtd.v.GoodallRubberCompany[HELICALSTRIPE](1980),48
C.P.R.(2d)268,[1981]1F.C.143(F.C.T.D.),J.Dubéatpage146;PizzaPizzaLtd.
v.Canada(RegistrarofTradeMarks)[967-1111](1989),26C.P.R.(3d)355,24
C.I.P.R.152,101N.R.378,16A.C.W.S.(3d)24,[1989]3F.C.379(F.C.A.),J.Pratte
atpage356;RemingtonRandCorp.v.PhilipsElectronicsN.V[SHAVERHEAD]
(1995),64C.P.R.(3d)467,191N.R.204,[1995]A.C.F.1660(F.C.A.),J.MacGuigan
atparagraph21.
32Samannv.Canada’sRoyalGoldPinetreeMfg.Co.Ltd.[TREECARFRESHNER]
(1986),8C.I.P.R.307,65N.R.385,9C.P.R.(3d)223(F.C.A.),J.Healdatpage231;
PizzaPizzaLtd.v.Canada(RegistrarofTradeMarks)[967-1111](1989),26C.P.R.
(3d)355,24C.I.P.R.152,101N.R.378,16A.C.W.S.(3d)24,[1989]3F.C.379
(F.C.A.),J.Pratteatpages356-357andJ.Urieatpages361-362.Seealso
AmericanFork&HoeCo.v.LansingEngineeringLtd.[TRIPLETAPER](1947),

12
•Thatthisevidenceoffunctionalitymustbemadeandcannotbe
inferred33;
•Thatinprincipleatrade-markcannotbeusedasapretexttoextend
theeffectivelifeofapatentorofanindustrialdesignwhichhas
expired,howeveractionsonsuchtrade-marksshouldnotautomatically
bedismissedwithoutaconsiderationofstandardtrade-markprinciples
relatingtodistinctivenessandfunctionality
34.

2.2USE

[1948]2D.L.R.298,7FoxPat.C.75,7C.P.R.51(Ex.Ct.),J.Cameronatpages56
and57;conf.(1948),[1948]3D.L.R.865,9FoxPat.C.1,8C.P.R.1(S.C.C.);
“Wherethetrade-markitselfispersenotfunctional,itdoesnotbecomefunctional
simplybecause,whenappliedtothewares,incombinationwithotherelements,it
becomesfunctional”:RogerT.HUGHESetal.,HughesonTradeMarks(Toronto,
Butterworths,1984),§12,note14(updated36in3/98).
33SantanaJeansLtd.v.ManagerClothingInc.[CROOSSTICH](1993),72F.T.R.
241,52C.P.R.(3d)472(F.C.T.D.),J.Joyalatpage476;SunIceLtd.v.Kelsey
SportswearLtd.[V-STRIPE](1993),61F.T.R.136,47C.P.R.(3d)443(F.C.T.D.),J.
Joyalatpage447.SeealsoDotPlasticsLtd.v.GravenhurstPlasticsLtd.[UPPER
EDGESTRIPE](1988),[1998]T.M.O.B.279,22C.P.R.(3d)228(Opp.Board),G.
Partingtonatpage231.
34ImperialTobaccoCompanyofCanada,Limted(The)v.RegistrarofTrademarks
[COLOUREDBANDCELLOPHANE](1939),[1939]2D.L.R.141,[1939]Ex.C.R.
(Ex.Ct.),J.Macleanatpages144-145;Parke,Davis&Co.Ltd.v.Empire
LaboratoriesLimited[SEALEDBANDEDCAPSULES].(1964),27FoxPat.C.67,45
D.L.R.(2d)97,43C.P.R.1,[1964]S.C.R.351(S.C.C.),J.Hallatpage356;Pizza
PizzaLtd.v.Canada(RegistrarofTradeMarks)[967-1111](1989),26C.P.R.(3d)
355,24C.I.P.R.152,101N.R.378,16A.C.W.S.(3d)24,[1989]3F.C.379(F.C.A.),
J.Pratteatpages356-357;RemingtonRandCorp.v.PhilipsElectronicsN.V
[SHAVERHEAD](1995),191N.R.204,[1995]A.C.F.1660,64C.P.R.(3d)467
(F.C.A.),J.MacGuiganatpages476-477.SeealsoThomas&Betts,Ltd.v.Panduits
Corp.[OVALSHAPEHEAD](1997),129F.T.R.185,74C.P.R.(3d)185(F.C.T.D.),J.
Richardatpage198;rev.(2000)4C.P.R.(4th)498(F.C.A.);applicationforleaveto
appealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadafiledonMarch8,2000(CourtFileNo.
27789).SeealsoGregoryC.LUDLOW,“SurveyofIntellectualProperty:PartII–
Trade-marksSuitabilityofApplicationandValidityofRegistrations”(1995),27Ottawa
LawReview339,atpage342:“TheCourtalsoconcludedthatthetwo-dimensional
trade-markregistrationspossessedbyPhilipswouldpreventRemingtonfrom
marketingashaverwiththreerotarybladesarrangedinequilateraltriangular
configuration”.

13
Wesawthatatrade-markmustdistinguishthewaresorservicesofapersonfrom
thoseofothers.Thetrade-markmustalsobeused,atleastinthetechnicalsense
givenbytheTrade-marksAct
35.

Thus,withrespecttowares,atrade-markisdeemedused
36if,atthemomentofthe
transferofownershiporpossessionofthewares,itismarkedonorsomehow
associatedwiththewaresinamannerthatgivesnoticeoftheconnectionbetween
thewaresandthetrade-mark
37.

Withrespecttoservices,atrade-markisdeemedusedifitisshownduringthe
performanceoftheservicesorthroughadvertising.However,inordertoconstitute
useofthetrade-mark,itsadvertisementmustbeassociatedtotheperformanceof
servicesinCanada
38.

35Section2TMA:“use”,inrelationtoatrade-mark,meansanyusethatbybysection
4isdeemedtobeauseinassociationwithwaresorservices.Paragraphs4(1)and
4(2)TMA:4(1)“Atrade-markisdeemedtobeusedinassociationwithwaresif,at
thetimeofthetransferofthepropertyinorpossessionofthewares,inthenormal
courseoftrade,itismarkedonthewaresthemselvesoronthepackagesinwhich
theyaredistributedoritisinanyothermannersoassociatedwiththewaresthat
noticeoftheassociationisthengiventothepersontowhomthepropertyor
possessionistransferred”.4(2)“Atrade-markisdeemedtobeusedinassociation
withservicesifitisusedordisplayedintheperformanceoradvertisingofthose
services”.
36Foracritiqueofthejurisprudentialinterpretationofthenotionof‘use’seeDanielR.
BERESKIN“Trade-MarkUse”inTrade-MarksLawofCanada,collectionHenderson
(Toronto,Carswell,1993),ch.4,pp.109-112,republishedunderthetitle“Trade-Mark
‘Use’inCanada”(1997),87TrademarkReporter301,atpages305-309;HuguesG.
RICHARD“Thedefinitionof’Use’MayAlterSection20InfringementsoftheTrade-
marksAct”(1995),2IntellectualProperty60andFrançoisGUAY“Pourenfiniravec
l’affaireClairol:l’article22delaLoisurlesmarquesdecommerceprévient-illa
publicitécomparative?”(1999),11Lescahiersdepropriétéintellectuelle441.
37“Thus,theplacingofthemarkonabottlecap,alabel,packagesandinvoices,
shrink-wrappedwithanarticledisplayingthetrade-mark,onacomputerprogram[…]
orontareslipswhereinbulkproductsareweighedoronsealingtapeplacedacross
thecartoncontainingthewaresissufficientuseofthemark”:RogerT.HUGHESet
al.,HughesonTradeMarks(Toronto,Butterworths,1984),at§18,omissionsofthe
notes(updating37in7/98).
38SeeforexampleCornerstoneSecuritiesCanadaInc.v.Smart&Biggar
[CORNERSTONE](1994),58C.P.R.(3d)417,87F.T.R.300(F.C.T.D.),J.Weston
at¶8;Porterv.DontheBeachcomber[DONTHEBEACHCOMBER](1966),33Fox
Pat.C.79,48C.P.R.280,[1966]Ex.C.R.982(Ex.Ct.),J.Thurlowatpage988,
MarinelandInc.v.MarineWonderland&AnimalParkLtd.[MARINELAND](1974),16
C.P.R.(2d)77,[1974]2F.C.558(F.C.T.D.),J.Cattanachatpages569-572.

14
Thus,advertisingalonedoesnotconstituteuseofatrade-markinassociationwith
wares.Thetrade-markmustbeusedinamannertodistinguishthewaresor
servicesatthemomentofthetransferofownership
39.

Thequestionarisesastomarksthatarereproducedonmerchandisingproducts
suchasT-shirts,pens,caps,takingintoconsiderationthatsuchproductsareoften
givenawayforfree.Isitamatterofacreativeuseoftherightsprovidedbythe
Trade-marksAct,distinguishingthesourceofaproduct,orofsomethingelse,likean
ornementaluse
40?

Thisdeterminationwilldepend,mostofthetime,onthecircumstancesofthe
reproduction,onthetransferofownershipandofthenatureoftheproceedings
(applicationforregistration,opposition,expungement,infringementaction).Thecase
lawinCanadaonthispointemanatesprincipallyfromtheOppositionsBoardandit
suggeststhatwhatmustbedeterminediswhetherthemarkingofatrade-markina
prominentmanneronsuchmerchandise(generallylinkedtoasalesprogram),
constitutes”use”to”distinguish”(asapposedtosimplyornamentalusewhichis
particularlytrueforgraphicmarks
41)notwithstandingitsprimarilyornamental
function42.

39SeeFarodoLd.’sApplication(1945),62R.P.C.111(Chan.Div.England),lord
Evershedatpage123;“Itisnotuncommonto-dayformanufacturersofortradersin
goodsofaspecificclasstoadvertisetheirwaresbythedistributionasgiftsofgoods,
e.g.,pencilsormatches,bearingtheirnameortheirtrademarkthoughsuchlast
mentionedgoodsarewhollydifferentincharacterfromtheirowngoods.[…]A
memberofthepublicseinggoodsofthecharacaterofthosecomprisedinclasses5
or34bearingthename”Ferodo”mightsupposethatsuchgoodswerebeing
distributedaspartofanadvertisingcampaign[fortheFERODObrakelinings]”.
40“Rather,Ibelievethereisatleastanarguablecasetotheeffectthatthisisamere
decorationofthearticlesinquestionanddoesnotconstitutetrademarkuseinthe
senseofmakingthearticlestowhichsuchdecorationisapplieddistinctiveofthe
MontrealExposorwhateverotherclubbeinvolved”:PaulV.GADBAN“Thoughtson
TradeMarkUseFollowingPharmaco”(1982),8-13PatentandTrademarkInstituteof
CanadaBulletin630,atpages637-638.
41Butdoesnotexcludenominaltrade-marks,especiallywhentheyareunfortunately
includedinaslogan.:PartIKnittingLtd.v.TetraMusicLtd.[CAUTION](1992),43
C.P.R.(3d)154(Opp.Board)D.Martinatpage158andEverythingforaDollarStore
(Canada)Inc.v.DollarPlusBargainCentreLtd.[MORETHANADOLLARSTORE]
(1998),[1998]T.M.O.B.73(Opp.Board),G.Partingtonat¶10.SeealsoC.Lloyd
SARGINSON,“Color,Slogans&ShapesAsTrademarks–TheTransitionfromNon-
traditionaltoTraditional”,in1997INTAMid-YearMeeting–CourseMaterials(Rio
Grande,INTA,1997),pp.15-25,atpages19-21.
42MillerBrewingCo.Ltd.v.LabattBrewingCo.[ALLYOUWANTINBEER](1991),
36C.P.R.(3d)400,[1991]T.M.O.B.116(Opp.Board),D.Savardat¶7;PartI
KnittingLtd.v.TetraMusicLtd.[CAUTION](1992),43C.P.R.(3d)154(Opp.Board),
D.Martinatpage158;BodyShopInternationalPLCv.KMartCanadaLtd.[BODY
COMPANY](1993),46C.P.R.(3d)556(Opp.Board),G.Partingtonatpage559;

15

Consequently,ifthepresenceofatrade-markonmerchandisingproductsisnot
considered”use”inthesenseofparagraph4(1)oftheTrade-marksAct
43,the
registrationofatrade-markforsuchmerchandisingproductsisgoingtobe
vulnerabletoadministrative
44orjudicial45expungementproceduresfornon-use46.On
theotherhand,suchausecouldbeacceptableinthecaseoftrade-marksfor
services
47.

Lapointe,Rosensteinv.BumWrapClothingStore[THEBUMWRAP](1995),63
C.P.R.(3d)564(Opp.Board),D.Savardatpages568-569;Philips,Friedmanand
Kotlerv.BlackcombSkiingEnterprises[SOLARCOASTER](1995),[1995]T.M.O.B.
141(Opp.Board),D.Savardat¶9;Philips,FriedmanandKotlerv.BlackcombSkiing
Enterprises[SOLARCOASTER](1995),[1995]T.M.O.B.140(Opp.Board),D.
Savardat¶9;ThomasJ.Liptonv.TheHVRCo.[TAKEHEART](1995),64C.P.R.
(3d)552,[1995]T.M.O.B.169(Opp.Board),D.Martinat¶8and9;MolsonBreweries
v.MooseheadBreweriesLtd.[WHATBEERISNOW](1995),64C.P.R.(3d)560,
[1995]T.M.O.B.173(Opp.Board)M.Herzigat¶6;SkydomeCorporationv.Toronto
HeartIndustriesLtd.[TORONTOCOMETOPLAY](1998),[1998]T.M.O.B.203
(Opp.Board),D.Savardat¶16;CanadianTireCorp.Ltd.v.MaxRittenbaumInc.
[THERIGHTCHOICE](1998),[1998]T.M.O.B.201(Opp.Board),D.Martinat¶17.
43DanielR.BERESKIN“Trade-markUse”,inTrade-markLawofCanada,collection
Henderson(Toronto,Carswell,1993),pp.97-112,republishedunderthetitle“Trade-
Mark‘Use’inCanada”(1997),87TrademarkReporter301;SheldonBURSHTEIN,
“Trade-MarkUseinCanada:TheWho,What,Where,When,WhyandHow–PartI”
(1998),11IntellectualPropertyJournal229,atpages236-237;PaulV.GADBAN
“ThoughtsonTradeMarkUseFollowingPharmaco”(1982),8-13Patentand
TrademarkInstituteofCanadaBulletin630,atpages637-639;BarryGAMACHE,“La
protectiondesmarquesdecommercesurlesarticlesdepromotion:undébatàfaire”
(1994),3-2Update/RésumédelaSectionnationaledepropriétéintellectuellede
l’AssociationduBarreaucanadien,pp.4-6,alsoavailableatURLwww.robic.ca,
underpublication171.1(websiteconsultedon19990401);JohnR.MORRISSEY
“DoubleTrademarking”(1982),9-15PatentandTrademarkInstituteofCanada
Bulletin957,alsopublishedunderthetitle“DoubleTrademarkinginCanada”à
(1983),73TrademarkReporter28;DonnaG.WHITE,“PotentialPitfallsinthe
ProtectionofMerchandisingMarksinCanada”(March1994),TrademarksAmerica8,
alsopublishedat(1994),65TrademarkWorld22.
44Section45TMA.45Section57TMA,onthebasisofparagraph18(1)TMA.46Thiswouldalsoconstituteagoodgroundofoppositiontotheregistrationofsucha
trade-mark,thattheapplicantwouldnothaveusedthetrade-marksincethedateof
theallegedfirstuse.:paragraphs38(2)a)and30b)TMA.
47PaulV.GADBAN“ThoughtsonTradeMarkUseFollowingPharmaco”(1982),8-13
PatentandTrademarkInstituteofCanadaBulletin630,atpage637.

16
3COLOURS

Traditionally,atrade-markcanbecomposedofafewcolourelements,eitherforthe
wholeorapartofthewordportion
48,orthegraphicportion49.Butwhataboutthe
trade-markthat,withoutanyotherdistinguishingfeature,wouldconsistonlyofa
simplecolour?

Exceptifitislimitedtoaparticularcolour,theregistrationofatrade-markgenerally
providesitsownerwithanexclusiverighttousethetrade-markinallcolours
50.

Moreover,theregistrationofaparticularcolourwillgivetoitsowneranexclusive
righttousethiscolourinallitsvariationsofshades
51.

When,inanapplicationforregistration,theapplicantclaimsacolourasthetrade-
mark’scharacteristic,thiscolourmustbedescribed
52.Ifthedescriptionisunclear,the

48Seeforinstance,theyellowGOLDENARCHESforMcDonald’sCorporation’s
clothing(registrationTMA387318and299634).
49[TRANSLATION]”Theconeisyellow,St-Hubertandthehairarered,thehandand
theupperfacearewhite,thebeakisgold,theeyesandthebowtieareblack”:
RegistrationTMA316852oftheST-HUBERTtrade-mark(&graphics)ofthe
RestaurantGroupeSt-HubertInc.Also,considertheREDDOToftheumbrellasof
KnirpsInternationalGmBH(Registration158783)aswellasthereddotofthesteel
productsoftheGroupCanam-ManacInc.(application889216).
50Smithv.Fair[REDSEAL](1887),14O.R.729(Ont.Chan.Div.),J.Proudfootat
page733;TavenerRutledgeLd.v.SpectersLd.[TAVENERDROPS](1959),[1959]
R.P.C.385(C.A.England),J.Evershedatpages358-359;confirming(1959),[1959]
R.P.C.83(Chan.Div.England);IVGRubberCanadaLtd.v.GoodallRubber
Company[HELICALSTRIPE](1980),48C.P.R.(2d)268,[1981]1F.C.143
(F.C.T.D.),J.Dubéatpage146;HaroldG.FOX,TheCanadianLawofTradeMarks
andUnfairCompetition,2
nded.(Toronto,Carswell,1967),atpage230.51Parke,Davis&Co.Ltd.v.EmpireLaboratoriesLimited[SEALEDBANDED
CAPSULES](1963),24FoxPat.C.88,38D.L.R.(2d)694,41C.P.R.121,[1964]Ex.
C.R.399(Ex.Ct.),J.Noëlatpage419;confirmedonadifferentpoint(1964),27Fox
Pat.C.67,45D.L.R.(2d)97,43C.P.R.1,[1964]S.C.R.351(S.C.C.).
52Paragraph28(1)oftheTrade-MarksRegulations(1996);hereinafterthe
“Regulations”.Forinstance,theregistrationTMA494137ofCanonK.K.forlaser
printersaddressingatrade-markdescribedas:“Thetrademarkiscomprisedof9
overlappinglenticularshapedfigures,3oblongbars,andacentraltriangularshaped
figure”claimsthefollowingcolours:“Fromthetopofthetrade-markmovingina
clockwisedirection,thethreetopmostlenticularshapedfiguresaregold,blueand
violet.Fromthetopofthetrade-markmovinginaclockwisedirection,thethreenext
underlyinglenticularshapedfiguresaregreen,purpleandorange.Fromthetopof
thetrade-markmovinginaclockwisedirection,thethreebottom-mostlenticular
shapedfiguresarered,mustardandturquoise.Thethreeoblongbarsseparatingthe
goldandblue,blueandpurple,andvioletandorangelenticularshapedfiguresare
black.Thecentraltriangularshapedfigureiswhite”.Inshort,adrawingisrequired…

17
registrarcanrequiretheproductionofadotteddrawingrepresentingthecolour
accordingtoaconcordancechart53.

Atrade-markconsistingofoneormorecoloursinaparticularpresentation
54isthus
possible.Inthesamemanner,thepositioningofthecoloursonaproduct55canalso
beregistered.

However,asimportantasthecolourcanbeforits”user”,acolouralonewillnotbe,
assuch,theobjectofatrade-mark
56,atrade-markhastobedistinct57fromthe

53Paragraph28(2)oftheRegulations.54Considerforinstance,theblueandredrectangleofTommyHilfigerLicensing,Inc
(registrationsTMA432095andTMA482283),theblueandgoldstripsofVisa
InternationalServiceAssociation(registrationTMA160565)ortotheblackand
copperbatteriesofDuracellInternationalInc.(registrationTMA246861).
55“(…)distinguishbetweencolourasthewholesubjectofatrade-mark-suchasa
colouredlabel-andcolourappliedtooneparticularfeatureorelementina
manufacturedarticle”:Wrights’RopesLimitedv.Broderick&BascomRopeCo
[YELLOWSTRANDINAROPE](1931),[1931]Ex.C.R.(Ex.Ct.)J.MacLeanat
page145andtheregistrationTMDA048989;“Descriptionofthetrade-mark:A
yellowcolouredstrandrunningthroughalengthofwirerope,noclaimbeingmadeto
therepresentationofawireropeasshownintheaccomapnyingdrawingapartfrom
thepresenceoftheyellowstrand”.SeetheregistrationTMDA050742ofUniontools,
Inc.forhandlesofgardeningtools:«Agreencolouredbandwhichisappliedabout
theknobendofatoolhandleandagreencolouredbandwhichisappliedtothe
ferruleofthetoolhandlewithanaturalwoodfinishseparatingthesaidgreen
colouredbands”.SeealsoIVGRubberCanadaLtd.v.GoodallRubberCompany
[HELICALSTRIPE](1980),[1981]F.C.143(F.C.T.D.),J.Dubéatpage146and
registrationTMA245066.SeealsoReddaway(F.)&Co.Limited’sApplication[BLUE
REDBLUELINES](1914),31R.P.C.147,[1914]1Ch.859(Chan.Div.England),J.
Warringtonatpage862.
56″[…]theadoptionbytheplaintiffonsuchapackageofcolouraloneisnotsufficient
toconstituteatrademark[…]”.:ParkeDavis&Co.Ltd.v.EmpireLaboratoriesLtd.
[SEALEDBANDCAPSULES](1963),[1964]Ex.C.R.399(Ex.Ct.),J.Noëlatpage
413.Seealso:Hanson’sTradeMark[RED,WHITE,andBLUE](1887),[1888]
R.P.C.130(Chan.Div.England),J.Jayatpage132;HaroldG.FOX,TheCanadian
LawofTradeMarksandUnfairCompetition,2
nded.(Toronto,Carswell,1967),at
page231.ForanAmericanperspectivebeforethecaseQualitex,seeThomasA.
SCHMIDT,“CreatingProtectibleColorTrademarks”(1991),81TrademarkReporter
285,atpage301:“Traditionally,themerecolorruleoperatedtobartheregistration
ofcolormarks.Themerecolorruleisbaseduponthecolordepletiontheory,the
functionalitydoctrineandshadeconfusionconcerns”.
57SeeIverP.COOPER,“TrademarkAspectsofPharmaceuticalProductDesign”
(1980),70TrademarkReporter1,atpage9:“Whenamedicinalcomponentofa
drugisinherentlycolored,thatcolorcannotacquiretrademarksignificance.Thus,the
yellowofsulfur,theblueofcupricsulfate,andthevividredofmercuriciodidecannot

18
productthatismeanttobeprotected58.Wemustnotconfusethecolourasatrade-
markandthecolourofthetrade-mark59.

Therefore,atrade-markconsistingofaparticularcolourappliedtoaparticular
shape
60couldberegistered.Itisnotbecausethecolourcoverstheentireproduct
thatthetrade-markcannotberegistered61.

beappropriatedastrademarksforthecorrespondingmedicinals[H.C.Ansel,
IntroductiontoPharmaceuticalDosageForms(1959),at68]”.
58“Althoughacolorappliedtothevisiblesurfaceofatablethavingaparticularshape
canfunctionasatrademark,itisnotthetypeoftrademarkwhichisreadily
identifiableasamarkbecauseitiscoextensivewiththeproductitself”:Novopharm
Ltd.v.BurroughsWellcomeInc.[BLUESHIELD-SHAPETABLET](1993),52C.P.R.
(3d)263(Commopp.),D.Martinatpages271-272;conf.(1994),58C.P.R.(3d)513
(F.C.T.D.),J.McKeownatpages520and521;withdrawaloftheappealA-717-94
producedonDecember11,1997.SeealsoSmith,KlineandFrenchLaboratories
Ltd.v.Sterling-WinthropGroupLtd.[MAROONANDTRANSPARENTCAPSULE
WITHYELLOWPELLETS](1971),[1972]R.P.C.247(Registrar);conf.(1973),
[1973]1W.L.R.1534,[1974]R.P.C.91(Chan.Div.England);rev.(1975),[1975]1
W.L.R.801,[1975]F.S.R.298,[1976]R.P.C.511-513(C.A.England);rev.(1975),
[1975]1W.L.R.914;[1975]2AllE.R.578,119S.J.422,[1976]R.P.C.511-533
(H.L.),LordDiplockatpage537.
59“Assubmittedbyplaintiff’scounsel,onemustindeeddistinguishbetweencolouras
atrademarkandcolourofatrademark”:Parke,Davis&Co.Ltd.v.Empire
LaboratoriesLimited[SEALEDBANDCAPSULES](1963),24FoxPat.C.88,38
D.L.R.(2d)694,41C.P.R.121,[1964]Ex.C.R.399(Ex.Ct.),J.Noëlatpage415.
Onthesubjectofcolours,shapesandflavoursofpharmaceuticalpreparationssee:
ApotexInc.v.Ciba-GeigyCanadaLtd.andRegistrarofTrade-maks(2000/04/14)T-
2483-97(F.C.T.D.);FournierPharmaInc.etal.v.ApotexInc.(1999)1C.P.R.(4th)
344(F.C.T.D.);NovopharmLtd.v.AstraAktiebolag(1999)1C.P.R.(4th)403
(T.M.O.B.);NovopharmLtd.v.AstraAktiebolag(1999)1C.P.R.(4th)397(T.M.O.B.);
FournierPharmaInc.etal.v.ApotexInc.(1999)2C.P.R.(4th)351(F.C.T.D.);
NovopharmLtd.v.BayerInc.(1999)3C.P.R.(4th)305(F.C.T.D.).SeealsoBobH.
SOTIRIADISandJulieLAROUCHE,”Colours,ShapesandFlavourasTrademarks
forPharmaceuticalPreparations”inWorldMarketsSeriesBusinessBriefing
PharmaTech(2000).
60Considerthis“Thetrademarkconsistsofthecolourblueappliedtothewholeof
thevisiblesurfaceofthetablet”fortheNaproxenSodiumtabletsofHoffmann-La
RocheLimitée,objectoftheregistrationTMA346453;“Theblockshownindotted
outlinedoesnotformpartofthetrade-mark;thedrawingislinedforthecolourpink”
forthefibreglassinsulateofOwens-CorningCanadainc,objectofregistrationTMA
433100;“Thetrade-markshowninthedrawingconsistsofthecolourcanaryyellow
appliedtothewholeofthevisiblesurfaceofthestationerynotes.Therepresentation
ofthestationarynotesshowninthedottedoutlinedoesnotformpartofthetrade
mark”fortheadhesivenotesPOST-ITofMinnesotaMiningandManufacturing
Company,objectoftheregistrationTMA477683.SeealsoJ.ThomasMcCARTHY,
McCarthyonTrademarksandUnfairCompetition,4
thed.(St.Paul,WestGroup,

19

Moreover,suchtrade-markscanattractsecondarymeaning62.

Animportantcorpusofjurisprudencehasbeendevelopped,principallyifnot
exclusivelyinthepharmaceuticaldomain,onsome”technicalities”relativetothe
descriptionofsuchtrade-marks
63.Thus,adrawingofthetrade-mark(accurate

1996),at§7:40(updating4in12/97:“Totheauthor’sknowledge,no[American]
courthasgrantedacompanytheexclusiverighttouseacolorperse
,apartfrom
beingdefinedasthecolorationofaspecificproduct,shapeordesign”.
61″Ihaveconcludedthattheapplicationinquestionhereisnotforatrademark
whichwould”resideinincolouralone”.Asqotedabove,thetrademarkwhose
registrationassoughtisaparticularcolourofgreenappliedtoaparticularsizeand
shapeoftablet.Iwouldnotprecluderegistrationsimplyonthebasisthatthecolouris
appliedtothewholeoftheexteriorofthetabletandnottosomepartofitalone”.:
SmithKline&FrenchCanadaLtd.v.Canada(Trade-marksRegistrar)[N
o2][GREEN
TABLET](1987),12C.I.P.R.204,9F.T.R.129,[1987]2F.C.633(F.C.T.D.),J.Dubé
atpage636invalidate(1984),10C.P.R.(3d)246(Registrar).SeealsoSmith,Kline
andFrenchLaboratoriesLtd.v.Sterling-WinthropGroupLtd.[MAROONAND
TRANSPARENTCAPSULEWITHYELLOWPELLETS](1975),[1975]1W.L.R.914;
[1975]2AllE.R.578,[1976]R.P.C.511-533(H.L.),LordDiplockatpage534.
62SeeCiba-GeigyCanadaLtd.v.ApotexInc.[BLUEMETROPOLTABLET](1992),
44C.P.R.(3d)289,J.E.92-1624,143N.R.241,95D.L.R.(4th)385,58O.A.C.321,
36A.C.W.S.(3d)508,[1992]3S.C.R.120(S.C.C.),J.Gonthieratpages141-143;
CIBA-GeigyCanadaLtd.v.NovopharmLtd.[PINKROUNDBICONVEX
DICLOFENACTABLETS](1993),52C.P.R.(3d)497(F.C.T.D.–temporary
injunction);(1994),83F.T.R.161,56C.P.R.(3d)289(F.C.T.D.–interlocutory
injunction),J.Rothsteinatpages315and320:“Whilewithmorethanonecolour,a
tabletmightbemorestrikingorunusualandthereforemoreeasilyassociatedwith
tradesource,nothingintheauthoritiesprecludesappearanceofasingle-coloured
tabletfromattractingasecondarymeaning.”;(1994),83F.T.R.233,56C.P.R.(3d)
344(F.C.T.D.);(1997),77C.P.R.(3d)428(F.C.T.D.).SeealsoSmithKline&French
Inter-AmericanCorporationv.Chiefetz[ORANGEANDWHITEPELLETSIN
BROWNANDTRANSPARENTCAPSULE](1964),46C.P.R.86(Sup.Ct.),J.St-
Germainatpage90.
63Seeforinstance:NovopharmLtd.v.BurroughsWellcomeInc.[BLUESHIELD-
SHAPETABLET](1993),[1993]T.M.O.B.400,52C.P.R.(3d)263(Opp.Board),D.
Martinatpages267-268;conf.(1994),58C.P.R.(3d)513(F.C.T.D.),J.McKeownat
pages520et521;withdrawalofappealA-717-94producedonDecember11,1997
(applicationTMO593889).SeealsoNovopharmLtd.v.SearleCanadaInc.
[YELLOWTABLET](1995),60C.P.R.(3d)400,[1995]T.M.O.B.15(Opp.Board),M.
Herzigatpages2-3(applicationTMO637454);ApotexInc.v.BurroughsWellcome
Inc.[BLUESHIELDTABLET](1996),68C.P.R.(3d)521,[1996]T.M.O.B.86(Opp.
Board),M.Martinatpage3(applicationTMO688591);NovopharmLtd.v.BayerInc
[DUSTYROSETABLET](1996),[1996]T.M.O.B.256(Opp.Board),M.Herzigat
page3(applicationTMO657397);NovopharmLtd.v.HoechstAktiengesellschaft
[PINKTABLET](1997),[1997]T.M.O.B.57(Opp.Board),D.Martinatpage3

20
representationsofthetrade-markaswell)isrequiredfromtheapplicant64inorderto
describepreciselythetrade-markthathewantstoregister65.Inpractice66,adrawing

(applicationTMO671135);ApotexInc.v.SearleCanadaInc.[WHITEHEXAGONAL
TABLET](1997),[1997]T.M.O.B.306(Opp.Board),D.Martinatpage3(application
TMO722545);NovopharmLtd.v.Ciba-GeigyCanadaLtd.(1997),81C.P.R.(3d)
558,[1997]T.M.O.B.221(Opp.Board),M.Herzigatpages2-3,appealsT-2483-97
andT-4282-97(applicationsTMO630536[PINKTABLET]andTMO630537[PINK
TRIANGULARTABLET]);NovopahrmLtd.v.AstraAktiebolag[BROWN-PINK
CAPSULE](1997),[1997]T.M.O.B.303(Opp.Board),M.Herzigatpages2and3,
appealT-224-98(applicationTMO692410).
64Paragraph30h)oftheTrade-marksAct(R.S.C.1985,c.T-13);hereinaftertheAct
orTMA.Inpractice,theexaminerwillalsorequireadotteddrawingshowingathree-
dimensionalperspectiveofthetrade-markaswellasadeclarationaccordingto
whichtherepresentationbythedottedlinesisnotpartofthetrade-mark.:see
TrademarkExaminationManual,2nded.(Hull,ApprovisionnementetService
Canada,1996),at§IV.2.4.Ifthecasearises,ifthetrade-markisalreadyused,the
examinercanrequiretheproductionofspecimenshowinghowthetrade-markis
used.:paragraph29c)oftheRegulations.
65“Inthepresentcase,thedrawingistooimprecisetomaketheapplicant’s
descriptionofitstrademarkmeaningful.Theapplicantshouldhaveprovideda
drawingshowingthetrademarkinthreedimensionalperspective.Alternatively,the
applicantcouldhaveprovidedseveraltwodimensionalrepresentationsofthemark
fromdifferentperspectives.Alesssatisfactoryalternativemighthavebeentoprovide
adetailedwrittendescriptionoftheshapeofthemarkandrelyonthesingledrawing
alreadyfiled.Afurtheralternativealongthoselineswoudbetohavedelineatedthe
shapeofthetrademarkinthewrittendescriptionbyreferencetothespecimensfiled
[…]Inanyevent,s.30(h)requiresthatthepresentapplicantprovideadrawingof
thetrademarkwhich,eitherbyitselforinconjunctionwiththedescriptionofthetrade
markintheapplication,delinatestheshapeofthetrademarkclaimed”:Novopharm
Ltd.v.BurroughsWellcomeInc.[BLUESHIELD-SHAPETABLET](1993),52C.P.R.
(3d)263(Opp.Board),D.Martinatpage268;conf.(1994),58C.P.R.(3d)513
(F.C.T.D.),J.McKeownatpages520and521;withdrawalofappealA-717-94
producedonDecember11,1997(applicationTMO593889).
66Inadraftofpracticenoticeofthe1999-01-27,theTrade-marksOfficeproposes,
underthetitleLacouleurappliquéeàl’objetensonentier,que:«Lorsqu’unemarque
decommerceconsisteseulementenunecouleurparticulièreappliquéeàlasurface
visibled’unobjetparticulier,celle-cin’estpasconsidéréeêtreunsignedistinctif.Afin
qu’unetellemarquesoitenregistrable,lademandedoitconteniri)unoudesdessins
démontrantlesaspectsvisiblesdel’objet,etii)unedescriptionindiquantquela
marquedecommerceconsisteenlacouleurappliquéeàl’objetmontrédansle
dessin.Ladescriptionetledessindoiventpareux-mêmescomplètementdéfiniren
quoiconsistelamarquedecommerce,etalorsqueleBureaupourraitexigerdes
spécimens,ladescriptiondelamarquenedoitpasfaireréférenceàdesspécimens.
Voiciunexempled’unedescriptionacceptable:«Lamarquedecommerceconsiste
enlacouleurpourpreappliquéeàlasurfacevisibledelapilulemontréedansle
dessin{seeSmith,Kline&Frenchv.Registrar,[1987]2F.C.633.}».

21
preciselyrepresentingoneoftheproduct’sperspectivesonwhichthecolouris
marked67willbeconsideredsufficientsolongasaspecimenoftheproduct,as
used68,isproducedandtheapplicationforregistrationincludesadescriptionofthe
trade-markreferringtothespecimenoftheproduct69.

Thecolourthatwewanttoregister,ofcourse,willhavetobedistinctiveofthe
productassociatedwithit.Somecoloursare,infact,recognizedinsomeindustriesto
haveaparticularsignificationandcannotforthatreasondistinguishaperson’s
productsorservicesfromthoseofanother
70.

Havingsaidthis,acolourwhichisonlyfunctional
71cannotbetheobjectofatrade-
markbecause,byitsfunctionality,itcannotbeusedtodistinguishthewaresor
servicesofapersonfromthoseofothers
72.However,thefunctionalityofthetrade-

67Inthisrespect,theTrade-marksOfficedoesnotrequireaprecisedescriptionofthe
shadeofcolour;however,ifanapplicantwantstorefertothecoloursPANTONE,
he/shewillhavetoindicatethatitisamatterofatradename;fortheindicationof
differentvariationsofcolours,seePantone,thePowerofColorURL
http://www.pantone.com/aquapage.asp(websiteconsultedon19990401).
68Whichseemstobeverydifficultforaproposedtrade-markinthesenseof
paragraph16(3)TMA…
69NovopharmLtd.v.BayerInc(1996),[1996]T.M.O.B.256(Opp.Board),M.Herzig
atpage3[DUSTYROSETABLET](applicationTMO65739).
70“Itisincreasinglyrecognizedthatcertaincoloursaremoreappropriatethanothers
forthepackagingofparticulargoods.Yellowisobviouslyappropriateforalemon-
flavoureddrink,brownforpotatoproducts,andgreenforvegetablesuchasbeans
andpeas”:ChristopherWADLOW,TheLawofPassing-Off,2nded.(Londres,Sweet
&Maxwell,1995),at§6.66.IntheAustraliancaseAktiebolagetAstrav.GlaxoGroup
Ltd.(1995),[1995]A.T.M.O40(Trade-marksOffice);conf.(1996),33I.P.R.123,the
registrationoftheshadesofblueandbrownforasthmainhalershasbeenrefusedon
thegroundthat,inthisbranchoftheindustry,thecolourbluesignifiedareliefaspect
andthecolourbrownpreventiveaspectofthetherapy.
71Forinstance,anamberbottleforbeerwouldbefunctionalsinceitwouldbeused
toprotectthebeerfromthelight(avoidingthe‘skunkyflavour’thatisdisgustingfor
therealbeerconsumers);thebluedotontheflashofacameraindicatesleaks;the
redstriponthecellophanethatwrapsthepackofcigarettesandshowswhere
exactlywemusttearthecellophane;thecolourblackforspeedboatmotorsbecause
thiscolourhastheeffecttodiminishthevisiblesizeofthemotorandtoblendwith
otherboats.
72Parke,Davis&Co.Ltd.v.EmpireLaboratoriesLimited[SEALEDBANDED
CAPSULES].(1964),27FoxPat.C.67,45D.L.R.(2d)97,43C.P.R.1,[1964]
S.C.R.351(S.C.C.),J.Hallatpage354“Thevalidityofthetrademarksmay,inmy
view,bedisposedofonthegroundthatthecolouredbandshaveafunctionaluseor
characteristicsandcannot,therefore,bethesubjectmatterofatrademark.Thelaw
appearstobewellsettledthatifwhatissoughttoberegistredasatrademarkhasa
functionaluseorcharacteristic,itcannotbethesubjectofatrademark”;confirms
(1963),24FoxPat.C.88,38D.L.R.(2d)694,41C.P.R.121,[1964]Ex.C.R.399

22
mark(aestheticorutilitarian)willprecludeitsregistrationonlyifitisrelatedtothe
trade-markitself73andnottoanincidentalorasecondaryaspectofthetrade-mark74.
Furthermore,thefunctionalaspectsofacolourextendtotheindicationofthequality
oftheproductratherthanthesourceoftheproduct
75.

ThelackofCanadiancaselaw
76justifiesourlookingtoU.S.lawforhelpandin
particulartotworecentcases77andrecentdoctrine78.Howeverweshouldbevery

(Ex.Ct.),J.Noëlatpages416“[…]inthiscasethecolouredgelatinbandisusedto
closethegelatincapsule”and418-419“Wehaveseenthatthecolourbanded
capsulesoftheplaintiffhavemanyutilitarianfunctionsandthateventhepresenceof
colouronthebandsisusefulinenablingtheeasydetectionofabreakontheband”.
73ConsiderthissummaryofthequestioninAmericanlaw:“Acolorthatperforms
someutilitarianfunctioninconnectionwithaproductcannotbeappropriatedasa
trademarkunderthegeneralrulethatnofunctionalfeaturecanbeavalidtrademark.
[…]whilethemajorityofcourtshavedefined”functionality”tocoveronlyfeaturesthat
directlycontributetotheutilitarianfunctionalityoftheproduct.[…]Whencolorisused
onlytoindicateacharacteristicoftheproduct,suchassize,capacityorstrenght,itis
functional”:J.ThomasMcCARTHY,McCarthyonTrademarksandUnfair
Competition(St.Paul,WestGroup,1996),at§7:49(updating8in12/98).
74RemingtonRandCorpv.PhilipsElectronicsN.V.[SHAVERHEAD](1995),64
C.P.R.(3d)567,atpage475;Samannv.Canada’sRoyalGoldPinetreeMfg.Co.Ltd
(1985),4C.I.P.R.17,3C.P.R.313(F.C.T.D.);rev.(1986),65N.R.385,8C.I.P.R.
307,9C.P.R.(3d)223(F.C.A.),J.Healdatpage231;leavetoappealrefused72NR
159n(S.C.C.)[CARFRESHNER];AngelaFURLANETTO“Prescription
PharmaceuticalsandthePassingOffAction”(1996),11IntellectualPropertyJournal
70,atpage105.
75SeeHaroldG.FOX,TheCanadianLawofTradeMarksandUnfairCompetition,3d
ed.(Toronto,Carswell,1972),atpage39andRogerT.HUGHESetal,Hugheson
TradeMarks(Toronto,Butterworths,1984),§12,note13(updating36in3/98).See
alsoStephenMOHRetal.,U.S.TradeDressLaw:ExploringtheBoundaries(New
York,INTA,1997),atpages148-150etJ.ThomasMcCARTHY,McCarthyon
TrademarksandUnfairCompetition(St.Paul,WestGroup,1996),at§7:49(updating
8in12/98)
76Ifweexceptthepharmaceuticalcontentious,whichuptonow,seemstobea
matterofprocedure.
77Owens-CorningFiberglassCorp.(Re)(1984).221U.S.P.Q.417(T.T.A.B.);rev.
(1985),774F.2d1116,227U.S.P.Q.417(C.A.F.C.);QualitexCo.v.Jacobson
ProductsCo.[GREEN-GOLDDRYCLEANINGPRESSPADS](1995),514U.S.15,
115S.Ct.1300,34U.S.P.Q.(2d)1161(S.C.)andthesubsequentjurisprudence
citedinStephenMOHRetal.,U.S.TradeDressLaw:ExploringtheBoundaries
(NewYork,INTA,1997),pp.137-165.
78Forinstance:JonathanD.BAKER,“CorrectingaChromaticAberration:Qualitex
Co.v.JacobsonProductsCo.”(1996),9HarvardJournalofLawandTechnology
547;MichaelF.CLAYTONetal.,“DoestheLanhamActApplytoColorPerSe?”
(1995-02-20),TheNationalLawJournalC-17;URL
http://test01.ljextra.com/archive.html/95/02/cb1995_0211_1754_.html(website

23
carefulinsodoinggivensomeofthedifferencesintheunderlyinglegislationofeach
country.

Tosumup:atrade-mark,whetheritbeawordordesignmark,canincludeacolour
claim,canconsistofashapecomposedofoneormorecoloursoracolourelement
positionedontheproduct;anditcanalsobecomposedofaparticularcolour
incorporatedintoaparticularshape.Inanycase,thiscolourmustdistinguish-orbe

consultedon19990401);IverP.COOPER,“TrademarkAspectsofPharmaceutical
ProductDesign”(1980),70TrademarkReporter1;JamesDAVEY,“TheLanhamAct
PermitstheRegistrationofColorAloneAsaTrademark”“QualitexCo.v.Jacobson
ProdsCo.”(1995),63TennesseeLawReview261;KristiL.DAVIDSON“Supreme
CourtSaysYesToColor,PureandSimple:QualitexCo.v.JacobsonProds.Co.”
(1995),21UniversityofDaytonLawReview855;LawrenceB.EBERT“Trademark
ProtectioninColor:DoItbyNumbers!”(1994),84TrademarkReporter379;David
C.GRYCE,“’Qualitex’RulingErasesShadesofGrayonColor–TheU.S.Supreme
Court’srulingisevolutionary,notrevolutionary”(1995-05-08),TheNationalLaw
JournalC-7;URL
http://test01.ljextra.com/na.archive.html/95/04/cb1995_0429_1523_8.html(site
consultedon19990401);BrianRichardHENRY,“RightHat,WrongPeg:Inre
Ownens-CorningFiberglassCorporationandtheDemiseoftheMereColourRule”
(1986),76TrademarkReporter389;DonaldM.HILL“ProtectionforTrademarks
ConsistingofColorAlone”(1995),63UniversityofCincinnatiLawReview989;
DanielC.HUDOCK,“ColorReceivesTrademarkProtectionandtheCourtsReceive
Confusion”(1996),16JournalofCommerceandLaw139;KevinM.JORDANetal.,
“Qualitexv.JacobsonProductsCo.,TheUnansweredQuestion–CanColorEverBe
InherentlyDistinctive?”(1995),85TheTrademarkReporter371;JeanHayes
KEARNES,“QualitexCo.v.JacobsonProductsCo.:OrangeYouSorrytheSupreme
CourtProtectedColor?”(1996),70St.John’sLawReview337;PeterKOEBLER,
“QualitexCo.v.JacobsonProductsCo.:ItIsPossibletoTrademarkColorAlone”
(1996),12SantaClaraComputer&HighTechnologyLawJournal509;ElizabethA.
OVERCAMP,“TheQualitexMonster:TheColorTrademarkDisaster”(1995),2
JournalofIntellectualPropertyLaw595;JeffreyM.SAMUELSetal.,Color
Trademarks:ShadesofConfusion»(1993),83TrademarkReporter554;ThomasA.
SCHMIDT,“CreatingProtectibleColorTrademarks”(1991),81TrademarkReporter
285;LauraR.VISINTINE,“TheRegistrabilityofColorPerSeAfter‘QualitexCo.v.
JacobsonProductsCo.’”(1996),40St.LouisUniversityLawJournal611;JuanitaJ.
WEBBER,“TheGreen-eyedMonsterSoreorCanColorBeTrademarkedunderthe
LanhamAct?”(1996),21ThurgoodMarshallLawReview425.SeealsoStephen
MOHRetal.,U.S.TradeDressLaw:ExploringtheBoundaries(NewYork,INTA,
1997),pp.137-165,JeromeGILSONetal.,TrademarkProtectionandPractice(New
York,MatthewBender,1974),at§2.11(updating33in6/95)andJ.Thomas
McCARTHY,McCarthyonTrademarksandUnfairCompetition(St.Paul,West
Group,1996),at§7:39to7:52(updating8in12/98).SeealsoAudreyA.HORTON,
“Designs,ShapesandColours:AComparisonofTradeMarkLawintheUnited
KingdomandtheUnitedStates”[1989]9EuropeanIntellectualPropertyReport311,
atpages314-315and316-317.

24
abletodistinguish-aperson’sproductsfromthoseofanother.Whetherornotthe
colourcanberegisteredasatrade-markentirelydependsonitsbeingdistinctive79.

4SOUNDS

Almosttenyearsagothefirstsoundtrade-markregistrationinCanadacausedquite
astir
80.Thisregistrationwasforarapidburstof11musicalnotes81.Whilethe
technicalproblemsassociatedwiththedescriptionoftrade-marksisasecondary82
concernforthosewhohaveageneralknowledgeofmusicaltheoryorofacoustic
engineering,aproblemremainsasconcernstheappropriatenessoftheregistration
anddescriptionofsuchtrade-marksundertheTrade-marksAct.

Indeed,thereisnodoubtthataseriesofsoundscanbeusedtodistinguisha
person’swaresandservicesfromthoseofanother
83.But,accordingtotheTrade-
marksAct,canasoundconstitutearegistrabletrade-mark84?

79See:ChristopherWADLOW,TheLawofPassing-Off,2nded.(London,Sweet&
Maxwell,1995),at§6.66-6.68andthejurisprudencecited.
80RichardS.GAREAU,«UnegrandepremièreauCanada:lamarque«sonore»«
(1991),3Lescahiersdepropriétéintellectuelle103;SusanKING,«Aresoundsand
scentstrade-marksinCanada?»(1992),9Business&TheLaw6;GeorgesT.
ROBIC,«L’enregistrabilitédesmarquessonores,signesdistinctifsetcouleurs»,
URLwww.robic.ca,underpublication53.1(websiteconsultedon19990401).See
alsoGeorgeGOTTLIEB“InCaseYouMissedIt…”(1972),62TrademarkReporter
605etDebrettLYONS,«Sounds,SmellsandSigns»[1994]EuropeanIntellectual
PropertyReport540.
8111MUSICALNOTESforaudiotapesandqualityservicesandsoundduplicationof
CapitolRecords,registrationTMA359318,trade-markdescribedas:“themark
consistof11musicalnotescomprisingthenotesC
2(62.5Hz),C3(125Hz),C4
(250Hz),C
5(500Hz),C6(1K),C7(2K),C8(4k),C9(8K),E9(10K),G#
9(12.5K),C10
(16K)”.
82Ifnecessary,areferencecouldbemadetotheAmericanTrademarkRulesof
Procedure(1998),§2.58(b)andtotheTrademarkManualofExaminingProcedure,
2nded.(rev.1.1of1997),§1301.02(d),URL
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/tmep/1300.htm(websiteconsultedon
19990401).
83“Inviewofthisflexibleapproachtowardtheconceptofwhatconstitutesaservice
markoratrademark,aflexibilitythatisrequiredinordertokeepupwiththeever-
changingramificationsbroughtaboutbythechangingtechnologythataccompanies
thegrowthofanationandcreatesgoods,services,andconceptsunheardofinthe
past,thePatentandTrademarkOfficehasrecognizedthatamarkneednotbe
confinedtoagraphicform.Thatis,soundsmay[…]likewisefunctionassource
indicatorsinthosesituationswheretheyassumeadefinitiveshapeorarrrangement
andareusedinsuchamannersoastocreateinthehearer’smindanassociationof

25

Thedefinitionofa”trade-mark”givenbytheActdoesnotexcludeasoundtrade-
mark.Infact,thisstatutorydefinitionis”circular”inthesensethatatrade-markis
definedasamarkcapableofdistinguishing
85.TheActdoesnotenact,by
enumerationorexclusion,whatconstitutesatrade-mark86.Atfirstglance,asound
trade-markshouldbeincludedinthedefinitionofatrade-markinasmuchasit
distinguishes,orisadaptedtodistinguish,aperson’swaresorservicesfromthoseof
another
87.NothingintheActappearstorestrictatrade-marktoonlywhatisvisible88.

thesoundwithaservice”:GeneralElectricBroadcastingCompany(Re)[SHIP’S
BELLCLOCK](1978),199U.S.P.Q.560(T.T.A.B.)Lefkowitz,member,atpage563.
84ConsiderPartVIIIoftheCopyrightAct(R.S.C.1985,c.C-42;hereinafterCA,on
privatecopyingwithrespecttoblankaudiorecordingmediums:someimaginative
typesmayseesuchrecordingsonmagnetictapeasthepreludetoaschemeto
avoidroyaltypayments!
85Section2TMA.86Asamatterofinterest,wenotethat,asstatedinHaroldG.FOX,TheCanadian
LawofTradeMarksandUnfairCompetition,3ded.(Toronto,Carswell,1972),at
page20,inthelegislationprevioustotheTrade-marksActof1954,theterm«trade-
mark»wasdefinedbytheTrade-marksandFactoryDesignsAct(S.R.C.1927,c.
201,section5)as”allmarks,names,labels,brands,packagesorotherbusiness
devices”andbytheCompetitionAct(S.C.1932,c.38,paragraph2m))as”asymbol
whichhasbecomeadaptated(todistinguish…)”.
87InresponsetotheojectionsoftheExaminerwhoformulatedsomereserveswith
respecttotheregistrabilityofsuchasoundmark,theagentofCapitolRecords,Inc.
producedananswer(1987-12-03).Anexcerptofparagraph15isreproduced:«The
markisusedinrelationbothtotherecordingservicesandtotheresultingaudiotape.
TheappearanceoftheSOUNDMARKoneachtapeisanindicationofthequalityof
theservicesbeingrenderedtorecordingartistsundercontractwithCapitolandother
companiesusingtheservicesofCapitolRecords”;asimilarreferencecouldbemade
toanotheranswer(1988-12-01),whoseparagraph2readsasfollow;“Inshort,
applicantdisplaysthetrademarkbothonitsowntapesandonthetapeswhichit
preparesasaservicetothespecificationofothers”..
88Thefactthatthesoundmarkcanalsobetheobjectofprotectionjustlikeamusical
workinthesenseoftheCopyrightActshouldnotcreateanyobstaclesincethe
dualityofprotectiontrade-mark/copyrighthasalreadybeenrecognized,notablywith
respecttoartisticworks:seeHuguesG.RICHARD(dir.)etal.,LegerCanadian
CopyrightActAnnotated(Toronto,Carswell,1993)at§5.9.2andtheCanadian
jurisprudencecitedunder§7.1.5.Inabsenceofauthorizationfromthecopyright
owner,thequestionwhethertheuseofafewbars-probablythemostrepresentative
-ofamusicalworkforuseasatrade-markwillconstitutethereproductionofa
substantialpartoftheworkinthesenseofsection3TMAisaveryinterestingone.
Thiswouldresultinaninfringementoftheeconomicrightsofthecopyrightowner,if
nottoaninfringementofmoralrightsoftheauthor.But,thisisanotherdebate!See
alsoFun-DamentalToo,Ltd.v.UniversalMusicGroup.,Inc.[JAWS](1997),43
U.S.P.Q.(2d)1595(E.D.Pa.).

26
Thatbeingthecase,whyhavewenotregisteredmoresoundtrade-marksin
Canada89?

Inthefirtsplace,itissaidthattheregistrationofthefirstsoundtrade-markwasnota
bigsuccessandtheTrade-marksOfficenowseemstosystematicallyrefuse
90such
applications.ThePlayboy91case,inwhichithasbeendecidedthatatrade-mark,
accordingtotheTrade-marksAct,mustbevisible92,hasbeenthestandardadopted
bytheTrade-marksOffice93todealwithanycaseofasimilarnature.So,underthis
doctrine,thesoundtrade-markwouldnotbeamark.

89Withintheapplicationsstillpending,wenotealionroaringforthemoviesofMetro-
Goldwyn-MayerLionCorp(applicationTMO714314)andaprogressionoffive
soundsfortelecommunicationdevicesofIntelCorporation(applicationTMO
858570).
90Informalinterviewoverthephoneon1999-03-31withSuzanneCharette,policy
directoroftheCanadianTrade-marsOffice.
91PlayboyEnterprisesInc.v.Germain(no.1)[PLAYBOY](1986),[1986]T.M.O.B.
176(Opp.Board);rev.(1987),16C.P.R.(3d)517(F.C.T.D.).Nonetheless,wenote
thatthiscasewasalreadydecidedatthemomentoftheapplicationforregistrationof
CapitolRecords;
92“Iamoftheopinionthat,useofaverbaldescriptionisnotuseofatrademark
withinthemeaningoftheTradeMarksAct.A”mark”mustbesomethingthatcanbe
representedvisually”:PlayboyEnterprisesInc.v.Germain(n
o1)[PLAYBOY](1987),
16C.P.R.(3d)517(F.C.T.D.),J.Pinardatpage522.Thisstatementofthejudgeis
basedonacommentaryofJ.MacLeaninthecaseWrights’RopesLimitedv.
Broderick&BascomRopeCo[YELLOWSTRANDINAROPE](1931),[1931]Ex.
C.R.143(Ex.Ct.),atpages144-145withrespecttothedefinitionoftheterm“mark”
asgiventhenbythedictionnary.Thisappearsshallowasajustification.Onecan
agreewiththeconclusionthat,ontheparticularfactsofthecase,theownerhad
neverusedhistrade-markandthathispatheticexplanationwasmadetomaintainhis
registrationatallcosts.But,inpractice,asoundcanbegraphicallyrepresented..
ThepositionoftheTrade-marksOfficedoesnotseemtotakeintoconsiderationthis
aspectofthedecision…Wouldonehavetoputontheproductagraphic
representationofthemark[reminiscentofthedefinitionofamusicalworkpriortothe
ActmodifyingtheCopyrightActS.C.1993,ch.23,section1(1)]andthencontendthat
theacousticrepresentationofthegraphicrepresentationconstitutesinfringement?
Foracritiqueofthisobsoletedefinitionofa”mark”,seealsoSheldonBURSHTEIN,
«Trade-mark”Use”inCanada:TheWho,What,Where,When,WhyandHow–Part
I»(1997),11IntellectualPropertyJournal229,atpage234.
93PlayboyEnterprisesInc.v.Germain(no1)[PLAYBOY](1986),[1986]T.M.O.B.
176(Opp.Board);rev.(1987),16C.P.R.(3d)517(F.C.T.D.),J.Pinardatpages522
and523;Burns(Re)[HOTLINE](1988),[1988]T.M.O.B.238(Opp.Board),J.
D’Aoustatpages1-2;Phillips(Re)[TECHNIQUEAVANTGARDE](1997),[1997]
T.M.O.B.19(Opp.Board),D.Savardat¶11;LittleCaesarEnterprises,Inc.v..Flying
WedgePizzaCo.Ltd.[VEGGIEWEDGIE](1998),[1998]T.M.O.B.16(Opp.Board),
D.Martinat¶14.

27
Furthermore,thisviewnegatesthepossibilityofshowinguse:

Therefore,inordertobedeemedtobeusedinassociationwithwares,atthetimeofthe
transferofthepropertyinorpossessionofsuchwares,thetrademarkmustbe
somethingthatcanbeseen,whetheritismarkedonthewaresthemselvesoronthe
packagesinwhichtheyaredistributedorwhetheritisinanyothermannersoassociated
withthewaresthatnoticeoftheassociationisthengiventothepersontowhomthe
propertyorpossessionistransferred
94.

However,wehaveseenthatfortheretobe”use”ofatrade-markwithwares,a
noticeoftheassociationmustbegivenatthemomentofthetransferofpossession
95.
Accordingtothisviewofsoundmarks,thepersonwillbeabletolistentothetrade-
markonceheshewillhaveboughtandusedtheproduct,butthiswillonlytakeplace
afterthetransferofpossession
96.

Thus,atthemomentwhensuchanaudiotapeisbought,thesoundtrade-markis
invisibleandinaudible.Itisinvisiblebecausethemerchanthascertainlynotaffixedto
theproductagraphicrepresentationoftheacousticrenderingofthesoundtrade-
mark;itisalsoinaudiblebecause,generallyspeaking,thepurchaserwillnotlistento
theaudiotapeonwhichthissoundtrade-markisaffixedbeforethepurchase.Wecan
thusinferthat,normallyandintheabsenceofexplanationsonparticularpracticesof
astoreoranindustry,therewillrarelybeanoticeoftheassociationinthecaseof
soundtrade-marksforwares.Itcouldhoweverbeeasilydifferentinthecaseof
soundtrade-marksforservices.

94PlayboyEnterprisesInc.v..Germain(no1)[PLAYBOY](1987),16C.P.R.(3d)517
(F.C.T.D.),J.Pinardatpage523.
95Paragraph4(1)TMA.96Compare:BMBCompuscienceCanadaLtd.v.BramaleaLtd.[NETMAIL](1988),
[1989]1F.C.362,23F.T.R.149.20C.I.P.R.310,22C.P.R.(3d)561(F.C.T.D.),J.
Teitelbaumatpage570andQuoVadisInternationalLtée(Re)[LEPLANNING
HORIZONTALDEVOTREANNÉED’UNSELCOUPD’ŒIL](1997),[1997]T.M.O.B.
87(Opp.Board)D.Savardat¶15-18;CullmannVenturesInc.v.QuoVadis
InternationalLtée[YOURYEAR’SHORIZONTALPLANNINGATASINGLE
GLANCE](1997),[1997]T.M.O.B.268,78C.P.R.(3d)268(Opp.Board),D.Savard
atpages272-273.SeealsoBostickLtd.v.SellotapeG.B.Limited(1993),[1994]
R.P.C.556(Chan.Div.England),J.Blackburneatpages563-564wherehehasheld
thatthecolourblueoftheadhesivetapeofoneortheotherpartycouldnotbea
privatedistinctivepackaging(getup)forthereasonthatthiscolourisinvisibleatthe
momentofthepurchaseandcouldonlybeseenatthemomentoftheuse;onthe
samepoint,seealsoAristocLtd.v..RystaLtd.[RYSTA](1945),[1949]1AllE.R.32,
114L.J.Ch52,172L.T.69,62R.P.C.65,[1945]A.C.68(H.L.England)and
Uniliver’sLtd’s(StripedToothpaste)Application(1980),[1980]F.S.R.280(Chan.
Div.England).

28
Abriefoverviewofthefollowingchart97willallowustobetterevaluateexamplesof
useofsoundtrade-marksrelatedtoservices98.

Music
RegistrationServicesOwnerDescription
2155923Entertainment
servicesGoldenBooks
Publishing
company,Inc.Themarkconsistsofthememusicfor
theLONERANGERradio,film,and
televisionseries,resemblingportionsof
theoverturetothe1829opera”William
Tell”,composedbyGioacchinoRossini.
2149329Cellular
telephoneAirtouch
Communicatio
nsIncThemusicalmarkconsistsofa
distinctivesynthesizedmusicalsound
thathasaflute-liketimbreorsound
quality.Thismusicalrepresentationmay
bedescribedasfollows-thismusical
markiswritteninthetrebleofGclef
usingthesymbol(8va)whichsignifies
thatallthenotesareplayedoneoctave
higherthanwritten.thismusicalmark
hasametronimicquarternote
beat/tempoofapproximately96beats
perminute=96thismusicalmarkbegins
withtwosixteenthnotesonthepitchB
(expressedasb2ortheBanoctave
andminorseventhabovemiddleC).
Rhythmically,thesetwonotesactas
anacrusicorpick-upnotesmoving
upwardinaneighthnoteE(which
occursonthedownbeat).ThisE
proceedsupwardintotwosixteenth
notesonthepitchAbeforereturning
downwardintotwosixteeenthnoteson
thepitchF(aminorthirdbelow).
2028472Movie
productionNotesD,E,A,C#,E,F,B:,F,B
2000732Entertainment
servicesTwentieth
CenturyFoxNinebarsofprimarilymusicalchordsin
thekeyofBflat;thechordsconsistingof
97Viaabasiccomputersurveyoftrade-marksregisteredinthedatabaseofUnited
StatesPatentOffice:URLhttp://www.uspto.gov/tmdb/index.html(websiteconsulted
on19990401),whichexcludes,forinstance,“Thesound”Clop,clop,clop,mooo””
(registration1590267),“ThemusicalnotesEflat,Bflat,G,C,Felectrically
reproduced”(registration928479)“Threeshortpulsesfollowedbyalongerpulse”
(registration922585),“Audioandvisualrepresentationofacoinspinningonahard
surface”(registration641872),“Creakingdoor”(registration556780),or“LibertyBell
ringing”(registration549458).
98TheclassificationisborrowedfromJamesE.HAWES,“Non-Traditional
Trademarks”,in1997INTAMid-YearMeeting–CourseMaterials(RioGrande,INTA,
1997),pp.7-10.Someofthesoundscorrespondingtotheregistrationsareavailable
atSuzieLARSENetal.,“TheSoundsFile”
http://newsport.sfsu.edu/archive/f96/sounds/index.html(websiteconsultedon
19990401);

29
four,eightandsixteenthnotes
1959642Radiation
detectionprobe
formedicaluse
(product)Neoprobe
CorporationSixoctavesofsoundtonestartingwith
20HZanddescendingto1288HZ,then
returningto20HZtoproduceaunique
sound
1872866Entertainment
servicesLucasArts
Entertainment
Company30voicesoversevenmeasures,starting
inanarrowrange,200to400HZ,and
slowlydivertingtopreselectedpitches
encompassingthreeoctaves.The30
voicesbeginatpitchesbetween200Hz
and400HZandarriveatpreselected
pitchesspanningthreeoctavebythe
fourthmeasure.Thehighestpitchis
slightlydetunedwhiletherearedouble
thenumberofvoicesofthelowertwo
pitches
1829616Telecommunicat
ionsvoice
messagingU.S.West
Communicatio
ns,Inc.Threeharmonicallyrelatedtonesplayed
togethertoproduceachimesound
1741879Retail
convenience
storesWawa,IncThejinglehavingthefollowingsequence
ofnotes:C,D,C,D,C,D,CandG.
Eachofthenotesifthesequenceare
eighthnoteswiththeexceptionofthe
lastDnotewhichisquarternote
1700895EntertainmentInternational
Broadcasting
Corporation
(Harlem
Globetrotters)Themelody”SweetGeorgiaBrown”
1680160Computerized
telephone
sytemsAppliedVoice
Technology,
Inc.Thechime-likenotesA,G,F,C
1620415Longdistance
telephoneMCI
Communicatio
nsCorporationFourharmonicallyrelatedtoneswhich
aresummedtogetherinasuccessive
mannertoproduceauniquechime
soundthatisusedasaprompttothe
telephoneuser
1413137Sound
engineeringCapitol
RecordsC2,C3,C4,C5,C6,C7,C8,C9,E9,G#,
C10
1307448Telephone
messageOctel
Communicatio
nCorporation
(VMX,Inc.)Fouraudibletonesofvarying
frequencesanddurationsandcontains
thefollowingtonefrequencies:770HZ,
770HZ,853HZand697HZ
1280214Foodcarry-out
servicesDel’s
Lemonadeand
Refreshments
Inc.Asequenceofhornlikemusicalnotes,
F,soundedatleasttwiceinsequence,
thenotesF+0andA+Obeingjustabove
themiddleC
916522TVprogramsNational
Broadcasting
Company,Inc.MusicalnotesG,E,C,playedonchimes
Lyrics
2033447Restaurant
servicesAppleSouth,
Inc.”Areyoureadytorumba”
20000963Entertainment
ServicesGinsburg
Enterprises,”OohIt’sSoGood”

30
Inc.
1838887RestaurantRally’s,Inc.Spokenterms”Ching”
1795371RestaurantRally’s,IncSpokenterm”ChaChing”
17617241TelephoneAmerican
Telephoneand
Telegraph
Company
(AT&T)Thespokenletters”AT&T”
Musicand
lyrics
17663541Retailpizza
restaurantstorePinocchio’s
Pizza,Inc.Thewords«NobodyNosePizzaLike
Pinocchios”,settomusic
1754344Retailbedding
storeT.J.B.,IncThewords”HaveaGoodNight’sSleep
onUs,MattressDiscounters”
superimposedoveramusicaljingle
comprisedof12notes,inthekeyofF,in
thesequenceofA,A,G,A,BFlat,D,C,
E,E,G,F,F
1573864Longdistance
telephoneAmerican
Telephoneand
Telegraph
Company
(AT&T)Thespokenwords”AT&T”
superimposedoverthemusicalsounds
inthekeyofBFlatMajor,namelythe
melodynotesF,BFlat,Candtwo
accompanyingchord,oneofthefour
notesF,BFlat,CandFandoneofthe
twonotesFandF
1471674Radiobroadcast
serviceSpanishCoast
toCoast,Ltd.
(GrupoRadio
Centro)Thewords”radiovariedades”
superimposedoverthenotesC,D,E,C,
DandG
1326350Radio
entertainmentAlHam
Productions,
Inc.Thewords”TheDreamsWeShare
We’llAlwaysRemember,Remember
TheMusicOfYourLife”,settomusic
1299056CreditBeneficial
Management
corporationof
AmericaThewords”AtBeneficialYou’reGood
ForMore”andthesound”Toot,Toot”,
allsettomusic
Sounds
1746090Radio
broadcasting
servicesBeacon
Broadcasting
corporationThesoundofathunderclap
1395550Entertainment
servicesMetro-Goldwyn
Mayer
CorporationLionroaring

Finally,intheparticularcaseoftheCapitolRecordssoundtrade-mark,somepeople,
bythereadingoftheprosecutionfile,wouldhavesomeseriousreserveswithrespect
tothefunctionalcharacterofthesoundsforwhichregistration
99hasbeenobtained.

99Tosupportoneofhisanswersattheexam,theapplicant’sagenthadproduceda
pressdossier.Amongthosearticles,thisexcerptofForbes(1986-10-06)isworth
mentioning:“Trademarksfortheear.[…]CapitolRecordshastrademarkedaburst
of11rapidlyplayedmusicalnotesithasusedforfiveyearsonaudiocassettesto

31
IntheUnitedStates,thedebateonthefunctionalityorthenon-distinctivenessof
soundtrade-marksisworthfollowingwithrespecttotheapplicationofregistrationfor
aHARLEY-DAVIDSON
100mufflersound101.

Supposethattheregistrationofsoundtrade-markswouldbepermitted,thequestion
ofinfringementonsuchmarksmightbeverydelicate
102,thesocialandcommercial
communicationsbeingratherfocusedontheeyesightthanonthesenseofsmellor
ofhearing
103.However,wewillnotethatanon-visibleuseofaregisteredtrade-mark
canconstituteaninfringementofthisregisteredmark104.

checksoundandquality”.Thesecondarycharacterofthisutilitarianfunctionalityis
notsoobvious.
100JillYOUNG-MILLER,“HarleyTriestoKeepEngineRoarforItself”(Spring1996),
UniversityofKansasSchoolofLaw–IntellectualPropertyintheNews(1996-08-18);
URLhttp://lark.cc.ukans.edu/~akdclass/pct/pct_news.html(websiteconsultedon
19990401);seealsoKawasakiMotorsCorp.U.S.A.v.H-DMichiganInc(1997),43
U.S.P.Q.(2d)1521,1526et1528(U.S.P.T.O.)inwhichninecompetitorsraise
objectionstotheregistrationofasoundtrade-markdescribedlike“theexhaustsound
ofapplicant’smotorcycles,producedbyV-twin,commoncrankpinmotorcycle
engineswhenthegoodsareinuse”(application74/485223ofH-DMichigan,Inc.)
101Knowntoaficionadosas“potato,potato,potato”.102ThisdebateaboutprocedureisshowninKawasakiMotorsCorp.U.S.A.v.H-D
MichiganInc(1997),43U.S.P.Q.(2d)1521(U.S.P.T.O.)theCommission,atpage
1525:“Certainlyifapplicantiscorrectinitsassertions,supportedbyexpertsin
acoustics,thattheessenceofthesoundineachpresentationisthesamebutfor
volume,thentheapplicationdoesnotpresenttwomarks.Forus,though,theissueis
farsimpler.Whenwecompareeachofthediscreterecordingsofthesoundtothe
descriptionofthemark,eachrecordingcanfairlybecharacterizedasanaural
presentationoftheliteraldescription,justasvaryingpresentationofawordin
differenttypefacesandtypesizesallmaybesaidtoillustratethatwordassetforthin
plaintypedformofthedrawingofthemark”.
103However,paragraph6(1)e)TMAalreadyforeseesthat,indecidingonthe
confusionbetweentwotrade-marks,wehavetotakeintoconsiderationallthe
circumstancesofthecase,aswellastheresemblancedegreebetweenthetrade-
marksintherepresentationorthesound,orinthesuggestedideas.
104EveninthelogicofthePlayboycase,theinfringementofaregisteredtrade-mark
shouldnotbelimitedtothesoleactivitiesthatareamatterofthevisualfieldanda
nongraphicusecouldbequalifiedasaninfringement.Foranillustrationofthis
blurredapproach,compareSheldonBURSHTEIN,«Trade-mark”Use”inCanada:
TheWho,What,Where,When,WhyandHow–PartI»(1997),11Intellectual
PropertyJournalSheldon229,atpages234-235andSheldonBURSHTEIN,«Trade-
mark”Use”inCanada:TheWho,What,Where,When,WhyandHow–PartII»
(1997),12IntellectualPropertyJournal75,atpages106-108.

32
Likewise,itdoesnotseemthatthesoundtrade-markhastobeneworcharacteristic
:aslongasitdistinguishesorisabletodistinguish,theuseofsoundsorofwell
knownritornelloswouldthenbesusceptibletoregistration
105.

5ODOURS

Weshouldnotconfusetheregistrationofthenameofaperfume
106andthe
registrationofitssmell107orofitsowndescription108withtheregistrationofan
olfactoryelementwhich,inassociationwithagivenproductorservice,wouldallowa
persontodistinguishhis/herproductorservicefromthoseofothers.

Also,weshouldnotconfusetheolfactoryformandtheperfumeformula
109.

105Contra.«Thus,adistinctionmustbemadebetweenunique,differentordistinctive
soundsandthosethatresembleorimitatecommonplace»soundsorthosetowhich
listenershavebeenexposedunderdifferentcircumstances.Thisdoesnotmeanthat
soundsthatfallwithinthelattergroup,whenappliedoutsidethecommon
environment,cannotfunctionasmarksfortheservicesinconnectionwithwhichthey
areused,but,whereasthearbitrary,uniqueordistinctivemarksareregistrableas
suchonthePrincipalRegisterwithoutsupportiveevidence,thosewhofallwithinthe
secondcategorymustbesupportedbyevidencetoshowthatpurchasers,
prospectivepurchasersandlistenersdorecognizeandassociatethesoundwith
servicesofferedand/orrenderedexclusivelywithasinglesource»:NancyRUBNER
FRANDSEN,«Ambience,SubliminalConfusion,color,Smell,andSound:The
ProtectionofNon-VerbalRightsUndertheTrademarkandUnfairCompetitionLaw»
(1991),C874ALI-ABA155,atpage187,excerptinspiredofGeneralElectric
BroadcastingCompany(Re)[SHIP’SBELLCLOCK](1978),1999U.S.P.Q.560
(T.T.A.B.),Lefkowitzmemberatpage563.
106ForinstancetheNO.5ofChanel(registrationUCA018879).107Hypothetically,CUIRDERUSSIECHANELofChanel(registrationUCA018472).
IntheUnitedStates,thetrade-markAPPLEPIEforaspices‘potpourri’withanapple
piesmellhasbeenrefusedasdescriptiveinGyulay(Re)[APPLEPIE],(1987),3
U.S.P.Q.(2d)1009(C.A.F.C.),J.Newmanatpage1010.InCanada,asimilarresult
shouldariseinaccordancewiththedescriptionprohibitionatparagraph12(1)b)TMA.
108ForinstancetheperfumeNO.5ofChanelhasalreadybeendescribedinthe
UnitedKingdomas«Thescentofaldhehydic-floralfragranceproduct,withan
aldehydictopnote,fromjasmine,rose,bergamot,lemonandneroli;andelegant
floralmiddlenote,fromjasmine,rose,lilyofthevalley,orrisandylang-ylang;anda
sensualfeminebasenote,fromsandal,cedar,vanilla,amber,civetandmusk.The
scentisalsoknownbythewrittenbrandnameNo.5»,application00724881
withdrawn.
109Jean-PierrePAMOUKDJIAN,Ledroitduparfum,collectionBibliothèquededroit
privé(Paris,LGDJ,1982),atpages212-216.Foranapproachontheprotectionofa
perfumebycopyright,seeAndréBRASSARD,«Lacompositiond’uneformulede
parfumest-elleune‘œuvredel’esprit’ausensdelaLoidu11mars1957?»(1979),

33

IntheUnitedStates,theregistration,withrespecttosewingthreadandtapestry
thread,ofatrade-markdescribedas”ahighimpact,fresh,floralfragrance
reminescentofPlumeria
110blossoms”111gaverisetoaninterestingdoctrinal
discussiononthevalidityoftheregistrationofatrade-markforodours112.InCanada,
nosuchtrade-markhasyetbeenregistered113.However,subjecttothenarrow
definitionofatrade-markgivenbythePlayboy114case,whyshould115anodourbe

118Revueinternationaledepropriétéintellectuelleetartistique461;Jean-Louis
CROCHET,«ParfumerieetDroitd’Auteur.Quelquesréflexionsautourdel’arrêtde
Lairec.ParfumsRochas»(1979),118Revueinternationaledepropriétéintellectuelle
etartistique468.Asamatterofinterest,seealsoUSPatent4671959of1987-01-09
foraMethodofcausingthereductionofphysiologicaland/orsubjectivereactivityto
stressinhumansbeingsubjectedtostressconditionsfor«ascentblendselected
fromthegroupconsistingof:(i)NutmegOil;(ii)MaceExtract;(iii)NeroliOil;(iv)
ValerianOil;(v)Myristicin;(vi)Isoelemicin;and(vii)Elemicin».
110Orthefrangipani,thisexoticshrubfromthetropicalorthesub-tropicalclimatesof
theapocynaceaefamilywhoseflowershaveaperfumewhichremindstheperfumeof
thefrangipaneoftheItalianperfumerFrangipani.Ithasbeenusedtoperfumeskins
(gloves)andlemonades.Theodourisgenerallydescribedassweetfloral,which
appearsdescriptive…
111Registration1639128ofCeliaClarke,struckoffin1997fordefaultofproductionof
evidenceofproof.Aquickcomputersurveyhasnonethelessrevealed6applications
forregistration(75-360102à75-360106)ofaMikeMantelfortrade-marks
respectivelyconsistingofastrawberrysmell,abublegumsmell,agrapesmell,a
citrussmellandatutii-fruttismellfor…carlubricantsandfuel!Anapplication
75/120036foralemonsmellinassociationwithtonercartridgesandanapplication
75-301972foranapplesmellforabithavebeenabandoned.IntheUnitedKingdom,
wenotetheregistration2001416ofSumitomoRubberIndustries,Ltd.foratrade-
markdescribedas«afloralfragrance/smellreminescentofrosesasappliedto
tyres».
112LeeB.BURGUNDER,«TrademarkProtectionofSmells:SenseorNonsense»,
(1991),29AmericanBusinessLawJournal459;JaneM.HAMMERSLEY,«The
SmellofSuccess:TradeDressProtectionforScentMarks»(1998),2Marquette
IntellectualPropertyLawReview105;MalcomGLADWELL,«TrademarkPicksUp
theScent;Thread’sSmellGetsLegalRegistration»(1990-12-04),TheWashington
PostA-15;JaneM.HAMMERSLEY,«TheSmellofSuccess:TradeDressProtection
forScentMarks»(1998),2MarquetteIntellectualPropertyLawReview105;James
E.HAWES,«FragrancesasTrademarks»(1989),79TrademarkReporter134;
Moon-KiCHAI,«ProtectionofFragrancesUnderthePostSaleConfusionDoctrine»
(1990),80TrademarkReporter368.CompareHelenBURTON,«TheUKTrade
MarksAct1994:AnInvitationtoanOlfactoryOccasion?»[1995]European
IntellectualPropertyReport378;.
113SusanKING,«Aresoundsandscentstrade-marksinCanada?»(1992),9
Business&TheLaw6.
114PlayboyEnterprisesInc.v.Germain(no1)[PLAYBOY](1986),[1986]T.M.O.B.
176(Opp.Board);rev.(1987),16C.P.R.(3d)517(F.C.T.D.).

34
excludedfromtheTrade-marksAct116?Infact,wecanimaginethatatthemomentof
thetransferofpossessionofaproduct,atrade-markcanbelinkedtothisproductin
amannertogivenoticeoftheassociationbetweenthisodour-markandtheproduct
inwhichpossessionisthustransferred
117.

Inordertobeprotected,theodourmustoperateasatrade-marktodistinguish.The
odourdoesnothavetobeneworcomplex:itshouldsimplydistinguishorbecapable
ofdistinguishingaperson’sproductsorservicesfromthoseofanother
118.

Buttherearedifferencesbetweensomeodours
119.Atfirstglance,odourswhichare
commontoanindustryoraproduct120orwhicharethenaturalodoursofthe

115TheCollinsEnglishDictionnary(1986)describes”odour”as”thepropertyofa
substancethatgivesitacharacteristicscentorsmell.”
116“Whilesuchnon-visualidentifiersbecomeconnectedinthemindsofthepublic
withaparticularsource,andtherebyacquiretheabilitytosymbolizegoodwilland
distinguishthegoodsorservicesofonepersonfromthoseofothers,theymaynot
satisfythecriteriaoftheAct.Thevalidityoftherestrictiontovisualmarksisbasedon
ahistoricalandoutdatedinterpretationoftheword”mark””:SheldonBURSHTEIN,
“Trade-mark”Use”inCanada:TheWho,What,Where,When,WhyandHow–Part
I”(1997),11IntellctualPropertyJournal229,atpage234.
117Theethicoftheuseofodourstoattractcustomersandtoprovokeapurchaseis
stillasubjecttobeexplored.SeeLeeB.BURGUNDER,“TrademarkProtectionof
Smells:SenseorNonsense”,(1991),29AmericanBusinessLawJournal459,at
page480.
118AndnotasagadgetlikeDidierCONRADetal.Poupéedebronze,Les
innommablesseries(Bruxelles,Dargaud,1998),wecouldreadonthepromotional
sticker«Cetalbumpue!9casesenodorama»,themoviePolyester(1981)ofJohn
Waters[filmedinOdorama–SmellingIsBelieving;ascratchingcardwasdistributed
tothemembersoftheaudiencewiththeinstructiontoscratchoneofthe10spotson
thecardtogiveoff,attheappropriatemoment,anodourcorrespondingtoa
sequenceofthemovie]orscratch-n-sniffsamplesdistributedinfashionmagazines.
119Somepeopledistinguishbetweentheprimaryscentmarkswhentheodours
constitutetheprincipalmotivationofthepurchase(perfumeanddeodorant),the
secondaryscentmarkswhentheodoursdonotconstitutetheprimaryfunctionofthe
productbutarenonethelesspartoftheproduct(soap)andtheuniquescentmarks
whentheodourdoesnothaveanyrelationwiththeproduct(lilyofthevalleyfor
pencilsormineralwater).SeeJaneM.HAMMERSLEY,«TheSmellofSuccess:
TradeDressProtectionforScentMarks»(1998),2MarquetteIntellectualProperty
LawReview105,atpages124-126andBettinaELIAS,«DoScentsReallySignify
Source–AnArgumentAgainstTrademarkProtectionforFragrances»(1992),82
TrademarkReporter475,atpages495-505.
120Asanillustrationofthegenericcharacterofafewusesofodours:lemonfor
housecleanersorpinefordisinfectants,allthemoresosincesuchodoursareused
tomasktheunpleasantchemicalodoursoftheactiveingredientoftheproduct.See
onthissubjectLeeB.BURGUNDER,“TrademarkProtectionofSmells:Senseor
Nonsense”,(1991),29AmericanBusinessLawJournal459,atpages468-469;Iver

35
product121,wouldbeexcludedforlackofdistinctive122character.Inthesame
manner,iftheodourisonlyfunctional,itshouldnotberegistered123:itwouldbethe
casefortheodourofaperfume124.Iftheodouronlyhasasecondaryaspect,itcould
beregistered125.Finally,iftheodourdoesnothaveanylinkwiththeproduct126-and
presumablyhasnotbeenusedyet-itshouldbeprotected127.

P.COOPER,“TrademarkAspectsofPharmaceuticalProductDesign”(1980),70
TrademarkReporter1,atpage9;“FragranceTrademarksinItaly”(September1998),
2Horizon–ItalianandEUlaw(Turin,JacobaccieParini,1998)4,atpage5.
121Forinstance,aleathersmellforshoesorforabriefcase,orastrawberrysmellfor
strawberrydrink.
122Section10TMAstatesthat:”Whereanymarkhasbyordinaryandbonafide
commercilausagebecomerecognizedinCanadaasdesignatingthekind,quality,
quantity,destination,value,placeoforiginordateofproductionofanywaresor
services,nopersonshalladoptitasatrade-markinassociationwithsuchwaresor
servicesorothersofthesamegeneralclassoruseitinawaylikelytomislead,nor
shallanypersonsoadoptorsouseanymarkastobelikelytobemistakentherefor.”
123Thiswouldbethecaseforaperfumeoradeodorantwho’ssmellconsistsofan
essentialorfunctionalelement:RemingtonRandCorp.v.PhilipsElectronicsN.V
[SHAVERHEAD](1995),64C.P.R.(3d)467,191N.R.204,[1995]A.C.F.1660
(F.C.A.)J.MacGuiganatparagraphs18-21.But,whatoftissuepaperimpregnated
withmentholoreucalyptusodourforthosewhohaveacold?
124“Itshouldbenotedthatwearenottalkinghereabouttheregistrabilityofscentsor
fragrancesofproductswhicharenotedforthesefeatures,suchasperfumes,
colognesorscentedhouseholdproducts.Noritisacaseinvolvingthe
descriptivenessofaterminvolvingthequestionofdescriptivenessofatermwhich
identifiesaparticularfragranceofaproduct.Insuchcases,ithasbeenheldthata
termisunregistrable[…]ifitmerelydescribesanodororothersignificantfeatureof
theproduct”Clarke(Re),(1990),17U.S.P.Q.(2d)1238(T.T.A.B.),Simmsmember,
atpage1239,note4.SeealsoLeeB.BURGUNDER,“TrademarkProtectionof
Smells:SenseorNonsense”,(1991),29AmericanBusinessLawJournal459,at
page479:“Inthisway,noperfumesmellshouldbecapableoftrademarkprotection
evenwithasignificantshowingofsecondarymeaning.Byanalogy,perfumesmells
shouldbetreatednodifferentlythangenericmarks”.
125Subjecttothepracticeintheindustry,itcouldbethecaseforasoapwithasmell
ofburning:thissmellispartoftheproductbutisnotnecessary.Bemeansof
advertising,wecanconceivethatsuchasmellcoulddistinguishtheproduct.
However,inthatevent,wemustbecarefulaboutapossible“reversegenericide[if]
theconsumersmayidentifythesmellbytheproduct”insteadofthereverse:LeeB.
BURGUNDER,“TrademarkProtectionofSmells:SenseorNonsense”,(1991),29
AmericanBusinessLawJournal459,atpage470.Itisprobablethatthe
characteristicodouroftheIVORYsoapwouldhavesuchamarkvalue.
126Clarke(Re)[SCENTEDYARN](1990),17U.S.P.Q.(2d)1238(T.T.A.B.),Simms
memberatpages1239-1240:“Uponcarefulreviewofthisrecord,webelievethatthe
applicanthasdemonstratedthatthescentedfragrancedoesfunctionasatrademark
forherthreadandembroidery.Underthecircumstancesofthiscase,weseeno
reasonwhyafragranceisnotcapableofservingasatrademarktoidentityand

36

Howdoesoneproceedontheapplicationforregistration?Sincethetrade-markof
odourisdifferentfromanominalmark,adrawingandadescriptionofthetrade-mark
mustaccompanytheapplication
128.

SciencehasevolvedsincethedaysoftheJeanBaptisteGrenouillecharacter
createdbySuskind
129andtheperfumersoftheXVIIIthcentury130,anodourcannow
beprecisely131describedandrepresentedgraphically.

distinguishcertaintypeofproduct[…]thefragranceisnotaninherentattributeor
naturalcharacteristicofapplicant’sgoodsbutitisratherafeaturesuppliedby
applicant”.
127ThecharacteristicodouroftheBAZOOKAgumorthechocolateflavortoolscould
illustratethispoint.Ontheotherhand,thisEnglishregistrationfortireswitharose
smellandAmericanapplicationsforbubblegumsmellformotoroilarekindof
disturbing…
128Remindthattheparagraph30h)TMAonapplicationsforregistrationoftrade-
marksstatesthat:”unlesstheapplicationisfortheregistrationonlyofawordor
wordsnotdepictedinaspecialform,adrawingofthetrade-markandsuchnumber
ofaccuraterepresentationsofthetrade-marksasmaybeprescribed”,drawingwhich
realizationmustfitwiththecriteriasetoutatsection25oftheTrade-marks
Regulations.Inthiscase,theregistrarcan,accordingtoparagraph29c)ofthe
regulations,requiretheproductionofaspecimenshowinghowthetrade-markis
used.
129PatrickSÜSKIND,Leparfum–Histoired’unmeurtrier(Paris,Fayard,1986),
translatedbyBernardLortholary.
130GhislainePILLIVUYT,TheArtofPerfumeinthe18thCentury(Paris,La
bibliothèquedesarts,1986).
131Itwouldcertainelybemoreprecisetosaythatanodourcannowbemore
preciselydescribed.Indeed,therewillalwaysberoomforsubjectivityinasensorial
analysis,especiallywhenitisamatterof”chemicalsenses”likethesenseofsmellor
oftastecomparedtothe”mechanicalsenses”likethesight,thesenseoftouchand
ofhearing:PierreBRESSE,«Propriétéintellectuelledescréationssensorielles:
l’apportdelamétrologieetdel’analysesensoriellepourdéfendrelesdroitsdu
créateur»(février1997),30Bulletindel’AssociationdesamisduCentred’études
internationalesdelapropriétéindustrielle13,atpages13-14.Wewillnotforgetthat
theperceptionofodourscanvaryalotfromoneenvironmenttoanotherandfrom
oneindividualtoanother.:seeMichelleDUBUC,L’odorat(Montréal,Sociétépourla
promotiondelascienceetdelatechnologie,ministèredel’Enseignementsupérieur
etdelaScienceduQuébec,1992),atpages4-13;TerryENGEN,“Remembering
OdorsandTheirNames”(Septembre-octobre1987),AmericanScientist497;Boyd
GIBBONS“TheIntimateSenseofSmell”(september1986),180National
Geographic360,“TheSmellSurvey–SniffingOuttheSenseofSmell”(March1996),
190NationalGeographic134.

37
Howdowedescribethetrade-mark?Mostlikelybythecombinationofadescription
ofthetrade-markfollowingonesensorialanalysismethodortheother,andsensorial
metrology.

Sensorialanalysis(theexaminationoftheorganolepticcharacteristicsoftheodour
onthesenseorgans)isusedwiththehelpofastandardizedanddescriptive
132
vocabulary.Whenoneattemptstorecallanodour,itistheimageoftheodourthat
comestomind
133.Thesubjectiveevaluation134madebyanyexpert,wouldhavetobe
completedbyamoreobjectiveanalysisofallthecomponentsoftheodour,ifonlyto
providea”drawing”oftherepresentationofthetrade-mark.

Inthisrespect,differentmeansofanalysis,suchasgasorliquidchromotography,
areavailabletorealizevisually,bychromatogramoraromogram,theprofileofa
particularodour;toidentifychemicallytheactivecomponentsoftheodour,onecan
usemassspectrometry,nuclearresonanceorinfraredorultravioletspectroscopy
135.
Aswesuspect,inthecaseofcomplexodourscreatedartificially,theownerswould
hesitatetodisclosetoopreciselytheirpreciousformula
136.

132DebrettLYONS,«Sounds,SmellsandSigns»[1994]EuropeanIntellectual
PropertyReport540andMarietteJULIEN,L’imagepublicitairedesparfums–
Communicationolfactive(Montréal,L’Harmattan,1997),thirdpart–Lalecture
olfactive,pp.195-219;SeealsoPierreBRESSE,«Propriétéintellectuelledes
créationssensorielles:l’apportdelamétrologieetdel’analysesensoriellepour
défendrelesdroitsducréateur»(February1997),30Bulletindel’Associationdes
amisduCentred’étudesinternationalesdelapropriétéindustrielle13,atpage18;
PierreBRESSE,Propriétéintellectuelledescréationssensorielles,at¶12,URL
http://www.breese.fr/guide/htm/bibliographie/parfum1.htm(websiteconsultedon
19990401);JamesE.HAWES,«FragrancesasTrademarks»(1989),79Trademark
Reporter134,atpages145-146.
133MichelleDUBUC,L’odorat(Montréal,Sociétépourlapromotiondelascienceet
delatechnologie,ministèredel’EnseignementsupérieuretdelaSciencedu
Québec,1992),atpage8.«Denouveau,ilfermalesyeux.Lessenteursdujardin
l’assaillirent,nettesetbiendessinéescommelesbandescoloréed’unarc-en-ciel»:
PatrickSÜSKIND,Leparfum(Paris,Fayard,1986),atpage208.
134JamesE.HAWES,«FragrancesasTrademarks»(1989),79TrademarkReporter
134,atpage138.
135EranPICHERSKY,«L’ingénierieduparfumdesfleurs»(1999),187Biofuturpp.
32-36;NicolasGODINOT,Perceptionetcatégorisationdesodeursparl’homme
(1994)URLhttp://olfac.univ-lyon1.fr/~godinot/dea.htm(websiteconsultedon
19990401);MarietteJULIEN,L’imagepublicitairedesparfums–Communication
olfactive(Montréal,L’Harmattan,1997),thirdpart–Lalectureolfactive,pp.131-219;
GillesSICARDetal.,«Desreprésentationsdel’espaceolfactif:desrécepteursàla
perception»(1997),24Intellectica85alsoavailableatURLhttp://olfac.univ-
lyon1.fr/~godinot/intellec.htm(websiteconsultedon19990401).
136JamesE.HAWES,“FragrancesasTrademarks”(1989),79TrademarkReporter
134,atpages135-137.

38
Withrespecttotheproofoftheinfringementofsuchatrade-mark137,theremightbe,
wesuspect,interesting”expertbattles138″,ifonlyforrapidevolutionoftechniquesor
forthesubjectivecharacteroftheperceptionofanodour.

6FLAVOURS

Theregistrationofflavours
139astrade-marks140hasalwaysbeendiscussedintheory
butisstillalwayssubjecttothebasicdefinitionofwhatatrade-markis.

Thefirstdifficultywouldcertainlybeapracticalone:thedescriptionofthetrade-mark
itselfonanobjectivebasis
141.Infact,foreachflavor,weexperiencedifferentand
individualperceptions142.Moreover,besidesthesubjectivefactorsofindividual

137Likethecontentiousscentalike,thosecheapimitationsoffamousperfumes.138SaxonyProducts,Inc.v.Guerlain,Inc.[FRAGRANCES/SHALIMAR](1973),176
U.S.P.Q.97(C.D.Ca.);mod.(1975),185U.S.P.Q.477(C.A.9thcir.),J.Jamesonat
pages477-478et479:“Basedonananalysisofodorcomponents,lastingquality
andactualcharacteroftheodor,thereportsconcludedthattheFragranceSwasnot
onlyunlikeSHALIMARfromthestandpointofchemicalcompositionbutalsointerms
offragranceandlastingquality”.SeealsoSherrelPerfumers,Inc.v.Revlon,Inc.
[EQUIVALENTTOCHANEL](1980),483F.Supp.188,205U.S.P.Q.250(S.D.N.Y),
J.Sweetatpages254-255.
139Onecanalwayswonderaboutthetruetasteofthesuper-sandwichesofDagwood
Bumstead,Blondie’shusbandfromtheChicYoungcomicstrip.
140Andnottheprotectionoftherecipes:seePOLLACK(Malla),«Intellectual
PropertyfortheCreativeChef,orHowtoCopyrightaCake:AModestProposal»
(1991),12CardozoLawReview1477orNoraMOUT-BOUWMAN,“Protectionof
CulinaryRecipesbyCopyright,TradeMarkandDesignCopyrightLaw”[1988]
EuropeanIntellectualPropertyReport234.
141PierreMICLETTE,«Particulierscesarômes»(1998),7-4ActionCanadaFrance,
pp.16-17,atpage16:«Lepremierproblèmeauquelnoussommesconfrontésen
vendantdesarômesc’estdedécrirecequenousgoûtonsetdepouvoiréchangerles
perceptionsautantentrenousqu’avecnosclients.Çasembleabsurde,maisvous
êtes-vousdéjàattardésàlafaçondontvousdécrivezcequevousdégustez?
Personnen’utiliselesmêmestermespuisqu’iln’existepasvraimentdeconvention
pouraiderladescriptiondesgoûts».
142InFrench:«Enfait,pourchacunedessaveurs,nousmanifestonsdesperceptions
différentes,individuelles.Chacund’entrenousestensomme,gustativement
«daltonien»pouruncertainnombredesaveursparticulières»FabienGRUHIER,
«Millemillionsdepapilles»(1997),36QuébecScience15,atpage17.Moreover,at
p.15,thissameauthorevokesthedifficultdissociationofgustativeandolfactory
sensationsinthoseterms:[TRANSLATION]”Sincethemouthis-morethanthe
nose-sensitivetoodours,weeasilymixupolfactoryandgustatoryperceptions.
Moreover,ifitisalwayspossibletoperceiveodoursindividually(withthenose,
mouthclosed),thereverseisimpossible:wecannot,normally,eliminatetheodours

39
assessment,exteriorfactorscanbetakenintoconsiderationwithrespecttogustative
assessment143.

Moreover,thequestionoffunctionalitystillremains.Istheflavourpartofthe
product
144?Isitsowidespreadintheindustrythatitcannotbedistinctive145?Or,
also,isitsusenecessarytotheproduct?Forinstance,inthecaseofpharmaceutical
products,flavours
146areusedtomaskoffensiveflavours,haveaplaceboeffector
actasanexcipient147.

ofthefoodthatweeat”.[originalFrenchversion]”Commelaboucheest–plusque
lenez–sensibleauxodeurs,nousmélangeonsfacilementperceptionsolfactiveset
perceptionsgustatives.D’ailleurs,s’ilesttoujourspossibledepercevoirisolémentles
odeurs(parlenez,enfermantlabouche),l’inverseestimpossible:onnepeutpas,
normalement,éliminerlesodeursdecequel’onmange”.Wecantakeasexample
thepepper,aproductperfectlyinsipidwhichculinaryinterestratherresidesinthe
odour!SeealsoHervéTHIS,“Savantecuisine”(1997),36QuébecScience,pp.18-
21.
143“Aflavor’ssubjectivityderivesprincipallyfromitscomplexity.Flavorsconsistof
threeelements:aroma,taste(sweet,acid,bitter,orsaline),andfeeling.Numerous
factorsinfluencetasteacuity,amongthemage,disease,and,forcertaintastes,
temperature.Inaddition,one’stasteperceptionvarieswithpractice,increasingthe
subjectivityofthissense”:NancyL.CLARKE,“IssuesintheFederalRegistrationof
FlavorsasTrademarksforPharmaceuticals”(1993),1UniversityofIllinoisLaw
Review105,atpage131.Foradescriptionofthegustativeprocessinthecontextof
asensorialevaluation,seeNancyL.DeVORE,“SensoryPhysiology”,dansReadings
andConference(Corvallis,OregonStateUniversity,1996),URL(updatedon1997-
08-29)http://osu.orst.edu/foo-resource/sensory/nancy.html.
144Forinstance,mintformintcandies(peppermint)oroneofthegreat31FLAVORS
ofBaskin-RobbinsInternationalCompanyforitsicecream!
145Forinstance,mintfortoothpaste.146NancyL.CLARKE,“IssuesintheFederalRegistrationofFlavorsasTrademarks
forPharmaceuticals”(1993),1UniversityofIllinoisLawReview105,atpage127.
147“Respondenthasnoexclusiverighttotheuseofitsformula.Chocolateisusedas
aningredient,notaloneforthepurposeofimpartingadistinctivecolor,butforthe
purposeofalsomakingthepreparationpeculiaryagreabletothepalate,tosay
nothingofitseffectasasuspendingmedium.Whileitisnotamedicinalelementin
thepreparation,itservesasubstantialanddesirableuse,whichpreventsitfrom
beingamerematterofdress.Itdoesnotmerelyservetheincidentaluseof
identifyingtherespondent’spreparation[…]anditisdoubtfulwhetheritshallbe
callednonessential”:sWilliamRWarner&Co.v.EliLilly&Co.[COCO-
QUININE/QUIN-COCO](1924),265U.S.526(S.C.),J.Sutherlandatpage531.See
alsoSmithKline&FrenchLaboratoriesc.Broder[DEXEDRINE](1959),125
U.S.P.Q.299(S.D.Texas),J.Connally(cherryflavourandsmellmedications).

40
Thissubjectivitycomplicatesthequestionofhowthetrade-markistobedescribed
accordingtosome148.anappropriate/objectivedescriptionofthetrade-mark.This
viewisnotentirelywell-foundedsinceifitisnotnecessarytodescribewithprecision
theshadeofthecolourthatwewanttoprotect,thereshouldnotbeanyreasonto
askformoreinthecaseofanodouroraflavour.Moreover,advancesinscience
(bio-engineering,neuroscience,sensoryneurobiology,etc.)havemadedescribing
flavoursmoreaccurate/objective
149.

Finally,wecanaskourselvesifaflavourcanreallybetheobjectofuse
150to
distinguishaproductinasmuchas,normally,itisafterthetransferofownershipthat
theproductcouldbetasted
151.

7HOLOGRAMS

«YoushouldknowI’mahologramandcan’tbebent,spindled,ormutilated,sodon’tbothertrying.»
-RobertPICARDO(TheDoctor),StarTrekVoyager
http://www.dalywav.com/s.html

Ahologramisaphotograph152inthree-dimensionsobtainedbylaserlight,givingthe
impressionofrelief153.

148“Unfortunately,whiletastecanbedescribedobjectively,flavorcannot.Forflavor
isaproductofbothtasteandodor,andodorcannot,asyet,bedescribedobjectively
insomeuniversallyacceptedmanner[…]Forpracticalreasons,savorsandodors
arestilldescribedmainlybyanalogy(a”cherry”flavor,a”honey-suckle”odor),andit
isdebatablewhetherthesehighlysubjectivecomparisonsofferan”adequate
description”ofthedistinctiveflavororfragranceinquestion”:IverP.COOPER,
“TrademarkAspectsofPharmaceuticalProductDesign”(1980),70Trademark
Reporter1,atpage6.SeealsoNancyL.CLARKE,“IssuesintheFederal
RegistrationofFlavorsasTrademarksforPharmaceuticals”(1993),1Universityof
IllinoisLawReview105,atpage131.
149SeeGailVanceCIVILLEetal.,AromaandFlavorLexiconforSensory
Evaluation:Terms,Definitions,References,andExamples,ASTMDataSeriesNo
66(WestConshocken,ASTM,1996);R.C.HOOTMAN(dir.),ManualonDescriptive
AnalysisTestingforSensoryEvaluation(WestConshocken,ASTM,1992).Seealso
theinescapableMaynardA.AMERINEetal.,PrinciplesofSensoryEvaluationof
Food(NewYork,NewYorkAcademicPress,1965)aswellasthevoluminous
bibliographyoftheSensoryEvaluation(1998)oftheScienceofFoodsfacultyof
OregonUniversityURLhttp://osu.orst.edu/food-resource/sensory/sensory_ref.html
(sitevisitedon19990401).
150Inthesenseofparagraph4(1)TMA.151“Itisunlikely,forexample,thattastewouldeveroperateasatrademarkbecause
itwouldonlybeexperiencedafterthegoodshadceasedtobeinthecourseoftrade.
Inotherwords,therewouldbenopoint-of-saleexposureofthemark”:Debrett
LYONS,“Sounds,SmellsandSigns”[1994]EuropeanIntellectualPropertyReport
540,atpage540.

41

Fewapplicationsconcerningtheregistrationoftrade-markscomposedofholograms
havebeenfiledwiththeCanadiantrade-marksregistrar
154:noneofthemhasbeen
admittedforpublication.

ThepositionadoptedbytheTrade-marksOfficeseemstobetotheeffectthata
hologramwouldconstitutemanytrade-marksinsteadofasingleone
155.But,although
certaintechniquesmakereferencetotheregistrationofmanyimages156,itis
generallyamatterofasingleimage157.

152Adefinitionthatwouldprobablynotfit,strictosensu,withtheonegivenbysection
2oftheCopyrightAct,for“‘photograph’.Thedefinitionincludesphoto-lithographs
andanyworkexpressedbyanyprocessanalogoustophotography”.However,
nothingwouldprecludehologramsfromthedefinitionofartisticworks.
153Or«Typedephotographierenfermantdesdonnéessurl’intensitéetlaphasede
lalumièreréfléchieparunobjet.Lorsqueilluminéaumêmeanglequepour
l’expositiondel’objetavecdelalumièresuffisammentcohérente,unhologramme
produituntraind’ondesdiffractéesd’amplitudeetderépartitiondephasesidentiques
àcellesdelalumièreréfléchieparl’objetlui-même,d’oùcréationd’uneimage
tridimensionnellequel’onpeutobserveretphotographier»:ÉricBOSCO(dir),
Holostar–Atelierd’holographieducollègeDeMaisonneuveURL
http://holostar.cmaisonneuve.qc.ca/(siteconsultedon19990401).SeealsoPaulD.
BAREFOOT,Holophile,Inc.URLhttp://www.holophile.com/about.htm(siteconsulted
on19990401);RudieBERKHOUT,“UsingHOESintheHolographicImageMaking
Process”(1996),2652SpieProceedingSeries-PracticalHolographyX,pp.204-
212;URL
http://rudieberkhout.home.mindspring.com/(SPIE)UsingHOE’stomakeholograms.htm
(siteconsultedon19990401);Groupederecherchesenartsmédiatiques–
UniversitéduQuébecàMontréal,Dictionnairedesartsmédiatiques(1996)URL
http://www.comm.uqam.ca/~GRAM/frames/termA.html(siteconsultedon19990401);
ChristopherOUTWATERetal.,«PracticalHolography»(1998-02-23);URL
http://www.shadow.net/~holodi/holobook.htm(siteconsultedon19990401);Sybil
PARKER(dir.),McGrawHillEncyclopediaofPhysics,2nded.(NewYork,McGraw-
Hill,1991),atpages546-553.
154TRIANGLES,objectoftheapplicationTMO835927ofSmithKlineBeechamInc.
fororalhygieneproducts;BUTTERFLIESROSESandFISH/CORAL,objectof
applicationsTMO1002075and1002079ofJeanneLottie’sFashionIncorporatedfor
handbags.
155Sections24oftheRegulations.156ItisthecaseofthehologramMultiplex:ChristopherOUTWATERetal.,
“PracticalHolography”(1998-02-23),URL
http://www.shadow.net/~holodi/chap5.htm#MultipexHolograms(sitevisitedon
19990401).Itwouldalsobethecaseforhologramswithmultiplechanels.Obviously,
acoustichologramsareexcludedhere.
157Thiscouldhowevercreateapracticaldifficultyconcerningthesupplyofthe
graphicreproduction(ordrawing)ofthemark,requiredbysection30h)oftheTMA
andsection27oftheRegulations.Iftheapplicantprovidesdifferentviewsofthe

42

Weshouldaddthat,particularlyinthecaseofholograms,weshouldmakesurethat
theyservethepurposeofatrade-mark(todistinguishaperson’swaresorservices
fromthoseofothers)andnototherwise,asdecorationoranti-infringementsecurity
measure
158.

«He’sahologram.We’vegottohelphim.»
-RobertPICARDO(TheDoctor),StarTrekVoyager
http://www.stinsv.com/voy/holodoca.htm

8KINETICMARKS

Kinetic(oranimated)trade-markshavealsodevelopedasproductsandservices
identifiers
159:theyareseenatthecinema160,incartoons161anddocumentaries162,
whilesurfingontheweb163andevenwhenwelookforourcars164.

holograms,hemightcontravenetosection26oftheRegulationswhchlimitsa
applicationforregistrationtoasinglemark;however,iftheapplicantprovidesa
singleview(front),histrade-markisgoingtobeeither”unreadable”(becauseofthe
absenceofangleoflightrefraction),ornotcorrespondingtothemarkas
commercialized.WecanbeinspiredbythedescriptionofcertainAmericanhologram
trade-marks.:“Themarkconsistsintheshapeofasoccerballpanelappliedtothe
goods”forthecardsofTheUpperDeckCompany(registration2177761):“themark
consistsofanoblongshapedmetallicfoilhologrampositionedwithinthebinder
marginofthegoods”forthebooksforcardsofRembrandtPhotoServices
(registration2143827).
158SharonCARR,“Technology’sAnti-CounterfeitingOffensive”(août1996),
TrademarkWorld19;“ChineseLabelstogetanewlookin1998–Datedholographic
labelsalertauthorities,usertoconterfeitULmarks”(Winter1998),3-4OntheMark
URLhttp://www.ul.com/about/otm/otmv3n4/dated.htm(siteconsultedon19990401);
ErikHOFFER,CGMSecuritySolutionsURL
http://www.teamlogisticscorp.com/cgm10a.htm(siteconsultedon19990401);
“VEGETAwithHologram–TheOriginalandtheBest”;(notdated)URL
http://www.podravka.com/en/vegeta/hologram/hologram.html(siteconsultedon
19990401);MarioXERRI,“HolographicLabelsDeterChineseCounterfeiters”
(Summer1996),2-2OntheMarkURL
http://www.ul.com/about/otm/otmv2n2/holo.htm(siteconsultedon19990401).
159ErikW.KAHNetal.,“StartingtoRegister:MovingImageMarks”(1996-05-26),
TheNationalLawJournalC-25andURL
http://test01.ljxextra.com/na.archive.html/96/05/121996_0513_1737_3.html(site
consultedon19990401);ErikW.KAHN,“Onthe‘Net,UnusualMarksGainin
Importance”(1998-10-19)TheNationalReporterC-13,URL
http://test01.ljextra.com/na.archive.html/98/10/1998_1012_69.html(siteconsultedon
19990401).

43

Theyareatthecross-roadsofcinematographicworksandtrade-marks.Copyright
protectiondoesnotexcludetheprotectionofthetrade-mark,sincethetwo
protectionsaredifferent.

Thus,theycouldbeconsideredundertheartisticwork
165angleorthetrade-mark166
angle,orboth167.Thedescriptionofsuchmarkscanbeeffectuatedwithwordsor
withwordsandareferencetothemainimage.Herearesomeexamplesfromthe
Americanfederalregister.

NETSCAPE(registrationUS2077148)
Themarkconsistsofananimatedsequenceofimagesdepictingthesilhouetteofa
portionofaplanetwithanuppercaseletter”N”straddlingtheplanetandaseriesof
meteoritespassingthroughthescene,allencompassedwithinasquareframe.The
animatedsequenceisdisplayedduringoperationofthesoftware.[Fivedrawings]

TRISTAR(registrationUS1981980)
Amovingimagebeginningwithaviewofskyandcloudsfollowedbyaflashoflightfrom
whichawingedhorseemergedgallopingforward.Thetheword‘TRISTAR’appearsover
thehorsewhichisshownwithoutstretchedwings.[Onedrawing]

JIMHENSON(registrationUS1919310)
160Introductivesequenceof20thCenturyFoxFilmCorporation(registrationsUS
1928424and1928423,ofBroadwayVideo,Inc.(registrationUS2092415),of
ColumbiaPicturesIndustries,Inc.(registrationUS1975999)andofTristarPictures,
Inc.
161AnimatedsequenceofKERMITTHEFROGpresentingoproductionofJim
HensonProductions,Inc.(registrationUS1919310)orthemovingstarofHanna-
BarberaProductions,Inc.(registrationUS1339596)
162TheanimatedsoldierhelmetofABCCableandInternationalBroadcast,Inc.forits
productionservicesfortelevisualdocumentaries(registrationUS2126551)
163TheNbehindwhichmeteoritesflyinthetoprightcornerofthenavigatorof
NetscapeCommunicationsCorporation(registration2077148)
164TheturningglobeoftheGPSsystemsofGarmincorporation(registrationUS
2106424)
165Withatermofprotectionlimitedto50yearsfollowingtheendofthecalendaryear
ofthecreationoftheworkorofthedeathoftheauthor,followingthephotographic,
cinema,dramaticorartisticdescriptionofthework,(sections6-10CA),possible
reversiontothelegalrepresentatives25yearsafterthedeathoftheauthor(section
14CA)andrespectofthemoralrights-maynotbeassigned-oftheauthor(sections
14.1,28.1and28.2CA).
166Wheretherightsarecreatedandaremaintainedthroughuse.167WilliamL.HAYHURST,“WhatIsaTrade-mark?TheDevelopmentofTrade-mark
Law”,inTrade-marksLawofCanada,collectionHenderson(Toronto,Carswell,
1993),pp.27-73,atpage66;seealsoHuguesG.RICHARD(dir.)etal.,RobicLeger
CanadianCopyrightActAnnotated(Toronto,Carswell,1993)at§5.9.2(updating
1997-4).

44
Themarkconsistsofananimatedsequencecommencingwithalaser-likelightdropping
fromadarkbackgroundandmovingtoetchingouttheheadofthecharacterKermitthe
Frog(asshowninthedrawing)whichrotatesfromaflatpositiontoafullfrontvertical
viewwithlightsparklingaroundtheperimeter,whichdissolvestothelaserlightcrossing
thebackgroundandetchingoutthemark”JIMHENSONPRODUCTIONS”,all
accompaniedbysoundandmusic;Thestipplingisafeatureofthemark.[Onedrawing]

COLUMBIA(registrationUS1975999)
Themarkconsistsofamovingimageofaflashoflightfromwhichraysoflightare
emittedagainstabackgroundofskyandclouds.Thescenethenpansdownwardtoa
torchbeingheldbyaladyonapedestal.Theword”COLUMBIA”appearsacrossthetop
runningthroughthetorchandthenacircularrainbowappearsintheskyencirclingthe
lady.[Onedrawing]

20
THCENTURYFOX(registrationUS1928423)
Thetrademarkisacomputergeneratedsequenceshowingthecentralelementfrom
severalanglesasthoughacameraismovingaroundthestructure.Thedrawing
representsfour”stills”fromthesequence.[Fourdrawings]

InCanada,itisprobablethattheTrade-marksOffice168wouldopposetheregistration
ofsuchmarksbecausethereisnotonebutmanymarksinvolvedatatime169.With
respecttotheactualstateoftheregulationsandofadministrativepolicy,the
registrationofakinetictrade-markshouldbeenvisagedbymeansoftheprincipal
sequence(inalllikelihood,thefinal)oftheanimation.

9TELEPHONENUMBERS

TheappealsectiondecisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadainthecasePizza
Pizza
170hasrecognizedtherighttoregister,inconnectionwithpizzaand
restaurants,anumericalsequenceasatrade-markalthough,infact,thissequence
alsoconstitutedthephonenumberoftheenterprise.

Ofcourseaphonenumberhasacommunicationsfunction,butthisfunctionisnot
relatedtotheproductsandtheservicesthemselves.

168InformalinterviewoverthephonewithSuzanneCharretteon1999-03-31,Policy
DirectoroftheCanadianTrade-marksOffice.
169Section24oftheRegulations:”Aseparateapplicationshallbefiledforthe
registrationofeachtrade-mark”.
170PizzaPizzaLtd.v.Canada(RegistrarofTradeMarks)[967-1111](1985),6
C.I.P.R.229,7C.P.R.(3d)428(F.C.T.D.);rev.(1989),26C.P.R.(3d)355,24
C.I.P.R.152,[1989]3F.C.379,101N.R.378,16A.C.W.S.(3d)24(F.C.A.),now
registrationTMA428709andalsocommentedbyMariePINSONNEAULT,«Votre
numérodetéléphoneest-ilenregistréàtitredemarquedecommerce?L’affaire
PizzaPizzaLimited»(1990),2Lescahiersdepropriétéintellectuelle263.Seealso
BellCanadav.PizzaPizzaLtd.(1993),[1993]2F.C.D-842,[1993]A.C.F.379,48
C.P.R.(3d)129(F.C.T.D.).

45
AsIseeit,whileundoubtlythereisafunctionalelementinitsusebytheappellant,inthatto
placeatelephoneorderforanyoftheappellant’sproductsthenumericalcombinationthatis
thetelephonenumberallottedbythetelephonecompanytotheappellantmustbeutilized,that
isnotitssolefunction.Rather,itistotallyunrelatedtothewaresthemselvesinthesensethat,
forexample,anumberedpartofsomeproductwouldbesorelatedwhichispurelyafunctional
use.
171

Evenifanumericalsequencethatisalsoaphonenumbercanbesubjectto
registration
172,inordertomaintainthisregistration,thetelephonenumbermustbe
usedaccordingtotheTrade-marksAct,thatistosay,todistinguishanowner’s
waresandservicesfromthoseofothers
173.Distinctivenesswillremainaquestionof
factandwilldependconsiderablyonhowtheownerwillhaveshownormarkedhis
trade-mark
174.

Finally,wenotethatthemonopoly
175conferedbysucharegistrationisnotabsolute
andisrestrictedtothewaresorservicesobjectoftheregistration176.

Itwouldbethesamesituationfor”Vanity”telephonenumbers,thosetelephone
numbersthatspellanameoraninterestword
177fortheownerofatelephone
number178thatcanbedescribedasfollows:

171PizzaPizzaLtd.v.Canada(RegistrarofTradeMarks)[967-1111](1985),6
C.I.P.R.229,7C.P.R.(3d)428(F.C.T.D.);rev.(1989),26C.P.R.(3d)355,24
C.I.P.R.152,[1989]3F.C.379,101N.R.378,16A.C.W.S.(3d)24(F.C.A.),J.Urie
atpage386.
172PhonenamesLimitedv.1-800-FlowersInc[1-800-FLOWERS],adecision
deliveredon19981217bytheenglishregistraroftrade-marks,application1525943.
173Itisusefultoremindherethat,inPizzaPizza,therespondentregistrarhad
admittedthat”inthemannerinwhichthenumericalcombination967-111isutilized
byappellant,suchcombinationappearsasaseparateanddistinctelement,which
standsonitsown,andcreatesanactualandsubstantialdistinctionbetween
appellantandothertradersandbetweenitsproductsandthoseofothers”[C.P.R.,at
page358].
174UnitelCommunicationsInc.v.BellCanada[800-SERVICE](1995),[1995]
T.M.O.B.76,G.Partingtonat¶11and25.
175On1999-04-01,PizzaPizzaLimitedwaslistedontheregisterasownerof33
registrationsoftrade-markswhichendbythesequence1111,of4registrationsof
trade-markswhichendbythesequence3333andof2registrationsoftrade-marks
whichendbythesequence444.Consideralsothesequence3030ofMIKES
pizzeriasofM-Corpinc.
176Alsosubjecttotheconditionsofservicebetweentheownerofthetrade-markand
thetelephonecompanywhichassignedsuchtelephonenumber.
177Thebrokerageof”800″numbersgivesrisetopublicityevenhere:see(March-
April1999),National7“IncreaseYourCaseLoad!AdvertiseTheseNumbers1-800-
INJURED,1-800-BANKRUPT,1-800-CRIMINAL,1-800-DISABILITY,1-800-
DIVORCE–Forfurtherinformationonhowtoobtainexclusiveuseofthesenumbers
inyourarea,pleasecall…”;seealsoYourtollfree800VanityTelephonenumber
specialist,URLhttp://www.4800use.com/numlist.htm(siteconsultedon19990401);

46
Vanitytelephonenumberscanincludeseveraltypesofmnemonics:(1)numberthat
correspondtothespellingofaproduct,suchas”1-800-FLOWERS”;(2)numbersthat
correspondtolettersthatspellabusinessname,suchas”1-800-HOLIDAY”;(3)numbers
thatbeginwith”4″or”2″andendwithaproduct,service,orbusinessname,suchas”1-
800-4-TRAVEL,”and”1-800-2-GO-WEST”;(4)numbersthatonlypartiallyspellaproduct
orcompanyname,suchas”486-HAIR,””239-ALARM,”or”222-CASH”;(5)numbersthat
areeasilyremembered,suchas”1-800-8000″;and(6)numbersthatareheavely
marketed,butotherwiselackdistinctiveness,suchas”1-800-325-3535,”whichSheraton
Innsmadeintoajingle
179.

Thus,thesenumericaloralphanumericsequencescanbeprotectedastrade-
marks
180,justlikethecodes181relatedtoradioortelevisionstations182.

Wecanalsopresumethat,inordertoobtaintheregistrationofsuchnumbers-
alphabeticaloralphanumeric-,anapplicantshoulddisclaim
183,ifthecasearises,the

TollFreeNumbers.com,URLwww.tollfreenumbers.com(siteconsultedon
19990401);Eighthundred,URLhttp://www.eighthundred.com/index4.htm(site
consultedon19990401);WhoSells800.com,URLhttp://whosells800.com(site
consultedon19990401).
178Closertohome,consider98-ROBICand845-RUSH(respectivelythetelephone
andthefaxnumbersoftheRobicpatentsandtrade-marksagentsfirm),thenumber
1-888-123MIKEofthetelecommunicationsystemsofClearnetCommunicationsInc.,
theENFORMEnumberfortheNautilusPlusInc.fitnesscenter,ahypothetical1-
800-PATENTSforaserviceofferedtoinventors,a1-888-8888numberforthe
classifiedadsoftheJournaldeMontréaloreventothevenerable”526-9231les
petitesannoncesduMontréalMatinnecoûtentpascheretrapportentbien”!
179LisaD.DAME,“ConfusinglyDissimilarApplicationsofTrademarkLawtoVanity
TelephoneNumbers”(1997),46CatholicUniversityLawReview1199,atpage1246,
note1.
180Justlike,forinstance,theV-8vegetablecocktailandA-1sauce.181Whichwemustnotconfusewithfrequencies.SeeJ.ThomasMcCARTHY,
McCarthyonTrademarksandUnfairCompetition,4thed.(StPaul,WestGroup,
1996),at§7:17(updating6in6/98).
182DanL.BURK,“TrademarksAlongtheInfobahn:AFirstLookattheEmerging
LawofCybermarks”(1995),1RichmondJournalofLawandTechnology1,at¶50-
51,URLhttp://www.urich.edu/~jolt/vlil/burk.html(siteconsultedon19990401):thisis
alsorelatedtotheradiostationssigns(CKOI,CHUMorCIEL),asthefrequency(690
AMor95,1MF),aslongasthereisauseasatrade-markandnotasanaddress.A
similarargumentcanbemadewithrespecttodomainnames:François
PAINCHAUD,«Lapropriétéintellectuellesurl’Internet»,inInternetetinforoute
(Montréal,Institutcanadien,1995),URLhttps://www.robic.ca,underpublication179
(siteconsultedon19990401)andMarie-HélèneDESCHAMPS-MARQUIS,«Les
nomsdedomaine:audelàdumystère»(1999),11-3Lescahiersdepropriété
intellectuelle.
183Section35TMA.

47
righttotheexclusiveuseofthenon-registrable184portionofthetrade-mark185.The
numericaloralphanumericmarkcanthusbeprotectedandthisprotectionistobe
assuredbytakingthetrade-markasawhole(i.e.,withoutdissectingit)
186,takinginto
considerationusualcriteriatoevaluateconfusion187andtheaverageconsumerwho
knowsthefirstmarkbuthasavaguerecollectionofit188.

Interestingquestionsrelatetotheinfringementofsuchtrade-marks.Withrespectto
theuseoftelephonenumbersofoldpartners,employeesorfranchiseesortheuse
byacompetitorofanumberinamannertocreateconfusion,thecaselawis
abundant
189.

184Forinstance,lastname,descriptionoftheproductorofitsorigin,nameofthe
productinanotherlanguage:paragraph12(1)TMA.Theprohibitionofparagraph
12(1)(b)astothedescriptivecharacterisnotlimitedtothegraphicaspectofthe
trade-mark,butitalsoconcernsitsphoneticaspect:theUforYou,2forToand4for
Forwouldthenbeconsideredintheexaminationconcerningtheregistrabilityandthe
necessityofanexamination.
185Withinthecontextoftheevaluationofconfusionbetweentwotrade-marks,one
musttakeintoconsiderationthewholeofthetrade-marksconcerned,includingthe
partforwhichtherehasbeenadisclaimer.:QuestorCommercialInc.v.Discover
ServicesLtd.(1979),46C.P.R.(2d)58(F.C.T.D.),J.Cattanachatpage19.
186Onthegeneralvaluation,see,amongothercases,Mr.SubmarineLtd.v.
AmandistaInvestmentsLtd.[Mr.SUBMARINE](1986),11C.P.R.(3d)425,9C.I.P.R.
164,6F.T.R.189,[1986]3F.C.F-33(F.C.T.D.);rev.(1987),[1988]3F.C.91,16
C.I.P.R.282,19C.P.R.(3d)3,81N.R.257(F.C.A.);ParkAvenueFurnitureCorp.v.
Wickes/SimmonsBeddingLtd.[POSTURE-BEAUTY](1987),18C.P.R.(3d)84
(Opp.Board);conf.(1989),25C.P.R.(3d)408,29F.T.R.264;rev.(1991),37C.P.R.
(3d)413,130N.R.223,[1991]3F.C.F-52(F.C.A.);MissUniverse,Inc.v.Bohna
[MISSNUDEUNIVERSE](1991),36C.P.R.(3d)76(Comm.opp.);conf.(1992),
[1992]3F.C.682,43C.P.R.(3d)462(F.C.T.D.);rev.(1994),[1995]1F.C.614,58
C.P.R.(3d)381,165N.R.35,[1994]F.C.A.D.3362-01(F.C.A.).
187Section6TMA.188“Theimperfectrecollectionoftheunwarypurchaser”accordingtoCanadiancase
lawsinceGeneralMotorsCorporationv.Bellows(1949),9FoxPat.78,10C.P.R.
101,[1950]1D.L.R.569,[1949]S.C.R.678(S.C.C.).
189See,amongothers,inQuebecthecasesPiscinesetabrisTempoinc.(Les)v.
TempoFabinc.(1978),J.E.78-1023(C.S.Q.);LibrairieSte-Thérèseinc.v.
Papeterie-librairieSte-Thérèseinc.(1995),J.E.05-1899(C.S.Q.),J.Julien;Paquinv.
Fournier(1996),J.E.96-663(C.S.Q.),J.Daigle;ViaRouteinc.v.Zawahry(1997),
J.E.97-197(C.S.Q.),J.Rayle;Associationcoopérativedestaxisdel’EstdeMontréal
inc.v.Harfouche(1997),L.P.J.97-0546,J.E.97-192,[1997]A.Q.2388(C.A.Q.);
ClubVidéoÉclairinc.v.9045-9835Québecinc.(1998),[1998]A.Q.1740(C.S.Q.)J.
Waltersand,elsewhereinCanada,BreuvageLuckyOneInc.v.L.B.G.Distributors
Ltd.(1971),64C.P.R.226(Ex.Ct.),J.Noël;CarnenSystemsCorporationv.British
ColumbiaTelephoneCo.(1983),74C.P.R.(2d)48(B.C.S.C.),J.Bouck;Goliger’s
TravelLtd.v.GilwayMaritimesLtd.(1987),17C.P.R.(3d)380(N.S.S.C.),J.Hall;
AllbramTaxiInc.v.Sandhu(1988),24C.P.R.(3d)334(O.D.Ct.),J.West;241Pizza

48

Themostinterestingquestionsaresurelytocome190.Forinstance,whataboutthe
competitorwhochoosesatelephonenumberaccordingtothepropensityof
consumerstoconfusecertainletters(theletter”o”andthenumber”0″aswellasthe
letter”I”andthenumber”1″),tomakefrequentspellingmistakes(double
consonants),ortouseadifferentareacodebutwiththesamenumbersasthose
correspondingtothecompetitormnemonicnumber
191?Whatabouttheveryoften
descriptive192characterofthenumber/mark:doestheadditionofabriefnumerical

Ltd.v.872515OntarioInc.(1992),43C.P.R.(3d)527(Ont.Ct.GenDiv.);Tel-E-
ConnectSystemsLtd.v.ModulartelephoneInterfaceLtd.(1993),52C.P.R.(3d)138
(Ont.Ct.Gen.Div.),J.MacDOnald.SeealsoChristopherWADLOW,TheLawof
Passing-Off,2nded.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1995),at§6.70to6.72.
190AtleastinCanadabecause,intheUnitedStates,abundantdoctrinealready
exists:KeithA.BARRIT,“”Use”ofAnother’sTrademarkinVanityPhoneNumbers
andInternetDomainNames”(1998),4IntellectualPropertyToday,article1;URL
http://www.lawworks-iptoday.com/04-98/barritt.htm(siteconsultedon19990401);
KeithA.BARRIT,“FCCActsonTrademarkRightsinVanityNumbersinthe”888″
and”877″Toll-freeExchanges”,URLhttp://www.fr.co./piblis/fcctmvanity,html(site
consultedon19990401);DanL.BURK,“TrademarksAlongtheInfobahn:AFirst
LookattheEmergingLawofCybermarks”(1995),1RichmondJournalofLawand
Technology1,at¶52-59,URLhttp://www.urich.edu/~jolt/vlil/burk.html(siteconsulted
on19990401);LisaD.DAME,“ConfusinglyDissimilarApplicationsofTrademark
LawtoVanityTelephoneNumbers”(1997),46CatholicUniversityLawReview1199;
AnthonyL.FLETCHERetal.,“TheForty-thirdYearofAdministrationoftheLanham
TrademarkActof1946”(1990),80TrademarkReporter591,atpages675-677;
ElizabethA.HORKY“1-800-I-AM-VAIN:ShouldTelephoneMnemonicsBe
ProtectedAsTrademarks?”(1995),3JournalofIntellectualProperty213,URL
http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/~jipl/vol3/horky.html(siteconsultedon19990401);Terry
AnnSMITH,“TelephoneNumbersthatSpellGenericTerms:AProtectable
TrademarkoranInvitationtoMonopolizeaMarket?”(1994),28UniversityofSan
FranciscoLawReview1079.
191Wethusnote,bynumericalequivalence,1-800-HOLIDAYand1-800-H0LIDAY,
INJURY-1
andINJURY-9,1-800-GO-U-HAULand1-800-GO-U-HALL,YELLOW
BOOKand1-800-YELLOWB[OOK],1-900-BLUBOOKand1-800-BLUE
BOOK,
772-ROOFand773-ROOF,CALL-LAWandLAW-CALL,LAWYERSand1-800-
LAWYERS,alltheseexamplesaregivenbyLisaD.DAME,“ConfusinglyDissimilar
ApplicationsofTrademarkLawtoVanityTelephoneNumbers”(1997),46Catholic
UniversityLawReview1199,atpage1200,note5andElizabethA.HORKY“1-800-I-
AM-VAIN:ShouldTelephoneMnemonicsBeProtectedAsTrademarks?”(1995),3
JournalofIntellectualProperty213,URL
http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/~jipl/vol3/horky.html(siteconsultedon19990401)at¶35-
50.
192AnthonyL.FLETCHERetal.,“TheForty-thirdYearofAdministrationofthe
LanhamTrademarkActof1946”(1990),80TrademarkReporter591,atpages675-
676andAnnSMITH,“TelephoneNumbersthatSpellGenericTerms:AProtectable

49
sequencecreateprivaterights193?Alternatively,onecanaskoneselfifpresumably
weakinherentdistinctivenesswillresultinslightvariationstonumerical
correspondencebeingsufficienttoavoidinfringement
194.And,ofcourse,hasthe
alphanumericornumericalmarkbeenusedasatrade-markorforanotherpurpose?

10THREE-DIMENSIONALMARKS
«Myviewisthat,properlypractised,designisnothingifnotacourageousadventure.»
ArthurERICKSON,TheArchitectureofArthurErickson(1988)

Theexternalappearanceofaproduct,itsdistinctivepackaging,can,regardlessof
registration,beprotectedagainstcopyingonthegroundsofunfaircompetitionand
passingoff
195,solongasthisappearanceislargelyrecognizedbythepublicas
identifyingaparticularsource196.However,cansuchatrade-markberegistered?

TrademarkoranInvitationtoMonopolizeaMarket?”(1994),28UniversityofSan
FranciscoLawReview1079.
193Theinterestofthequestion,ofcourse,isamatterofthedeterminationof
infringementinaccordancewiththeTrade-marksActratherthanconstitutingunfair
competition(ascodifiedatsection7TMAandinQuebecatsection1457C.c.Q.)
194“Finally,inthecontextofslightvariations,anychangeinthemnemonicshouldbe
enoughtodistinguishthemarks.Asnotedabove,anychangeinamnemonicisa
functionalchangeintheoperationofthetelephonethatwillbenoticedbythe
consumer.Clearlyanychangeinamnemonicwillbeachangeintheunderlying
telephonenumber.Inordertopreventafirmfrommonopolizingagroupofnumbers
throughtheluckofbeingthefirsttogetatelephonenumber,slightvariationsshould
distinguishthesecondmark”:ElizabethA.HORKY“1-800-I-AM-VAIN:Should
TelephoneMnemonicsBeProtectedAsTrademarks?”(1995),3Journalof
IntellectualProperty213,URLhttp://www.lawsch.uga.edu/~jipl/vol3/horky.html(site
consultedon19990401),at¶77-78.
195Forinstance,SourcePerrierv.CanadaDryLtd.[BOUTEILLEINDIANCLUB]
(1982),64C.P.R.(2d)116,36O.R.(2d)695(Ont.H.C.);IonaAppliancesInc.v.
HooverCanadaInc.[ASPIRATEURVROOMBROOM](1988),32C.P.R.(3d)304
(Ont.H.C.);DumontVins&SpiritueuxInc.v.CelliersduMondeInc.[BOUTEILLEDE
TYPEHOCKBLACHEOPAQUE](1990),[1990]R.J.Q.556(C.S.Q.),withdrawalof
appeal500-09-000100-909producedon1990-08-17;Reckitt&ColmanProductsLtd.
v.BordenInc.[JIFLEMONCONTAINER](1990),[1990]1W.L.R.491,17I.P.R.1,
[1990]1AllE.R.873,[1990]R.P.C.116(H.L.Angleterre);RayPlasticsLtd.v.
DustbaneProductsLtd.[BALAIÀNEIGESNOWTROOPER](1990),33C.P.R.(3d)
219,75O.R.(2d)37(Ont.Ct.gen.Div..);additionalmotivesto(1990),33C.P.R.(3d)
219-237,47C.P.C.(2d)280;conf.(1994),57C.P.R.(3d)474,74O.A.C.131(C.A.
Ont.);(1995),62C.P.R.(3d)247(Ont.Ct.Gen.Div.-damages);KraftJacobs
Suchard(Schweiz)A.G.v.HagemeyerCanadaInc.[TABLETTEDECHOCOLAT
TOBLERONE](1998),78C.P.R.(3d)464(Ont.Ct.Gen.Div.).
196OxfordPendaflexCanadaLtd.v.KorrMarketingLtd.[DESKOFFICETRAY]
(1979),23O.R.(2d)545,46C.P.R.(2d)191,97D.L.R.(3d)124(H.C.Ont.);conf.
(1980),27O.R.(2d)760n,47C.P.R.(2d)119n,107D.L.R.(3d)512n(C.A.Ont.);

50

Therighttoregisterthree-dimensionaltrade-marksdependsonthestatutory
definitionof”distinguishingguise”
197.

Ifthetrade-markisashapingofthemerchandise
198orofitscontainer199orisaway
toenveloportopackthemerchandise200,thetrade-markwillthenbeconsideredasa
distinguishingguise201.

conf.(1982),[1982]1S.C.R.494,64C.P.R.(2d)1,134D.L.R.(3d)271,41N.R.
553,20C.C.L.T.113(S.C.C.).LouisCARBONNEAU«Laconcurrencedéloyaleau
secoursdelapropriétéintellectuelle»,inDéveloppementsrécentsendroitdela
propriétéintellectuelle(1995),ServicedelaformationpermanenteduBarreaudu
Québec(Cowansville,Blais,1995),atpages239-292.SeealsogenerallyR.Scott
JOLLIFFE,“TheCommonLawDoctrineofPassingOFF”,inTrade-marksLawof
Canada,Hendersoncollection(Toronto,Carswell,1993),atchapiter8and
ChristopherWADLOW,TheLawofPassing-off,2nded.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,
1995),atchapiter6.
197Section2TMA:”distinguishingguise”Means:a)ashapingofwaresortheir
containers,orb)amodeofwrappingorpackagingwarestheappearanceofwhichis
usedbyapersonforthepurposeofdistinguishingorsoastodistinguishwaresor
servicesmanufactured,sold,leased,hiredorperformedbyhimfromthose
manufactured,sold,leased,hiredorperformbyothers.Weshouldtakenotethatthe
qualification”theappearanceofwhich”islinkedtotheparagrapha)aswellasthe
paragraphb):RegistrarofTradeMarksv.BrewersAssociationofCanada(1978),
[1979]1F.C.849,5B.L.R.155,94D.L.R.(3d)198,42C.P.R.(2d)93(F.C.T.D.),J.
Cattanachatpage96;rev.onanotherpoint(1982),[1982]2F.C.622,132D.L.R.
(3d)577,41N.R.470,62C.P.R.(2d)145(F.C.A.),
198TheTOBLERONEchocolateofKraftJacobsSuchard(Switzerland)(Registration
TMA164635).
199ThepackagingofTOBLERONEchocolateofKraftJacobsSuchard(Switzerland)
(applicationTMO832993)orthebottleoforangejuiceORANGEMAISONofA.
Lassondeinc.(registrationTMA407013).
200“Themodeofwrappingacylindricalrollhavingahollowcontrolcore,accordingto
whichtherollissoenclosedinarectangularsheetofpaperhavingredbandsattwo
oppositeedgesastodisposetheredbandsoverthewholeoftheflatannularendsof
therollandprovideasubstantiallycylindricalpackageandflatendsofwhichare
red”:registrationUCA046595(todaystruckoff)forthetoiletpaperFACELLEofThe
Procter&GambleCompany.Nottoconfusewiththetrade-markthatisonlyapplied
tothepackaging:”thetrademarkconsistofatartandesignappliedtothepackaging
fortheapplicant’swares”,inthecaseinpointthecookiesofNabiscoLtd.
(registrationTMA492729).
201Onthistopic,seegenerallyHuguesG.RICHARD(dir.),LegerCanadianTrade-
marksActAnnotated(Toronto,Carswell,1984),undersection13;seealsoMary
CARDILLO“DistinguishingGuiseTradeMarksandTheirRelationshiptoCopyright
andIndustrialDesign”(1989),6CanadianIntellectualPropertyReview14.

51
Ifthedistinguishingguisedoesnotcoverthemerchandiseorthecontainerentirely
butonlyapartofthese,itisnonethelessbywayofdistinguishingguisethatwemust
proceed
202.

Thewaytowraportopackwareswouldinclude
203containersorsupportsandboth
couldbenefitfromprotectionasadistinguishingguise204.Furthermore,theTrade-
marksOfficepolicyistotheeffectthateverythingthatisshownonthewrappingwill
bepartofthedistinguishingguise,unlessithasbeenexcludedspecifically.

Ifamarkfallsunderthedefinitionof”distinguishingguise”,itsownerdoesnothave
anyotherchoicethantoregisteritasadistinguishingguiseratherthanan”ordinary”
trade-mark
205.

Anapplicationforregistrationofadistinguishingguiseishowevernotlimitedtoone
(shapingorcontainer)ortheother(wrapping)mentionedinthestatutorydefinitionof
thisterm.Itisadmittedthatadistinguishingguisecanincludeoneortheotherof
theseelements
206,ontheconditionhoweverthattheapplicantprovesthatevery

202Ifwehadtointerpretthedefinitionofdistinguishingguiseaslimitedtotheshaping
ofamerchandiseoracontainerasawhole,thiswould[TRANSLATION]”permitan
applicanttoeasilybypasstherestrictionsprovidedatsection13oftheAct,because
anapplicantcouldthendeleteanunimportantdetailoftheshapingofthe
merchandiseasawholeandobtainaprotectionregardingthisguiseasaregular
trade-mark”:Draftofthepracticenoticeofthe1999-01-27oftheTrade-marksOffice.
203Concerningthedefinitionof”package”givenbys.2TMA.204SmithKline&FrenchCanadaLtd.v.Canada(RegistrarofTrade-marks)[No.1]
[LIGHTGREENCOATING](1987),9F.T.R.127,12C.I.P.R.199,14C.P.R.(3d)
432,[1987]2F.C.628(F.C.T.D.),J.Strayeratpage632.TheapplicationTMO
462697,whichwastheobjectofthisappeal,describeddistinguishingguisesinthese
terms:”Thedistinguishingguiseconsistsofalightgreencolouredcoatingappliedto
theoutsideofacircularbi-convextabletasshownintheattacheddrawinglinedfor
thecolourgreen”.
205RegistrarofTradeMarksv.BrewersAssociationofCanada(1978),[1979]1F.C.
849,5B.L.R.155,42C.P.R.(2d)93,94D.L.R.(3d)198(F.C.T.D.);rev.(1982),
[1982]2F.C.622,132D.L.R.(3d)577,41N.R.470,62C.P.R.(2d)145(F.C.A.),J.
Pratteatpage149.
206Inadraftofthepracticenoticeofthe1999-01-27,theTrade-marksOffice
considersthatadistinguishingguisecanincludeacombinationofelements
describedina)andb)ofthedefinition;basedonanobiterinSmithKline&French
CanadaLtd.v.Canada(RegistrarofTrade-marks)[No.1][LIGHTGREEN
COATING](1987),9F.T.R.127,12C.I.P.R.199,14C.P.R.(3d)432,[1987]2F.C.
628(F.C.T.D.),J.Strayeratpage631:”WhileIamnotconvincedthatanappicant
shouldbeprecludedfromclaimingaspartofhismonopolyelementsdescribedin
both(a)and(b)ofthedefinition,Ineednotdecidethatmatterhere”.

52
elementconstitutesanacceptableelementofadistinguishingguise207.Ifthetrade-
markcontainselementscoveredbythedefinitionofdistinguishingguiseandothers
thatarenot
208,thentheprovisionsconcerningtheregistrationofdistinguishing
guiseswillapply.

Inordertoobtaintheregistrationofadistinguishingguise,onemustprove
209tothe
registrarthattheguisehasbeenusedinCanadasothatithasbecomedistinctive210
atthedateoftheapplication211andthatthisusewillnothavetheeffecttounduly
limitcommerce212.Infact,distinguishingguisesoftenhavefunctionalaspects213.

207SmithKline&FrenchCanadaLtd.v.Canada(RegistrarofTrade-marks)[No.1]
[LIGHTGREENCOATING](1987),9F.T.R.127,12C.I.P.R.199,14C.P.R.(3d)
432,[1987]2F.C.628(F.C.T.D.),J.Strayeratpage631.
208Forinstanceacontaineronwhichanominaltrade-markwouldalsobemarked.209Thenatureoftherequiredevidenceisprovidedatthesection32TMAandisthe
objectoftechnicalindicationsintheTrademarkManualofExaminingProcedure,2nd
ed.(Hull,ApprovisionnementetServiceCanada,1996),at§II.7.6and§IV.10;see
alsothepracticenoticeEvidenceRequiredPursuanttoSubsections31(2)and32(1)
oftheTrade-MarksActof1975-07-30,DistinguishingGuiseof1976-09-01and
Requirementwithrespecttosection12(2)evidenceof1985-01-02.Moreover,asJ.
MacKayreminds,”Inmyview,theActprovidesforregistrationofadistinguishing
guise,throughapplication,inthesamemannerasforothertrademarks”:Calumet
ManufacturingLtd.v.MennenCanadaInc.(1991),50F.T.R.197,40C.P.R.(3d)76
(F.C.T.D.),atpage87.
210And,asforatrade-mark,theevidenceofauseofthisdistinguishingguisebynon-
licenseethirdpartieswillleadtotheconclusionoftheabsenceorthelossofthe
distinctivecharacter.:CalumetManufacturingLtd.v.MennenCanadaInc.(1989),
[1989]T.M.O.B.246,27C.P.R.(3d)467(Opp.Board),M.Martinatpages473-474;
conf.(1991),50F.T.R.197,40C.P.R.(3d)76(F.C.T.D.),J.MacKayatpages91-96;
GilletteCanadaInc.v.MennenCanadaInc.(1989),32C.P.R.(3d)216,26C.I.P.R.
258,[1989]T.M.O.B.245,M.Martinatpage222;conf.(1991),50F.T.R.197,40
C.P.R.(3d)76(F.C.T.D.)
211Paragraph13(1)a)TMA:”Adistinguishingguiseisregistrableonlyif:a)ithas
beensousedinCanadabytheapplicantorhispredecessorintitleastohave
becomedistinctiveatthedateoffilinganapplicationforitsregistration[…]”.See
SportMaskaInc.v.Canstarinc.v.CanstarSportsGroupInc.[HOCKEYHELMET]),
(1994),J.E.94-1396,englishtranslationat57C.P.R.(3d)323(C.S.Q.),J.Denisat
pages345-347(appeal500-09-001275-940abandonnedon1995-08-16).
212Paragraph13(1)b):”Adistinguishingguiseisregistrableonlyif:[…]b)the
exclusiveusebytheapplicantofthedistinguishingguiseinassociationwiththe
waresorserviceswithwhichithasbeenusedisnotlikelyunreasonablytolimitthe
developmentofanyartorindustry.”Andparagraph13(3)”Theregistrationofa
distinguishingguisemaybeexpungedbytheFederalCourtontheapplicationofany
interestedpersoniftheCourtdecidesthattheregistrationhasbecomelikely
unreasonablytolimitthedevelopmentofanyartorindustry”.Thisrejoinsthe
functionalityargumentdiscussedpreviously.:seeMaureenBOYDCLARK,
«PassingOffandUnfairCompetition:TheRegulationoftheMarketplace»(1990),6

53
However,thequestionisnottofindoutwhethertheconfigurationofthemerchandise
containsutilitarianelements,butrathertodeterminewhetherthedegreeoftheir
functionalityissuchthatthereisanabsenceofprotectionasdistinguishingguise
214.

Theburdentoshowthedistinctivenesslieswiththeapplicant
215.Finally,onemust
rememberthatthereisnothingpreventingadistinguishingguisefromdistinguishing
servicesorproductsotherthanthosewithrespecttowhichtheyaretheshapingor
thewrapping.

Whatabouttwo-dimensionaltrade-marksthataremarkedonthree-dimensional
objects?Again,onewillhavetodeterminewhatthemarkconsistsofandthe
importanceofitspositioningonthethree-dimensionalobject
216.

IntellectualPropertyJournal1,atpages28to31andLouisCARBONNEAU«La
concurrencedéloyaleausecoursdelapropriétéintellectuelle»,inDéveloppements
récentsendroitdelapropriétéintellectuelle(1995),Servicedelaformation
permanenteduBarreauduQuébec(Cowansville,Blais,1995),atpages260-272.
213Section13(2)TMAprovidesthat:”Noregistrationofadistinguishingguise
interfereswiththeuseofanyutilitarianfeatureembodiedinthedistinguishingguise”.
214RemingtonRandCorp.v.PhilipsElectronicsN.V[SHAVERHEAD](1993),51
C.P.R.(3d)392,69F.T.R.136,44A.C.W.S.(3d)579(F.C.T.D.);rev.(1995),64
C.P.R.(3d)467,191N.R.204,[1995]A.C.F.1660(F.C.A.)[motionforaleaveto
appealtotheSupremeCourtofCanadarefused(1996),67C.P.R.(3d)vi(S.C.C.).],
J.MacGuiganatparagraph18-21.SeealsoJustineWIEBE,“Philips’Triple-Headed
Shaver:WhenaShaveCanBeTooCloseForComfort”(1996),3Intellectual
PropertyJournal120,atpage122andCarolHITCHMAN,“TradeMarksversus
Patents;TheProtectionofFunctionalElements(1999),5IntellectualProperty
Journal298,atpage298.SeealsoPeterHANSEN,“GettingIntoShape–TheTrade
MarkIssues”(1999),1InDepth1.,atpage3.
215“However,duetotheoverwhelmingfunctionalityofallbutoneminoraspectofthe
design,itis,atbest,aninherentlyweakdistinguishingguise.Thus,notonlyistherea
heavyonusontheapplicanttoestablishthedistinctivenessofitsdistinguishingguise
pursuanttos.13(1)oftheAct,thatonusisparticularlyseverewhere,suchasinthe
presentcase,theguiseisinherentlyweak”:GilletteCanadaInc.v.MennenCanada
Inc.(1989),26C.I.P.R.258,[1989]T.M.O.B.245,32C.P.R.(3d)216(Opp.Board)
M.Martin,atpage220;conf.(1991),50F.T.R.197,40C.P.R.(3d)76(F.C.T.D.)to
thesameeffect,NovopharmLtd.v.BurroughWellcomeInc.[HEXAGONALTABLET]
(1999),[1999]T.M.O.B.23(Opp.Board)M.Martinat¶30-32et36-37.SeealsoMr.
FrosteeInc.v.DickieDeeIceCream(Canada)Ltd.[FROZENCONFECTIONON
STICK](1994),[1994]T.M.O.B.312,59C.P.R.(3d)393(Opp.Board)G.Partington
atpages396and398;CelliersduMondeInc.v.DumontVins&SpiritueuxInc.
[BOUTEIILEHOCKBLANCHEOPAQUE](1997),[1997]T.M.O.B.244,82C.P.R.
(3d)396(Opp.Board),M.Herzigat¶4.
216AlthoughtheTrade-marksOfficeindicatesapolicytotheeffectthatthe
descriptionofthetrade-markshouldnotcontainanykindofindicationthatcanlead
someonetothinkthatthemarkencompassesathree-dimensionalelement,likea
statementwhichspecifiesthatthedrawingshowsthespotwherethetrade-markis

54

Sinceitisnotjustawordmark,adrawingmustalsobeprovided.Thedrawinghasto
representthetrade-markandnottheonemarkedonthethree-dimensionalobject.If
thecasearises,inordertodescribethetrade-markmoreefficiently,theapplication
canbeaccompaniedbyadrawingshowinghowthetrade-markismarked.However,
thisdrawingmustcomplywiththerequirementsoftheTrade-marksOffice
217,and
theserequirementsareasfollows:

•Theoutlineofthethree-dimensionalobjectmustberepresentedwitha
dottedline;
•Theapplicationmustconsistofastatementtotheeffectthatthethree-
dimensionalobject,whichisshownbythedottedlineonthedrawing,isnot
apartofthetrade-markandissolelyrepresentedtoprovideanexampleof
themannerbywhichthetrade-markcanbemarkedonathree-
dimensionalobject.
•Theapplicationmustincludeadescriptionofthemarkindicatingclearly
thattheapplicationonlyforeseesthetwo-dimensionalmark
218.

TheserequirementsaddressonlyquestionsofformanddonotrestricttheTrade-
marksOfficefromverifyingthefunctionalordecorativecharacterofthetrade-mark
appliedfor.

11MISCELLANEOUS

11.1ARCHITECTURALMARKS

Theappearance,theexternalandinternaldecorationofabusinessisalso
susceptibleofprotection.NumerousdecisionsfromtheCourtsrelatingto

markedonathree-dimensionalobject,theweeklyreadingoftheTrade-marks
JournalrevealsthatbeforeJanuary1999thispolicywasnotuniformlyenforced.We
wouldhaveto,forinstance,describesuchatrade-markasatrade-markconsistingof
arepresentationofacrosswhichappearsonthebottle;therepresentationofthe
bottlebyadottedlineisnotpartofthetrade-mark.
217SeeTrademarkManualofExaminingProcedure,2nded.(Hull,
ApprovisionnementetServiceCanada,1996),at§IV.2.4withrespecttothe
representationofwaresbyadottedline(drawing).SeealsothenoticeoftheTrade-
MarksJournalchangeofformatanddrawingsrequirementsunderRule32(1)ofthe
1978-11-01andFullanddottedoutlinesofthe1980-13-30publishedintheTrade-
marksJournal.
218Draftofthepracticenoticeofthe1999-01-27oftheTrade-marksOffice.

55
restaurants219proveit.Therecourseusedisgenerallyaninterlocutoryrecourse
basedonunfaircompetitionand“passingoff”inrespectof”get-up”andsoon.

However,itispossibletoregisterasatrade-mark
220thedistinctiveelementsof
businesspremises.InCanadathereisthetruncatedpyramidoftheST-HUBERT
rotisserie,aswellasthegoldenarchesofMCDONALDSrestaurants,theroofsofthe
DAIRYQUEENicecreamoutletsorthegableofaKENTUCKYrestaurant
221.

Thesubjectmatterisnottheregistrationofanimageconsistingoftherepresentation
ofthebuildingasitcouldbemarkedoncertainproducts,butratherthearchitectural
aspectoftheproducts,asseenbytheconsumer
222.

Theelementsoftheexternal(orinternal)appearanceofthebuildingthatwewantto
protectmustdistinguishtheproductsorservicesofapersonfromthoseofanother.
Theseelementswillhavetoindicateasourceratherthanbeingpresentedor
perceivedasdecorativeelements
223.However,itshouldbesufficient,inthiscontext,

219ChristopherBRETT,“Get-UpofPremisesandActionforPassingOff”(1991),7
CanadianIntellectualPropertyReview259;GeorgeR.STEWART,“TwoPesosfora
Taco:InherentDistinctivenessandaLikelihoodofConfusionforProtectableTrade-
markRights–HoldtheSecondaryMeaning”(1993),IntellectualPropertyJournal1;
LouisCARBONNEAU“Laconcurrencedéloyaleausecoursdelapropriété
intellectuelle”,inDéveloppementsrécentsendroitdelapropriétéintellectuelle
(1995),ServicedelaformationpermanenteduBarreauduQuébec(Cowansville,
Blais,1995),atpages257-258.
220Thedistinctivepackaging,inthiscase,isnotapartofthestrictdefinitionof
«distinguishingguise»givenbysection2TMA.
221Asanillustration,seethearchitecturalarchs(registrationTMA148964),the
descriptivedoublearchs(registrationTMA152229)andthegeneralexternal
appearance(registrationTMA280719)ofaMCDONALD’Srestaurant,characteristic
roofsofaDAIRYQUEEN(registrationsTMA197852and197921),external
appearanceofanARBY’Srestaurant(registrationTMA165839),COUNTRY
CHICKEN(registrationTMA294507)orPOPEYES(registrationTMA319712),
awningofarestaurantFIREPIT(registrationTMA303139),roofaMELODYFARM
restaurant(registrationTMA449587)orgableofaKENTUCKYrestaurant
(registrationTMA400998).
222“Andthedesignofarestaurantdoesnot,exceptmetaphorically,packagethe
waresandservices.Rather,thedesignandgetupofthepremisesserveto
advertise,inform,suggest,attractandperhapsdescribethegoodsandservicesthat
areofferedforsale”:GeorgeR.STEWART,“TwoPesosforaTaco:Inherent
DistinctivenessandaLikelihoodofConfusionforProtectableTrade-markRights–
HoldtheSecondaryMeaning”(1993),IntellectualPropertyJournal1,atpage19.
223Consideredasarchitecturalorartisticworks,theseelementscanalso,incertain
circumstances,benefitfromtheCopyrightActprotection(R.S.C.1985,c.C-42).Can
alsobecontemplatedtheprotectioninaccordancewiththeIndustrialDesignAct
(R.S.C.1985,c.I-9),adrawingbeingdescribedas”[…]featuresorshape,

56
tojustifyuseasatrade-markbyindicatingthattheservicesarerendedorthe
productssoldfromthoseestablishements224.Normally,itboilsdowntoamatterof
evidence,especiallyastothemannerofpresentationtothepublic.225

11.2PORTRAITS

Onecannotregisteratrade-markthatprincipallyconstitutesthenameorthelast
nameofafamilyorofanindividual
226.Ontheotherhand,thereisnothingstopping
usfromregisteringtheportraitofanindividual227asatrade-mark,solongasthis
individualgiveshisconsent228.

Thisportraitcanbeaphotograph,apaintingoradrawing
229.Theconsentofthe
personisself-evident,ifonlyfortherighttohisimage230.

ThementionsrequiredbytheTrade-marksOfficewithrespecttoapplicationsfor
registrationofsuchtrade-markswillvaryaccordingtotheirnature
231.But,ifthe

configuration,patternorornamentandanycombinationofthosefeaturesthat,ina
finishedarticle,appealtoandarejudgedsolelybytheeye”.
224J.ThomasMcCARTHY,McCarthyonTrademarksandUnfairCompetition,4thed.
(StPaul,WestGroup,1996),at§7:101(updating8in12/98).
225GeorgeR.STEWART,“TwoPesosforaTaco:InherentDistinctivenessanda
LikelihoodofConfusionforProtectableTrade-markRights–HoldtheSecondary
Meaning”(1993),IntellectualPropertyJournal1,atpages12-15.
226Paragraph12(1)a)TMA.Itisstillpossibletoregistersuchatrade-markby
proving,accordingtotheparagraph14(1),thatthistrade-markhasbecome
distinctiveor,inaccordancewithparagraph14(1)thatthetrade-markisnotwithout
anydistinctivecharacter.
227Paragraph12(1)e)TMAreadsasfollow:”[…]atrade-markisregistrableifitisnot
[…]amarkofwhichtheadoptionisprohibitedbysection9or10″andthusmakes
reference,amongotherthings,toparagraphs9(1)(k)and9(1)(l)TMA:”[…]No
personshalladoptinconnectionwithabusiness,asatrade-markorotherwise,any
markconsistingof,orsonearlyresemblingastobelikelytobemistakenfor[…]k)
anymatterthatmayfalselysuggestaconnectionwithanylivingindividual;l)the
portraitorsignatureofanyindividualwhoislivingorhasdiedwithinthepreceding
thirtyyears”.
228Paragraph9(2)TMA.229ThemselvesprotectableaccordingtotheCopyrightAct(R.S.C.1985,c.C-42):
wethenhavetomakesureofthetitletotheseworks,takingintoconsideration
sections10and13CA.
230Seesections35and35,5ooftheQuebecCivilcode(L.Q.,1991,c.64)231“Theportraitisthatoftheregistrant”,HARRIGAN(TMA211558);“Thedrawing
comprisingthetrade-markistheportraitofafictionalcharacter”MEN’SHEAD
DESIGN(TMA440011);“Theportraitformingpartofthetrademarkisnotofaliving
individualoronewhohasdiedinthelast30years”HENRYCHOICE(TMA437196);
“AnimaginaryportraitoftheheadandshouldersofthehistoricCardinalWolsey

57
subjectmatterisanindividualwhoisstillalive232,theTrade-marksOfficewillrequire
theproductionofawrittenconsent.

11.3SLOGANS

TheCompetitionActusedtoprohibittheregistrationofatrade-markthatwouldbe
composedofmorethan30charactersapportionedinfourgroupsorless
233,this
requirementwasverysimilartoananti-sloganmeasure234.

TheTrade-marksAct
235didnotincludethisoddrestrictionandatrade-markcanbe
registeredregardlessofthenumberofcharactersthatitcontains236,whichallowsfor
theregistrationofslogansandotherpromotionalmaterial.

However,asisthecaseforothertrade-marks,suchaslogan,inordertobe
registered,hastodistinguish-orbeadaptedtodistinguish-thewaresandservices
ofitsuserfromthoseofothers
237.Inordertoberegistered,slogansdonothaveto
beliteraryworks238ornewexpressions:awellknownexpression,byitsliaisonwitha
productoraservice,caneasilyservetodistinguishwaresandservices.

wearingaCardinal’scap”PORTRAITDESIGN(UCA004635);“Theportraitand
signatureappearinginthetrademarkarethoseofFatherSebastian“Kneippwho
diedin1897”PORTRAITOFMAN(TMA428532);
232Presumably,ifthispersonisdeadforatleast30years,suchaconsentcouldbe
obtainedfromhis/hersuccession.Seetheparagraphs35(2)and625(3)C.c.Q.and
FondationLeCorbusierv.SociétéencommanditemanoirLeCorbusierPhaseI
(1991),[1991]R.J.Q.2864(C.S.Q.),J.Lemieuxatpages2871-2873,withdrawalof
appeal500-09-001609-916producedon19941122.
233S.C.1932,c.38,paragraph26(1)a).234HaroldG.Fox,TheCanadianLawofTradeMarksandUnfairCompetition,2nd
ed.(Toronto,Carswell,1972),atpage78.
235S.C.1953,c.49,nowR.S.C.1985,c.T-13.236Wearestillwaitingforthepersonwho,willingtopublishhis/herpoemorashort
story,willsimplyaskforitsregistrationasatrade-mark,obtainingassuchpublication
anddisseminationbymeansoftheTrade-marksJournal…
237Seethediscussionatsection2.2supraonhowtouseatrade-mark.Theslogan
trade-markwillalsohavetocomplywiththeotherprovisionsoftheAct,thenon-
registrabilityofdescriptiveorfalseanddeceptivetrade-marksforinstance.
238Section2oftheCopyrightActdescribes”work”asalsoincludingthetitles.Fora
discussionontheprotectionoftitlesandslogansbymeansoftheCopyrightAct,see
HuguesG.RICHARD(dir.)etal.,RobicLegerCanadianCopyrightActAnnotated
(Toronto,Carswell,1993),under2(25)“work”(unpdating1997-3).

58
Toincorporateinasloganatrade-markalreadyregisteredwillnotautomatically
preventthesloganfrombeingregisteredasatrade-mark239.However,cautionis
advised240.

12CONCLUSION

InCanada
241,thestatutoryprotectionoftrade-marksisstillregulatedbyobsolete
criteriaandwithoutdateddefinitions,disconnectedfromcontemporarycommercial
reality
242,atleastwithrespecttotheprotectionthatitgivestonon-traditionaltrade-
marks.

TheTrade-marksActhasnotbeenadapted
243totheprotectionrequiredbythenew
productsandservicesidentificationtechniquesbymeansofnon-traditionalmarks,
eventhoughthosenon-traditionalmarksareadaptedtodistinguishproductsand
servicesofauserfromthoseofanother.

Nonetheless,thereisalwaysabalancetomaintainbetweenthelegitimateprotection
ofgoodwillintrade-marksandthehindrancestofreecompetitionand,
notwithstandingthelackofstatutoryprotection,therecourseinunfaircompetition
andpassing-offisstillavailablebeforeourCourts.

239Itisthengoingtobesimplylinkedtothemarkitincludes,inconformitywith
paragraph15(1)TMA.
240Cieinternationalepourl’informatiqueCIIHoneywellBullv.Herridge,Tolmie
[BULL](1983),[1983]2F.C.766,1C.I.P.R.231,77C.P.R.(2d)101(F.C.T.D.);rev.
(1985),[1985]1F.C.406,4C.I.P.R.309,61N.R.286,4C.P.R.(3d)523(F.C.A.),J.
Pratteatpage526.
241Theterritorialcharacteroflegislationsontrade-marksanddistinguishingguises
mustberecalled:DanielZENDELetal.,“CompaniesUsingColor,SoundorScent
MarksMaybefoiledOverseas”(19960212),TheNationalLawJournalC-25andURL
http://test01.ljextra.com/na.archive.html/96/02/131996_0205_7.html;alsopublished
underthetitle“MakingSenseofTrademarks”(août1996),TrademarkWorld21and
URLhttp://www.ladas.com/GUIDES/TRADEMARKS/MakingSenseTM.html(site
consultedon19990401).
242Forinstance:electroniccommerce,cyberspace,cathodicmodeor,moresimply,
newtechniquesofmarketing.
243AsinterpretedbythetribunalsandappliedbytheTrade-marksOffice,wemust
specify.

59
ANNEXEA

SECTION28OFTHETRADE-MARKSREGULATIONS(1998)

60
ANNEXEB

ILLUSTRATIONSOFAFEWREGISTRATIONS

«ARCHITECTURAL»TRADE-MARKS
RegistrationTMA197852on1974-03-01ofAmericanDairyQueenCorporation
RegistrationTMA280719on1983-06-23ofMcDonald’sCorporation
RegistrationTMA400998on1992-08-07ofPepsi-ColaCanadaLtd.(KFC)

«KINETIC»TRADE-MARKS
Americanregistration1339596on1985-06-04ofHanna-BarberaProductions,Inc.
Americanregistration1928424on1995-10-17ofTwentiethCenturyFoxFilm
Corporation
Americanregistration2077148on1997-07-08ofNetscapeCommunications
Corporation
Americanregistration2106424on1997-10-21ofGarminCorporation

MARKSANDCOLOURS
RegistrationTMDA48989on1930-03-24ofAmstedIndustriesIncorporated
RegistrationUCA50742on1953-08-11ofUnionTools,Inc.
RegistrationTMA245066on1981-02-06ofGoodallRubberCompany
RegistrationTMA246861on1980-06-20ofDuracellInternationalInc.
RegistrationTMA346453on1988-10-14ofHoffmann-LaRocheLimited
RegistrationTMA359172on1989-08-04ofDNA,Incorporated
RegistrationTMA433100on1994-09-09ofOwens-CorningCanadaInc.a
RegistrationTMA477683on1997-06-12ofMinnesotaMiningandManufacturingCo.
ApplicationTMO722545on1993-02-11ofMonsantoCanadaInc.

«HOLOGRAM»TRADE-MARKS
ApplicationTMO835927on1997-02-10ofSmithklineBeechamInc.
ApplicationTMO10002075on1999-01-14ofJeanneLottie’sFashionIncorporated

TRADE-MARKS«BYPOSITIONING»
RegistrationTMA194715on1973-10-12ofLeviStrauss&Co.
RegistrationTMA264673on1981-12-10ofPuma-SportschuhfabrikenRudolf
DasslerKG
RegistrationTMA315448on1986-06-20ofTheParkerPenCompany
RegistrationTMA319504on1986-10-10ofJamesL.Thorneburg
RegistrationTMA353328on1989-03-17ofEstwingManufacturingCompany,Inc.
RegistrationTMA399889on1992-07-23ofChampagneMoëtetChandon
RegistrationTMA449353on1995-10-27ofHurteau&associésinc.

61
RegistrationTMA460749on1996-08-02ofNewellOperatingCompany
RegistrationTMA473317on1997-03-21ofTheMeadCorporation
RegistrationTMA481586on1997-08-26ofSmithklineBeechamInc.
RegistrationTMA495414on1998-05-28ofCandermPharmaInc.

DISTINGUISHINGGUISES
RegistrationTMDA46595on1953-04-23ofTheProcter&GambleCompany
RegistrationTMA164635on1969-08-15ofKraftJacobsSuchard(Suisse)
RegistrationTMA337783on1988-03-04ofKwikLokLtd.
RegistrationTMA362414on1989-11-03ofBic.Inc.
RegistrationTMA409284on1993-03-12ofGerberProductsCompany
RegistrationTMA488662on1998-01-29ofPerrierVittel
RegistrationTMA497479on1998-07-21ofGeneralMills,Inc.

«SOUND»TRADE-MARKS
RegistrationTMA359318on1989-08-11ofCapitalRecords,Inc.
ApplicationTMO714314on1992-10-06ofMetro-GoldwynMayerLionCorp.
ApplicationTMO824753on1996-10-01ofQueisserPharmaGmBH
ApplicationTMO858570on1997-10-14ofIntelCorporation

62
RegistrationTMA197852on1974-03-01ofAmericanDairyQueenCorporation

RegistrationTMA280719on1983-06-23ofMcDonald’sCorporation

RegistrationTMA400998on1992-08-07ofPepsi-ColaCanadaLtd.(KFC)

63
Americanregistration1339596on1985-06-04ofHanna-BarberaProonctions,
Inc.

Americanregistration1928424on1995-10-17ofTwentiethCenturyFoxFilm
Corporation

64
Americanregistration2077148on1997-07-08ofNetscapeCommunications
Corporation

Americanregistration2106424on1997-10-21ofGarminCorporation

65
RegistrationTMDA48989on1930-03-24ofAmstedIndustriesIncorporated
.

RegistrationUCA50742on1953-08-11ofUnionTools,Inc.

66
RegistrationTMA245066on1981-02-06ofGoodallRubberCompany
.

RegistrationTMA246861on1980-06-20ofDuracellInternationalInc.

67
RegistrationTMA346453on1988-10-14ofHoffmann-LaRocheLimited

RegistrationTMA359172on1989-08-04ofDNA,Incorporated

68
RegistrationTMA433100on1994-09-09ofOwens-CorningCanadaInc.a

RegistrationTMA477683on1997-06-12ofMinnesotaMiningand
ManufacturingCo.

69
ApplicationTMO722545on1993-02-11ofMonsantoCanadaInc.

ApplicationTMO835927on1997-02-10ofSmithklineBeechamInc.

70
ApplicationTMO10002075on1999-01-14ofJeanneLottie’sFashion
Incorporated

RegistrationTMA194715on1973-10-12ofLeviStrauss&Co.

71
RegistrationTMA264673on1981-12-10ofPuma-SportschuhfabrikenRudolf
DasslerKG

RegistrationTMA315448on1986-06-20ofTheParkerPenCompany

72
RegistrationTMA319504on1986-10-10ofJamesL.Thorneburg

RegistrationTMA353328on1989-03-17ofEstwingManufacturingCompany,
Inc.

73
RegistrationTMA399889on1992-07-23ofChampagneMoëtetChandon

RegistrationTMA449353on1995-10-27ofHurteau&associésinc.

74
RegistrationTMA460749on1996-08-02ofNewellOperatingCompany

RegistrationTMA473317on1997-03-21ofTheMeadCorporation

75
RegistrationTMA481586on1997-08-26ofSmithklineBeechamInc.

RegistrationTMA495414on1998-05-28ofCandermPharmaInc.

76
RegistrationTMDA46595on1953-04-23ofTheProcter&GambleCompany

RegistrationTMA164635on1969-08-15ofKraftJacobsSuchard(Suisse)

77
RegistrationTMA337783on1988-03-04ofKwikLokLtd.

RegistrationTMA362414on1989-11-03ofBicInc.

78
RegistrationTMA409284on1993-03-12ofGerberProductsCompany

RegistrationTMA488662on1998-01-29ofPerrierVittel

79
RegistrationTMA497479on1998-07-21ofGeneralMills,Inc.

RegistrationTMA359318on1989-08-11ofCapitalRecords,Inc.

80
ApplicationTMO714314on1992-10-06ofMetro-GoldwynMayerLionCorp.

ApplicationTMO824753on1996-10-01ofQueisserPharmaGmBH

ApplicationTMO858570on1997-10-14ofIntelCorporation

81

THESTATUTORYPROTECTION
OFNON-TRADITIONALTRADEMARKS
INCANADA
AFEWREFLECTIONSONTHEIR
REGISTRABILITYAND
DISTINCTIVENESS

InternationalBarAssociation2000
Amsterdam

BobH.SotiriadisandLaurentCarrière
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,PatentandTrademarkAgents
55StJacques
Montreal(Quebec)
CanadaH2Y3X2

Tel.(514)987-6242
Fax(514)845-7874
E-mail:marion@robic.com
Website:www.robic.ca

82

©LaurentCarrière&LEGERROBICRICHARD,1997-2000
Lawyersandtrademarkagents,LaurentCarrièreandBobH.Sotiriadisareseniorpartnersinthe
lawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andinthepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p..

ThismaterialwasdesignedforthepurposeofageneralpresentationonCanadianLegislationmade
attheInternationalBarAssociation2000ConferenceinAmsterdamintheNetherlandswhichwasheld
fromSeptember17toSeptember22,2000.Itwasmeantfordiscussionanddoesnotconclusively
statetheopinionoftheirauthorsorthemembersoftheirrespectivefirmsonthesubjectmatternor
doesitprovideanexhaustivereviewthereof.

Thisdocumentisdesignedtofamiliarizethereaderwithmattersofgeneralinterestrelatingto
intellectualpropertylaw.Itisdistributedforinformationalpurposesonlyandisnotintendedto
constitutelegaladvice.Legalcounselshouldbeconsultedwithregardtospecificapplicationofthe
informationonacase-by-casebasis.

.

83