Trade-Mark Registration Ordered Amended Instead of Expunged

1
TRADE-MARKRESGISTRATIONORDEREDAMENDED
INSTEADOFEXPUNGED

By
AlexandraSteele*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.
Lawyers,PatentandTrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca–info@robic.com
TheFederalCourtofCanadarecentlyruledthattheRegistrarofTrade-Marks
hadreasonablydecidedtoamend,insteadofexpunging,atrade-mark
registrationpursuanttosubsection45Trade-marksAct(R.S.C.1985,c.T-13).
[Marks&Clerkv.SparklesPhotoLtd.,2005FC1012,MosleyJ.,July21,2005].
THEFACTS
In1993,thetrade-markNATURE’SCHOICEANDDESIGNwasregisteredforuse
inassociationwithwaresdescribedas“nuts,driedfruits,candiesandpotato
chips”,thetrade-markNATURE’SCHOICEANDDESIGNbecametheproperty
oftheRespondentthoughaseriesofsubsequenttrade-markassignments.
In1999,theAppellantrequestedthattheRegistrarofTrade-Marks(“Registrar”)
issueanoticeunderSection45oftheTrade-marksActthat,amongstothers,
providesthat:uponreceiptofsuchaNotice,atrade-markownermust
provideevidenceofitsuse,inCanada,oftheimpugnedtrade-markin
associationwitheachandeveryoneofthewaresand/orserviceslistedon
theregistration.Furthermore,suchusemusthaveoccurredatanytimeduring
the(3)yearperiodprecedingtheissuanceoftheSection45Notice.Failureto
showusemayleadtheRegistrartoadministrativelyexpungeoramendthe
registration.
TheRegistrar,afterconsideringtheaffidavitevidencetenderedbythe
Respondent,andpursuanttoanoralhearing,determinedthatthe
Respondenthadsatisfactorilyproveduseofitstrade-markNATURE’SCHOICE




























































©CIPS,2005
*Lawyer,theauthorisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmof
lawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.PublishedintheSeptember2005issueofthe
WIPR.Publication142.179.

2
&DESIGNduringtherelevantthreeyearperiodforallofitswares,except
“potatochips”.
AccordingtotheRegistrar,thetrade-markNATURE’SCHOICE&DESIGNhad
beenusedinaformsubstantiallyidenticaltothedesignmark,asregistered.
TheRegistraracknowledgedthattheevidenceshowedthattherehadbeen
achangeinthepackagingin1995andconsequently,themarkhadbeen
modifiedinsofarasanelevenpointmapleleafdesignhadbeenremoved
andtheabbreviation“Co”hadbeenadded.However,theRegistrar
determinedthatthedistinctiveelementsofthetrade-markhadbeen
preserved.ThewordsNATURE’SCHOICEweretheprominentandessential
elementsofthetrade-markandtheyhadbeenpresentandusedthroughout
therelevantthreeyearperiodprecedingtheSection45Notice.TheRegistrar
furtheracknowledgedthatthechangestothetrade-markNATURE’SCHOICE
&DESIGNhadbeenpromptedbyarequestfromagovernmentalauthority
1.
InlightofthisexplanationprovidedbytheRespondent,theRegistrardeemed
thattheRespondentshouldnotbepenalizedformakingchangestoitstrade-
markincompliancewithanofficialrequestandtherefore,suchchangesdid
not,andshouldnot,negativelyaffectthevalidityofthetrade-mark.
TheRegistrarthereforeorderedtheregistrationforthetrade-markNATURES’
CHOICE&DESIGNbemaintained,butamendedtoreflecttheremovalof
“potatochips”fromthelistofwarescoveredbytheregistration.
Marks&ClerkdisagreedwiththedecisionoftheRegistrarandappealedthe
decisiontotheFederalCourtofCanada.
THEFEDERALCOURTJUDGMENT
StandardofReview
ThefirstissuethatJusticeMosleyhadtodecidewastheapplicablestandard
ofreview.
TheappealwasthatofanadministrativedecisionoftheRegistrar:in
determiningtheappropriatestandard,theCourtusedthepragmaticand
functionalanalysisapproach.JusticeMoseleyruledthattheappealbefore
theCourthadbeenbroughtpursuanttoastatutoryrightofappealunder
Section56Trade-marksActandso,lessdeferencetothedecisionofthe



























































1Amongstothers,thegovernmentalauthoritydisagreedwiththepresenceoftheeleven
pointmapleleaf,anofficialemblemofCanada,asitwasusedinassociationwithproducts
thatwereinfactimportedfromothercountries,andthereforenot“madeinCanada”asthe
elevenpointmapleleafcouldsuggesttotheconsumeroftheseproducts…

3
Registrarcouldbeshown.However,theCourtalsoconsideredthenatureof
thequestionsatissue,thehighdegreeofexpertiseoftheRegistrarinrespect
ofissuesunderSection45Trade-marksAct,andtheCourt’sownexpertise
relativetothatoftheRegistrar.JusticeMosleyconcludedthattheappeal
raisedquestionsofmixedfactandlawandthatthegreaterthefact
component,themorethedeferenceshouldbeshowntothedecisionof
Registrar.Inaddition,nonewevidencewasadducedbeforetheFederal
Court:section45Trade-marksActservestoadministrativelyandexpeditiously
cleartheCanadianTrade-marksRegisterofany“unused”trade-marks.
Consequently,onlythetrade-markownerisrequiredandabletofile
evidence.
TheCourtcouldapplyeitherastandardofreviewofcorrectness,and
thereforesubstituteitsowndecisiontothatoftheRegistrar,orastandardof
reasonablenesssimpliciter,wheretheCourtwouldonlyinterveneifthe
Registrarmakesanunreasonablefinding.
Consideringthatastandardofreasonablenesssimpliciterhadbeenapplied
topreviousappealsofSection45proceedingsandconsideringthattherewas
nonewevidence,theCourtconcludedthattheappropriatestandardof
reviewoftheRegistrar’sdecisionwasthatofreasonablenesssimpliciter,which
meantthatJusticeMoseleywouldonlysubstitutehisownfindingstothatof
theRegistrarif,andonlyif,theRegistrar’sdecisionwasnotsupportedbyany
reasonablereasons.
EvidenceandAmendmentstoRegistration
Onappeal,theAppellantarguedthattheelevenpointmapleleaf,which
hadbeenremovedfromtheRespondent’strade-mark,wasaprominent
featureofthemarkanditsremovaldidnotconstituteapermissibledeviation.
TheAppellantinsistedthatthescopeofdeviationpermissibleisnotwide:prior
caselawhadstatedthatonly“cautiousvariationsmaintainingthesame
dominantfeaturesanddifferencessounimportantasnotmisleadand
unawarepurchaser”couldbepermitted
2.
TheCourtreviewedtheaffidavitevidencesubmittedbytheRespondentand
concludedthattheevidencewasclear,unambiguousandreliable.Ashad
theRegistrarbeforehimJusticeMoseleyruledthatallchangestomadetothe
trade-markNATURE’SCHOISEANDDESIGN,asregistered,hadbeenprompted
byarequirementofagovernmentalauthority.Thismattershouldthereforebe
treatedinthesamemannerasthecaseswherelegislationforcesatrade-



























































2PromafilCanadaLtée.v.MunsingwearInc.(1992),44C.P.R.(3d)59(F.C.A.).

4
markownertochangeormodifyitstrade-marktocomplywithsaidlegislation.
Atrade-markownercannotbe“penalized”forcomplyingwiththelaw.
Inanyevent,theCourtfoundthatthechangesmadebytheRespondent
werenotsubstantialenoughtodeceivethepublicinanyway.Therefore,the
CourtruledthattheRegistrarhadappliedthecorrecttest,inlaw,andhad
reasonablyfoundinfactthatthemostsignificantandprincipalfeaturesofthe
markhadbeenpreserved.JusticeMoseleyre-statedthatunderSection45of
theTrade-marksAct,evidenceneednotbeperfect,bymerelysufficientto
showuseduringtherelevantperiod.
TheCourtthereforeruledthata“conservative”revisionofthemarkwasa
“sensiblealternative”toexpungingthetrade-markandheconsequently
dismissedtheappeal,withcoststotheRespondent.
CONCLUSION
Thiscaseisanillustrationoftheimportanceofmonitoringtrade-marksinthe
markettoascertainwhethertheyareusedatall,andifso,iftheyareusedas
registeredThereisafinelinebetweenapermissibleandanon-permissible
variationintheuseofaregisteredtrade-mark.Whenatrade-markowneruses
atrade-markinamannerthatdeviates,evenslightly,fromthetrade-markas
registered,itexposesitselftoexpungementproceedings.
Thecircumstancesofthiscaseshowthatthechangesmadebythe
Respondentwereminorandtheyhadbeenpromptedbyaformalrequest
fromagovernmentalauthority.However,inmostcases,trade-markowners
tendtorevamptheirdesigntrade-marksforcommercialpurposesonly,
especiallyifthemarkshavebeeninuseforalongperiodoftimeandtheir
imageneedstobe“refurbished”.Therearealwaysrisksinmakingchangesto
aregisteredtrade-mark:practitionersshouldforewarntheirclientsthatanew
trade-markfilingmaybewarrantedwhenthereisanevolutionofadesign
trade-marktoensurethatthetrade-markowner’srightsarepreservedforthe
future,andtominimizethetrade-mark’svulnerabilitytoexpungement.It
wouldhavecertainlybeenmuchlessexpensiveforthetrade-markownerin
thismattertofileafreshapplicationforitsupdatedtrade-mark,ratherthan
tryingtopreserveitstrade-markrightsbyrelyingonlyonanoutdateddesign…

5
ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,
industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;
copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;
tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnology
transfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;
prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD