Twenty-seven years later, Federal Court allows challenge to official mark in Princess Group Case

2009-01-01

TWENTY-SEVENYEARSLATER,FEDERALCOURTALLOWS
CHALLENGETOOFFICIALMARKINPRINCESSGROUPCASE
BARRYGAMACHE*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,LLP
LAWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS
ForthoseinterestedintheextensiverightsgrantedbyofficialmarksinCanada,a
recentdecisionbyCanada’sFederalCourthasallowedachallengeagainstanofficial
markdecadesafterpublicnoticewasgivenofitsadoptionanduse(PrincessGroup
Inc.etal.v.CanadianStandardsAssociation,2009FC926(F.C.,HarringtonJ.,
September17,2009)).
OfficialmarksareaparticularityofCanadianTrade-markLaw.Undersubparagraph
9(1)(n)(iii)ofCanada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13(the“Act”)noperson
shalladoptinconnectionwithabusiness,asatrade-markorotherwise,anymark
consistingof,orsonearlyresemblingastobelikelytobemistakenforanybadge,
crest,emblemormarkadoptedandusedbyanypublicauthority,inCanadaasan
officialmarkforwaresorservices,inrespectofwhichtheRegistrarhas,atthe
requestofthepublicauthority,givenpublicnoticeofitsadoptionanduse.
Onlypublicauthoritiescanobtaintherightsgrantedundersubparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)
fortheirofficialmarks.Inordertoberecognizedasa“publicauthority”,anentitymust
besubjecttogovernmentcontrolandmustengageinactivitiesthatbenefitthepublic
(UnitedStatesPostalServicev.CanadaPostCorporation,2007FCA10(F.C.A.)).
Animportanteffectofthegivingofpublicnoticeundersubparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)is
that,fromthatdate,otherpersonsarepreventedfromusinganymark“asatrade-
markorotherwise”thatislikelytobemistakenfortheofficialmark,exceptin
connectionwithgoodsandserviceswithwhichthemarkwasusedbeforethepublic
noticewasgivenoftheofficialmark(OntarioAssociationofArchitectsv.Association
ofArchitecturalTechnologistsofOntario,2002FCA218(F.C.A.),paragraph34).
Moreover,theRegistrarmaynotrefusetogivepublicnoticeoftheadoptionanduse
ofamarkasanofficialmarkforwaresorservicesonanyofthegroundsthatwould
beraisedwhenexamininganapplicationforanordinarytrade-mark.Infact,the
Registrarhasvirtuallynodiscretiontorefusetogivenoticeoftheadoptionanduseof
©CIPS,2009.*LawyerandTrade-markagent,BarryGamacheisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,a
multidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,patentandtrade-markagents.Publishedina2009issueofthe
WorldIntellectualPropertyReport.Publication142.229.

2
amarkasanofficialmarkoncethestatutorycriteriaofsubparagraph9(1)(n)(iii)have
beenmet(OntarioAssociationofArchitectsv.AssociationofArchitectural
TechnologistsofOntario,2002FCA218(F.C.A.),paragraph34).
Therehasbeenconsiderableuncertaintyregardingmeanstochallengethe
Registrar’sdecisiontogivepublicnoticeoftheadoptionanduseofamarkasan
officialmark.InPrincessGroupInc.,Mr.JusticeHarringtonunderlinedtheprevalent
viewincaselawthatanofficialmarkcanbechallengedinanapplicationforjudicial
review.However,accordingtosection18.1oftheFederalCourtsAct,R.S.C.1985,c.
F-7,anapplicationforjudicialreviewinrespectofadecisionsuchastheonemade
bytheRegistrarmustbecarriedoutwithinthirtydaysafterthetimethedecisionis
firstcommunicatedtothepartydirectlyaffectedbyit.Oneissueraisedbyachallenge
undersection18.1oftheFederalCourtsActagainstanofficialmarkisthatthereis
nodecisionthatis“communicated”bytheRegistrartothepartywho,oneday,might
beaffectedbyit.Moreover,ithasbeenunderstoodthatchallengestoofficialmarks
shouldbecommencedveryshortlyaftertheRegistrargivesthenoticeof
subparagraph9(1)(n)(iii),thatiswithinthirtydaysofthenoticeorwithinanyextended
deadlinegrantedbytheCourtoncethepartyaffectedbythenoticebecomesaware
ofit.ThecasebeforetheCourtinPrincessGroupchallengedsomewhatthis
assumptionbecauseofthetimelapsedsincethenoticewasfirstgiven.
In1982,theRegistrarofTrade-marksgavepublicnoticeundersubparagraph
9(1)(n)(iii)oftheTrade-marksActoftheadoptionandusebytheCanadianStandards
AssociationofthemarkCSAasanofficialmarkforitsservices.Upuntil2009,the
publicnoticegivenfortheCSAofficialmarkstoodunchallenged.
In2007,theCanadianStandardsAssociationgavenoticetoPrincessGroupInc.and
PrincessAutoLtd.(hereafter“Princess”)ofallegedinfractionsbyPrincesstoits
“regular”registeredtrade-markCSAbutnot,however,toitsofficialmarkcomposedof
thesameletters.Inearly2009,theCanadianStandardsAssociationforwardedto
Princessadraftstatementofclaim,againwithoutreferencetoitsofficialmark.Infact,
PrincesswasputonnoticethattheCanadianStandardsAssociationwasrelyingon
itsofficialmarkCSAonlyupontheissuanceandserviceofitsstatementofclaim,
bothonApril23,2009.Thereafter,onJune1,2009,thirty-eightdaysafterserviceof
thestatementofclaim,Princesslauncheditsapplicationforjudicialreviewofthe
Registrar’s1982decisiontogivepublicnoticeoftheCSAofficialmark.
TheCanadianStandardsAssociationchallengedPrincess’applicationandtookthe
positionthatthatlatterwasonsufficientnoticeasearlyas2007tobecome,atthat
time,directlyaffectedbytheRegistrar’s1982decision.TheCourtrejectedthis
argumentwritingthattheCanadianStandardsAssociationneverreferredtoitsofficial
markin2007butratherdidsoonlyonApril23,2009.Moreover,the1982decision
wasnevercommunicatedbytheRegistrartoPrincess.WhilePrincesstookmore
thanthirtydays(thirty-eightdays,actually)tochallengetheofficialmark,theCourt

3
allowedashortextension“todojusticebetweentheparties”.Moreover,theCourt
notedthatattackingthepublicationofanofficialmarkbywayofjudicialreviewis
certainlynotanobviouswaytoproceedsinceajudicialreviewaimsatchallenging,
forexample,adecisionbytheRegistrarofTrade-marksthatis“communicated”toa
thirdparty,aneventthatdoesnotoccurwhenpublicnoticeofadoptionanduseofan
officialmarkisgivenbytheRegistrar.
ThisrecentdecisionbytheFederalCourthighlightsthedifficultiesandlimitsin
challengingofficialmarksastheTrade-marksActdoesnotmentionthistypeof
action.Ajudicialreviewnowappearstobethevehicleofchoicetochallengean
officialmark,evenseveralyearsafterapublicnoticeofadoptionandusehasbeen
givenbytheRegistrar.Forthetimebeing,officialmarksappearlessinvulnerable
thantheyoncewere.

4
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevouédepuis1892à
laprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessins
industrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellations
d’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;
informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;
secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;
commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,
litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotection
andthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;
trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsand
performers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,
franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicity
andlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHE
WORLD