U.S. Decision in Jones V. Clinton Relied Upon by Federal Court in Summary Dismissal of I.P. Case
U.S.DECISIONINJONESV.CLINTONRELIEDUPONBYFEDERALCOURTIN
SUMMARYDISMISSALOFI.P.CASE
By
BarryGamache
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
ArecentdecisionoftheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadahas
reviewedtheissueofsummaryjudgmentsunderRule216ofthenewFederal
CourtRules,1998,S.O.R./98-106whichcameintoforceonApril25,1998(F.
VonLangsdorffLicensingLimited-vs-S.F.ConcreteTechnology,Inc.,T-335-97,
April8,1999(Evans,J.,F.C.T.D.)).
PlaintiffF.VonLangsdorffLicensingLimited(“Langsdorff”)istheownerofthe
trade-markUNIECO-STONEinCanadainassociationwithpavingstones;this
trade-markhasbeeninusesince1990,andin1992,Langsdorffsecuredits
registration.In1996,S.F.ConcreteTechnology,Inc.(“ConcreteTechnology”)
advertisedpavingstonesunderthetrade-markSF-ECO;italsosolicited
licenseestomanufactureorsellstonesunderthistrade-mark.
WhenLangsdorffbecameawareofConcreteTechnology’sadvertising,it
filedastatementofclaimbeforeCanada’sFederalCourtallegingtrade-mark
infringementbyConcreteTechnology.Astheproceedingswereinitiated,
ConcreteTechnologyceasedanddesistedfromfurtheruseofthetrade-mark
SF-ECO.ConcreteTechnologybroughtamotionseekingasummary
judgmentunderRule216oftheFederalCourtRules,1998seekingadismissal
ofLangsdorff’sstatementofclaimallegingthat”thereisnogenuineissuefor
trialwithrespectto”plaintiff’sstatementofclaim.Rule216readsinpart:
“whereonamotionforsummaryjudgmenttheCourtissatisfiedthatthereis
nogenuineissuefortrialwithrespecttoaclaimordefence,theCourtshall
grantsummaryjudgmentaccordingly”.
TheCourtwasprovidedwithfactualinformationconcerningtheparties’
activities:Neithertheplaintiffnorthedefendantmanufacturednormarketed
goodsbutofferedlicensestootherstodosothrougheachparty’sIPrights.
Bothparties’productswereinterlockingconcretepavingstoneswhichshare
animportantfeature,namelypermeability.
InorderfordefendanttosucceedinitsmotionunderRule216,theCourt
remindedthepartiesthatConcreteTechnologyhadtheburdenof
establishingthatalltherelevantissuescouldbeproperlydecidedonthe
evidencebeforetheCourt,andthattherewerenoissuesthatcouldonly
fairlyberesolvedafteratrial.Amotionforsummaryjudgmentshouldbenot
begrantedwhentherearequestionsoffactsthatturnoncredibilityorwhen
conflictingevidencemustbeweighedandassessed.
Whenshouldamotionforasummaryjudgmentbegranted?TheCourt
referredtotherecentdecisionoftheOntarioCourtofAppealinDawson-vs-
RexcraftStorageandWarehouseInc.(1998),164D.L.R.(4th)257,at271,
whereBorinsJ.A.adoptedatestwhichwasdescribedintheU.S.caseof
Jones–vs-ClintonandFerguson,990F.Supp.657,679(1998)(U.S.Dist.Ct.,E.
Dist.Ark.):”…therecordtakenasawholecouldnotleadarationaltrierof
facttofindforthenon-movingpartyandtheCourtthereforefindsthatthere
arenogenuineissuesfortrialinthiscase”.
InthecasebeforetheCourt,couldarationaltrieroffactfindfortheplaintiff
Langsdorff?TheCourtreviewedtheplaintiff’sallegations:Langsdorff
complainedthatConcreteTechnologyhadinfringeditsrighttotheexclusive
useofthetrade-markUNIECO-STONEbyusingthemarkSF-ECOinrespectof
similargoods.ThisleadtheCourttodeterminewhethertheplaintiffwas
entitledtoamonopolyinCanadaregardingtheuseoftheword”eco”in
connectionwithpermeableconcretepavingstones.Thisalsoinvitedthe
question:Arethetrade-marksUNIECO-STONEandSF-ECOconfusing?
Inpresentingitsmotion,defendantConcreteTechnologyarguedthatthe
prefixorterm”eco”isnotinherentlydistinctivebecauseitiswidelyusedin
bothpopularandtechnicalcontextstomeanwhatrelatestoecologyortoa
naturalenvironment.Evidencewassubmittedofthegenericuseoftheword
“eco”intheexpressions”ecopavers”or”ecopaving”usedintheindustryto
refertopermeablepavingstonesgenerically,andnottotheplaintiff’s
productinparticular.ThisevidencesatisfiedtheCourtthattheterm”eco”in
theCanadianconstructionindustrydidnotrefersolelytoplaintiff’spermeable
concretepavingstonesunderitstrade-markUNIECO-STONE.
TheCourtaddedthatnoissueofcredibilityhadtobeassessedinorderto
concludethatUNIECO-STONEisaweaktrade-mark:”…whenusedin
associationwithconcretepavingstonesinCanada,theterm”eco”ismuch
morestronglyassociatedwiththeattractivefeatureofpermeabilitythanitis
secondarilyassociatedwiththeplaintiff’sstones,orevenpavingstonesfroma
singlesource.”.Additionally,theevidencerevealedthatthepurchasersofthe
parties’pavingstoneswerelikelytoberelativelysophisticated.
Reviewingtheevidencesubmittedasawholeandconsideringthatnoissue
ofcredibilitywasinvolved,theCourtconcludedthatthedefendanthad
dischargeditsonusofdemonstratingthattherewerenofactualissuesthat
requiredatrialfortheirfairresolution.
InlinewiththereasoningexpressedbytheU.S.CourtinJones-vs-Clinton,the
Court’sdecisionprovidesanillustrationofhowamotionforsummary
judgmentmaybeusedbyadefendanttodefeataplaintiff’sclaiminthefield
ofIntellectualProperty:Norationaltrieroffactwouldfindforthenon-moving
party.
Publishedat(1999),13WorldIntellectualPropertyReport256-257.
LEGERROBICRICHARD,1999.
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.
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;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD