“Use” in Association with Services: They must be Performed in Canada, Federal Court Rules

1
“USE”INASSOCIATIONWITHSERVICES:THEYMUSTBEPERFORMEDINCANADA,
FEDERALCOURTRULES

StellaSyrianos*
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
TheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadarecentlyupheldthe
Registrar’sdecisions(i)indismissingtheApplicant’sapplicationtoregisterthe
trade-markEXPRESSFILE,afterfindingthatitstrade-markwasnotusedin
associationwithelectronictaxfilingservicesand(ii)indismissingitsopposition
torespondent’sapplicationforthetrade-markEXPRESSH&RBLOCKin
associationwithelectronicfilingoftaxreturnsinCanada,furthertoappeals
launchedbytheApplicantpursuanttosubsection56(1)ofCanada©sTrade-
marksAct,(R.S.C.1985,c.T-13)(ExpressFileInc.Inc.v.HRBRoyalty,T-241-02
andT-1059-02,April21,2005,Beaudry,J.).
Thefacts
OnNovember21,1995,HRBRoyaltyInc.(“HRB”)filedanapplicationtoregister
thetrade-markEXPRESSFILEH&RBLOCK(TMO797,808)fortheelectronic
filingoftaxreturnsinCanada.
OnAugust20,1996,ExpressFileInc.(“ExpressFile”)filedanapplicationto
registerthetrade-markEXPRESSFILE(TMO821,155)inassociationwith
electronictaxfilingservices.ExpressFileownsthetrade-markEXPRESSFILEin
theUnitesStatesforelectronictaxfilingsintheU.S.,registeredonMarch3,
1992(no.1,677,866).
OnDecember17,1996,ExpressFilefiledaStatementofOppositiontoHRB’s
applicationforthetrade-markEXPRESSFILEH&RBLOCK.Thisproceedingwas
rejectedbytheTrade-MarksOppositionBoardonDecember7,2001and
appealedbyExpressFileonFebruary14,2002.



















































CIPS,2005.*Lawyer,isamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,and
patentandtrademarkagents.PublishedintheMay2005issueoftheWIPR.Publication
142.175.

2
OnApril29,1997,HRBfiledaStatementofOppositiontoExpressFile’s
application.ThehearingwasheldonDecember7,2001andonMay9,2002,
theTrade-MarksOppositionBoardrefuseditsapplication.ExpressFile
appealedthisdecisiononJuly9,2002.
Standardofreview
ExpressFilefiledadditionalevidenceonappeal.However,theCourt
concludedthatthisadditionalevidencewasamererepetitionofthe
evidencepresentedbeforetheRegistrarwhichcouldnothavematerially
affectedthedecisionmakers.Assuch,theCourtappliedthereasonableness
standardofreview.
Issuetobedetermined
TheCourtaddressedthefollowingquestion:wastheapplicant’strade-mark
EXPRESSFILE“used”withinthemeaningoftheActinassociationwithservices
onelectronictaxfilingonorbeforetherelevantdate,namelyJanuary31,
1992?
“Use”inassociationwithservices
IndeterminingifExpressFilehaduseditstrade-markinCanada,theCourt
summarizedtheevidenceadducedasfollows.TheEXPRESSFILEelectronictax
filingserviceshadbeenavailableintheUnitedStatessince1990.Between
1990and1995,theEXPRESSFILEservicewasmadeavailabletocustomers
throughU.S.bankorcreditunionsbutnoCanadianinstitutionwasinvolved.
Moreover,theEXPRESSFILEservicewasnotofferedforthefilingofCanadian
taxreturns.
OneoftheinterestingpointsintheevidencewasthatExpressFileprovided
thebanksandcreditunionswithcounterdisplayandpromotionalmaterial
butthelatterwereresponsiblefortheirownmarketing.ThePresidentof
ExpressFilestatedinhisaffidavitthatitwaspossiblethatbanksandcredit
unionsclosetotheCanadianbordercouldhaveCanadianclientsand
testifiedthatpromotionalmaterialsweresenttoCanadianslivinginCanada
becausebankandcreditunionsmailedtheinformationtoalloftheir
depositors,includingCanadians.However,hewasunabletoprovidea
percentageofpromotionaladvertisingcostsattributedtopromotingthe
EXPRESSFILEserviceinCanadaasitwasthebanksandthecreditunions
responsibleforthepromotion.
ExpressFilealsoallegedthatU.S.banksencouragedcustomerstousethe
EXPRESSFILEservicebymailingout,onseveraloccasions,informationtotheir

3
customers,includingthoselocatedinCanada.Furthermore,Canadianclients
whofrequentedU.SbanksorU.ScreditunionswereexposedtotheEXPRESS
FILEpromotionalmaterialsandwereentitledtousethisserviceformakingtax
filingswiththeIRS.Customerswereinvitedtoeitherbringtheircompletedtax
filingkitbacktothebankortomailthekitsdirectlytothebanks’office.
However,therewasneveraprocessingcentreinCanadanorwastherean
officeinCanada.
Lastly,theevidencedemonstratedthatinorderforCanadianstousethe
EXPRESSFILEelectronicfilingservice,theyneededaU.S.returnmailingaddress
sincethesoftwaresystemcouldnotrecognizealphanumericdigitsand
absolutelyrequiredaU.S.postalcode.
Thedecision
Inlightoftheforegoingelements,theCourtopinedthattherewasno
evidencedemonstratingthattheEXPRESSFILEservicewasadvertisedin
Canadanorwasthereanyconcreteevidencethatitwasusedandknownby
Canadiansattherelevantdate.TheCourtstatedthattheaffidavitsproduced
byExpressFilerevealedalackofevidenceofactualuseandadvertising.The
CourtdisagreedwithExpressFile’scontentionthatbecausesomeoftheU.S.
institutionsthathavealicencetousetheEXPRESSFILEservicealsohave
Canadianscustomers,asaresult,Canadianswereawareoftheexistenceof
saidservice.
TheCourtfurthermaintainedthattherewasnoevidencethattheEXPRESSFILE
serviceswereadvertisedinCanadainnewspapers,magazinesorthatdirect
mailadvertisingofsaidserviceswassenttoCanadians.Moreover,no
promotionalmaterialsweredirectlyprovidedforpromotioninCanadanor
wereCanadianresidentsdirectlytargeted.Therefore,atbest,theevidence
illustratedthattheonlyCanadiansthatmighthavebeenawareofthe
EXPRESSFILEserviceweretheoneswhohappenedtodealwithU.S.financial
institutions.
Moreimportantly,theCourtheldthatevenifEXPRESSFILEservicehadbeen
advertisedinCanada,itwasnotofferedinCanadasinceinordertothis
service,aCanadianwasrequiredtonotonlytofilloutthekitbuttoalsodrop
sameathisorherU.S.bankormailitbacktoit.
Basedonitsfindingofno“use”ofthetrade-markinCanada,theCourt
dismissedbothappeals.

4

Conclusion
Itistritelawthatwithregardstoservices,“use”cannotbeestablishedby
mereadvertisingofamarkcoupledwithperformanceoftheservices
elsewhere;theservicesmustbeperformedinCanada.TheCourt’sdecisionis
astarkreminderofthisprincipleinthatthecriteriaregarding“use”ofatrade-
markinassociationwithservicesarenotmutuallyexclusive.Asaresult,
practitionersshouldadviseclientsseekingtrade-markprotectionin
associationwithservicesastotheimportanceofensuringtheirservicesare
offeredinCanada.

5
ROBIC,ungrouped©avocatsetd©agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsd©origine;droitsd©auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel©artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu©ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentand
trademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthe
valorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsand
utilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;
copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;
computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competition
andanti-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,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD