Use of Variant of Registered Mark Precludes Finding of Abandonment


U.S.LAWASSISTSCOURTINFINDINGTHATREGISTEREDTRADE-MARK,USEDINA
VARIANTFORM,WASNOTDEEMEDABANDONED

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
ArecentdecisionofCanada’sFederalCourtofAppealhasprovidedfurther
guidelinesindeterminingwhetheruseofadesignmarkwhichvariesfromthe
formunderwhichitisregisteredunderCanada’sTrade-MarkAct,1985R.C.S.
c.T-13willconstituteuseoftheregisteredtrade-mark.TheCourtconcluded
thatuseofavariantmarkwillbeassimilatedtouseoftheregisteredmark,
providedthatthecontinuingcommercialimpressionremainsthesame.
(MunsingwearInc.v.PromafilCanadaLtéeNo.A-235-90,July8,1992).
ApplicantPromafilCanadaLtée(“Promafil”)appliedfortheexpungementof
MunsingwearInc.’s(“Munsingwear”)designtrade-markunderSection18(1)of
theTrade-MarksAct,ontheground,interalia,ofabandonment.TheTrial
JudgewhoheardPromafil’sapplicationheldforexpungement(reportedat
(1990)29C.P.R.(3d)391).
Onappeal,theCourtreviewedthefactsandissuesraisedbythecase:in
1977,Munsingwear’slicensee,Stanfield’sLimited,appliedtoregisterunderthe
Trade-MarksActamarkwhichconsistedintherepresentationofapenguinfor
usewithsportshirtsandwalkingshorts.Thisapplicationmaturedto
registrationin1981,undernumberTMA261,104,followingwhich,itwas
assignedfromStanfield’sLimitedtoMunsingwearwhileStanfield’sLimitedwas
recordedasaregistereduser.
Overtheyears,Munsingwear’slicenseediversifieditsclothingproductssold
undertheaforementionedtrade-marktocoversweatersin1978andsocksin
1982.However,duringtheearly1980’s,apparentlybecauseitrealizedthat
thetrade-markitwasusingonitswaresslightlydifferedfromthemarkunderits
registeredform,MunsingwearappliedonJune28,1985toregisterthealtered
versionofitstrade-mark,whichwasstillpendingwhentheCourtofAppeal
rendereditsdecisiononJuly8,1992.
Thetwoversionsofthetrade-markwerereferredtobytheTrialJudgeasthe
“slimpenguin”markandthe”corpulentpenguin”mark.Therepresentationof


theslimpenguinwasfoundnottohavebeenusedsince1982.Consequently,
inordertodetermineifthetrade-markregisteredunderNo.TMA261,104(the
“slimpenguin”)wasindeedabandonedbyMunsingwearin1982,theCourt
wouldhavetodecideifuseofthecorpulentpenguintrade-markcouldbe
assimilatedtotheuseoftheslimpenguintrade-mark.Determinationofthis
issuewouldresolvethequestionofabandonmentofthetrade-mark
registeredunderNo.TMA261,104.
TheTrialJudge,Mrs.JusticeReed,hadconcludedforabandonmentwhen
shewrote:”Inmyview,thevisualimpactofthetwodesignsaresufficiently
differentthatIcouldnotconcludethatoneismerelyavariantoftheotheror
thatanunawarepurchaserwouldconcludetheydenotedthesameorigin…
SinceIdonotfindthatthecorpulentpenguinisamerevariantofthe
registeredpenguindesign(theslimpenguin),theapplicanthasproventhat
themarkisnolongerinuseinCanada”.
However,theFederalCourtofAppeal,underthepenofMr.Justice
MacGuigan,tookadifferentview.Indoingso,itreviewedthesimilaritiesand
dissimilaritiesoftheslimpenguintrade-markandthecorpulentpenguintrade-
mark:”Therespondentallegedthatthereproductionsaresufficientlydifferent
toconstitutedifferenttrademarksbecauseofthefollowingdifferences:(1)
theheadisroundintheearlierrepresentation,ovalinthelater;(2)thebeakin
theformerisasinglelineofequalthicknessthroughout,andlinkedtotheeye
whereasthelatterislightlyhooked;(3)thelaterpenguiniswearingabowtie,
whiletheearlieroneisnot;(4)theolderpenguinseemstobewearinga
jacket,theneweroneashirtfrontheldinplacebytwobuttons;(5)thelimbs
ofthecorpulentpenguinaremorerealistic,whereasthoseoftheslimpenguin
rathersuggestthesleevesofatoo-largejacket;and(6)therightfootofthe
firstdesignseemstobewebbed,theleftfootnot,andconverselyintheother
design.”
“Inmyopinionthesedifferencesdoexist.Thequestioniswhethertheyare
sufficienttomakethetwotrademarkssubstantiallydifferent.”
“Theappellantcontendedthatthedominantfeaturesoftheregisteredmark
havebeenpreservedbyitsmorecorpulentdepiction:(1)bothformsshow
theoutlineofapenguin;(2)bothformsshowfront-elevationalviewsofa
penguin;(3)bothpenguinsarestanding;(4)botharelookingtotheleft;(5)
bothhavetheirarmsandlegsoutstretched;and(6)botharewearinga
tuxedo.Inshort,bothformsshowafancifulline-drawingofaspread-eagled
penguinwearingaformalvest.Thisanalysisalsoappearstobeaccurate.
Which,then,shouldprevail?”
TheCourtreferredtoSection7(e)oftheLanhamAct,15U.S.C.§1057(e)
whichpermitsamendmentstoregistration,providedtheydonotalter


materiallythecharacterofthemark.QuotingfromGilson,Trademark
ProtectionandPracticevol.I(1991),at4-62to4-64andDreyfusFund
Incorporationv.TheRoyalBankofCanada,525F.Supp.1108(1981),the
CourtconcludedthatU.S.lawrequires”themaintenanceofthesame
continuingcommercialimpression”forpermittedamendment.
Afterreviewofthemarksatissue,theCourtofAppealsetasidethedecision
oftheTrialJudgeandconcludedthatthetrade-markregisteredunderTMA
261,104wasstillinuse:”Lookingatthefactsofthiscaseinthelightofthe
Canadianlaw,whichemphasizesthemaintenanceofidentityand
recognizabilityandthepreservationofdominantfeatures,Icanrespectfully
concludeonlythattheTrialJudgecommittedapalpableandoverridingerror
infindingthatthevisualimpactofthetwodesignsissubstantiallydifferent.
MyconclusionwouldnotbeweakenedifIweretotakeaccountofthe
Americanstandardof”thesame,continuingcommercialimpression”.”
“Thetwodesignsaredifferent,admittedly,butinmyopiniontheydifferonlyin
pettydetails.Thedominantimpressioncreatedbythedominantfeaturesin
bothdesignsisthatofaspread-eagled,formallydressedpenguin,withhead,
beakandlimbsturnedsimilarly.”
Thisdecisionisinterestinginthatitreferredtothespecificprovisionsfor
amendmentofatrade-markregistration,whichexistintheU.S.Although
Canadianlawmayacceptvariantsofamarkfromitsregisteredform,asitdid
inthiscase(intheabsenceofanyamendmentprocess),thepracticedoes
seemmoredangerousnorthofthebordersince,astheCourtindicated,with
everyvariationtheownerofatrade-markisplayingwithfire.
Publishedat(1992),6W.I.P.R.237-238underthetitleUseofVariantof
RegisteredMarkPrecludsFindingofAbandonment.
LEGERROBICRICHARD,1992.





ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
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.Ideaslive
here.
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