Use of Word in Descriptive Context Does Not Constitute Trade-Mark Use, Federal Court Rules in Trade-Mark Infringement Case

2000-01-01

USEOFWORDINDESCRIPTIVECONTEXTDOESNOTCONSTITUTETRADE-MARK
USE,FEDERALCOURTRULESINTRADE-MARKINFRINGEMENTCASE

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
ArecentdecisionoftheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanada
indicatedthataregisteredtrade-markwillnotnecessarilybedeemed
infringedifthesamewordwhichconstitutesthetrade-markappearson
anotherparty’sproducts,inadescriptivecontext(PepperKingLtd.vsLoblaws
Inc.etal,T-2351-93,September7,2000(FederalCourt,TrialDivision,Dawson,
J.)).
PlaintiffPepperKingLtd.wastheownerofthetrade-markVOLCANOusedin
CanadasinceAugust1991inassociationwithahotpeppersauce;itwasa
smallcorporation(operatingoutofWilberforce,Ontario)whichhadbeen
sellingitshotpeppersauceatvariousfleamarkets;itssaleswerenot
considerable.Notwithstandingitsmodestactivities,Plaintiffcausedtobefiled
anapplicationtoregisterthetrade-markVOLCANOwiththeCanadian
Trade-marksOfficeinAugust1992.Registrationofthistrade-markwas
securedonAugust20,1993inassociationwithahotpeppersauce.
DefendantLoblawsInc.andotherLoblaws-relatedcompaniesnamedby
PlaintiffinitssuitarepartofCanada’slargestfooddistributor.LoblawsInc.also
operatesretailoutletsspecializinginthesaleoffoodproducts.SinceMay
1992,Defendantspromotedandsoldsalsainjarswithlabelswhichpresented
theword”volcano”.Thesalsaproductswhichexhibitedtheword”volcano”
werepartofalinehavingdifferentdegreesofhotnessorspiciness.These
degreeswere”extramild”,”mild”,”hot”and”volcano”.
Onceregistrationofthetrade-markVOLCANOwassecured,Plaintiffinitiated
itssuitagainstLoblawsInc.andtheotherDefendantsinOctober1993.
ThefollowingfactswereputintoevidencebeforetheCourt:Defendant
Loblawswastheownerofthetrade-marksLAELECCIONDELPRESIDENTE,
PRESIDENT’SCHOICE,PRESIDENT’SCHOICE&Design,PCandPCScript.These

trade-markswererecognizedacrossCanadaasofMay1992andrecognized
byretailshoppersasbeingprivatelabelbrandsofLoblawssoldinitsretail
outlets.Loblaws’salsaexhibitingtheword”volcano”hadalwaysbeensold
exclusivelythroughLoblaws’normalwholesaleretaildistributingchannelsfor
resaletothegeneralpublic.Thesalsawasalsosoldinassociationwiththe
trade-markLAELECCIONDELPRESIDENTEalongwiththePCScript.Loblaws’
salsaexhibitingtheword”volcano”wasdisplayedforsaleonshelvesinits
retailstores,immediatelyadjacentto,orabove,orbelow,theotherLoblaws
salsaproductshavingotherhotnesslevels(seepar.24to28).
Initsaction,PlaintiffreliedinpartonSubsection20(1)ofCanada’sTrade-mark
Act(R.S.C.1985,c.T-13)whichprovidesinpartthat”therightoftheownerof
aregisteredtrade-marktoitsexclusiveuseshallbedeemedtobeinfringed
byapersonnotentitledtoitsuseunderthisActwhosells,distributesor
advertiseswaresorservicesinassociationwithaconfusingtrade-markor
trade-name…”.
InresponsetoPlaintiff’ssuit,Loblawsarguedinitsdefencethatuseofthe
word”volcano”onitssalsaproductwasnotatrade-markuseand
consequentlynotausefallingunderthedeemingprovisionofSubsection
20(1).TheCourtthereforehadtodecidewhetherLoblaws’useoftheword
“volcano”inthecontextdescribedabovequalifiedasuseofatrade-mark.
TodecidewhetherornotLoblawshadusedtheword”volcano”asatrade-
mark,theCourtdiscountedtheapparentintentofLoblaws’employeeswho
hadcausedatrade-marksearchfortheword”volcano”tobedonein1992
butratherexaminedthemessagegiventotheconsumingpublicbythe
labelsputoutbyLoblawsonitssalsa.TheCourtwrotethefollowing:”whatis
themessagegivenbytheuseoftheword”volcano”byLoblawsinthe
contextofitssalsa?Specifically,doestheuseoftheword”volcano”
distinguishtheproductascomingfromaparticularsource?Afteracareful
reviewofthewholeoftheevidencebeforeme,Ihaveconcludedthatthe
effectoftheword”volcano”asusedinLoblaws’salsalabelistodistinguishthe
degreeofspicinessoftheproductandnottoidentifythesalsaascoming
fromanyparticularsource.”(atpar.56and57).
ThefollowingLoblaws’advertisementofJune1992wasillustrativeofthispoint:
“Ifyoufindthe”Hot”versionofourLaElecciondelPresidenteSalsaPicante
tootame,thenthe”Volcano”isthechoiceforyou.OurNEW”VOLCANO”
versionofLaElecciondelPresidenteSalsaPicanteishotterthan”Hot”.
CONSIDERYOURSELFWARNED!!Fansofourpopular”Hot”and”Mild”salsas
neednotfear–theyremainunchanged.(Whychangethetwosalsasthat
havemadeLaElecciondelPresidentethe#1–sellingsalsainCanada?!)
Instead,we’veaddedTWONEWSALSAStoour”fierysquad”.Alongwiththe

new”Volcano”salsa,we’reintroducingNEWEXTRAMILD,forgringoswho
haven’tyettriedsalsabecausetheyfearit’stoohottohandle.”(atpar.61).
IntheCourt’sview,thevariousadvertisingandlabellingoftheproductswould
invitethepublictoviewtheword”volcano”assimplyadegreeonascaleof
spicinessofLoblaws’salsaandnotanindicationastothesourceofthat
product.
Inaddition,Loblaws’varioussalsaproductswerealwaysidentifiedbytheuse
ofLoblaws’trade-markLaElecciondelPresidentewiththePCScriptdesign.
Finally,theCourtconcludedthattheword”volcano”wasalwaysusedin
associationwithotherdescriptivewordssuchas”natural”and”chunky”onthe
labels.Again,thesewordswereseenassimplydescriptiveoftheproductand
notindicativeofitssource.
Basedonthesefindings,theCourtconcludedthattheDefendantshadnot
infringedPlaintiff’sVOLCANOtrade-markanddismissedPepperKingLtd.’ssuit.
TheCourt’sdecisionappearstohavecautionaryaspects:whenassessingthe
meritsofatrade-markinfringementactionagainstanentitywhois
apparently”using”aRegistrant’swordtrade-markonsimilargoods,theCourt
canexamineinwhatcontexttheword-whichhappenstobearegistered
trade-mark–isbeingused.Useofsuchwordbyanotherpartyonsimilar
productsbutinadescriptivecontextmightnotleadtoafindingof
infringement.
Publishedat(2000),14W.I.P.R.353-354underthetitleUseofWordina
DescriptiveContextDoesNotConstituteTrade-MarksUse.
LEGERROBICRICHARD,2000.

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