When a copy does not constitute passing off

W
HENACOPYDOESNOTCONSTITUTEPASSINGOFF

CATHERINEBERGERON*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADEMARKAGENTS
T-RexVéhiculesInc.v.6155235CanadaInc.2008QCCA947(QuebecCourtof
Appeal,JacquesChamberlandJ.C.A.,FranceThibaultJ.C.A.andLorneGiroux
J.C.A.)

1.Factualbackground
Since2004,theappellant,throughalicencegrantedbyCampagnaMotoSportInc.,
hastheexclusiverighttomanufacture,commercializeandsellthree-wheelvehicles
underthetrade-markT-Rex.TheframeandbodyoftheT-Rexvehicle,whichhave
beendesignedbyanindustrialdesignerspecializedinautobodyparts,werenever
registeredundertheTrade-marksAct,theCopyrightAct,theIndustrialDesignAct
northePatentAct.
In2005,therespondentbeganmanufacturingthree-wheelvehicles,almostidentical
totheT-Rex,commercializedunderthetrade-markG-2.Itisnotcontestedthatthe
G-2vehiclehasbeendesignedfromausedT-Rexmould.
2.Leadinglegalprinciples
IthasclearlybeenrecognizedbytheSupremeCourtofCanadainConsumers
DistributingCo.v.Seiko[1984]1S.C.R.583thatthecommonlawprinciplesrelatingto
commerceandtradegenerallyproceedonthebasisofarecognitionofperceivedbenefitstothe
communityfromfreeandfaircompetition.However,thereareexceptionstothisgeneralrulewherethe
lawimposesrestrictionsonthisrighttofreecompetitionandtrade.Forinstance,Canadianlaw
condemnstrade-markinfringementintwoways:theexclusiverightofaregistered
trade-markownertouseitstrade-markbyvirtueofSections19,20and22ofthe
Trade-marksAct(whichdonotapplyinthepresentcaseinabsenceoftrade-mark
registration),and,incaseofunfaircompetition,thepassingoffaction(Section7of

©CIPS,2008.*Lawyer,CatherineBergeronisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirm
oflawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.PublishedintheJuneIssueofWorldTrademarkLaw
Report.Publication293.053

2
theTrade-marksActandcivilliabilityactionbasedonSection1457oftheCivilCode
ofQuebec).
InCiba-GeigyCanadaLtdv.ApotexInc.[1992]3S.C.R.120,theSupremeCourtof
Canadaexpressedthreeconditionsnecessarytoasuccessfulpassingoffaction:the
existenceofgoodwill,deceptionofthepublicduetoamisrepresentationandactualorpotentialdamageto
theplaintiff.
Beforeexaminingthequestionwhetherthedefendantsareliableofpassingoff,the
QuebecCourtofAppeal(majorityjudgementdeliveredbyJusticeThibault)analysed
whethertheappellanthasavalidtrade-markrighttorelyon.
3.Theprotectionofdistinguishingguise
JusticeThibault,forthereasonshereinaftersetforth,isoftheviewthatthebody
andframeoftheT-RexvehicleconstituteadistinguishingguisepursuanttoSection
2oftheTrade-marksAct.However,basedondifferentgroundsthanhercolleague
JusticeChamberland,shedismissedtheappealforabsenceofconfusion.
a)Isthetrade-markregistrable?
JusticeThibaultdisagreeswithhercolleagueJusticeChamberlandwhoisofthe
viewthataverypreciseanddetaileddescriptionofthedistinguishingguisemustbe
providedinorderforthetrade-markprotectiontoapply.Inheropinion,thedesign
filedasevidencebytheappellant,namelythedesignoftheframeandbodyofthe
T-Rexvehicle,issufficientlyprecisetoidentifythedistinguishingguiseandtodelimit
itsscopeofprotection.
b)Functionality
Theprincipleoffunctionalityisdescribedatparagraph13(2)oftheTrade-marksAct
whichstatesthatnoregistrationofadistinguishingguiseinterfereswiththeuseof
anyutilitarianfeatureembodiedinthedistinguishingguise.Themainobjectiveof
thedoctrineoffunctionalityistopreventabusesofmonopolypositionsinrespectofproductsand
processes.
InJusticeThibault’sview,thetrialjudgecommittedtwoerrors.First,thetrialjudge
deprivedtheappellantfromitsrighttotrade-markprotectionbyreferringtothe
utilitarianfeatureofthefunctionalcharacterwhereasthejurisprudenceprohibits
registrationofatrade-markwhenitis“entirelyoressentially”functional.Second,
thetrialjudge’sanalysisandassessmentoftheevidencewasincorrectwhenit
cametotheconclusionthatcertainfunctionalaspectsoftheframeandbodyofthe

3
T-Rexvehicledeprivetheappellantfromitsrighttotrade-markprotection.The
functionalaspectandthedistinctiveaspectshouldnotbeconfused.Theappellant’s
objectivewasnottoprohibitthecreationandcommercializationofanotherthree-
wheelvehicleincludingutilitarianelementssuchashood,headlights,etc.Its
objectivewassimplytoprohibittherespondentfromcopyingwhatreally
distinguishestheseelementsoftheT-Rexfromotherthree-wheelvehicles.
c)Unreasonablelimittothedevelopmentoftheindustry
Section13oftheTrade-marksActstatesthatadistinguishingguiseisnot
registrableifitsexclusiveuse,inassociationwithcertainwaresorservices,islikely
unreasonablytolimitthedevelopmentofanyartorindustry.Unlikethetrialjudge
whofoundthattheprotectionoftheshapeoftheT-Rexvehiclewouldlimitthe
industry,JusticeThibaultfoundthatthedevelopmentandcreationofthree-wheel
vehiclesdonotnecessarilyimplyanexactcopyoftheframeandbodyoftheT-Rex
vehicle.Allvehicles,carsforinstance,necessarilysharecommonfunctional
elements.Nevertheless,eachmodel(BMW,Beatle)canbedistinguishedby
differentdistinctivefeatures,theprotectionofwhichdoesnotpreventthe
developmentoftheautomobileindustry.
d)Confusionofthepublic
Havingconcludedthattheappellanthasavalidtrade-markprotection,Justice
Thibaultanalyzedtheissueofconfusion.
Theprotectiongrantedbycivillawagainstpassingoffrequiresthatconfusionofthe
publicbeshown.Indeed,whatisprohibitedistosellproductsinsuchawayasto
causeorbelikelytocauseconfusionbetweenoneparty’sproductsandthe
productsofanother.Inthepresentcase,wouldtheconsumers(likelytobuythis
typeofproduct)beledtobelievethatG-2andT-Rexvehiclescomefromthesame
source?
Theappellanthasnotestablishedalikelihoodofconfusion.Amongstothers,the
criterionofparagraph6(5)(a)oftheTrade-marksAct(namelytheinherent
distinctivenessofthetrade-mark)hasnotbeenshown.Theevidenceonlyshows
thatafewT-Rexvehicleshavebeensoldaroundtheworldbetween1994and2006.
Suchasmallnumberofvehiclessoldwithinsuchalongperiodoftimedoesnotipso
factoleadtotheconclusionthatthepublicknowstheT-Rexvehicle.Whena
product,towhichadistinguishingguiseprotectionapplies,isunknowntothepublic
andisnotclearlyassociatedwithasinglesource,itisimpossibletoconcludethat
thecommercializationofanidenticalproductwillleadtheconsumerstobeconfused
betweenbothsources.

4

5
ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marques
decommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD