Will Infringing Use Affect the Distinctiveness of a Plaintiff’s Trade-Mark?

2003-01-01

WILLINFRINGINGUSEAFFECTTHEDISTINCTIVENESSOFAPLAINTIFF’STRADE-
MARK?

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’sFederalCourtofAppealconfirmedadecision
oftheTrialDivisionwhichhadrejecteddefencecounsel’sargumentthat
Defendant’suseofanallegedlyconfusingtrade-markhadcausedPlaintiff’s
marktoloseitsdistinctiveness(FarsideClothingLtd.etalv.CariclineVentures
Ltd.,2002F.C.A.466(November12,2002,Strayer,NadonandEvansJJ.A.)).
In1997,PlaintiffCariclineVenturesLtd.(“Caricline”)tookactionagainst
DefendantsFarsideClothingLtd.andFarsideSkateboards&SnowboardsLtd.
(collectively”FarsideClothing”foreaseofreferencehereafter)alleging
infringementofitsregisteredtrade-markPHARSYDE,registeredinassociation
withclothing,footwearandaccessoriesandaretailbusinesssellingclothing.
Caricline’sPHARSYDEtrade-markwasregisteredonJanuary13,1997following
anapplicationfiledonApril4,1995basedonproposeduseofthetrade-mark
inCanada.Cariclinecommenceduseofitstrade-markPHARSYDEinMay
1995inBritishColumbia.
Foritspart,FarsideClothingstartedoperatingretailclothingstoresin
associationwiththewordFARSIDEinJune1995intheprovinceofAlberta.
Initsdefence,FarsideClothingarguedamongotherthingsthatPlaintiff’s
PHARSYDEregisteredtrade-markwasinvalidandshouldbeexpungedfrom
thetrade-markregisterinthatPlaintiff’strade-markwasnolongerdistinctivein
September1997whenproceedingswereinitiatedinlightoftheconcurrent
useinCanadabybothpartiesoftheirtrade-markssinceJune1995.
Onthisissueoflossofdistinctiveness,thetrialJudgereferredtoHaroldG.Fox
inhistextTheCanadianLawofTradeMarksandUnfairCompetition,3rded.
(Toronto:Carswell,1972)wherethelearnedauthorwrote:”Thetestwhethera
nameusedbyamanufacturerasatrademarkforhiswaresorserviceshad
becomepublicijurisiswhether,ontheonehand,theuseofitoraconfusing
trademarkbyotherpersonsinconnectionwiththesamewaresorservicesis

calculatedtodeceivethepublicsoastoinducethemtobelievethatin
purchasingthewaresorobtainingtheservicessonamedtheyarepurchasing
orobtainingthoseoftheoriginalmanufacturerorperformeroftheservicesor
whether,ontheotherhand,thewordinquestionhasmerelybecomethe
genericordescriptivenameofatypeofwaresorservices.Theownermay
usethetrademarkasthenameofthewaresorservices,andifthepublicis
permittedtodoso,themarkwillofcourseloseitscharacterasatrademark…
Butsuchusemustbesubstantialandnotamereinfrequentusebasedon
ignorancebeforeamarkwillloseitsdistinctiveness…Theamountofpiracy
necessarytocauselossofdistinctivenessisadifficultquestion.Afew
scatteredandunprosecutedinfringementsbyseveraltradersisnotsufficient
tocauseamarktobecomepublicijuris,norwillextensiveinfringementbya
singletraderbesufficient.”[emphasisaddedbytheCourt]
ThetrialJudgereviewedtheevidenceandcametotheconclusionthat
Plaintiff’strade-markPHARSYDEwasdistinctiveattherelevantdate.Mr.
JusticeO’Keefereliedonadvertisingdescribedasextensivewhichwasused
topromotethemarkandreferredtoanamountofapproximately$30,000.00
spentonbehalfofPlaintiffonadvertisingduringtheperiodofFebruary1997
toFebruary1998,tothefactthatPlaintiff’sstorenameappearedin
communitynewspapersandinBritishColumbia’stwomajornewspapersand
toadvertisingappearingintheYellowPages.
InrelationtothePlaintiff’smark,theonlyinfringementordilutionallegedwas
bytheDefendants.Inthiscase,theCourttooknotethatCariclinedidnot
delayinforwardingaceaseanddesistletterwhenitlearnedofthe
Defendants’activities.
ThetrialJudgethereforeconcludedthatPlaintiff’srightswerenotlost
becauseoftheDefendants’activitiesinrelationwiththeFARSIDEmark.The
trialJudgefurtherheldthattheDefendantsinfringedPlaintiff’sregistered
mark.
Onappeal,FarsideClothingarguedthatthetrialJudgeerredinlawby
treatingDefendants’useofitsFARSIDEmarkinconnectionwitharticlesof
clothingasirrelevantbecauseitwasaninfringinguse.Infact,Defendants
werenotrelyingontheirconductafter
theyhadreceivedPlaintiff’scease
anddesistlettersenttotheminJanuary1997butrathertheirusefromJune
1995totheendof1996.
TheCourtofAppealrejectedDefendants’argumentsstatingthatthetrial
Judgehadnotsaidthatinfringingusewasalwaysirrelevanttoalossof
distinctivenessofatrade-mark.ByquotingFox,thetrialJudgemadeclear
thatinsomecircumstances,infringingpriorusemaycauseamarktoloseits

distinctivenessalthoughhowmuchisrequiredtoobtainthisresulthasnot
beenfoundaneasyquestiontoanswer:TheCourtcharacteriseditasoneof
degree.
TheCourtofAppealconcludeditwasopentothetrialJudgetoconcludeon
theevidenceasawholethattheDefendantshadfailedtoprovethatitwas
notreasonablylikelythatconsumerswouldidentifyPlaintiff’sPHARSYDEtrade-
markwithasinglesource.TheCourtofAppealconsequentlydismissed
FarsideClothing’sappeal.
Thiscaseisareminderthatwhenassessingthequestionofdistinctivenessofa
trade-mark,thingsarenotalwaysclear-cut.Therefore,itcanbereasonably
arguedthatwhenaplaintiffhastakenstepsinatimelyfashiontoobjectto
whatisperceivedasaninfringingusebyadefendant,itshouldnotbesaid
thatdefendant’susewillaffectthedistinctivenessofplaintiff’smark,unless
othercircumstancesarepresent(forexamplewhetherplaintiffhasahistoryof
toleratingotherthirdpartyinfringinguses).

LEGERROBICRICHARD,2003.
Publishedat(2003),17-2WorldIntellectualPropertyReport4-5underthetitleWillInfringing
UseaffectTrademark’sDistinctiveness?Publication142.148.

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