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