Your First Impression: Can You Really Trust It?

2012-11-28

[Texte]

YOURFIRSTIMPRESSION:CANYOUREALLYTRUSTIT?

DAVIDCHAPDELAINEMILLER*
ROBIC,
LLP
LAWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

1.Introduction
CONGRATULATIONS,youjustwontheGRANDPRIZEOF$1,000,000!Youarethe
LUCKYONEamongalltheparticipants.Pleasefillinthereplycardattachedand
sendittouswithin5daysandyouwillreceivea$1,000,000cheque.Nowthatyou
areaMILLIONNAIRE,whynottakeadvantageofthisspecialofferandsubscribeto
ourmagazine?
Atfirstglance,thereisnodoubtyouarethewinner.However,afteramorecareful
readofthedocument,somepassagesleaveyouperplexed.Welcometothe
wonderfulworldofsweepstakes.Thesewidespreadcontests,especiallyinthe
publishingcommunity,arereallypublicitystunts.Generally,asweepstakesisa
contestinwhichonepersonwinsthejackpot.Toreceivetheprize,thatpersonmust
beassignedthewinningnumber,returnareplycardwithintheprescribeddelayand
correctlyanswerageneralknowledgequestion.Ofcourse,thevisualintentionsare
tobeappealing,butwhathappenswhentheimpressionissostrongthatapersonis
convincedofwinningthejackpot?
2.Resume
Inarecentcase,Richardv.TimeInc.
1,theSupremeCourtofCanada(hereinafter,
the“Court”)hadtheopportunitytoexaminethiskindofadvertising.Moreprecisely
theCourtanalyzedtheprovisionsundertheQuebecConsumerProtectionAct
2on
prohibitedbusinesspracticesandtherebyfixedtheguidelinesforfalseormisleading
representationsprovidedbytheC.p.a..AccordingtotheCourt,thepromotional
documentthatTimeInc.(hereinafter“Time”)senttoMr.Jean-MarcRichard(herein
after“Richard”),gavethegeneralimpression,followingafirstreadingofthe

©CIPS,2012.*OfROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,patentandtrade-markagents.PublishedintheFall
2012issueofIntellectualProperty(FederatedPress).Publication173.26
12012SCC8.2R.S.Q.,c.P-40.1(hereinafterthe“C.p.a.”).

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006

2
documentbyanaverageconsumer,thatRichardwasthewinnerofthegrandprize.
Indeed,intheopinionoftheCourt,evenifitcontainednostatementsthatwere
literallyfalse,thedocumentinquestionwasfullofmisrepresentations.Thejudges
unanimouslyconcludedthatthismarketingtechnicsrepresentedaprohibited
businesspracticeundertheC.p.a.
Initsanalysis,theCourtreviewedtheevolutionofconsumerlawinCanadaand
baseditsdecisionontheobjectivethatthelegislaturepursuedinenactingtheC.p.a.
Indeed,theCourtrestatedthatthemainobjectiveundertheC.p.a.istheprotection
oftheconsumerintheserelationswithtraders.Thus,intheRichardcase,the
protectionofvulnerablepersonsagainstthedangersofsomeadvertisingmethods
wasthebasisofjudge’sdecision.Inordertorespecttheintentofthelegislature,the
CourtstatedthatthegeneralimpressiontestunderC.p.a.shallbeappliedfromthe
perspectiveoftheaverageconsumer,whoiscredulousandinexperiencedandtakes
nomorethanordinarycaretoobservethatwhichisstaringhimorherintheface
uponfirstenteringintocontactwithanentireadvertisement.Moreover,theCourt
recallsthatonemustgiveimportancenotonlytothetext,butitsentirecontext,
includinghowitispresentedtotheconsumer.
Itwouldbereasonabletoexpectthatthisdecisioncouldhaveadeterrenteffecton
questionablepracticesintheadvertisingindustry.Indeed,theCourtrecognizedthat
TimehadintentionallyviolatedtheC.p.a.inacalculatedmannerandthatviolation
wascapableofaffectingalargenumberofconsumers,whereasnothinginthe
evidenceindicatesthatTimestookcorrectiveactiontomakeitsadvertising
consistent.ButasmentionedbyJusticesLeBelandCromwell,evenifnotnegligible,
theimpactofthefaultcommittedbyTimeremainslimited.ThatiswhytheCourt
estimatedthatanamountof$15,000sufficesinthecircumstancestofulfilthe
preventivepurposeofpunitivedamages,underlinesthegravityoftheviolationsof
theC.p.a.andsanctionstheconductofTimeinamannerthatisseriousenoughto
inducethemtoceasetheprohibitedpracticesinwhichithavebeenengaging,ifthey
havenotalreadydoneso.Itisthereforeappropriatetoaskifthisdecisionwillhavea
realimpactonbusinesspracticesoftheadvertisingindustry.

3.Thefactualbackground
OnAugust26,1999,Mr.Jean-MarcRichard,receivedbymailadocumententitled
“OfficialSweepstakesNotification”.Itwasintheformofa“letter”addressedtohim,in
Englishonly,andbeganwithasentencethatimmediatelycaughthisattention:OUR
SWEEPSTAKESRESULTSARENOWFINAL:MRJEANMARCRICHARDHAS
WONACASHPRIZEOF$833,337.00!Thisopeningsentence,combinedwith
conditionalclausesinsmallerprint,clearlyillustratesthetechniqueusedinthewriting
andlayoutofthedocument:severalexclamatorysentencesinbolduppercaseletters,

3
whosepurposewastocatchthereader’sattentionbysuggestingthatheorshehad
wonalargecashprize3.

Convincedhewasthewinner,Richardreturnedquicklythereplycardandalso
subscribedtotheTimemagazinefortwoyears.Ashorttimelater,hebegan
receivingregularly,issuesofthemagazine.But,therewasnotraceofthechequehe
wasexpecting.Afteracertaintime,RichardfinallytalkedwithaTimerepresentative
intheDepartmentofMarketingandhewasinformedthatthedocumentwasonlyan
invitationtoparticipateinthesweepstakesandthathewouldnotreceivetheprize.
Followingthisconversation,Richardfiledamotiontoinstituteproceedingsin
SuperiorCourttoobtainthepaymentoftheprize.
SuperiorCourtandQuebecCourtofAppeal
InSuperiorCourt,JusticeCohenstatedthatthedocumentgavethegeneral
impressionthatRichardhadwonthegrandprize.Inherview,thegeneraldesignof
thedocumentamountedtoafalseormisleadingrepresentationwithinthemeaningof
s.219C.p.a.andTimewasorderedtopaytoRichard$1,000incompensatory
damagesand$100,000inpunitivedamages.
JusticeChamberland,oftheCourtofAppeal,disagreedwiththeSuperiorCourt’s
judgmentandstatedthathecouldnotconcludethatthedocumentmightgivethe
averageQuebecconsumerthegeneralimpressionthattherecipientisthegrand
prizewinner.Accordingtohim,acarefulreadingofthedocumentwassufficientto
dispelthatimpression.Thus,aconsumermustbesuspiciousofadvertisingthat
seemstoogoodtobetrue.TheCourtofAppealsetasidetheawardfor
compensatoryandpunitivedamagesagainstTime.
ConsumerLawamongCanada:TheQuebecsituation
Inthe50s,changesinthemarketplaceledtotheriseoftheconsumersociety.Faced
withthisliberalizationofmarkets,boththeParliamentofCanadaandtheQuebec

3Supranote2atparagraph7:[…]ItwillbehelpfultoreproducesomepassagesfromtheDocument
tobetterillustratethespecificfeaturesofthistechnique:
IfyouhaveandreturntheGrandPrizewinningentryintimeandcorrectlyansweraskill-testing
question,we’llconfirmthat
WEARENOWAUTHORIZEDTOPAY$833,337.00INCASHTOMRJEANMARCRICHARD!
[…]Andnowthatwe’vebeenauthorizedtopaytheprizemoney,theverynexttimeyouhearfromusif
youwin,itwillbetoinformyouthat
ABANKCHEQUEFOR$833,337.00ISONITSWAYTO——ST!
[…]Thetruthis,ifyouholdtheGrandPrizewinningnumber,
YOUWILLFORFEITTHEENTIRE$833,337.00IFYOUFAILTORESPONDTOTHISNOTICE!

4
legislaturerealizedthevulnerabilityofconsumersincreasedandtheytriedtoresolve
theproblembyadoptingasystemmorefocusedonprotectingconsumers.InRichard
c.TimesInc.,theCourt’sfocusisonQuebec’slegislation.

Recognizingthevulnerabilityofconsumersunderacontractualfairnessmodelbased
onfreedomofcontract,consensualismandthebindingforcesofcontracts,Quebec
legislatureadoptedtheC.p.a.toensurearealequalitybetweenmerchantsand
consumers.Thereby,theC.p.a.isamodelofcontractualfairnessbasedona
schemeofpublicorderthatisanexceptiontothetraditionalrulesofthegenerallaw.

Thislegislationistheexpressionofasocialpurpose,namelytheestablishmentof
moreethicaltradepractices,calculatedtoaffordgreaterprotectiontotheconsuming
public.ItrepresentsthewillofthepeopleofCanadathattheoldmaximcaveat
emptor,letthepurchaserbeware,yieldsomewhattothemoreenlightenedview
caveatvenditor—letthesellerbeware
4.

4.TheCase
OneofthemainobjectivesunderTitleIIoftheC.p.a.istoprotectconsumersfrom
falseormisleadingrepresentations,indeedmanyofthepracticesitprohibitsrelateto
theveracityofinformationprovidedtoconsumers.Inthiscase,thecourtshadto
determineifthedocumentsenttoRichardbyTimewasaprohibitedbusiness
practice.

Specifically,thiscaseraisesthefollowingissue:Whatistheproperapproachin
Quebecfordeterminingwhetheranadvertisementconstitutesafalseormisleading
representationforthepurposesoftheConsumerProtectionAct?
5Thus,theCourt
hasmadeacompleteanalysisofs.218C.p.a.,whichspecifieshowtoevaluate
whetherarepresentationisfalseormisleading:218.Todeterminewhetherornotarepresentationconstitutesa
prohibitedpractice,thegeneralimpressionitgives,and,asthecase
maybe,theliteralmeaningofthetermsusedthereinmustbetaken
intoaccount.
(ouremphasis)
Followingthemethodofanalysisprescribedbys.218C.p.a.,twoelementsmustbe
considered:the“generalimpression”andthe“literalmeaningofthetermsused”.The
Courtdidnotelaborateontheinterpretationoftheterm“literalmeaningoftheterms
used”anditsimplyrecognizedthateachwordcontainedinarepresentationshould
beinterpretedaccordingtoitsordinarymeaning
6.Asforthenotionof“general

4Supranote2atparagraph43.5Supranote2atparagraph32.6Supranote2atparagraph47.

5
impression”,thiscaughtmoretheCourt’sattentionanditmustbesubjecttofurther
explanation.
Thegeneralimpression
TheCourtfirstupheldtheQuebeccaselawtotheeffectthatthegeneralimpression
conveyedbyarepresentationmustbeanalyzedintheabstract,thisis,without
consideringthepersonalattributesoftheconsumer
7.TheCourtalsonotedthat
commercialrepresentation,whetherornotcausedprejudicetooneormore
consumers,isnotarelevantfactor.Thisapproachisinlinewiththepreventive
characteroftheC.p.a.
Calledtodeterminehowthecourtsshouldappreciatethegeneralimpressiongiven
byacommercialrepresentation,theCourtupheldthecontextualapproachproposed
byRichard.WhileTimeproposedamethodforanalysis,whichplacedemphasison
thetextoftheadvertisementratherthanitsvisualcomponent,theCourtstated:
Itmustberememberedthatthelegislatureadoptedthegeneral
impressiontesttotakeaccountofthetechniquesandmethodsthat
areusedincommercialadvertisingtoexertasignificantinfluenceon
consumerbehaviour.Thismeansthatconsiderableimportancemust
beattachednotonlytothetextbutalsototheentirecontext,
includingthewaythetextisdisplayedtotheconsumer.8
(ouremphasis)

Atoometiculousdissectionandanoveremphasisofthedetailsonawritten
advertisementarecontrarytotheprinciplesunderlyingthemethodofanalysisunder
s.218C.p.a..Thus,asinglereadingoftheentirewrittenadvertisementshouldbe
adequatetoappreciatethegeneralimpressiongivenbyacommercialrepresentation.

Emphasizingontheintentionofthelegislatortotheeffectsensuresthatconsumers
shouldviewcommercialrepresentationwithconfidenceratherthansuspicion
9.The
Court’sopinionthattheapproachadoptedbytheCourtofAppeals,thatis,ofan
opinionresultingfromananalysis,failstomeetthegeneralimpressiontestprovided
forins.218C.p.a..

ItisinterestingtonotetheparallelthattheCourtmadewiththefirstimpressiontest
appliedundertheTrade-marksAct
10todeterminewhetheratrade-markcauses
confusion.Thistest,recentlyconfirmedbytheCourtinthecaseMasterpieceInc.v.

7Supranote2atparagraph49.8Supranote2atparagraph55.9Supranote2atparagraph60.10Trade-marksAct,R.C.S.1985,c.T-13(hereinafterthe“T.m.a.”)

6
AlavidaLifestylesInc.11,restatedthetraditionalapproachbyBinnieJ.inthecase
VeuveClicquotPonsardinv.BoutiquesCliquotLtée:
Thetesttobeappliedisamatteroffirstimpressioninthemindofa
casualconsumersomewhatinahurrywhoseesthenameCliquoton
therespondents’storefrontorinvoice,atatimewhenheorshehas
nomorethananimperfectrecollectionoftheVEUVECLICQUOT
trade-marks,anddoesnotpausetogivethematteranydetailed
considerationorscrutiny,nortoexaminecloselythesimilaritiesand
differencesbetweenthemarks.12
(ouremphasis)

Thepurposeofatrade-markisto
functionasasymbolofthesourceandqualityof
waresandservices,todistinguishthoseofthemerchantfromthoseofanother,and
therebyprevent“confusion”inthemarketplace
13.Thus,thefirstimpressiontest
providedundertheT.m.a.seemstobethemostappropriateinordertopursuethe
objectivessetbytheC.p.a.Insum,itisouropinionthatthetestunders.218C.P.A.isthatofthe
firstimpression.Inthecaseoffalseormisleadingadvertising,the
generalimpressionistheoneapersonhasafteraninitialcontact
withtheentireadvertisement,anditrelatestoboththelayoutofthe
advertisementandthemeaningofthewordsused.14
(ouremphasis)

Theconsumer
Secondly,theCourthadtodeterminetheperspectivetoadoptinrelationtothe
assessmentofthegeneralimpressionprovidedbyacommercialrepresentation,that
which,specifiesthecharacteristicsoftheconsumerundertheC.p.a..Althoughthe
recentcaselawreferstotheconceptof“averageconsumer”,thisnotionisnothing
lessthantheproductoflegalfiction.TheCourtthushadtodeterminethelevelof
sophisticationtobeattributedtotheaverageconsumer.

Onceagain,itisinterestingtonotethattheCourtbelievedadequatetobeinspired
bytheinterpretiveapproachdevelopedinthefieldoftrade-marks.Indeed,inMattel,
Inc.v.3894207CanadaInc.
15,theCourtconcludedthattheaverageconsumers
protectedbytheT.m.a.arethe“ordinaryhurriedpurchasers”16.Indeed,inMattelthe

11[2011]2.S.C.R.387,paragraph40-41(hereinafter“Masterpiece”).12[2006]S.C.R.824,paragraph20(hereinafter“VeuveClicquotPonsardin”).13Ibidatparagraph18.14Supranote2atparagraph57.15[2006]1S.C.R.772(hereinafter“Mattel”).16Ibidatparagraph56.

7
Courtwasaskedtoclarifythestandardtobeusedbythecourtstodetermine
whetheratrade-markcausesconfusionwitharegisteredtrade-mark:
[…]thestandardisnotthatofpeoplewhonevernoticeanythingbut
ofpersonswhotakenomorethanordinarycaretoobservethat
whichisstaringthemintheface.[…]However,ifordinarycasual
consumerssomewhatinahurryarelikelytobedeceivedaboutthe
originofthewaresorservices,thenthestatutorytestismet.17
(ouremphasis)

Emphasizingonthelimitedlevelofsophisticationattributedtotheaverageconsumer
intheCanadiancaselawontheprotectionofconsumers,theCourtrecognizedand
decidedtoapplytheinterpretativeapproachdevelopedinMattel:
Thegeneralimpressiontestprovidedforins.218C.P.A.mustbe
appliedfromaperspectivesimilartothatof“ordinaryhurried
purchasers”,thatis,consumerswhotakenomorethanordinarycare
toobservethatwhichisstaringtheminthefaceupontheirfirst
contactwithanadvertisement.Thecourtsmustnotconducttheir
analysisfromtheperspectiveofacarefulanddiligentconsumer.18
(ouremphasis)

TheCourt’sopinionisthattheCourtofAppealchangedthestandardfortheaverage
consumerindefiningthemasanaveragelevelofintelligence,scepticismand
curiosity.Followingthisdefinition,thegeneralimpressionfortheconsumerwouldbe
guidedbyathoroughanalysisallowinghimtodiscovertherealmessagebehindthe
commercialrepresentation.
TheCourtreiterated“theC.p.a.generalobjectiveofprotectingconsumersmeans
thattheappropriatetestisnotthatoftheprudentanddiligentconsumer.”
19Infact,
thestandardproposedbytheCourtofAppealwouldreducetheprotectionofferedby
theC.p.a.whereasthecourt’srolewouldthenbetodeterminewhethertheconsumer
wasinfactmisled,ratherthanthepublicityinquestionconstitutedafalseor
misleadingrepresentationasprovidedbytheC.p.a..

ApplyingtheQuebeccourts’lineofauthoritytotheeffectthataconsumerunders.
218C.p.a.,iscredulousandaninexperiencedconsumer,theCourtproposedto
assesstheveracityofacommercialrepresentationinatwo-stepanalysis:
[…](1)describingthegeneralimpressionthattherepresentationis
likelytoconveytoacredulousandinexperiencedconsumer;and(2)
determiningwhetherthatgeneralimpressionistruetoreality.Ifthe

17Ibidatparagraph58.18Supranote2atparagraph67.19Supranote2atparagraph75.

8
answeratthesecondstepisno,themerchanthasengagedina
prohibitedpractice.20

Analysisandviolation
InordertodetermineifthedocumentsentbyTimetoRichardconstitutesaprohibited
businesspracticeasdefinedintheC.p.a.,andspecificallyifitisafalseormisleading
representation,theCourtshoulddetermine:[…]whetheracredulousandinexperiencedconsumer,afterfirst
readingtheDocument,wouldhavebeenunderthegeneral
impressionthattheappellanthadwonthegrandprizeorwould
insteadhaveunderstoodthattherespondentsweremerelyoffering
himanopportunitytoparticipateinacontestwithaminutechanceof
winningacashprize.
21

AccordingtotheCourt,thegeneralimpressionconveyedbythedocumentis
influencedbyastrangecollectionofaffirmationsandrestrictions,especiallythe
followingone,writteninbolduppercaseletters:OURSWEEPSTAKESRESULTS
ARENOWFINAL:MRJEANMARCRICHARDHASWONACASHPRIZEOF
$833,337.00!Despitealltheconditionslaiddowninthedocument,onwhichthe
respondentsplacedgreatemphasis,apointwasmadeinthedocumentthatreferred
totheappellantasthesweepstakeswinner.Therewererepeatedindicationsthata
chequewasabouttobemailedtotheappellant.TheCourtconcluded:
Inouropinion,thetrialjudgedidnoterrinfindingthattheDocument
wasmisleading.TheDocumentconveyedthegeneralimpression
thattheappellanthadwonthegrandprize.Evenifitdidnot
necessarilycontainanystatementsthatwereactuallyfalse,thefact
remainsthatitwasriddledwithmisleadingrepresentationswithinthe
meaningofs.219C.P.A.[…]22
(ouremphasis)
Havingconcludedthatthedocumentconstitutedaprohibitedbusinesspractice,the
CourthadrestoredinparttheSuperiorCourt’sjudgment,asTimewasorderedto
payRichard$1,000incompensatorydamagesand$15,000inpunitivedamages,
withinterestfromthedateofserviceassanctioned.

5.Conclusion
AlthoughRichardc.TimeInc.rulingcomestoreiteratetheQuebeclegislature’swill
toprotecttheconsumer,butitisratherthemeansforwhichtheCourtadoptsto

20Supranote2atparagraph78.21Supranote2atparagraph81.22Supranote2atparagraph87.

9
achievethis,thatneedsourattention.Indeed,byitsanalysisofthecriterionofthe
generalimpressionunders.218oftheC.p.a.,theCourtclarifiesthepathtotakeso
thatthecourtscandeterminewhetherthemessageconveyedbytheadvertisingisin
linewithwhattheconsumerperceives.Toachievethis,theCourtconcludedthisby
adoptingtheaverageconsumer’sviewpoint,thatistosay,thecredulousand
inexperiencedconsumers,andthegeneralimpressionistheonethatemerges
followinganinitialcontactwiththeentireadvertisement.

Despitesomediscrepancybetweentheobjectivesoftheselegalschemes,itis
interestingtonotetheCourt’sparallelsbetweentheC.p.a.andtheT.m.a..Indeed,
althoughthelawontrade-marksisessentiallysetonensuringthesourceandquality
ofthegoodsandservicesofferedbyamerchant,theconsumerliesattheheartof
theanalysismethodregardingtheconfusion.Forthisreason,theCourtisableto
introducethecriteriaforthe“firstimpression”andthe“ordinaryhurriedpurchasers”
developedinMasterpiece,VeuveClicquotPonsardinandMattelrulingstoits
analysisofthegeneralimpression,becausetheyareinaccordancewiththepursuit
ofthelegislator’sobjectiveforconsumerprotection.

Withtheadventoftheconsumersociety,merchantsareawarethattheaverage
consumerisnotabletoanalyseanddoesnothavethetimetoprocessallthe
informationpresentedtohim.Therefore,merchantsareabletodevelopwaysto
substantiallyinfluenceconsumerbehavior.Bombardedbyadvertising,itmustbeable
toexamineanadvertisementwithtrustratherthanmistrustandthusbeableto
assumethatitsfirstimpressionisinlinewithreality.Andyou,doyoutrustyourfirst
impression?

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;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

10
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
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)