1 Craig A. Ash Oyen Wiggs Green & Mutala LLP E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Tel:...

1

Craig A. AshCraig A. AshOyen Wiggs Green & Mutala LLPOyen Wiggs Green & Mutala LLP

E-mail: E-mail: [email protected]: 604-669-3432Tel: 604-669-3432

mailto:[email protected]

2

Course Materials

Casebook Statutes: Consolidated Intellectual Property Statutes and

Regulations (Carswell)Reference materials:

-Fox on Canadian Law of Trade-Marks and Unfair Competition (4th. ed. 2002).-Robic-Leger (ed.), Canadian Trade-Marks Act Annotated (current).-Industry Canada, Trade Marks Examination Manual (current).-Trade-marks Law of Canada (1992), G.F. Henderson (ed.).

3

Introduction

• Federal Statute - Trade-marks Act

• Provincial corporations statutes deal with corporate names but do not give trademark protection to those names.

4

Introduction

• Trademark rights are national. They must be

separately protected in each country of interest.

• Registration is national, not provincial.

• In Canada, trademark rights accrue primarily through

use, not registration.

• Trademarks are used and registered for specific

goods/services. The identical trademark can be

owned by different parties for different products, e.g

APPLE for computers or for recordings.

5

Introduction

Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik HoldingsK’s patents for a toy block configuration expire.

R sells identical blocks under a different name. K asserts “Lego indicia” as a trademark. K’s claim for enforcement of such trademark by a passing-off action under Section 7(b) and at common law fails.

6

The Lego Indicia Trademark

7

…Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik

• Registered vs. unregistered marks.• Trade-Marks Act as a national regulatory scheme for registered

and unregistered trademarks.• Federal trade and commerce power: “general trade and

commerce affecting Canada as a whole.”• Constitutionality of Trade-Marks Act and of Section 7(b).• Proper scope of trademarks vs. patents.• Doctrine of functionality.• “Unfair competition.”• Enforcement of unregistered trademarks by passing-off action

under Section 7(b) and common law.

8

Introduction

• Section 2 defines a trademark as:

(a) a mark that is used by a person for the purpose of distinguishing or so as to distinguish wares or services manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by him from those manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by others,

(b) certification mark,

(c) a distinguishing guise, or

(d) a proposed trademark.

9

A “mark” can be something that is just descriptive or decorative and not used for purpose of distinguishing. But that is not a “trademark.”

• Section 2 defines “distinctive” in relation to a trademark as meaning:– “a trademark that actually distinguishes the

wares or services in association with which it is used by its owner from the wares or services of others or is adapted so to distinguish them.”

Distinctiveness

10

Distinctiveness

• Inherent distinctiveness and actual distinctiveness:

• Inherent: continuum from highly distinctive to descriptive or generic.– EXXON…KODAK…APPLE…

MICROSOFT…EXTRA…MCDONALDS…NYLON.

• Actual distinctiveness: depends on inherent distinctiveness and the activities of the user and third parties.

11

Distinctiveness

• Examples of trademarks that would not be distinctive:– Two unrelated companies use the same

trademark for similar products.– Trademark is generally used to describe

the product, e.g. NOTEBOOK for computers, FRENCH for wine.

– Trademark is a generic term for the product, e.g. NYLON.

12

Distinctiveness

• How does a foreign mark that is not used in Canada affect the distinctiveness of a Canadian mark?

1. Bojangles (application)

2. Philip Morris (post-registration)

13

Distinctiveness

Bojangles

Issue is the distinctiveness of a Canadian mark in the context of applying to register it.

The foreign mark’s reputation in Canada must be “substantial,” significant” or “sufficient.”

Survey evidence: importance and perils.

14

Distinctiveness

Philip Morris v. Imperial Tobacco:Issue is the distinctiveness of a Canadian mark

in the context of an action to invalidate a registered mark.

Significance of the duty-free sales in Canada.

Potential for loss of distinctiveness if mark is not policed.

15

Distinctiveness

Astrazeneca v. Novopharm:Application to register the colour and shape of a tablet

as a trademark. Is it distinctive of the manufacturer?Significance of other tablets in the marketplace with the

same appearance for (a) all medicines, or (b) all medicines for the same condition.

Significance of other identifying indicia on the product, e.g. the brand name, the DIN number.

Subtext: control of the appearance of generic copies of a proprietary medicine when the patent expires.

16

Acquired Distinctiveness

• Section 12(2): A trademark that is not registrable by reason of s. 12(1)(a) or (b) is registrable if it has been so used in Canada by the applicant or his predecessor-in-title as to have become distinctive at the date of filing an application for its registration.

17

Acquired Distinctiveness

• Section 12(2) applies to marks that are:– 1. Names. s. 12(1)(a)

– 2. Descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of character or quality. s. 12(1)(b)

– 3. Geographically descriptive. s. 12(1)(b)

18

Acquired distinctiveness

Recognizes fact that descriptive marks and names can acquire a secondary meaning as a trademark, e.g. CARTIER, EVEREADY, MCDONALDS.

• Mark is registrable if it has secondary meaning as of filing date.

• Must prove mark is recognized by a substantial portion of Canadian public as distinguishing the source of the goods/services. Molson v. John Labatt.

19

Distinguishing Purpose

• Where a mark is used for a purpose other than to distinguish the goods or services of the user, e.g. to inform users that the product can be used with some other product identified by the trademark, the mark is not being used as a trademark. Bombardier v. British Petroleum.

20

• What is “use”?• Section 2 defines “use” in relation to a

trademark as:– “any use that by section 4 is deemed to

be a use in association with wares or services”

Use under Section 4

21

• Section 4 provides:

(1) A trademark is deemed to be used in association with wares, if at the time of the transfer of the property in or possession of such wares, in the normal course of trade, it is marked on the wares themselves or on the packages in which they are distributed or it is in any other manner so associated with the wares that notice of the association is then given to the person to whom the property or possession is transferred.

Use under Section 4

22

(2) A trademark is deemed to be used in association with services if it is used or displayed in the performance or advertising of such services.

(3) A trademark that is marked in Canada on wares or on the packages in which they are contained is, when such wares are exported from Canada, deemed to be used in association with such wares.

Use under Section 4

23

Use under Section 4

• Use with wares – Section 4(1)

– Mark must be associated with the wares at the time of transfer of wares to buyer, in the normal course of trade

– Nissan Canada Inc. v. BMW Canada Inc.

24

Use under Section 4

• “…or it is in any other manner so associated with the wares…”– BMB Compuscience v. Bramalea

(software)

25

Use under Section 4

• “…in the normal course of trade…”– Siscoe Vermiculite (samples)– Grants of St. James (test marketing)– Saft-Societe (single sale)

26

Use under Section 4

• Use by export – Section 4(3)– Use on exported goods is deemed to be

use in Canada.

27

Use under Section 4

• Use with services – Section 4(2)– Use or display in the performance or advertising of

services is deemed to be use.

– Is the advertising of services in Canada, where the services themselves are provided only outside of Canada, a use under section 4?

• Porter v. Don the Beachcomber• Saks v. Registrar

28

Entitlement – Section 16

• Material dates for determining entitlement to register a trademark as between competing parties:– Section 16(1) – Application based on use or

making known: date of first use or making known.

– Section 16(2) – Application based on use and registration abroad: date of filing or priority.

– Section 16(3) - Application based on proposed use: date of filing or priority.

29

Entitlement – Section 16

• Effigi Inc. v. Attorney GeneralIssue of determining entitlement to register under Section 37 in the

context of two co-pending applications to register where one or both claim prior use.

T files after E, but claims use of the mark since prior to E’s filing date. Held by FCA: T’s application is refused because T is not the person entitled under s. 37.

Entitlement under s. 37 is not the same as entitlement under s. 16. It is based on application filing order, without regard to claims in an application to prior use.

The alleged prior use can be made the subject of evidence in an opposition to the earlier-filed application.

30

Registering a trademark

Some advantages of a trademark registration:(1) National protection.(2) Prevent “depreciation of goodwill” – section 22.(3) Limited incontestability – section 17.(4) Foreign applications.(5) Convention priority claim – section 34.(6) Deters others from adopting a confusing trademark.(7) Easier to enforce.

(8) Can be a defence.

31


• Trademark application procedure involves:

– conducting a search (optional)

– filing trademark application.

• Section 16 - grounds for filing application:

(a) mark used in Canada – s. 16(1).(b) mark “made known” in Canada – s. 16(1) and s. 5.(c) mark registered and used abroad – s. 16(2).(d) intent to use trademark – s. 16(3).

32


– examination• Examiners’ duties:

(a) search trademarks register for confusing marks.

(b) ensure application adheres to provisions of s.12.

(c) check formalities - s.30.

– publication

33


– opposition• S.38(2) - grounds for opposition:

(a) non-compliance with s.30.

(b) non-compliance with s.12.(c) applicant is not the person entitled to

registration - s. 16.(d) not distinctive - s.2.

– allowance.– payment of registration fee.– filing of declaration of use.– registration of mark; renewable every 15 years.

34

Registrable Marks

• Not all marks are registrable.• Section 12(1) sets out the categories of marks that

are not registrable:(a) Personal names.(b) Clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive

marks.(c) Name in any language of the wares/services.(d) Confusing with a registered trademark.(e) Marks prohibited by s.9 or 10.(f) Denominations prohibited by s.10.1.(g) Geographical indication with respect to wine.(h) Geographical indication with respect to spirits.(i) Olympic & Paralympic Marks

35

Personal Names

• S.12(1)(a):– A trademark cannot be a word that is primarily

merely the name or surname of an individual who is living or has died within the preceding 30 years.

• “Name” is a word or combination of words by which a person is regularly known. It is the full name. A given name is not a “name.”

• “Surname” is the family name.• “Name” can be something other than formal, legal

names.

36

Personal Names

• Two-part test:

1. Determine whether the trademark is in fact the name of a living person or someone who died within past 30 years. If not, mark is not

contrary to section 12(1)(a).

2. If mark is a name/surname of an individual, is it “primarily merely” a name/surname?

37

Personal Names

• A coined trademark that is also an uncommon name may not be “primarily merely a name.” Standard Oil v. Registrar (FIOR)

38

Personal Names

COLES • Registrar of Trademarks v. Coles Book

Stores

• Coles is a surname.

• Dictionary meaning is “cabbage” but rarely used.

• COLES is not merely a surname but it is primarily merely a surname, therefore not registrable.

39

Personal Names

ELDER’S• Elder’s Beverages v. Registrar of Trademarks

• Applicant applied for trademark ELDER’S for non-alcoholic beverages.

• Elder is a surname but also a dictionary word with several different meanings. Dictionary meanings of the word were significant.

• Held, not merely a surname and not primarily merely a surname.

• Possessive case and plural of names are not exempt from s.12(1)(a).

40

Descriptive Marks

• S.12(1)(b):– trademark cannot be a word that is “...whether

depicted, written or sounded, either clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive in the English or French language of the character or quality of the wares or services in association with which it is used or proposed to be used or the conditions of or the persons employed in their production or of their place of origin”.

41

Policy reasons for S. 12(1)(b)

• Prevent appropriation by one trader of descriptive words that should be available for all competitors to use. General Motors v. Bellows

• For deceptively misdescriptive trademarks, protect consumers from deception.

42

“Clearly” Descriptive

• “Clearly” means “easy to understand, self-evident or plain.” Drackett v. American Home Products

• Helps to distinguish between suggestive marks and descriptive ones.

• Examples of suggestive marks:– TAVERN for alcoholic brewed beverages– WATERWOOL for bathing suits

43

Descriptive of Quality

• EXTRA• PREMIUM• PERFECTION• SUPER• SUPREME• RIGHT (Imperial Tobacco v. Benson & Hedges)

44

Deceptively Misdescriptive

• SHAMMI for transparent polyethylene gloves. Deputy Attorney-General v. Biggs Laboratories

45

Descriptiveness and Corrupted Spellings

Corrupted spellings are caught by the “…or sounded…” part of the test in S. 12(1)(b).

• KOLD for ice cream

• CHEEZ for cheese

• STA-ZON and SHUR-ON for eyeglass frames

46

The Test of Descriptiveness

• Based on immediate first impression.

• Applies to an intrinsic characteristic or quality. (Provenzano v. Registrar: KOOL ONE for beer)

• Includes description of function, purpose or effect. (Thomson Research v. Registrar ULTRA FRESH for bacteriostats)

• Applies to the beneficiary of the services (Ontario Teachers Pension Plan: TEACHERS’ for a pension plan for teachers)

47

Geographically Misdescriptive

• BRIGHT’S FRENCH HOUSE for French wines or wines blended with French wines (T.G.Bright v. Institute National)

48

Geographically Descriptive

Two kinds of geographical place names can be held descriptive:

• 1. Place having reputation as a source of the goods

• 2. Place recognized as a likely source for a wide variety of goods. Atlantic Promotions.

But see Vina Leyda.

49

Name of the Goods or Services

• Section 12(1)(c) applies to the name in any language.

• Marks that are clearly descriptive in languages other than English or French are not barred.

50

Confusing Trademarks

• Section 6: The use of a trademark causes confusion with another trademark if the use of both trademarks in the same area is likely to lead to the inference that the wares/services associated with the trademarks are made/performed by the same person.

51


• The “surrounding circumstances” under section 6(5) include:(a) Inherent distinctiveness and extent to

which they have become known.(b) Length of time in use.(c) Nature of wares, services, business.(d) Nature of the trade.(e) Degree of resemblance between marks in

appearance, sound or idea suggested.

52


• Principles:– 1. Distinctive marks get broader protection than

descriptive ones.– 2. Average purchaser test. Imperfect recollection– 3. Test of first impression. – 4. Look to entirety of marks. Do not dissect.– 5. Confusion is to be inferred: actual conflicting

use in same area is not required (Masterpiece)

53


Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc.BARBIE for toys versus BARBIE’S for restaurant

services.• Relevance of the fame of a mark.• Relevance of vast difference in goods or services.• Supreme Court’s view of Pink Panther decision.• Other surrounding circumstances: wares vs. services;

public recognition of wide licensing of famous marks; absence of evidence of actual confusion.

• Irrelevance of mens rea.• Survey evidence in assessing confusion.

54


Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc.MASTERPIECE LIVING vs. MASTERPIECE THE ART

OF LIVING et al. for retirement residence services.• Relevance of geographic locations marks are used.• Test and approach for confusion analysis.• Importance and approach for testing for resemblance• Considering mark as applied for vs. as used.• Dominant or striking aspects of marks.• Relevance of nature and costs of wares/services.• Survey evidence.

55


Trademark elements that are descriptive or in common use get little protection:

DANDRESS vs. RESDAN for dandruff treatment: Ultravite Laboratories.

56

Official and Prohibited Marks

• Section 12 (1)(e): “…a mark of which the adoption is prohibited by section 9 or 10.”

57


• Categories of prohibited marks:– 1. Government or royal crests, certain

flags, words like United Nations, RCMP, Red Cross symbol, armed forces marks, words/symbols indicating government approval.

– 2. Marks of universities: s. 9(1)(n)(ii).– 3. Official marks of public authorities: s.9(1)

(n)(iii).

58


• 4. Scandalous, obscene or immoral words or devices: s. 9(1)(j).

• 5. Any matter falsely suggesting a connection with a living individual: s.9(1)(k);

• 6. Portrait, signature of an individual who is living or has died within the preceding 30 years: s.9(1)(l).

59


• 1. Marks where the prohibition against adoption is contingent on the registrar giving public notice of adoption:– S.9(1)(e): Arms, crests, flags adopted by Canada,

a province, or municipal corporation.– S.9(1)(i): Civic arms and crests of Union countries.– S.9(1)(i.1): Official signs or hallmarks of Union

countries.– S.9(1)(n): Marks of armed forces, universities,

public authorities.– S.9(1)(n.1): Armorial bearings.

60


• 2. The remaining subsections of S. 9 are absolute prohibitions against adoption and do not require public notice.

61

University Marks

• Section 9(1)(n)(ii)

• University of British Columbia

62

Public Authority Marks

ICBC v. Registrar:• Does an official mark require any special

attributes?• Can the use of the official mark be for

commercial purposes?• Does the registrar have the discretion to

refuse a request to publish the mark?• Does an official mark have to comply with

Section 12?

63

Public Authority Marks – s. 9(1)(n)(iii)

What is a public authority? - – Ontario Assn. of Architects; – Canadian Jewish Congress v. Chosen People

Ministries.– Canada Post Corporation v. United States

Postal Service

Test of confusion in Section 9(1): “…so nearly resembling….” No restriction to particular goods or services.

64

Public Authority Marks

• What happens when official marks conflict with ordinary trademarks? - Canadian Olympic Association v. Allied.

65

Prohibited Marks – S. 10

• Section 10 requirements:

– Ordinary and bona fide commercial usage

– Recognized in Canada as designating kind, quality, quantity, destination, value, place of origin or date of production.

Examples of s. 10 mark: STERLING for silver. HABANA for cigars.

66

Protected Geographical Indications

• Defined in section 2: a geographical indication is an indication that identifies a wine or spirit as originating in a territory, where a quality, reputation or other characteristic of the wine/spirit is attributable to its geographical origin.

• Sections 12(1)(g) and (h).

67

Protected Geographical Indications

• Sections 12(1)(g) and (h) prohibit the registration of a trademark that is a protected geographical indication for use with a wine/spirit not originating in the territory indicated by the geographical indication.

• Examples: Niagara Peninsula, Okanagan Valley, Vancouver Island, Fraser Valley, British Columbia, BC Gulf Islands.

68

Distinguishing Guises

• Distinguishing guise is defined in Section 2 as meaning (a) a shaping of wares or their containers, or (b) a mode of wrapping or packaging wares

the appearance of which is used by a person for the purpose of distinguishing his wares/services from those of others.

69


• UCA44193

70


• TMA488661 of Nestle (previously Perrier) for sparkling water.

<>

71


• TMA337,785 of Kraft Foods for chocolate.

72


• Requirements for registering a distinguishing guise:– Used in Canada so as to have become

distinctive by the filing date. Territorial restriction possible: s. 32.

– Not likely to unreasonably limit the development of any art or industry.

– Not interfere with the use of a utilitarian feature.

73


• “Unreasonably limit the development of an art or industry”: Dominion Lock v. Schlage

74


• Interference with the use of a utilitarian feature:

– Remington v. Phillips

75

Trade Dress

• Eli Lilly v. Novopharm

Get-up of Prozac capsules, not registered as a distinguishing guise.

Requirement to show get-up is distinctive of a trade source of the product as opposed to being associated with the medicine and its therapeutic effect.

76

Certification Marks

• Purpose: distinguish goods or services of a specified standard from goods or services that do not meet the standard. Purpose is not to distinguish one trader’s goods or services from those of others.

• Examples: VQA of Vintners Quality Alliance. UL of Underwriters Laboratories

77

Certification Marks

• Features of certification marks:– Adoption and registration only by a person who is

not engaged in producing the goods/services.– Use is by licensees.– Owner is not obliged to license everyone who

meets the standard.– Mark must be in use at date of application.

• Owner of certification mark stands in the place of the actual user for purposes of opposing registration or use of a confusing mark. Wool Bureau v. Queenswear.

78

Certification Marks

• Geographically descriptive certification marks (section 25):– Administrative authority or commercial

association in an area can register a certification mark descriptive of the place of origin of the goods/services.

– Owner must permit use of mark for all goods/services produced in the area.

79

Non-Use of a Trademark

• (a) Section 45– Removes deadwood from the register.– No expungement on technical grounds.– Owner must show use within last three years.– Use must be in the normal course of trade.– Three-year grace period after date of registration.– Must show use for each good/service.– Non-use may be excused by special

circumstances.

80


• Section 45(3): Non-use excused by “special circumstances.” John Labatt .v Cotton Club.

81


• (b) Expungement for abandonment– section 18: registration is invalid if

trademark has been abandoned.– Non-use and an intention to abandon are

required to create abandonment. Philip Morris v. Imperial Tobacco.

– section 57: Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction in expungement proceedings.

82


• (c) Use of a mark varying from the registration:

– CII Honeywell Bull• BULL CII HONEYWELL BULL

-Promofil v. Munsingwear

83

Licensing

• Typical licensing situations:– 1. Licensing for franchise or dealership.– 2. Licensing for merchandising.– 3. Multinational company licenses national

subsidiary.– 4. Patent licence includes trademark

license.

84

Licensing

• Section 50:– Use of trademark by licensee, where

owner has control over the character or quality of the goods/services, has the same effect as use by the owner.

– Includes use of mark as part of trade name.

85

Licensing

– …Section 50:– Extra-territorial effect.– Presumption of proper licensing if public

notice of license is given.

86

Licensing

• Section 50 has retroactive effect, whereby a licence cures past, unlicensed use of a trademark. Eli Lilly v. Novopharm.

87

Assignment

• Trademarks are assignable with or without the goodwill of the business.

• Trademarks cannot be divided territorially within Canada by assignment.

• Assignments can be registered in the Trademarks Office: s. 48(3).

88

Assignment

• Distinctiveness can be lost by assignment. The consumers must be informed of the change in ownership of the mark. Wilkinson Sword v. Juda

89

Trademark Infringement

Infringement under Sections 19 and 20

1. Identical trademark situation:– Registration of a trademark for goods or

services gives the trademark owner the exclusive right to the use throughout Canada of the trademark in respect of those goods or services: Section 19.

90

Trademark Infringement – S. 19

The marks and the goods/services must be identical for s. 19 to apply. Mido G. Scharen v. Turcotte; Bonus Foods v. Essex Packers

91


• “…unless shown to be invalid…”– Grounds of invalidity are in section 18:

• (a) Not registrable: s.12.• (b) not distinctive: s.2.• (c) abandoned.• (d) applicant not entitled to register:

s.16.

92


• “Subject to sections 21, 32 and 67…”– s. 21: concurrent use of confusing marks.– s. 32: territorially-restricted marks.– s. 67: Newfoundland marks.

93


• 2. Confusing trademark situation

– Right of the owner of a registered mark is infringed by a person who sells, distributes or advertises wares or services in association with a confusing trademark or trade name: Section 20

94


• Exceptions in section 20:– (a) bona fide use of personal name as a trade

name;– (b) bona fide use, other than as a trademark, (i) of

the geographical name of his place of business or (ii) of any accurate description of the character or quality of his wares of services,

in such a manner as is not likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill

95

Trademark Infringement

• Grey Marketing:

Sale of genuine goods by a person who is not authorized by the trademark owner to distribute them in Canada.

1. Plaintiff is a licensee of the foreign trademark owner. Smith & Nephew v. Glen Oak.

2. Plaintiff is a subsidiary of the foreign trademark owner. Heinz.

96

Depreciation of Goodwill

• Goodwill is the ability of a trademark to induce customers to continue to buy the goods or services identified by the mark.

• Depreciation of goodwill occurs when customers’ habit of buying the brand they bought before is weakened.

97


• Section 22(1): No person shall use a trade-mark registered by another person in a manner that is likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching thereto.

98


Veuve Clicquot v. Boutiques CliquotVEUVE CLICQUOT for champagne versus

CLIQUOT for retail women’s clothing stores. Infringement action and s. 22 claim and action to expunge the defendant’s registrations.

• No requirement to show likelihood of confusion in s. 22 claim.

• Plaintiff’s mark does not need to be famous, but requires significant goodwill.

• Depreciation can arise from loss of distinctiveness as well as disparagement.

• Requirement to show a connection in the consumer’s mind between the two marks.

99

Depreciation of goodwill

• Depreciation of goodwill by using a registered trademark in a parody or satire: Source Perrier v. Fira-Less Marketing. Freedom of expression is not a defence to infringement under section 22.

100

Passing Off

• Three requirements to establish the tort:

– 1. Goodwill:• Plaintiff must have a protectible

reputation in its trademark at the date the defendant starts using its impugned trademark.

101

Passing Off

• 2. Misrepresentation causing deception of public:– Use of confusing trademark amounts to a

misrepresentation that the plaintiff is the source of the goods or services, or that the defendant has a business association with, license from or other connection with the plaintiff.

– Fraudulent intent is not required.

102

Passing Off

• 3. Damage:– Examples: lost sales, damage to goodwill

in the mark, reputation, loss of control over the use of the mark.

103

Passing Off

• The expanded form of the tort:– A group of plaintiffs shares the goodwill in

a name, e.g. the producers of champagne in the French district of Champagne.

– The name distinguishes products of a particular composition or made in a particular territory.

104

Passing Off

• …Expanded form of the tort: Erven Warnink v. J. Townsend.– ADVOCAAT – Egg and spirit drink conforming to

an identifiable recipe. No geographical restriction.– CHAMPAGNE – wines produced by a particular

method in a specific region of France.– SHERRY – wines made by a particular method in

a specific region of Spain.– SCOTCH WHISKEY – blended whiskeys that

have been distilled in Scotland.

105

Statutory Passing Off under Section 7

• Section 7(b)– “… direct public attention to his wares,

services or business in such a way as to cause or be likely to cause confusion in Canada, at the time he commenced so to direct attention to them, between his wares, services or business and the wares, services or business of another.”

106

Statutory Passing Off under Section 7

• Section 7(c)– “…pass off other wares or services as

and for those ordered or requested”– This is interpreted as a prohibition against

the substitution of other goods/services for those that were ordered.

1 Craig A. Ash Oyen Wiggs Green & Mutala LLP E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Tel:...

Documents

Transcript of 1 Craig A. Ash Oyen Wiggs Green & Mutala LLP E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Tel:...