Date: 20000906
Dockets: T-965-93
T-967-93
T-968-93
T-969-93
OTTAWA, Ontario, September 6, 2000
BEFORE: Rouleau J.
IN RE ss. 45 and 56 of the Trade-Marks Act
(R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13)
IN RE registration TMA 294,498 of a trade mark
CORDON BLEU ( & Design)
IN RE registration TMA 294,497 of a trade mark
CORDON BLEU ( & Design)
IN RE registration TMA 294,494 of a trade mark
CORDON BLEU ( & Design)
IN RE registration TMA 294,495 of a trade mark
CORDON BLEU
IN RE decisions by the Registrar of Trade-Marks
on March 1, 1993
Between:
CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTÉE/
CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTD.
Appellant
And:
RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE
Respondent
JUDGMENT
[1] The appeal is allowed in part.
P. ROULEAU
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20000906
Dockets: T-965-93
T-967-93
T-968-93
T-969-93
IN RE ss. 45 and 56 of the Trade-Marks Act
(R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13)
IN RE registration TMA 294,498 of a trade mark
CORDON BLEU ( & Design)
IN RE registration TMA 294,497 of a trade mark
CORDON BLEU ( & Design)
IN RE registration TMA 294,494 of a trade mark
CORDON BLEU ( & Design)
IN RE registration TMA 294,495 of a trade mark
CORDON BLEU
IN RE decisions by the Registrar of Trade-Marks
on March 1, 1993
Between:
CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTÉE/
CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTD.
Appellant
And:
RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
ROULEAU J.
[1] This is an appeal from a decision by the Registrar of Trade-Marks on March 1, 1993, striking out in their entirety registrations TMA 294,494, TMA 294,495 and TMA 294,497 and striking out in part registration TMA 294-498 for the trade mark CORDON BLEU, pursuant to s. 45 of the Trade-Marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13 (hereinafter "the Act").
[2] Cordon Bleu International Ltd. (hereinafter "the appellant"), duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Parliament of Canada, is a business manufacturing, selling and distributing various types of food and other products both at wholesale and retail. Additionally, it is actively developing new products and methods of manufacturing food products and is developing new recipes and food suggestions.
[3] The appellant's trade marks, Nos. TMA 294,494, TMA 294,495, TMA 294,497 and TMA 294,498 are listed in the Register of Trade-Marks for the following wares:
| [REGISTRATION TMA 294,494] |
| Ready-cooked dishes, meat loaf and beef-based pâtés, beef. |
| Used in CANADA since 02 JAN/JANV 1958 |
| [REGISTRATION TMA 294,495] |
| Ready-cooked dishes, chicken-based pâtés, chicken. |
| Used in CANADA since 02 JAN/JANV 1941 |
| [REGISTRATION TMA 294,497] |
| Used in CANADA since 02 JAN/JANV 1962 |
| [REGISTRATION TMA 294,498] |
| Used in CANADA since 02 JAN/JANV 1940 |
[4] On October 12, 1988, at the request of RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE (hereinafter "the respondent"), four notices were issued to the appellant by the Registrar of Trade-Marks pursuant to s. 45 of the Act in respect of registrations Nos. TMA 294,494, TMA 294,495, TMA 294,497 and TMA 294,498 for the mark CORDON BLEU.
[5] In reply to the Registrar's notices, the appellant filed an affidavit from its president and general manager, J.R. Ouimet. Each party made written submissions and was represented at a hearing before the Registrar of Trade-Marks.
[6] In his affidavit, Mr. Ouimet indicated that the mark CORDON BLEU was used in Canada in the normal course of trade in association with each of the wares mentioned in the registrations, at all relevant times since at least as early as the registration date, namely August 31, 1984.
[7] As an illustration of the way in which the mark CORDON BLEU has been used in Canada in the normal course of trade since at least 1958, Mr. Ouimet provided a representative sample of invoices from a distributor of CORDON BLEU products showing use of the mark CORDON BLEU in association with the various products.
[8] In her decision of March 1, 1993 the Registrar ordered that registrations TMA 294,494, TMA 294,495 and TMA 294,497 be struck from the Register and registration TMA 294,498 be amended by deleting the wares "ham". Accordingly, the only products to be kept in the four registrations are the "ham-based pâtés" in registration TMA 294,498. The respondent filed no notice of appeal from the Registrar's decision to keep the ham pâtés in registration TMA 294,498.
[9] In her decision the Registrar said the following:
| . . . these are invoices of J.R. Ouimet Inc., not the holder. Accordingly, such invoices are in part hearsay tending to prove the sale of wares having the holder's mark. Nevertheless, it is clearly indicated in the invoices that J.R. Ouimet Inc. is a distributor of CORDON BLEU products, which Mr. Ouimet also made quite clear. |
| However, in the upper right corner of the invoices the following trade marks are mentioned: CORDON BLEU, GAZA, PARIS PÂTÉ, ESTA and TIBO. Consequently, J.R. Ouimet also distributes wares having other trade marks. That being so, although I am prepared to take the invoices regarding the sale of CORDON BLEU products into account, I will only do so to the extent that they clearly establish that the products sold were associated with the CORDON BLEU mark . . . |
| As the invoices are those of a third party rather than the holder, and it is apparent that J.R. Ouimet Inc. also distributes products having marks other than CORDON BLEU, I consider it was necessary for Mr. Ouimet to explain how he came to the conclusion and belief that the products listed in the invoices, which are not associated with a trade mark, are CORDON BLEU products. |
| However, Mr. Ouimet chose not to do this: consequently, I cannot attach any weight to his uncorroborated statement. |
[10] The Registrar dealt with each registration separately. Instead of registration TMA 294,496, she concluded that the evidence established use of the trade mark in the normal course of trade in association with the wares in question on the relevant date. There was no appeal in connection with this registration.
[11] As to registration TMA 294,498, she indicated the following:
| As regards the wares "ham pâté", the invoices dated June 28 and October 11, 1988 include "C.Bleu ham pâté". I feel it is reasonable to conclude that "C.Bleu" means CORDON BLEU. Consequently, I conclude that the use of the trade mark in association with the wares "ham-based pâté" has been established. |
| Regarding the "ham" wares, although the same invoices indicated the sale of "flakes of ham", there is nothing to connect this product with any particular trade mark. Consequently, I cannot conclude that these wares were associated with the CORDON BLEU trade mark. |
The registration will be amended accordingly.
[12] As to registration TMA 294,495, she concluded that none of the invoices filed clearly mentioned the wares "ready-cooked dishes, chicken-based pâtés, chicken" in association with the CORDON BLEU trade mark. However, the invoice of October 11, 1988 contains a reference to [TRANSLATION] "C.Bleu pork, chicken, veal". The Registrar concluded:
| In my view, it is not clear in which category to classify the product represented by the notation "pork, chicken, veal". Neither the invoice nor Mr. Ouimet's affidavit clarifies this. Consequently, I can only make conjectures. In my view, the notation "pork, chicken, veal" is open to various interpretations and might well not refer to a "ready-cooked dish" or a "pâté". It would have been very easy for Mr. Ouimet to clearly identify the wares sold or to provide a label relating to them: however, he chose not to do so. In view of the ambiguity as to the nature of the product "pork, chicken, veal", and as I cannot decide whether it should be classified in one of the categories of wares listed in the registration, I consider that the evidence is insufficient to enable me to conclude that the CORDON BLEU trade mark was used in association with these wares. |
[13] She concluded that the registration should be amended by deleting the wares "ready-cooked dishes" and "chicken-based pâté". As to the "chicken" wares, the invoices indicated the sale of "deboned chicken in boxes", but the wares were not clearly associated with the CORDON BLEU mark. The registration was struck out in its entirety.
[14] As to registration TMA 294,497, she noted that the only product associated with the CORDON BLEU mark, and containing veal, was in the invoice for October 11, 1988, which read "C.Bleu pork, chicken, veal". The Registrar concluded as follows:
| It is not clear whether this product is a "veal-based pâté" or not. In my opinion, the notation "pork, chicken, veal" is open to various interpretations and I cannot decide whether the product sold was a "veal-based pâté". If that was the case, it would have been easy for Mr. Ouimet to say so. That being so, I consider that the evidence is insufficient for me to decide that the CORDON BLEU trademark was used in association with the wares "veal-based pâté" at the relevant date. |
[15] As to registration TMA 294,494, the Registrar concluded that there was no invoice clearly establishing use of the trade mark in association with the wares "ready-cooked dishes, meat loaves and beef-based pâté, beef".
[16] On the respondent's argument that the trade marks used differed from those registered, the Registrar was of the view that the use established in each case was that of the trade mark registered.
[17] Following this decision, the appellant filed four notices of appeal on May 3, 1993. In support of these appeals the appellant filed complementary evidence, pursuant to the provisions of s. 56(5) of the Act, and filed a new affidavit by J.R. Ouimet dated April 30, 1993. In that affidavit Mr. Ouimet tried to explain or provide sufficient evidence to resolve the questions raised by the Registrar. He also filed a sample of labels placed on various products.
[18] Mr. Ouimet's explanations are contained in paragraphs 13 to 16 of his affidavit, which read as follows:
| 13. J.R. OUIMET INC. at the present time distributes, and distributed in 1987, 1988 and 1989, in addition to products with the CORDON BLEU mark, products having other trade marks, including ESTA, GAZA, PARIS PÂTÉ, TIBO (and at the present time CLARK): like the CORDON BLEU mark, these marks are primarily associated with food products which J.R. Ouimet sells both to the major food store chains and to the small retailers, who then resell them to consumers. |
| 14. Accordingly, it is not surprising to find that the various invoices to food retailers, copies of which I have filed in support of my affidavits on April 10, 1989 (which I mentioned above in paragraph 5), originating with J.R. OUIMET INC., have below a reproduction of each of these various marks, including CORDON BLEU, in their graphic forms; however, at the times relevant to these proceedings - 1987, 1988 and early 1989 - the mark CORDON BLEU of CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL was undoubtedly the principal mark on the products distributed by J.R. OUIMET INC., as it was associated with a large number of types of products, and still is at the present time. |
| 15. Because the mark CORDON BLEU has this primary position, the business practice of the business at the relevant time was that wares listed on the various invoices (filed in support of my affidavits of April 10, 1989) all referred to the wares on which there were labels with the mark CORDON BLEU, unless another mark - ESTA, PARIS PÂTÉ (or P.P.) and so on - was specifically mentioned beside the description of the product on the invoices. |
| 16. Further, a technical reason involving space on the invoices explains why a long mark like CORDON BLEU was not indicated when it is otherwise implied. However, the invoices may from time to time mention beside a product's name "CORDON BLEU", "C.BLEU" or "C.B.": this happens when the same type of food product, such as a pâté, is marketed under the CORDON BLEU mark and under a different mark: The reference to CORDON BLEU or C.BLEU on the invoice then serves to distinguish the product sold from the similar product with a different mark. |
Registration TMA 294,494
[19] The respondent admitted that the evidence was that the appellant used its trade mark in association with the wares "ready-cooked dishes" and "meat loaf" during the period in question. At the same time, it indicated that no label was provided for the "beef-based pâtés" wares and no invoice mentioned this product. On the "beef" product, the respondent submitted that although the appellant filed evidence disclosing products that contained beef, it filed no evidence establishing sale of beef by itself.
[20] The appellant submitted that Exhibit O-4 shows a label for a beef stew (a beef stew with whole pieces of beef) under the mark CORDON BLEU with a bar code identical to that on an invoice for the same product on October 5, 1988. In his opinion, this evidence shows use of the "beef" wares. It shows no evidence for the "beef-based pâtés" wares.
Registration TMA 294,495
[21] The respondent admitted that the evidence showed that the appellant used its trade mark in association with the wares contained in this registration, so there is no need to deal with it at greater length. The registration is reinstated.
Registration TMA 294,497
[22] The appellant submitted that Exhibit O-6 showed a label for a pâté of ham, veal, bacon and tomato under the CORDON BLEU mark with a bar code identical to that on an invoice dated September 1, 1988 for the same product. In his opinion, this evidence showed use of the "veal-based pâtés" wares.
[23] The respondent submitted that in order to show use of the mark in association with the wares "veal-based pâtés", the appellant should establish use in association with pâtés in which veal is the principal ingredient. Considering the ingredients indicated on the labels of the products "pâtés of ham, veal, bacon and tomato", "meat pâté" and "ham, bacon, veal and tongue pâté", we find that it is ham which is the primary ingredient.
Registration TMA 294,498
[24] The respondent admitted that the evidence showed that the appellant used its trade mark in association with the wares contained in this registration, so there is no need to deal with it at greater length. The registration is reinstated.
[25] At the time the expiry notices were issued, s. 45 (then numbered 44) read as follows:
| 44. (1) The Registrar may at any time and, at the written request made after three years from the date of the registration by any person of the registration by any person who pays the prescribed fee shall, unless he sees good reason to the contrary, give notice to the registered owner requiring him to furnish within three months an affidavit or statutory declaration showing with respect to each of the wares or services specified in the registration, whether the trade mark is in use in Canada and, if not, the date when it was last so in use and the reason for the absence of such use since such date.
|
44. (1) Le registraire peut, à tout moment, et doit, sur la demande écrite présentée après trois années à compter de la date de l'enregistrement, par une personne qui verse les droits prescrits, à moins qu'il ne voie une raison valable à l'effet contraire, donner au propriétaire inscrit un avis lui enjoignant de fournir, dans les trois mois, un affidavit ou une déclaration statutaire indiquant, à l'égard de chacune des marchandises ou de chacun des services que spécifie l'enregistrement, si la marque de commerce est employée au Canada et, dans la négative, la date où elle a été ainsi employée en dernier lieu et la raison de son défaut d'emploi depuis cette date.
|
| (2) The Registrar shall not receive any evidence other than such affidavit or statutory declaration but may hear representations made by or on behalf of the registered owner of the trade mark or by or on behalf of the person at whose request the notice was given.
|
(2) Le registraire ne doit recevoir aucune preuve autre que cet affidavit ou cette déclaration statutaire, mais il peut entendre des représentations faites par ou pour le propriétaire inscrit de la marque de commerce, ou par ou pour la personne à la demande de qui l'avis a été donné.
|
| (3) Where, by reason of the evidence furnished to him or the failure to furnish such evidence, it appears to the Registrar that the trade mark, either with respect to all of the wares or services specified in the registration or with respect to any of such wares or services, is not in use in Canada and the absence of use has not been due to special circumstances that excuse such absence of use, the registration of such trade mark is liable to be expunged or amended accordingly.
|
(3) Lorsqu'il apparaît au registraire, en raison de la preuve à lui fournir ou de l'omission de fournir une telle preuve, que la marque de commerce, soit à l'égard de la totalité des marchandises ou services spécifiés dans l'une quelconque de ces marchandises ou de l'un quelconque de ces services, n'est pas employés au Canada, et que le défaut d'emploi n'a pas été attribuable à des circonstances spéciales qui le justifient, l'enregistrement de cette marque de commerce est susceptible de radiation ou modification en conséquence.
|
| (4) When the Registrar reaches a decision as to whether or not the registration of the trade mark ought to be expunged or amended, he shall give notice of his decision with the reasons therefor to the registered owner of the trade mark and to the person at whose request the notice was given.
|
(4) Lorsque le registraire en arrive à une décision sur la question de savoir s'il y a lieu ou non de radier ou de modifier l'enregistrement de la marque de commerce, il doit notifier sa décision avec les motifs pertinents, au propriétaire inscrit de la marque de commerce et à la personne à la demande de qui l'avis a été donné.
|
| (5) The Registrar shall act in accordance with his decision if no appeal therefrom is taken within the time limited by this Act or, if an appeal is taken, shall act in accordance with the final judgment given in such appeal.
|
(5) Le registraire doit agir en conformité de sa décision si aucun appel n'est interjeté dans le délai prévu par la présente loi ou, si un appel est interjeté, il doit agir en conformité du jugement définitif rendu dans cet appel.
|
[26] The appeal at bar was brought pursuant to s. 56 of the Act. That section reads as follows:
| 56. (1) An appeal lies to the Federal Court from any decision of the Registrar under this Act within two months from the date on which notice of the decision was dispatched by the Registrar or within such further time as the Court may allow, either before or after the expiration of the two months.
|
56. (1) Appel de toute décision rendue par le registraire, sous le régime de la présente loi, peut être interjeté à la Cour fédérale dans les deux mois qui suivent la date où le registraire a expédié l'avis de la décision ou dans tel délai supplémentaire accordé par le tribunal, soit avant, soit après l'expiration des deux mois.
|
| (2) An appeal under subsection (1) shall be made by way of notice of appeal filed with the Registrar and in the Federal Court.
|
(2) L'appel est interjeté au moyen d'un avis d'appel produit au bureau du registraire et à la Cour fédérale.
|
| (3) The appellant shall, within the time limited or allowed by subsection (1), send a copy of the notice by registered mail to the registered owner of any trade-mark that has been referred to by the Registrar in the decision complained of and to every other person who was entitled to notice of the decision.
|
(3) L'appelant envoie, dans le délai établi ou accordé par le paragraphe (1), par courrier recommandé, une copie de l'avis au propriétaire inscrit de toute marque de commerce que le registraire a mentionnée dans la décision sur laquelle porte la plainte et à toute autre personne qui avait droit à un avis de cette décision.
|
| (4) The Federal Court may direct that public notice of the hearing of an appeal under subsection (1) and of the matters at issue therein be given in such manner as it deems proper.
|
(4) Le tribunal peut ordonner qu'un avis public de l'audition de l'appel et des matières en litige dans cet appel soit donné de la manière qu'il juge opportune.
|
| (5) On an appeal under subsection (1), evidence in addition to that adduced before the Registrar may be adduced and the Federal Court may exercise any discretion vested in the Registrar.
|
(5) Lors de l'appel, il peut être apporté une preuve en plus de celle qui a été fournie devant le registraire, et le tribunal peut exercer toute discrétion dont le registraire est investi.
|
[27] The central point in the appeal at bar is thus whether the appellant, with the aid of new evidence, established that the CORDON BLEU mark was used in Canada at the time the Registrar's notice was sent out. The only points at issue, as a result of admissions by the respondent, are:
[28] for registration TMA 294,494: the wares "beef-based pâtés" and "beef";
[29] for registration TMA 294,497: the wares "veal-based pâtés".
[30] In Meredith & Finlayson v. Canada (Registrar of Trade-marks) (1991), 40 C.P.R. (3d) 409 (F.C.A.), Hugessen J. stated that s. 45 of the Act was a simple and rapid method of striking obsolete marks from the Register. The procedure involving s. 45 is a simple procedure to rid the Register of the registrations of trade marks that are not bona fide claimed by their owners as marks in use. In Austin Nichols & Co. v. Cinnabon, [1998] 4 F.C. 569, it was stated that the test that must be met under s. 45 is "not a heavy one". Establishing a single sale in the normal course of commercial activity may suffice to prove use of a trade mark (Philip Morris Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., [1987] F.C.J. No. 26 - aff'd. Philip Morris Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., [1987] F.C.J. No. 848).
[31] At the same time, in Boutiques Progolf Inc. v. Canada (Registrar of Trade-marks), [1993] F.C.J. No. 1363, Létourneau J.A. stated that "the aim of that section [45] is not to determine the rights of the parties to a trade mark, which is done under section 57 of the Act, but to make it possible to trim the Register of Trade Marks by getting rid of dead wood, that is, by removing information from it that has become pointless and outdated because the registered trade mark is not in use".
[32] Létourneau J.A. went on to say:
| I do not believe that section 45 requires continuous use of the trade mark, that is, use that is not interrupted over time . . . an owner need not furnish evidence of weekly, monthly or even yearly use. It is sufficient to furnish evidence of use in the normal course of its trade. Like my colleague Marceau J.A., however, I believe that section 45 requires that an owner furnish evidence of use at the time when the Registrar's notice is sent . . . |
| What section 45 requires is evidence of a degree of current or contemporaneous use, that is, evidence of use at the actual time of the Registrar's notice or use in the still recent past, so that it can be said that the use is current or contemporaneous with the Registrar's notice. In the case of a very specialized or seasonal business, where the business practices may differ, it cannot be required and expected that there will be the same contemporaneous or current use as in the case, for example, of a trade mark in the food industry, where items are consumed frequently and regularly. |
[33] As the appellant pointed out in its memorandum, the Federal Court is usually hesitant to substitute its own decision for that made by the Registrar unless there is in the record before the Court evidence that the Registrar did not consider. Accordingly, when additional evidence is submitted the Court will generally consider the case as if it were a trial de novo and may reverse the Registrar's decision if the new evidence so requires (Glen-Warren Productions Ltd. v. Gertex Hosiery Ltd. (1990), 29 C.P.R. (3d) 7, (F.C.T.D., Dubé J.), at 11; Johann Becher ohg Likorfabrik v. Registrar of Trade-Marks (1997), 71 C.P.R. (3d) 461, (F.C.T.D., Weston J.) at 464-465).
[34] The Court must therefore consider separately each of the wares the use of which is at issue.
Beef-based pâtés
[35] After a careful review of the evidence in the record I could not find a single proof of sale of beef-based pâtés, so that the appellant's appeal on this point must be dismissed.
Beef
[36] The appellant submitted several proofs of the sale of products consisting primarily of beef, such as [TRANSLATION] "meatball stew"; "meatballs/potatoes"; "meatballs and vegetables"; "boeuf bourguignon"; "Irish stew"; "meatballs in gravy"; "meatballs"; "meat loaf"; "light meatballs stew";"pork, beef, veal". In my opinion, in order for the appellant to succeed it had to submit evidence of the sale of beef as such. Evidence of a finished product containing beef is insufficient. In reaching this conclusion I am applying by analogy Spillers Ltd.'s Application (1953), 60 R.P.C. 51 (C.A.), which involved the registration of a mark in association with flour. The Court of Appeal concluded that use of the mark in association with bread was not a use in association with flour. The Court said the following (at 60):
| There are clearly certain overlaps in the classification of goods which has been effected by the Rules, but, in my opinion, flour and bread do not constitute one of them. A loaf can no more be properly regarded or described as flour than flour can be regarded or described as a loaf. Bread cannot be made without flour, but that does not prevent them from being separate goods which, in my judgment, they plainly are. Each is the subject matter of separate registrability, and I am unable to see how the Applicants, if their application should succeed, could use their mark in relation to loaves in pursuance of or by virtue of their monopoly. I cannot think that the use of a mark in relation to a loaf is a user in relation to the flour from which the loaf was made. |
[37] The appellant's appeal cannot be allowed on this point.
Veal-based pâtés
[38] On this product I adopt the respondent's position and give the words used their usual meaning. Logically a veal-based pâté should contain veal as its primary ingredient. In the absence of any evidence establishing use of the CORDON BLEU mark in association with a pâté based on veal, I am unable to allow the appellant's application on this point.
[39] registrations TMA 294,494, TMA 294,495, TMA 294,497 and TMA 294,498 are reinstated in their entirety, except for the wares "beef-based pâtés", "beef" and "veal-based pâtés", which are struck from registrations TMA 294,494 and TMA 294,497.
[40] The appeal is allowed in part.
P. ROULEAU
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
September 6, 2000
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-965-93
STYLE OF CAUSE: CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTÉE et al. -AND - RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 27, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROULEAU J.
DATED: September 6, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Barry Gamache FOR THE APPELLANT
François Guay FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Léger, Robic & Richard FOR THE APPELLANT
Montréal, Quebec
Smart & Biggar FOR THE RESPONDENT
Montréal, Quebec
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-967-93
STYLE OF CAUSE: CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTÉE et al. -AND - RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 27, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROULEAU J.
DATED: September 6, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Barry Gamache FOR THE APPELLANT
François Guay FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Léger, Robic & Richard FOR THE APPELLANT
Montréal, Quebec
Smart & Biggar FOR THE RESPONDENT
Montréal, Quebec
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-968-93
STYLE OF CAUSE: CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTÉE et al. -AND - RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 27, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROULEAU J.
DATED: September 6, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Barry Gamache FOR THE APPELLANT
François Guay FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Léger, Robic & Richard FOR THE APPELLANT
Montréal, Quebec
Smart & Biggar FOR THE RESPONDENT
Montréal, Quebec
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-969-93
STYLE OF CAUSE: CORDON BLEU INTERNATIONAL LTÉE et al. -AND - RENAUD COINTREAU & CIE
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 27, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: ROULEAU J.
DATED: September 6, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Barry Gamache FOR THE APPELLANT
François Guay FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Léger, Robic & Richard FOR THE APPELLANT
Montréal, Quebec
Smart & Biggar FOR THE RESPONDENT
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content