Docket: T-2084-10
Citation: 2011 FC 1390
Ottawa, Ontario, November 30,
2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Keefe
BETWEEN:
|
|
DAVID M. LOCKE
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application under subsection 56(1) of the Trade-Marks Act, RSC
1985, c T-13 and Rule 300(d) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106,
for an appeal of the decision of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office Registrar
of Trade-marks (the Registrar) dated August 4, 2010, wherein the applicant’s
Canadian Trade-mark Registration No. TMA505,431 (the trade-mark) was expunged
from the Register of Trade-marks (the Register). This conclusion was based on
the Registrar’s finding that the applicant had failed to file evidence
demonstrating his use of the trade-mark.
[2]
The
applicant requests that the Registrar’s decision be set aside and that the trade-mark
be reinstated on the Registry.
Background
[3]
The
applicant, David M. Locke, runs a dog kennel (Cedar Ridge Kennels) and sells
products for dogs and hunting from his home-based business. He is the owner of
the trade-mark “SPORTSMAN’S CHOICE”.
[4]
The
applicant filed the trade-mark on July 3, 1997 and it was registered to him on
December 14, 1998. The trade-mark is for the following wares and services:
Wares:
Pet
supplies: namely dog and cat food, collars, leashes and bedding material namely
mattresses and wood chips;
Sporting
gear: namely coats and pants, accessories; and
Accessories:
namely hats, gloves, boots and hunting lights.
Services:
Retail
and wholesales of pet food;
Pet
supplies; and
Sporting
gear.
[5]
In a
letter dated March 25, 2010, at the request of the respondent and pursuant to
section 45 of the Trade-marks Act, the Registrar issued a notice to the
applicant stating that within three months of the date of the notice, it
required evidence demonstrating use in Canada during the preceding three year
period of each ware and service covered by the trade-mark. The applicant
allegedly did not understand the legal significance of this notice and
therefore did not file any evidence in response to the request.
[6]
In a
letter dated August 4, 2010, the Registrar notified the applicant that due to
his failure to file the required evidence, the registration would be expunged
from the Register pursuant to subsection 45(4) of the Trade-marks Act.
[7]
Between
mid-August 2010 and October 26, 2010, the applicant completed various Federal
Court forms, sought legal aid and retained legal counsel.
[8]
In a
letter dated November 9, 2010, the Registrar notified the applicant that the trade-mark
was expunged from the Register as of the date of the letter.
Issues
[9]
The
applicant submits the following point at issue:
Whether the applicant has demonstrated
the use of the trade-mark within the three years prior to March 25, 2010.
[10]
I
would rephrase the issues as follows:
1. What is the appropriate
standard of review?
2. Should this Court issue
an order reinstating the trade-mark on the Register?
Applicant’s Written Submissions
[11]
The
applicant submits that decisions of the Registrar are generally reviewed on a
standard of reasonableness. However, when additional evidence is adduced, the
decision made by the Registrar is subject to a correctness standard.
[12]
The
applicant submits that it is established jurisprudence that a trade-mark holder
should not be punished for disregarding a section 45 notice and may submit new
evidence before the Federal Court even if no evidence was originally submitted.
The applicant has provided evidence of his use of the trade-mark in an
affidavit sworn on February 1, 2011.
[13]
The
applicant submits that the purpose of section 45 of the Trade-marks Act
is to remove dead wood from the Register, not to require an “over-abundance of evidence
of use or utilization of the mark” (see Eclipse International Fashions
Canada Inc v Shapiro Cohen, 2005 FCA 64, [2005] FCJ No 316 at paragraph 6).
[14]
The
applicant refers to the definitions of use under section 4 of the Trade-marks
Act and jurisprudence which it submits requires that use be “in the normal
course of trade”. Further, the applicant submits that continuous use must not
be shown throughout the three year period; even a single sale made in the
normal course of trade in the relevant time can be sufficient.
[15]
Nevertheless,
the applicant submits that through his affidavit and accompanying exhibits he
has demonstrated his use of the trade-mark within the last three years as
required under section 45 of the Trade-marks Act. The applicant submits that
since it was registered to him, he has used the trade-mark continuously in
advertising and in the sale of goods through his home based business. The
applicant further submits that his use of the trade-mark is consistent with his
operation of a small, home based business that is widely known in the field
trial (dog events put on by the United Kennel Club) community.
[16]
Finally,
the applicant submits that should this Court find that certain wares or
services have not been used by the applicant in accordance with section 4 of
the Trade-marks Act, this Court may delete unused wares or services
while maintaining those for which use has been shown.
Respondent’s Written Submissions
[17]
The
respondent is not opposing this appeal and will not be participating in the
hearing on November 2, 2011.
Analysis and Decision
[18]
Issue
1
What is the appropriate standard
of review?
Where previous jurisprudence has
determined the standard of review applicable to a particular issue before the Court,
the reviewing court may adopt that standard (see Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1
SCR 190 at paragraph 57).
[19]
It
is well established that the appropriate standard of review of an appeal made
under section 56 of the Trade-marks Act depends on whether or not new
evidence has been filed that would materially affected the Registrar’s findings
or its exercise of discretion. Where no such evidence has been filed, the
standard of review is reasonableness. Conversely, where such evidence has been
filed, the Court must decide the issue de novo after considering the
evidence before it (see Molson Breweries v John Labatt Ltd, [2000] 3 FC
145, [2000] FCJ No 159 at paragraph 29; Prince v Orange Cove-Sanger Citrus
Assn, 2007 FC 1229, [2007] FCJ No 1697 at paragraph 9; and 1459243 Ontario
Inc v Eva Gabor International Ltd, 2011 FC 18, [2011] FCJ No 27 at
paragraph 2).
[20]
In Prince
above, Mr. Justice Luc Martineau explained the Court’s role in de novo
determinations on this issue (at paragraph 9):
To
determine whether the new evidence is sufficient to warrant a determination de
novo, this Court must look at the extent to which the additional evidence has a
probative significance that extends beyond the material that was before the
Registrar. If the new evidence adds nothing of significance, but is merely
repetitive of existing evidence, without increasing its cogency, the issue will
be whether the Registrar's decision can survive a somewhat probing examination.
[21]
Issue
2
Should this Court issue an order
reinstating the trade-mark on the Register?
Subsection 45(1) of the Trade-marks
Act grants “any person” the right to request that the Registrar require a
trade-mark holder to furnish evidence of use of a trade-mark in Canada within the previous
three years. If a trade-mark holder fails to furnish sufficient evidence to
satisfy the Registrar of such use, or good reason for absence of the use, the
Registrar may expunge the trade-mark (subsection 45(3) of the Trade-marks
Act). The purpose of this provision is “to provide a simple and expeditious
method of expunging marks which have fallen into disuse” (Eva Gabor
above, at paragraph 3).
[22]
Under
subsection 56(5) of the Trade-marks Act, applicants may adduce in appeal
new evidence that was not previously before the Registrar. Additional evidence
may be considered even where the applicant did not previously adduce any
evidence before the Registrar (see Austin Nichols & Co Inc v Cinnabon
Inc, [1998] 4 FC 569, [1998] FCJ No 1352 (FCA) at paragraph 22; and Sols
R Isabelle Inc v Stikeman Elliott LLP, 2011 FC 59, [2011] FCJ No 269 at
paragraph 9).
[23]
The
threshold to establish use is relatively low and it is sufficient if the
applicant establishes a prima facie case of use (Eva Gabor above,
at paragraph 5; and Arbour Recycled Products v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FC 925, [2010]
FCJ No 1140 at paragraph 12).
[24]
The
type of evidence that is acceptable was described by Mr. John D. Justice
Richard at paragraph 25 in Osler Hoskin & Harcourt v United States
Tobacco Co, 139 FTR 64, [1997] FCJ No 1671 (recently referred to in Kiss
My Face Corp v Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP, [2011] FCJ No
171, 2011 FC 150 at paragraph 7):
Evidence
of a single sale, whether wholesale or retail, in the normal course of trade,
can suffice so long as it follows the pattern of a genuine commercial
transaction and is not seen as being deliberately manufactured or contrived to
protect the registration of the mark.
[25]
In
this appeal, the applicant filed evidence on the use of the trade-mark in his
business. As the applicant did not previously submit any evidence, this new
evidence was not before the Registrar when it issued its decision expunging the
trade-mark.
[26]
The
new evidence included the use of the trade-mark on the following items sold by
the applicant in the previous three years:
Labels
affixed to pet food;
Packaging
and brochures for dog food;
Labels
on pants and coats for hunting;
Tags
on pet supplies (dog leads, collars and leashes);
Labels
sewn onto material of sporting gear (hats, t-shirts, sweatshirts, bib-style
pants, regular pants, and hunting jackets); and
Labels
on hunting lights.
[27]
The
evidence also included the use of decals bearing the trade-mark on the
applicant’s trucks and trailer.
[28]
This
new evidence clearly shows that the applicant has been continuously using the trade-mark
since it was issued to him in 1998. Had this evidence been before the
Registrar, it would likely have materially affected its decision to expunge the
trade-mark. This Court must therefore decide whether the evidence is sufficient
to establish the applicant’s use of the trade-mark during the relevant period.
[29]
In
previous cases, the reliability of evidence given by business owners or
operators has been accepted as these individuals are presumed to be
knowledgeable about the affairs of their businesses (Eva Gabor above, at
paragraph 13). In this case, the evidence submitted by the applicant, the
business owner, corresponds with the definition of use under subsections 4(1)
and 4(2) of the Trade-marks Act.
[30]
In
summary, I find that the applicant has provided additional evidence that has a
probative significance extending beyond the material that was before the
Registrar. The burden of proof for this evidence is not heavy. I find that the
applicant has provided clear evidence of use of the wares and services. I would
therefore allow this appeal and order that the trade-mark be reinstated on the
Register.
[31]
A
final note should be made on the timing of this appeal. This Court is empowered
under subsection 56(1) of the Trade-marks Act to allow an appeal even
after the expiration of the two months from the date on which notice of the
decision was dispatched by the Registrar. I find that the applicant’s
continuous efforts to have his trade-mark reinstated, coupled with the
underlying purpose of section 45 (as discussed above), are sufficient to
warrant an extension of time for this appeal.
[32]
The
applicant has sought costs of the appeal. I am not prepared to make an award of
costs to the applicant based on the facts of this case.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT
is that:
1. The appeal is
allowed. The decision of the Registrar to expunge Registration No. TMA505,431
is set aside.
2. Registration No.
TMA505,431 for the “SPORTSMAN’S CHOICE” trade-mark is to be maintained on the
Register.
3. There shall be no
order as to costs.
“John
A. O’Keefe”
ANNEX
Relevant
Statutory Provisions
Trade-Marks Act,
RSC 1985, c T-13
|
4. (1) A
trade-mark is deemed to be used in association with wares if, at the time of
the transfer of the property in or possession of the 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.
(2) A
trade-mark is deemed to be used in association with services if it is used or
displayed in the performance or advertising of those services.
(3) A
trade-mark that is marked in Canada on wares or on the packages in which they
are contained is, when the wares are exported from Canada, deemed to be used
in Canada in association with those wares.
45. (1) The
Registrar may at any time and, at the written request made after three years
from the date of the registration of a trade-mark by any person who pays the
prescribed fee shall, unless the Registrar sees good reason to the contrary,
give notice to the registered owner of the trade-mark requiring the
registered owner to furnish within three months an affidavit or a statutory
declaration showing, with respect to each of the wares or services specified
in the registration, whether the trade-mark was in use in Canada at any time
during the three year period immediately preceding the date of the notice and,
if not, the date when it was last so in use and the reason for the absence of
such use since that date.
(2) The
Registrar shall not receive any evidence other than the 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.
(3) Where,
by reason of the evidence furnished to the Registrar or the failure to
furnish any evidence, it appears to the Registrar that a trade-mark, either
with respect to all of the wares or services specified in the registration or
with respect to any of those wares or services, was not used in Canada at any
time during the three year period immediately preceding the date of the notice
and that the absence of use has not been due to special circumstances that
excuse the absence of use, the registration of the trade-mark is liable to be
expunged or amended accordingly.
(4) When
the Registrar reaches a decision whether or not the registration of a
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 referred to in subsection (1)
was given.
(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 the appeal.
47. (1) If,
in any case, the Registrar is satisfied that the circumstances justify an
extension of the time fixed by this Act or prescribed by the regulations for
the doing of any act, he may, except as in this Act otherwise provided,
extend the time after such notice to other persons and on such terms as he
may direct.
(2) An
extension applied for after the expiration of the time fixed for the doing of
an act or the time extended by the Registrar under subsection (1) shall not
be granted unless the prescribed fee is paid and the Registrar is satisfied
that the failure to do the act or apply for the extension within that time or
the extended time was not reasonably avoidable.
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.
. . .
(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.
|
4. (1) Une
marque de commerce est réputée employée en liaison avec des marchandises si,
lors du transfert de la propriété ou de la possession de ces marchandises,
dans la pratique normale du commerce, elle est apposée sur les marchandises
mêmes ou sur les colis dans lesquels ces marchandises sont distribuées, ou si
elle est, de toute autre manière, liée aux marchandises à tel point qu’avis
de liaison est alors donné à la personne à qui la propriété ou possession est
transférée.
(2) Une
marque de commerce est réputée employée en liaison avec des services si elle
est employée ou montrée dans l’exécution ou l’annonce de ces services.
(3) Une
marque de commerce mise au Canada sur des marchandises ou sur les colis qui
les contiennent est réputée, quand ces marchandises sont exportées du Canada,
être employée dans ce pays en liaison avec ces marchandises.
45. (1) Le
registraire peut, et doit sur demande écrite présentée après trois années à
compter de la date de l’enregistrement d’une marque de commerce, 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
solennelle indiquant, à l’égard de chacune des marchandises ou de chacun des
services que spécifie l’enregistrement, si la marque de commerce a été
employée au Canada à un moment quelconque au cours des trois ans précédant la
date de l’avis 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) Le
registraire ne peut recevoir aucune preuve autre que cet affidavit ou cette
déclaration solennelle, mais il peut entendre des représentations faites par
le propriétaire inscrit de la marque de commerce ou pour celui-ci ou par la
personne à la demande de qui l’avis a été donné ou pour celle-ci.
(3) Lorsqu’il
apparaît au registraire, en raison de la preuve qui lui est fournie ou du
défaut de fournir une telle preuve, que la marque de commerce, soit à l’égard
de la totalité des marchandises ou services spécifiés dans l’enregistrement,
soit à l’égard de l’une de ces marchandises ou de l’un de ces services, n’a
été employée au Canada à aucun moment au cours des trois ans précédant la
date de l’avis 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 de modification en conséquence.
(4) Lorsque
le registraire décide ou non de radier ou de modifier l’enregistrement de la
marque de commerce, il notifie 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 visé au paragraphe (1) a été donné.
(5) Le
registraire agit en conformité avec sa décision si aucun appel n’en est
interjeté dans le délai prévu par la présente loi ou, si un appel est
interjeté, il agit en conformité avec le jugement définitif rendu dans cet
appel.
47. (1) Si,
dans un cas donné, le registraire est convaincu que les circonstances
justifient une prolongation du délai fixé par la présente loi ou prescrit par
les règlements pour l’accomplissement d’un acte, il peut, sauf disposition
contraire de la présente loi, prolonger le délai après l’avis aux autres
personnes et selon les termes qu’il lui est loisible d’ordonner.
(2) Une
prorogation demandée après l’expiration de pareil délai ou du délai prolongé
par le registraire en vertu du paragraphe (1) ne peut être accordée que si le
droit prescrit est acquitté et si le registraire est convaincu que l’omission
d’accomplir l’acte ou de demander la prorogation dans ce délai ou au cours de
cette prorogation n’était pas raisonnablement évitable.
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.
. . .
(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.
|
Federal
Courts Rules,
SOR/98-106
|
300. This Part applies to
. . .
(d) appeals under section 56 of the Trade-marks Act;
301. An application shall be commenced by a notice of
application in Form 301, setting out
(a) the name of the court to which the application is
addressed;
(b) the names of the applicant and respondent;
(c) where the application is an application for
judicial review,
(i) the tribunal in respect of which the application
is made, and
(ii) the date and details of any order in respect of
which judicial review is sought and the date on which it was first
communicated to the applicant;
(d) a precise statement of the relief sought;
(e) a complete and concise statement of the grounds
intended to be argued, including a reference to any statutory provision or
rule to be relied on; and
(f) a list of the documentary evidence to be used at
the hearing of the application.
317. (1) A party may request material relevant
to an application that is in the possession of a tribunal whose order is the
subject of the application and not in the possession of the party by serving
on the tribunal and filing a written request, identifying the material
requested.
(2) An applicant may include a request under
subsection (1) in its notice of application.
(3) If an applicant does not include a request under
subsection (1) in its notice of application, the applicant shall serve the
request on the other parties.
318. (1) Within 20 days after service of a
request under rule 317, the tribunal shall transmit
(a) a certified copy of the requested material to the
Registry and to the party making the request; or
(b) where the material cannot be reproduced, the
original material to the Registry.
(2) Where a tribunal or party objects to a request
under rule 317, the tribunal or the party shall inform all parties and the
Administrator, in writing, of the reasons for the objection.
(3) The Court may give directions to the parties and
to a tribunal as to the procedure for making submissions with respect to an
objection under subsection (2).
(4) The Court may, after hearing submissions with respect
to an objection under subsection (2), order that a certified copy, or the
original, of all or part of the material requested be forwarded to the
Registry.
|
300. La présente partie s’applique :
. . .
d) aux appels interjetés en vertu de l’article 56 de
la Loi sur les marques de
commerce;
301. La demande est introduite par un avis de
demande, établi selon la formule 301, qui contient les renseignements
suivants :
a) le nom de la cour à laquelle la demande est
adressée;
b) les noms du demandeur et du
défendeur;
c) s’il s’agit d’une demande de contrôle judiciaire :
(i) le nom de l’office fédéral visé
par la demande,
(ii) le cas échéant, la date et les particularités de
l’ordonnance qui fait l’objet de la demande ainsi que la date de la première
communication de l’ordonnance au demandeur;
d) un énoncé précis de la réparation demandée;
e) un énoncé complet et concis des motifs invoqués,
avec mention de toute disposition législative ou règle applicable;
f) la liste des documents qui seront utilisés en
preuve à l’audition de la demande.
317. (1) Toute partie peut
demander la transmission des documents ou des éléments matériels pertinents
quant à la demande, qu’elle n’a pas mais qui sont en la possession de
l’office fédéral dont l’ordonnance fait l’objet de la demande, en signifiant
à l’office une requête à cet effet puis en la déposant. La requête
précise les documents ou les éléments matériels demandés.
(2) Un demandeur peut inclure sa
demande de transmission de documents dans son avis de demande.
(3) Si le demandeur n’inclut pas sa
demande de transmission de documents dans son avis de demande, il est tenu de
signifier cette demande aux autres parties.
318. (1) Dans les 20 jours
suivant la signification de la demande de transmission visée à la règle 317,
l’office fédéral transmet :
a) au greffe et à la partie qui en a fait la demande
une copie certifiée conforme des documents en cause;
b) au greffe les documents qui ne se
prêtent pas à la reproduction et les éléments matériels en cause.
(2) Si l’office fédéral ou une
partie s’opposent à la demande de transmission, ils informent par écrit
toutes les parties et l’administrateur des motifs de leur opposition.
(3) La Cour peut donner aux parties
et à l’office fédéral des directives sur la façon de procéder pour présenter
des observations au sujet d’une opposition à la demande de transmission.
(4) La Cour peut, après avoir
entendu les observations sur l’opposition, ordonner qu’une copie certifiée
conforme ou l’original des documents ou que les éléments matériels soient
transmis, en totalité ou en partie, au greffe.
|
Email this Content