Date: 19990909
Docket: T-2098-98
BETWEEN:
EUROFASE INC.
Applicant
- and -
INDUSTRIAS FASE, S.A.
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
TEITELBAUM J.:
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an application, filed on November 13, 1998 pursuant to sections 17, 18 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, to expunge trade mark registration No. TMA 488, 771 dated January 30, 1998 under the name "Eurofase". The Applicant claims that the Respondent was not the person entitled to secure the registration and that the trade mark was not registrable as of its date of registration. The Respondent did not file any materials contesting this application. The Respondent failed to appear for the present hearing.
[2] The above application was served on the Respondent on or about November 17, 1998. According to the affidavit of service affirmed on the 23rd day of November, 1998, Counsel for the Applicant states:
| 1. On the 17th day of November, 1998, I sent to the Respondent, Industrias Fase, S.A. c/o MacRae & Co., Attention : Mr. Davidson, Trade Mark Agents, by regular mail a copy of the Notice of Application and Affidavit of Joseph Bitton. |
| 2. On the 23rd day of November, 1998, I received the attached acknowledgement of receipt bearing a signature that purports to be the signature of A.I.S. Davidson for MacRae & Co., Trade Mark Agents for the Respondent Industrias Fase, S.A. |
| 3. I served the Respondent Industrias Fase, S.A. With the Notice of Application and Affidavit of Joseph Bitton, by sending a copy by Atripco Delivery Service, a courier to, MacRae & Co. Attention: mr. Davidson, Trade Mark Agents for the Respondent Industrias Fase, S.A., at 85 Victoria Street, Hull, Quebec. J8X 2A3. |
| 4. The copy was given to the courier on the 17th day of November, 1998. |
[3] Receipt of the documents was acknowledged by MacRae & Co., Trade Mark Agents for the Respondent on the 18th of November, 1998.
[4] The Respondent failed to file a Notice of Appearance.
[5] As I have stated, the Respondent failed to appear for the hearing of the Application on September 9, 1999.
FACTS
[6] The Applicant, Eurofase Inc. is a body corporate duly incorporated in the Province of Ontario on December 5, 1989. The Applicant is engaged in the business of manufacturing, sales and distribution of lighting products in Canada, having a place of business in Toronto, Ontario.
[7] Since November 21, 1989, the Applicant has used the name "Eurofase" on their invoices, their shipping and packing materials, and packing slips to their Canadian retailers.
[8] The Respondent, Industrias Fase, S.A. is a Spanish manufacturer of lighting products and has its place of business in Madrid, Spain.
[9] The Applicant and Respondent have been in a long standing business relationship since December of 1989 during which time the Respondent has supplied the Applicant with products manufactured in Spain.
[10] The products purchased from the Respondent by the Applicant have been continuously labelled with the name "FASE". During the normal course of business they have been packed and shipped in boxes prominently marked with this name.
[11] On or about February7, 1997, the Respondent made an application to register as a trade mark the name "Eurofase" for its use in Canada in distributing the following products: floor, table, wall, desk and ceiling lamps, fluorescent and incandescent lamps, halogen floor lamps, halogen wall lamps, low voltage halogen spotlights, and incandescent spotlights.
[12] It was indicated on the Respondent"s application for registration of this trade mark that they had used the name since January of 1990. The application was allowed and the trade mark was registered on January 30, 1998 as Registration No. TMA 488, 771.
[13] The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not use the name "Eurofase" in Canada in association with these products at any time.
[14] The Applicant bases this application on the following grounds:
(1) the trade mark was not registrable as of its date of registration;
(2) the respondent was not the person entitled to secure the registration;
(3) sections 17, 18 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
THE APPLICABLE LAW
Trade Marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13
| Effect of registration in relation to previous use, etc.
17. (1) No application for registration of a trade-mark that has been advertised in accordance with section 37 shall be refused and no registration of a trade-mark shall be expunged or amended or held invalid on the ground of any previous use or making known of a confusing trade-mark or trade-name by a person other than the applicant for that registration or his predecessor in title, except at the instance of that other person or his successor in title, and the burden lies on that other person or his successor to establish that he had not abandoned the confusing trade-mark or trade-name at the date of advertisement of the applicant's application.
When registration invalid
18. (1) The registration of a trade-mark is invalid if
(a) the trade-mark was not registrable at the date of registration,
(b) the trade-mark is not distinctive at the time proceedings bringing the validity of the registration into question are commenced, or
(c) the trade-mark has been abandoned,
and subject to section 17, it is invalid if the applicant for registration was not the person entitled to secure the registration.
Exclusive jurisdiction of Federal Court
57. (1) The Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction, on the application of the Registrar or of any person interested, to order that any entry in the register be struck out or amended on the ground that at the date of the application the entry as it appears on the register does not accurately express or define the existing rights of the person appearing to be the registered owner of the mark.
|
17. (1) Aucune demande d'enregistrement d'une marque de commerce qui a été annoncée selon l'article 37 ne peut être refusée, et aucun enregistrement d'une marque de commerce ne peut être radié, modifié ou tenu pour invalide, du fait qu'une personne autre que l'auteur de la demande d'enregistrement ou son prédécesseur en titre a antérieurement employé ou révélé une marque de commerce ou un nom commercial créant de la confusion, sauf à la demande de cette autre personne ou de son successeur en titre, et il incombe à cette autre personne ou à son successeur d'établir qu'il n'avait pas abandonné cette marque de commerce ou ce nom commercial créant de la confusion, à la date de l'annonce de la demande du requérant.
Quand l'enregistrement est invalide
18. (1) L'enregistrement d'une marque de commerce est invalide dans les cas suivants_:
a) la marque de commerce n'était pas enregistrable à la date de l'enregistrement;
b) la marque de commerce n'est pas distinctive à l'époque où sont entamées les procédures contestant la validité de l'enregistrement;
c) la marque de commerce a été abandonnée.
Sous réserve de l'article 17, l'enregistrement est invalide si l'auteur de la demande n'était pas la personne ayant droit de l'obtenir.
Juridiction exclusive de la Cour fédérale
57. (1) La Cour fédérale a une compétence initiale exclusive, sur demande du registraire ou de toute personne intéressée, pour ordonner qu'une inscription dans le registre soit biffée ou modifiée, parce que, à la date de cette demande, l'inscription figurant au registre n'exprime ou ne définit pas exactement les droits existants de la personne paraissant être le propriétaire inscrit de la marque.
|
ISSUES
[15] The two issues raised in this application are as follows:
| (1) Was the Respondent entitled to secure the registration of trade mark, Registration No. TMA 488, 771? |
(2) Was the trade mark registrable as of its date of registration.
ANALYSIS
Entitlement to Secure Registration
[16] As a preliminary matter, it is clear that the Applicant has an interest in the matter sufficient to bring this application under s. 57 of the Act. Having an identical trade name to that registered by the Respondent, their existing rights to the use of this name are directly affected.
[17] The Applicant submits that having used the name "Eurofase" continuously in the course of business since November of 1989, and having been the first to use this name, they have acquired the right to secure registration of the trademark.
[18] Section 18(1) cited above provides that an Applicant must be entitled to secure registration of a trade mark and refers to section 17(1) of the Act to define what is required to expunge a registration on this basis. Essentially, an Applicant must show that at the date of advertisement of the application to register they had not abandoned the use of the trade mark name and then refers to s. 16(1) of the Act which states as follows:
| Registration of marks used or made known in Canada
16. (1) Any applicant who has filed an application in accordance with section 30 for registration of a trade-mark that is registrable and that he or his predecessor in title has used in Canada or made known in Canada in association with wares or services is entitled, subject to section 38, to secure its registration in respect of those wares or services, unless at the date on which he or his predecessor in title first so used it or made it known it was confusing with
(a) a trade-mark that had been previously used in Canada or made known in Canada by any other person;
(b) a trade-mark in respect of which an application for registration had been previously filed in Canada by any other person; or
(c) a trade-name that had been previously used in Canada by any other person.
|
|
| Enregistrement des marques employées ou révélées au Canada
16. (1) Tout requérant qui a produit une demande selon l'article 30 en vue de l'enregistrement d'une marque de commerce qui est enregistrable et que le requérant ou son prédécesseur en titre a employée ou fait connaître au Canada en liaison avec des marchandises ou services, a droit, sous réserve de l'article 38, d'en obtenir l'enregistrement à l'égard de ces marchandises ou services, à moins que, à la date où le requérant ou son prédécesseur en titre l'a en premier lieu ainsi employée ou révélée, elle n'ait créé de la confusion_:
a) soit avec une marque de commerce antérieurement employée ou révélée au Canada par une autre personne;
b) soit avec une marque de commerce à l'égard de laquelle une demande d'enregistrement avait été antérieurement produite au Canada par une autre personne;
c) soit avec un nom commercial qui avait été antérieurement employé au Canada par une autre personne.
|
|
[19] The Applicant must establish that this section has been violated by the Respondent by their application for registration of the trademark in question.
[20] In the case at bar, the Applicant submits that the trade name "Eurofase" was being used in Canada by them at the time the Respondent filed their application with the Registrar of Trademarks. However, the Applicant acknowledges that it had never registered this name as a registered trademark.
[21] The Applicant relies on the decision of this Court in Kabushiki Kaisha Edwin v. SDB Design Group (1986), 9 CPR (3d) 465 (F.C.T.D.) at p.58 where my colleague, Madam Justice Reed states:
| It is trite law that under the Trade Marks Act rights in a trade mark flow from use not from registration. |
[22] The evidence discloses that the trademark was continuously used in Canada by the Applicant with its products during the normal course of business since November of 1989. I am in agreement with the Applicant that confusion would result from the use of this name by both the Applicant and the Respondent in Canada.
[23] As authority for the argument that this trade mark has been used in Canada in association with the Applicant"s wares, the Applicant relies on Manhattan Industries Inc. v. Princeton Mfg Ltd. (1971) 4 C.P.R. (2d) 6 which articulates "what constitutes wares" at p. 16:
| I think that those words must surely mean that s.4 contemplates the normal course of trade as beginning with the manufacturer, ending with the consumer and with a wholesaler and retailer or one of them as intermediary. When the applicant sold to the retailer and the retailer sold to the public, the public came to associate the applicant"s mark with the HARNESS HOUSE belt; s. 4 contemplates that the use between the retailer and the public ensures to the benefit of the manufacturer and its use in Canada. In other words - if any part of the chain takes place in Canada, this is use within the meaning of s. 4. If this interpretation is correct, then the sale by the retailers in Toronto and Montreal to the public of HARNESS HOUSE wares marked with the applicant"s trade mark is use in Canada and it matters not whether property or possession passed to the retailer in the United States. |
[24] I am convinced that the Applicant"s wares were marked with the trade name "Eurofase" in Canada previously to the Respondent registering that name as their trade mark. The evidence is sufficient to show that this name was used continuously and is associated with the Applicant"s wares.
[25] The Applicant alleges in paragraph sixteen of their written submission that the Respondent"s use of the trade mark "Eurofase" is confusing with the Applicant"s use of this name. Section 6(2) of the Act states:
| When mark or name confusing
6. (1) For the purposes of this Act, a trade-mark or trade-name is confusing with another trade-mark or trade-name if the use of the first mentioned trade-mark or trade-name would cause confusion with the last mentioned trade-mark or trade-name in the manner and circumstances described in this section.
6(2) Idem
(2) The use of a trade-mark causes confusion with another trade-mark if the use of both trade-marks in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference that the wares or services associated with those trade-marks are manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by the same person, whether or not the wares or services are of the same general class.
|
Quand une marque ou un nom crée de la confusion
6. (1) Pour l'application de la présente loi, une marque de commerce ou un nom commercial crée de la confusion avec une autre marque de commerce ou un autre nom commercial si l'emploi de la marque de commerce ou du nom commercial en premier lieu mentionnés cause de la confusion avec la marque de commerce ou le nom commercial en dernier lieu mentionnés, de la manière et dans les circonstances décrites au présent article.
6(2) Idem
(2) L'emploi d'une marque de commerce crée de la confusion avec une autre marque de commerce lorsque l'emploi des deux marques de commerce dans la même région serait susceptible de faire conclure que les marchandises liées à ces marques de commerce sont fabriquées, vendues, données à bail ou louées, ou que les services liés à ces marques sont loués ou exécutés, par la même personne, que ces marchandises ou ces services soient ou non de la même catégorie générale.
|
[26] The evidence introduced by the Applicant sufficiently establishes that the use of the two trade marks in Canada would lead to the inference that the products associated with both were made by the same manufacturer. Although the Respondent has not submitted any reply to the evidence presented, I am satisfied that confusion would be inevitable in this case given that the trade names are not merely similar but identical and deal with the same type of wares, lighting products.
[27] I accept the argument that there is a high likelihood that the continued use of the names would result in false inferences by the public with respect to their association. Furthermore, I cannot overlook the fact that I have no evidence before me to indicate any use of the name or mark Eurofase by the Respondent in Canada. A bald statement of use is not satisfactory to prove use.
[28] For these reasons, the order requested by the Applicant is granted and the trade mark "Eurofase", registration No. TMA 488, 771 dated January 30, 1998 is struck from the register of Trade Marks.
[29] Costs in favour of the Applicant.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
JUDGE
TORONTO, ONTARIO
September 9, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: EUROFASE INC. |
| DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: TEITELBAUM J. |
DATED: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1999
| APPEARANCES: Mr. Samy Ouanounou |
For the Applicant
No One
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Samy Ouanounou
Barrister & Solicitor
6400 Yonge Street, Suite 200
Toronto, Ontario
M2M 3X4
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date:19990909
Docket: T-2098-98
Between:
Applicant
- and -
Respondent
Email this Content