Date: 20001026
Docket: T-1404-97
IN THE MATTER OF Sections 45 and 56 of the Trade-marks Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c.T-13 as amended,
AND IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal from a decision of the
Registrar of Trade-marks dated April 28, 1997 to maintain on
the Register the Trade-Mark Registration - 258,685 - "LE
PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL"
Docket: T-1406-97
IN THE MATTER OF Sections 45 and 56 of the Trade-marks Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c.T-13 as amended,
AND IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal from a decision of the
Registrar of Trade-marks dated April 28, 1997 to maintain on
the Register the Trade-Mark Registration - 257,847 - "YOUR
YEAR'S HORIZONTAL PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE"
BETWEEN:
CULLMAN VENTURES, INC.
Appellant
- and -
QUO VADIS INTERNATIONAL LTD./LTÉE
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LEMIEUX J.:
INTRODUCTION
[1] These two appeals pursuant to section 56 of the Trade-marks Act (the "Act"), are from two April 28, 1997 decisions rendered by Denise Savard, Senior Hearing Officer, and bring into play the central notion of "use" of a trade-mark in association with designated wares in the context of section 45 of that Act.
[2] Section 45 of the Act enables the Registrar of Trade-marks to expunge a registered trade-mark if the registered owner fails to provide evidence of use within the relevant period. The Senior Hearing Officer refused to expunge the two marks involved in respect to "agendas" but did so in respect to calendars in appeal T-1404-97 but maintained the registration in respect of "calendars" for "Your year's planning at a single glance", appeal T-1406-97.
[3] Cullman Ventures Inc. ("Cullman") invoked in December 1995 section 45 of the Act to attack two registered trade-marks owned by Quo Vadis International Ltd./Ltée (Quo Vadis) namely:
| (a) Registered trade-mark TMA 258,685 -- LE PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL (the French language trade-mark) in association with "publications imprimées, notamment des agendas et des calendriers"; and |
| (b) Registered trade-mark TMA 257,847 -- YOUR YEAR'S HORIZONTAL PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE (the English language trade-mark), in association with the same wares, i.e. agendas and calendars. |
[4] In response to the section 45 notices, Quo Vadis filed, in each proceeding, the affidavit of Dr. Francis Beltrami, its President. The content of Dr. Beltrami's affidavit in the two separate section 45 proceedings, were substantially the same. In such proceedings, Cullman cannot file a counter affidavit and cannot cross-examine Dr. Beltrami on his affidavits. Cullman was limited to making submissions to the Senior Hearing Officer.
[5] The essence of Dr. Beltrami's affidavits are in their Exhibit A consisting of samples of agendas and the identification on some inside pages of those agendas where the trade-mark was used. In respect to the English language trade-mark, Dr. Beltrami attached an additional Exhibit B, a photocopy of a calendar where the identified mark was "DIARIZON®" YOUR HORIZONTAL YEAR'S PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE.
[6] In his affidavits, Dr. Beltrami said the agendas and calendars were sold during the relevant period in the Canadian market to office suppliers, bookstores and libraries, principally in the Province of Quebec. He identified the quantities sold and the revenues earned during the years 1993, 1994 and 1995.
THE SENIOR HEARING OFFICER'S DECISIONS
[7] The Senior Hearing Officer issued two separate sets of reasons for the two trade-marks involved in Cullman's section 45 attacks.
| (a) "Le planning horizontal de votre année d'un seul coup d'oeil" |
( T-1404-97)
| (i) No reference to calendars |
[8] Before the Senior Hearing Officer, Cullman made the point Dr. Beltrami's affidavit contained no reference to use by Quo Vadis of its mark in association with calendars. The Senior Hearing Officer agreed and struck from the Register the mark in association with calendars in respect to this registered mark.
| (ii) Usage in the manner of a composite mark |
[9] The Senior Hearing Officer found that at least two of the five Quo Vadis agendas exhibited by Dr. Beltrami had in certain inside pages the words LE PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL. Actually, the trade-mark appeared in the following form:
| "DIARIZON®" LE PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL.. |
[10] Cullman advanced the argument the word "DIARIZON®"would be perceived as the trade-mark while the words "LE PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL" would be descriptive of the wares. Alternatively, Cullman argued that the entire expression "DIARIZON®" LE PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL would be perceived as the trade-mark used. In either case, such use cannot be considered as the use of the registered trade-mark, i.e. LE PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL".
[11] The Senior Hearing Officer rejected Cullman's arguments. First, she distinguished the case before him from that of Compagnie Internationale pour l'Informatique CII Honeywell Bull c. Herridge, Tolmie et le Registraire des marques de commerce, 4 C.P.R. (3d) 523, in the following terms:
| ...car l'expression « LE PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL » et le mot « DIARIZON » n'apparaissent pas en position si rapprochée qu'ils peuvent seulement être perçus comme une seule marque de commerce composée. À mon avis, il est tout à fait probable que les deux expressions seraient aussi considérées comme deux expressions distinctes, et cette impression est renforcée par le symbole ® apparaissant après le mot « DIARIZON » ce qui, à mon avis, indiquerait que le mot « DIARIZON » est une marque de commerce distincte de l'expression « LE PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL". [emphasis mine] |
[12] Second, the Senior Hearing Officer ruled as follows on Cullman's argument that the expression "LE PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL" would not be perceived as a trade-mark but rather as words providing a description of the wares, an argument which she said was not easy to decide:
| À mon avis, la marque de commerce est très suggestive en liaison avec des agendas. Par ailleurs, il reste que cette expression est une marque de commerce déposée et je dois dire que même si j'ai des doutes à savoir si elle serait perçue comme marque de commerce, je ne suis pas convaincu que, telle qu'elle est employée, elle ne le serait pas. J'ajouterais que même si le mot « DIARIZON » est suivi du symbole ® alors que l'expression "LE PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL" ne l'est pas, cela ne règle pas la question. Comme l'a clairement souligné le propriétaire inscrit, l'emploi du ® ou de tout autre symbole en vue d'identifier une marque de commerce sur des marchandises ou l'emballage n'est pas exigé par la loi (voir l'affaire A.W. Allen Ltd. C. Warner-Lambert Canada Inc., 6 C.P.R. (3d) 270). [emphasis mine] |
| (iii) Use only somewhere inside the agendas |
[13] Cullman also argued that the mark did not appear on the cover page of the agendas nor on the first inside page but rather somewhere inside the agenda itself. Cullman argued such use is not that of a trade-mark in association with agendas because the mark does not distinguish Quo Vadis' agendas. Cullman also argued that there was no evidence that at the time of purchase the trade-mark attacked could be seen by the consumer or that such mark was brought to his/her attention. At best, Cullman argued such use only serves to distinguish certain pages of the agenda from others in the same agenda.
[14] The Senior Hearing Officer rejected these arguments by distinguishing Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Germain (No. 1), 16 C.P.R. (3d) 517 at 523, stating:
| Je conviens avec le procureur du propriétaire inscrit que la décision Playboy n'est pas applicable dans la présente cause. La décision Playboy établit le principe selon lequel l'emploi d'une description verbale n'est pas l'emploi d'une marque de commerce car une marque doit pouvoir être représentée visuellement. Dans la présente cause, la marque de commerce est représentée visuellement à l'intérieur des agendas. Par conséquent, la décision Playboy est très éloignée de la présente affaire. [emphasis mine] |
[15] As to the argument that the trade-mark did not appear on the cover of the agendas but rather on certain pages in their interior, the Senior Hearing Officer, finding the trade-mark was not visible from the exterior, asked whether such use satisfied section 4(1) of the Act. She said:
| On peut se demander si l'emploi tel que démontré satisfait les exigences du paragraphe 4(1) de la Loi. Le propriétaire inscrit allègue qu'en raison de la nature des marchandises, la marque de commerce serait vue de l'acheteur au moment du transfert. Il affirme qu'un consommateur voulant acheter un « agenda » en feuilletterait sans doute les pages au préalable afin de vérifier s'il s'agit bien du type d'agenda qu'il recherche. Il souligne que les « agendas » constituent des marchandises achetées pour leurs caractéristiques et leur utilité. [emphasis mine] |
[16] The Senior Hearing Officer accepted the arguments put forward by counsel for Quo Vadis. She ruled:
| Même si cela n'est pas en preuve, j'estime raisonnable d'inférer qu'un « agenda » soit un produit acheté pour ses caractéristiques. Par conséquent, j'accepte l'argument du propriétaire inscrit selon lequel celui qui achète un agenda l'aurait sans doute feuilleté auparavant et aurait sans doute remarqué la marque de commerce en liaison avec les marchandises puisque celle-ci apparaît dès le début de l'agenda. [emphasis mine] |
[17] The Senior Hearing Officer rejected an argument by Cullman that the agendas could be packaged in such a way that the trade-mark would not be visible in these terms:
| ... je ne puis l'accepter car la preuve n'indique pas que cela soit le cas. |
[18] Finally, the Senior Hearing Officer dealt with the question whether, if the mark as it appears inside the agendas is being employed as a trade-mark for agendas, a question which, once again, she characterized as not an easy one to decide. She resolved the matter in the following way:
| Je conviens que la marque serait probablement perçue comme distinguant une caractéristique des agendas du propriétaire inscrit. Toutefois, il se peut alors que les clients du propriétaire inscrit en viennent ensuite à associer cette expression aux agendas du propriétaire inscrit et la reconnaissent comme une marque de commerce distinguant certains des agendas du propriétaire inscrit. Par conséquent, pour les fins de l'article 45, et bien que ce n'est pas sans difficulté que j'arrive à cette conclusion, je suis prête à conclure que l'emploi démontré est un emploi d'une marque de commerce en liaison avec des agendas. [emphasis mine] |
| (iv) False assertions |
[19] Cullman further argued Dr. Beltrami's affidavit contained false assertions. For the agendas, Dr. Beltrami's exhibits reflect only the use of the trade-mark in two of the five agendas and therefore according to Cullman the remainder of the affidavit is untrustworthy.
[20] The Senior Hearing Officer rejected this argument in the following terms:
| ... j'accepte les explications du procureur du propriétaire inscrit selon lesquelles le déposant n'est pas un « expert » en matière de marque de commerce et qu'il n'aurait donc pas été conscient de la question de la « déviation » de la marque. À mon avis, il faut considérer l'affidavit tel qu'il est, et la bonne foi doit être présumée. Je ne vois pas ici de raison pour conclure autrement. |
| (v) Volumes of Sales |
[21] Cullman, lastly, argued that the sales volumes put forward by Quo Vadis for its agendas were not reliable because they were global figures not related to the two agendas where the mark was used. The Senior Hearing Officer rejected, once again, this argument as follows:
| ... j'accepte qu'ils sont reliés aux deux agendas à l'égard desquels j'ai statué que la marque de commerce telle que déposée a été employée. Par conséquent, je conclus que la preuve démontre que la marque de commerce a été employée en liaison avec des agendas durant la période pertinente. |
| (b) "Your Year's Horizontal Planning at a Single Glance" |
(T-1406-97)
| (i) The agendas |
[22] Dr. Beltrami's Exhibit A showed the following use in an inside page for the years 1996 and 1997 of an agenda entitled "Planning 66" where the cover page was headed by the words "Agenda Planning® Diary":
| « DIARIZON® » YOUR HORIZONTAL YEAR'S PLANNING AT A GLANCE. |
[23] The Senior Hearing Officer noted that the words "YEAR" and "HORIZONTAL" were inversed from the registered mark.
[24] The Senior Hearing Officer did not find fault with Quo Vadis because of the word inversion. She ruled the inversion was:
| Une modification mineure et je suis d'avis qu'un tel écart n'aurait pas pour effet de tromper le public ou de lui causer le moindre préjudice. Les éléments de la marque de commerce ont tous été conservés et je conclus donc que la marque YOUR HORIZONTAL YEAR'S PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE n'est pas substantiellement différente de la marque de commerce telle que déposée et qu'elle serait perçue comme un emploi de la marque déposée (voir l'affaire Munsingwear Inc. c. Promafil Canada Ltée, 44 C.P.R. (3d) 59). |
[25] Two other agendas produced by Dr. Beltrami entitled "Minister 15" and "Trinote 45", once again headed "Agenda Planning Diary®", showed the following on an inside page for 1996 and 1997:
| « ANNO-PLANNING » ® YOUR YEAR'S PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE. |
[26] The Senior Hearing Officer noted that the word "HORIZONTAL" had been omitted. Concerning the omission of this word she held as follows:
| En ce qui a trait à cette dernière marque, j'estime que l'emploi du mot « HORIZONTAL » dans la marque de commerce déposée est l'un des éléments principaux et dominant de la marque; par conséquent, l'emploi de l'expression « YOUR YEAR'S PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE » , en omettant le mot « HORIZONTAL » , constitue, à mon avis, l'emploi d'une marque qui s'écarte substantiellement de la marque telle que déposée, notamment parce que l'expression qui est employée a un sens qui est différent de celui de l'expression qui a été enregistrée. Par conséquent, l'emploi des mots « YOUR YEAR'S PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE » ne serait pas perçu comme un emploi de la marque de commerce déposée YOUR YEAR'S HORIZONTAL PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE. |
[27] Cullman also raised the following arguments which it raised in appeal T-1404-97 above namely:
| (1) the non qualifying use because Quo Vadis used in its Planning 66 agenda the composite "DIARIZON®" YOUR HORIZONTAL YEAR'S PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE'"; |
| (2) the location of the registered trade-mark inside the agenda itself and not on the cover page along with the visibility argument.; |
| (3) false affirmations in Dr. Beltrami's affidavit. |
[28] The Senior Hearing Officer ruled on these points in the same terms as she did for the mark "LE PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL". In T-1404-97 above, I set out her reasoning and I need not repeat that reasoning in this T-1406-97 appeal.
(ii) Calendars
[29] The Senior Hearing Officer concluded against Cullman as to trade-mark usage on Quo Vadis' calendars. She concluded that the expression "YOUR HORIZONTAL YEAR'S PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE" as used in Quo Vadis' calendars and set out in Dr. Beltrami's Exhibit B constitutesa usage of the registered trade-mark and a usage of that mark in relation to calendars for the same reasons as she reached that conclusion with respect to agendas. I note once again that the words which appeared on the calendar was "DIARIZON®" YOUR HORIZONTAL YEAR'S PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE
[30] She then dealt specifically with Cullman's arguments whereby it was not certain that the mark was visible to the purchaser at the moment of purchase. The Senior Hearing Officer stated Exhibit B clearly demonstrates the mark appears at the top of the calendars and she could no see on what basis she could conclude that this would not be the way in which the mark would be presented to a purchaser of the calendars.
[31] Moreover, the Senior Hearing Officer was satisfied, as to the sales figures, that a part of those figures concerned agendas and calendars.
ANALYSIS
| (a) Standard of review |
[32] In these two appeals before me, Quo Vadis filed the additional affidavit evidence of Christian Froc, its General Manager. Once again, although separate appeals are engaged, Mr. Froc's affidavits are substantially the same in both appeals. He appended in an exhibit numerous agendas in each affidavit. He said in appeal T-1404-97, the following:
| (1) The agendas are products purchased for their characteristics and usefulness. |
| (2) Consumers are encouraged to examine them before purchase and they effectively examine the inside of the agendas which are not packaged when displayed. |
| (3) As a matter of course, Canadian purchasers, before purchasing, will flip through the pages of the agendas to determine if it is the type of agenda which contains their desired characteristics; |
| (4) Quo Vadis' publicity, illustrated in catalogues, pictures the interior of agendas and attention is drawn to its marks which are selling points. |
[33] The filing of a fresh affidavit on appeal triggers the standard of review set out recently by the Federal Court of Appeal in Molson Breweries v. John Labatt Ltd., [2000] 3 F.C. 145, where Mr. Justice Rothstein said this at paragraph 51 of his reasons for judgment:
| I think the approach in Benson & Hedges and McDonald's Corp. are consistent with the modern approach to standard of review. Even though there is an express appeal provision in the Trade-marks Act to the Federal Court, expertise on the part of the Registrar has been recognized as requiring some deference. Having regard to the Registrar's expertise, in the absence of additional evidence adduced in the Trial Division, I am of the opinion that decisions of the Registrar, whether of fact, law or discretion, within his area of expertise, are to be reviewed on the standard of reasonableness simpliciter. However, where additional evidence is adduced in the Trial Division that would have materially affected the Registrar's finding of fact or the exercise of his discretion, the trial judge must come to his or her own conclusions as to the correctness of the Registrar's decision. [emphasis mine] |
| (b) The legislation |
[34] Section 45 of the Act specifies the use which the registered owner must demonstrate in response to a notice sent; that section also states what the Registrar is to do upon the receipt of that evidence. Section 45 reads:
| 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. 45(2) Form of evidence (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. 45(3) Effect of non-use (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. 45(4) Notice to owner (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. 45(5) Action by Registrar (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. [emphasis mine] |
| 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. 45(2) Forme de la preuve (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. 45(3) Effet du non-usage (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. 45(4) Avis au propriétaire (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. 45(5) Mesures à prendre par le registraire (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. |
c) Discussion
[1] It is important to note that the wares in connection with which the two trade-marks relate are: "printed publications, namely, agendas and calendars".
| (a) Agendas -- both appeals |
[2] In my view, there are two principal reasons why the Senior Hearing Officer was clearly wrong in deciding to maintain Quo Vadis' two registrations. My conclusion is not materially affected by what Mr. Froc had to say in his fresh affidavit before me.
[3] First and foremost, the evidence adduced before the Senior Hearing Officer and in the record before this Court clearly does not establish use of the registered trade-marks by the owner within the meaning of sections 2 and 4 of the Act.
[4] "Trade-mark" and "use" are defined in section 2 of the Act as follows:
| "trade-mark" means (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) a certification mark, (c) a distinguishing guise, or (d) a proposed trade-mark; "use", in relation to a trade-mark, means any use that by section 4 is deemed to be a use in association with wares or services; [emphasis mine] |
| « marque de commerce » Selon le cas_: a) marque employée par une personne pour distinguer, ou de façon à distinguer, les marchandises fabriquées, vendues, données à bail ou louées ou les services loués ou exécutés, par elle, des marchandises fabriquées, vendues, données à bail ou louées ou des services loués ou exécutés, par d'autres; b) marque de certification; c) signe distinctif; d) marque de commerce projetée. « emploi » ou « usage » À l'égard d'une marque de commerce, tout emploi qui, selon l'article 4, est réputé un emploi en liaison avec des marchandises ou services. |
[5] The definition of "use" refers to section 4 of the Act which reads:
| 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. 4(2) Idem (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. 4(3) Use by export (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. |
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. 4(2) Idem (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. 4(3) Emploi pour exportation (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. |
[6] In Plough (Canada) Ltd. v. Aerosol Fillers Inc., 53 C.P.R. (2d) 62, Chief Justice Thurlow, on behalf of the Federal Court of Appeal, said the following at page 66:
| What subsection 44(1) [now subsection 45(1)] requires is an affidavit or statutory declaration not merely stating but "showing" that is to say, describing the use being made of the trade-mark within the meaning of the definition of trade-mark in section 2 and of use in section 4 of the Act. The subsection makes this plain by requiring the declaration to show in respect to each of the wares and services specified in the registration whether the trade-mark is in use in Canada and if not, the date when it was last used and the reason for the absence of such use since that date. The purpose is not merely to tell the Registrar that the registered owner does not want to give up the registration but to inform the Registrar in detail of the situation prevailing with respect to the use of the trade-mark so that he, and the Court on appeal, can form an opinion and apply the substantive rule set out in section 44(3). There is no room for a dog in the major attitude on the part of registered owners who may wish to hold on to a registration notwithstanding that the trade-mark is no longer in use at all or not in use with respect to some of the wares in respect of which the mark is registered. |
[7] He added the following at page 67:
| ... But the use of which evidence is required is trade-mark use, in the case of wares, use of the kind referred to in section 4 by the mark being marked on the wares or their packages or associated with wares at the time of their sale and delivery in the normal course of trade and for the purpose of distinguishing the wares as those manufactured or sold by the owner of the trade-mark from the goods of others. The affidavit does not show that the word is used in that sense since it does not say what is being done or in what sense the word is being used. |
| (Emphasis mine) |
[8] In respect to the French language trade-mark, Dr. Beltrami's evidence abundantly demonstrates that in the five agendas he produced (PLANNING 66, ITAL-B06, UNIVERSITAIRE, LE PRINCIPAL and MINISTRE) including the two MINISTRE and PLANNING 66 where the following words were found: "DIARIZON®" LE PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL on some inside pages, the dominant and distinguishing mark set out on each cover page of those agendas and their inside introductory page was the trade-mark L'AGENDA PLANNING®.
[9] The evidence is also clear in respect to the three other French language agendas (ITAL-B, UNIVERSITAIRE and LE PRINCIPAL), in addition to containing the dominant trade-mark "L'AGENDA PLANNING®" on each cover page and on the introductory inside page, contained the following mark: "ANNO-PLANNING®", and words such as L'ORGANISATION DE L'ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL.
[10] With respect to the English language trade-mark, Dr. Beltrami's evidence is similar. He exhibited four agendas (PLANNING 66, BUSINESS 04, MINISTER 15 and TRINOTE 48), all of the English language agendas had the words "AGENDA PLANNING®" on the cover page and on the introductory inside page. In three of the four English language agendas, the Senior Hearing Officer found no trade-mark use because the word "HORIZONTAL" in the trade-mark had been dropped.
[11] The one English language agenda containing the registered trade-mark had, somewhere inside on a page, the following "DIARIZON®", YOUR HORIZONTAL YEAR'S PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE. As noted, PLANNING and YEAR are inverted.
[12] The conclusion, it seems to me, is inescapable. Quo Vadis is not using the trade-marks which are the subject of this appeal for the purpose of distinguishing its agendas. AGENDA PLANNING® was its chosen mark for such purpose. The use of the trade-marks as registered on one or two pages inside two of the five agendas of the French language agendas exhibited and one English language agenda are not sufficient to overcome the dominance of AGENDA PLANNING® as the distinguishing mark notwithstanding the fresh affidavit of Christian Froc. That affidavit is speculative as to consumer behaviour and does not establish, to my satisfaction, trade-mark use.
[13] My conclusion that AGENDA PLANNING® was Quo Vadis' chosen mark for distinguishing its agendas is strengthened by the fact in the other non-qualifying agendas (3 out of 5 for the French language agenda and 3 out of 4 for the English language agenda) Quo Vadis used other registered marks such as ANNO-PLANNING® with words as YOUR YEAR'S PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE.
[14] The second reason for setting aside the Senior Hearing Officer's decision in respect of the agendas relates to her finding of use of the trade-marks in association with the registered trade-mark DIARIZON. The point here is that the evidence discloses Quo Vadis never used either of its two trade-marks which are subject to this appeal alone but always in association with a trade-mark, that is, "DIARIZON®".
[15] The question to be determined is whether Quo Vadis used its registered trade-marks when it used the composite mark "DIARIZON®" LE PLANNING HORIZONTAL DE VOTRE ANNÉE D'UN SEUL COUP D'OEIL and "DIARIZON®" YOUR YEAR'S HORIZONTAL PLANNING AT A SINGLE GLANCE.
[16] The answer to this question is found in the Federal Court of Appeal's decision of Registrar of Trade-marks v. Compagnie Internationale pour l'Informatique CII Honeywell Bull, Société anonyme et al., 4 C.P.R. (3d) 523, where Pratte J.A. expressed the test in the following words at page 525:
| The real and only question is whether, by identifying its goods as it did, CII made use of its trade-mark BULL.. That question must be answered in the negative unless the mark was used in such a way that the mark did not lose its identity and remain recognizable in spite of the differences between the form in which it was registered and the form in which it was used. The practical test to be applied in order to resolve a case of this nature is to compare the trade-mark as it is registered with the trade-mark as it is used and determine whether the differences between these two marks are so unimportant that an unaware purchaser would be likely to infer that both, in spite of their differences, identify goods having the same origin. [emphasis mine] |
[17] As noted, the Senior Hearing Officer said that the word "DIARIZON®" and the trade-marks as registered did not appear so closely together that they would not be perceived as separate marks.
[18] In my view, the Senior Hearing Officer is clearly wrong in her analysis. As noted, the evidence discloses that the registered trade-marks were never used alone but always together, in the same phrase, with DIARIZON. They were in very close proximity, i.e. in the same phrase. In my view, the Senior Hearing Officer should have applied the test set out by Mr. Justice Pratte in Honeywell Bull, supra.
[19] Applying that test, by comparing the trade-marks as registered with the trade-marks as used, I cannot come to the view that the differences between the two are so unimportant that an unaware purchaser would be likely to infer that both, in spite of their differences, identify goods having the same origin, namely goods originating with Quo Vadis.
| (b) Calendars |
[20] I make similar findings with respect to calendars in appeal T-1406-97. The evidence in exhibit B of Dr. Beltrami's affidavit does not demonstrate, in my opinion, trade-mark use and suffers from the same defects as being associated with the trade-mark "DIARIZON®".
DISPOSITION
[21] For all these reasons, these two appeals are allowed, the two decisions of the Senior Hearing Officer are set aside and trade-mark registrations No. 258,685 and No. 257,847 are expunged. The appellant is entitled to its costs in the two appeals but only one set of cost related to preparation of the memorandum of fact and law and one set of cost for the hearing.
François Lemieux
J U D G E
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
OCTOBER 26, 2000