Institut National des Appellations D'Origine des vins et Eaux-de-vie v. Chateau-Gai Wines Ltd., (1974) 2 N.R. 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Fauteux, C.J.C., Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Laskin and Dickson, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 02, 1974
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1974), 2 N.R. 1 (SCC);2 NR 1;1974 CanLII 135 (SCC);51 DLR (3d) 120;14 CPR (2d) 1;[1974] SCJ No 48 (QL);[1975] 1 SCR 190

Inst. Nat. des Appellations v. Chateau-Gai (1974), 2 N.R. 1 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Institut National des Appellations D'Origine des vins et Eaux-de-vie v. Chateau-Gai Wines Ltd.

Indexed As: Institut National des Appellations D'Origine des vins et Eaux-de-vie v. Chateau-Gai Wines Ltd.

Supreme Court of Canada

Fauteux, C.J.C., Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Laskin and Dickson, JJ.

April 2, 1974.

Summary:

This case arose out of a claim for damages and for an injunction by 15 wine producers of Champagne, France against a Canadian wine producer who used the word "champagne". The French wine producers based their action on the Canada France Trade Agreement Act, 1933. The Canada France Trade Agreement Act, 1933 prohibited the use of registered appellations of origin. The Superior Court of Quebec allowed the claimants' action and awarded the 15 wine producers of Champagne, France damages of $5,000.00 each and ordered the defendant to refrain from using the appellation "champagne" at any time or at any place. On appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal the appeal was dismissed and the damage award and the injunction were affirmed.

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal was affirmed. Abbott, Judson, Spence, Laskin, JJ., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and would have dismissed the action by the 15 wine producers of Champagne, France because of the lack of registration of the word "champagne" with "the competent services" of Canada as required by the Canada-France Trade Agreement Act, 1933. The word "champagne" was registered in the Canadian Trade Mark Registry but the registration was subsequently struck out by court order - see paragraphs 13, 14 and 47.

Contracts - Topic 2268

Terms - Conditions subsequent - Ratification - Effect of a term in a trade agreement between Canada and France stating that the agreement "shall be ratified" and that the parties may fix a date of commencement of the agreement - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the lack of ratification did not affect the validity of the agreement "in the absence of any action by the public authority to terminate or rescind it" - See paragraphs 2 to 6.

Treaties - Topic 205

Commencement and duration - When a treaty is in force - Trade agreement between Canada and France - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the question of whether a treaty is in force is "wholly within the province of the public authority" - See paragraph 7 - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the Canadian government could bring the trade agreement into force by agreement regardless of ratification - See paragraphs 8 and 42 to 45.

Evidence - Topic 2245

Judicial notice - Judicial proceedings - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada could not be regarded as evidence in an action in the Quebec Courts in the absence of proof of the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada - See paragraph 14.

Estoppel - Topic 475

Estoppel by record - Res judicata - Necessity for pleading - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that facts adjudicated upon in another court cannot be regarded as res judicata in the absence of pleading and proof of the previous adjudication - See paragraph 14.

Trade Marks and Trade Names - Topic 255

Permissible trade marks - Geographical place names (appellations of origin) - Use of the word "champagne" in connection with wines produced in Canada - Canada France Trade Agreement Act 1933 - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed an order restraining a Canadian producer of wines from using the word "champagne" - See paragraphs 1 to 26.

Injunctions - Topic 688

Considerations affecting grant of an injunction - Defences - Failure of the authorities to prosecute others for breach of a public policy statute - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that it is not a defence to an action for an injunction that others in breach of a public policy statute have not been prosecuted - See paragraphs 23 and 52 to 58.

Injunctions - Topic 2507

Persons entitled to an injunction - Beneficiaries of statutory prohibition - Canada France Trade Agreement Act 1933 prohibited the use of registered appellations of origin of wine - The Supreme Court of Canada granted an injunction to wine producers of Champagne, France restraining a Canadian wine producer from using the word "champagne" even though the claimants were not parties to the trade agreement nor were the claimants holders of a registered trade mark - See paragraphs 28, 29 and 52 to 58.

Words and Phrases

Notwithstanding ... Any law in force in canada - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the phrase "notwithstanding ... any law in force in Canada" as found in the Canada France Trade Agreement Act 1933 - See paragraph 51.

Words and Phrases

Ratification - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "ratification" as found in the Canada France Trade Agreement Act 1933 - See paragraphs 2 to 6.

Cases Noticed:

Schuler A.G. v. Wickman Tools, [1973] 2 W.L.R. 683, folld. [para. 4].

Charlton v. Kelly (1913), 229 U.S. 447, folld. [para. 5].

Duff Development Co. v. Government of Kelantan, [1924] A.C. 797, folld. [para. 7].

Terlinden v. Ames (1902), 184 U.S. 270, folld. [para. 7].

The Blonde, [1922] 1 A.C. 313, folld. [para. 7].

Chateau-Gai Wines Ltd. v. A.G. of Canada, folld. [para. 13].

Chateau-Gai Wines Ltd. v. The Government of the French Republic (1967), 61 D.L.R.(2d) 709, folld. [para. 13].

Corporation of the Village of Deschenes v. Loveys, [1936] S.C.R. 351, folld. [para. 14].

National Starch Manufacturing Company v. Munn's Patent Maizena and Starch Company, [1894] A.C. 275, dist. [para. 20].

Polai v. City of Toronto, [1973] S.C.R. 38, folld. [para. 23].

Bollinger and others v. The Costa Brava Wine Company Limited, [1961] R.P.C. 116, folld. [para. 24].

Minister of National Revenue v. Inland Industries, 1971, 23 D.L.R.(3d) 677, folld. [para. 26].

La Fraternite des Policiers v. City of Montreal, [1962] S.C. 458, folld. [para. 29].

Chateau-Gai Wines Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada, [1970] Ex.C.R. 366, folld. [para. 47].

Chaput v. Romain, [1955] S.C.R. 834, folld. [para. 59].

Cloutier v. Thetford Mines, [1970] Que.C.A. 1002, folld. [para. 60].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada France Trade Agreement Act, 1933, S.C. 1932-33, c. 31.

Unfair Competition Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 274, sect. 12(1), sect. 30(3) [para. 18].

Counsel:

J. Martineau, Q.C. and B. Lacombe, for the appellant;

C. Robinson, Q.C. and G. Emery, Q.C., for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on November 30 and December 4, 5 and 6, 1973. Judgment was delivered on April 2, 1974.

FAUTEUX, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE and DICKSON, JJ. concurred with PIGEON, J.

ABBOTT, JUDSON and SPENCE, JJ. concurred with LASKIN, J.