Bodum USA Inc. et al. v. Meyer Housewares Canada Inc., (2012) 423 F.T.R. 34 (FC)

• Judge: Mosley, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 10, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 423 F.T.R. 34 (FC);2012 FC 1450

Bodum USA v. Meyer Housewares (2012), 423 F.T.R. 34 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.068

Bodum USA, Inc. and Pi Design AG (plaintiffs) v. Meyer Housewares Canada Inc. (defendant)

(T-1240-09; 2012 FC 1450; 2012 CF 1450)

Indexed As: Bodum USA Inc. et al. v. Meyer Housewares Canada Inc.

Federal Court

Mosley, J.

December 10, 2012.

Summary:

The defendant, which was engaged in the importation, sale and distribution of kitchenware products, sold, inter alia, non-electric coffee makers in Canada with packaging and product inserts bearing the term "French Press". The plaintiff, which had registered the trademark "French Press" for use with its non-electric coffee maker in 1997, sued the defendant for trademark infringement, passing off and depreciation of goodwill. The defendant filed a defence and counterclaimed to have the trademark declared invalid and expunged from the register.

The Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff's action for trademark infringement. The court allowed the counterclaim and declared the plaintiff's trademark registration invalid for lack of distinctiveness. The court ordered the trademark "French Press" expunged from the register.

Courts - Topic 4076

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Practice - Production of documents - [See Evidence - Topic 7019 ].

Evidence - Topic 7019

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - General - Waiver of solicitor-client privilege by calling expert as witness - In a trademark infringement action being heard in British Columbia, the plaintiffs moved for production of the defence experts' working papers, draft reports and correspondence between the experts and counsel and third parties - The defendant objected, claiming that the request exceeded the Federal Courts Rules' requirements for production of expert reports - The Federal Court, relying on rule 13-4(11) of Supreme Court Civil Rules (B.C.), ordered the production of the experts' preliminary working papers and draft reports - However, the plaintiff would have to lay a foundation for the production of any correspondence between counsel and the experts because, barring a showing to the contrary, such communications were subject to litigation privilege and their admissibility had not been established - The court noted that no further request was made for their production - See paragraphs 108 to 112.

Practice - Topic 4578

Discovery - What documents must be produced - Privileged documents - Documents prepared in contemplation of litigation (litigation privilege or work product privilege) - [See Evidence - Topic 7019 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 261

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Prohibition - Marks which are descriptive of the product - The defendant sold kitchenware products, including non-electric coffee makers with packaging and product inserts bearing the term "French Press" - The plaintiff, which had registered the trademark "French Press" for use with its non-electric coffee maker in 1997, sued the defendant for trademark infringement - The defendant challenged the trademark's validity - The Federal Court declared the trademark invalid for want of distinctiveness - The court opined that the trademark was also invalid on the ground of descriptiveness - See paragraphs 150 to 153.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Distinctive marks - General - The Federal Court stated that "Distinctiveness is a question of fact. The three conditions that must be established are: (1) the mark and wares must be associated; (2) the mark's owner must use this association in manufacturing and selling its wares; and (3) this association must enable the mark's owner to distinguish its wares from those of others ..." - See paragraph 117.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Distinctive marks - General - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.1 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.1

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Loss of distinctiveness (incl. non-distinctiveness) - The defendant sold kitchenware products, including non-electric coffee makers with packaging and product inserts bearing the term "French Press" - The plaintiff, which had registered the trademark "French Press" for use with its non-electric coffee maker in 1997, sued the defendant for trademark infringement - The defendant challenged the trademark's validity - The Federal Court declared the trademark invalid - The mark was not distinctive at the time that its validity was challenged - Further, it was not distinctive when it was registered and the trademark application should never have been approved - The court agreed with the defendant that that "French press" was at all relevant times a common name for non-electric coffee making devices and the method of brewing coffee using such a device (i.e., it was a generic term) - See paragraphs 116 to 149.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 4409

Trademarks - Practice - Evidence - Foreign - The defendants challenged the validity of the trademark for lack of distinctiveness - An issue arose as to whether evidence as to the extent that American advertising and information had come into the Canadian market (i.e., the spillover effect) should be excluded - The Federal Court opined that the court could take judicial notice of the movement of information across the Canada-US border - The court also considered a 1999 U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision to be instructive in deciding the distinctiveness issue - See paragraphs 138 to 141.

Cases Noticed:

Philip Morris Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., [1985] F.C.J. No. 1231 (T.D.), affd. [1987] F.C.J. No. 848 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Aladdin Industries Inc. v. Canadian Thermos Products Ltd., [1969] 2 Ex. C.R. 80, refd to. [para. 15].

Molson Breweries, A Partnership v. Labatt (John) Ltd. et al., [2000] 3 F.C. 145; 252 N.R. 91; 5 C.P.R.(4th) 180 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd. (2003), 239 F.T.R. 203; 29 C.P.R.(4th) 182; 2003 FC 1056, affd. (2005), 332 N.R. 1; 29 C.P.R.(4th) 182; 2005 FCA 96, refd to. [para. 16].

Provenzano v. Registrar of Trade-marks (1977), 37 C.P.R.(2d) 189 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 387; 416 N.R. 307; 2011 SCC 27, refd to. [para. 17].

Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot ltée et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 824; 349 N.R. 111; 2006 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 17].

Airos Systems Ltd. v. Windsurfing International Inc. (1983), 75 C.P.R.(2d) 74 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

General Motors du Canada et al. v. Décarie Motors Inc. et al., [2001] 1 F.C. 665; 264 N.R. 69; 9 C.P.R.(4th) 368 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Emall.ca Inc. et al. v. Cheap Tickets and Travel Inc. (2008), 375 N.R. 350; 2008 FCA 50, refd to. [para. 20].

Alticor Inc. et al. v. Nutravite Pharmaceuticals Inc. (2005), 339 N.R. 56; 257 D.L.R.(4th) 60; 2005 FCA 269, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 202, refd to. [para. 22].

Fraser River Pile and Dredge Ltd. v. Empire Tug Boats Ltd. et al. (1995), 95 F.T.R. 43; 37 C.P.C.(3d) 119 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Jesionowski v. Gorecki and Ship Wa-Yas (1992), 55 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 109].

Vancouver Community College v. Phillips, Barratt et al. (1987), 20 B.C.L.R.(2d) 289 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 109].

Lax Kw'alaams Indian Band et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. D55; 2007 BCSC 909, refd to. [para. 109].

Browne v. Dunn (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 113].

Mattel Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 772; 348 N.R. 340; 2006 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 116].

White Consolidated Industries Inc. v. Beam of Canada Inc. (1991), 47 F.T.R. 172; 39 C.P.R.(3d) 94 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 117].

Institut national des appellations d'origine des vins et eaux-de-vie v. Andres Wines Ltd. (1987), 16 C.P.R.(3d) 385 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1990), 30 C.P.R.(3d) 279 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].

Canadian Shredded Wheat Co. v. Kellogg Co. of Canada, [1938] Ex. C.J. No. 9; [1969] 1 D.L.R. 7, refd to. [para. 136].

Brûlerie Des Monts Inc. v. 3002462 Canada Inc., (1997), 75 C.P.R.(3d) 445, refd to. [para. 136].

Morris (Philip) Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. et al. (1985), 7 C.P.R.(3d) 254 (F.C.T.D.), affd. (1987), 91 N.R. 76; 17 C.P.R.(3d) 237; 1987 CarswellNat 701 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 138].

Philip Morris Products S.A. et al. v. Marlboro Canada Ltd. et al. (2010), 374 F.T.R. 213; 90 C.P.R.(4th) 1; 2010 FC 1099, refd to. [para. 139].

Foodcorp Ltd. v. Chalet Bar B Q (Canada) Inc. et al. (1982), 47 N.R. 172; 66 C.P.R.(2d) 56 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 139].

Thomas & Betts Ltd. v. Panduit Corp. et al., [2000] 3 F.C. 3; 252 N.R. 371 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 144].

Canadian Shredded Wheat Co. v. Kellogg Co. of Canada, [1939] 1 D.L.R. 7 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 144].

Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin - Michelin & Cie v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (C.A.W.-Canada) (1996), 124 F.T.R. 192; 71 C.P.R.(3d) 348 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 144].

Blue Crest Music Inc. et al. v. Compo Co., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 357; 29 N.R. 296, refd to. [para. 144].

Candrug Health Solutions Inc. et al. v. Thorkelson (2008), 375 N.R. 302; 64 C.P.R.(4th) 431; 2008 FCA 100, refd to. [para. 147].

Thorkelson v. PharmaWest Pharmacy Ltd. - see Candrug Health Solutions Inc. et al. v. Thorkelson.

Provenzano v. Registrar of Trademarks (1977), 37 C.P.R.(2d) 189 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 150].

Unitel Communications Inc. v. Bell Canada (1995), 92 F.T.R. 161; 61 C.P.R.(3d) 12 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 150].

Statutes Noticed:

Supreme Court Civil Rules (B.C.), rule 13-4(11) [para. 110].

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 2 [para. 14].

Counsel:

Christopher Wilson and Kwan Loh, for the plaintiffs;

Mark E. Davis and Charlene Lipchen, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Bull Houser & Tupper LLP, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the plaintiffs;

Heenan Blaikie LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant.

This matter was heard in Vancouver, British Coumbia, on June 13-15 and 18-22, 2012, before Mosley, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on December 10, 2012.