Boston Pizza International Inc. v. Boston Chicken Inc., (2003) 301 N.R. 190 (FCA)

• Judge: Rothstein, Pelletier and Malone, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: December 16, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 301 N.R. 190 (FCA);2003 FCA 120

Boston Pizza v. Boston Chicken (2003), 301 N.R. 190 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.R. TBEd. MR.033

Boston Pizza International Inc. (appellant) v. Boston Chicken Inc. and Global Restaurant Operations of Ireland Limited (respondents)

(A-605-01; 2003 FCA 120)

Indexed As: Boston Pizza International Inc. v. Boston Chicken Inc.

Federal Court of Appeal

Rothstein, Pelletier and Malone, JJ.A.

March 7, 2003.

Summary:

Boston Pizza International Inc. applied to expunge the trademarks "Boston Chicken" and the "Boston Chicken" design.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 211 F.T.R. 106, dismissed the application. Boston Pizza appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and directed that the registra­tion for the "Boston Chicken" trademark be expunged from the register.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.1

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Loss of distinctive­ness - Non-distinctiveness - Boston Pizza appealed the dismissal of its application to expunge the respondent's trademark "Bos­ton Chicken" - At issue was whether, having regard to the trial judge's con­clusion that the "Boston Chicken" trade­mark lacked inherent distinc­tiveness, and considering the scant evidence of use in Canada, the respondent's registra­tion was invalid by reason of s. 18(1)(b) of the Trade-marks Act - The respondent as­serted that distinctiveness could be estab­lished without use in Canada - The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the assertion - Section 14 of the Act required a foreign registered trademark to have a "distinctive character" to be eligible for registration in Canada - Although this was a less demand­ing test that distinctiveness, it still required some evidence of use in Canada - Since distinc­tiveness was assessed for the purposes of s. 18 at the date at which expungement pro­ceedings were begun, the respondent's three year delay in using the trademark following registration worked against it - The court expunged the "Boston Chicken" trademark from the register where the re­spondent had not established that it was inherently distinctive or that it had acquired distinctiveness through use in Canada.

Cases Noticed:

Standard Coil Products (Canada) Ltd. v. Standard Radio Corp. et al., [1971] F.C. 106; 1 C.P.R.(2d) 155 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Hoechst Canada Inc. v. Sandoz Canada Inc. (1995), 60 C.P.R.(3d) 559 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Grace (W.R.) & Co. v. Union Carbide Corp. (1987), 78 N.R. 124; 14 C.P.R.(3d) 337 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Supershuttle International Inc. v. Registrar of Trademarks (2002), 218 F.T.R. 306; 19 C.P.R.(4th) 34 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Imper Electrical Ltd. v. Winbaum (1927), 44 R.P.C. 405, refd to. [para. 13].

Société des accumulateurs fixes & de traction v. Le Borgne (Charles) Ltée (1975), 22 C.P.R.(2d) 178 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Breck's Sporting Goods Co. Ltd. v. Sport­cam Co. Ltd. and Magder (1975), 3 N.R. 601; 17 C.P.R.(2d) 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v. Maple Leaf Meats Inc. (2001), 205 F.T.R. 176; 11 C.P.R.(4th) 48 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Unitel Communications Inc. v. Bell Canada (1995), 92 F.T.R. 161; 61 C.P.R.(3d) 95 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 14 [para. 10]; sect. 18(1)(b) [para. 2].

Counsel:

Gregory Harney and Andrew Morrison, for the appellant;

Glen Bloom, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Shields Harney, Vancouver, British Col­umbia, for the appellant;

Osler Hoskin & Harcourt, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on December 16, 2002, at Vancouver, British Columbia, by Rothstein, Pelletier and Malone, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Pelletier, JJ.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on March 7, 2003.