Boutiques Progolf Inc. v. Marks & Clerk and Registrar of Trademarks, (1993) 164 N.R. 264 (FCA)

• Judge: Marceau, Desjardins and Létourneau, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: September 16, 1993
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 164 N.R. 264 (FCA)

Boutiques Progolf v. Marks & Clerk (1993), 164 N.R. 264 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

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

Marks & Clerk (appelante) v. Les Boutiques Progolf Inc. (intimée) et Le Registraire des Marques de Commerce (mis-en-cause)

(A-584-92)

Indexed As: Boutiques Progolf Inc. v. Marks & Clerk and Registrar of Trademarks

Federal Court of Appeal

Marceau, Desjardins and Létourneau, JJ.A.

November 19, 1993.

Summary:

Boutiques Progolf was the registered owner of the trademark "Progolf". Marks & Clerk caused the Registrar of Trademarks to issue a notice under s. 45 of the Trade-marks Act, requiring Boutiques Progolf to prove use of its trademark. The Registrar struck the trademark from the registrar because of Boutiques Progolf's failure to adequately establish use. Boutiques Progolf appealed.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 55 F.T.R. 221, allowed the appeal in part. Marks & Clerk appealed and Boutiques Progolf cross-appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Desjardins, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal. The court ordered that Boutiques Progolf's trade­mark be expunged from the Register under s. 45 of the Trade-marks Act, as originally ordered by the Registrar. The court dis­missed the cross-appeal.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement - Grounds - Lack of use or abandonment - Boutiques Progolf was the registered owner of the trademark "Progolf" - Marks & Clerk caused the Registrar of Trade­marks to issue a notice under s. 45 of the Trade-marks Act, requiring Boutiques Progolf to prove use of its trademark - The Registrar expunged the trademark from the registrar because of Boutiques Progolf's failure to adequately establish use - The only evidence of use were transac­tions involving the trademark some 23 months before the date of the notice - The Federal Court of Appeal affirmed that the trade­mark should be expunged - The court held that s. 45 required the owner to show that the mark was in use in Canada at the time of the notice - See paragraphs 1 to 4, 14.

Cases Noticed:

Berg Equipment Co. (Canada) Ltd. - see Meredith and Finlayson v. Registrar of Trademarks et al.

Meredith and Finlayson v. Registrar of Trademarks et al. (1991), 138 N.R. 379; 40 C.P.R.(3d) 409 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 36, footnote 1].

Morris (Philip) Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (No. 2) (1988), 91 N.R. 76; 17 C.P.R.(3d) 237 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 43, 44, footnotes 1, 2, 4].

Philip Morris Inc. - see Morris (Philip) Inc.

Labatt (John) Ltd. v. Rainier Brewing Co. (1984), 54 N.R. 296; 80 C.P.R.(2d) 228 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 44].

John Labatt Ltd. - see Labatt (John) Ltd.

Meredith and Finlayson v. Registrar of Trademarks et al. (1992), 55 F.T.R. 241; 43 C.P.R.(3d) 473 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Coscelebre Inc. v. Registrar of Trademarks et al. (1991), 42 F.T.R. 127; 35 C.P.R.(3d) 74 (T.D.), refd to. [paras. 14, 60, footnote 5].

Registrar of Trademarks v. Harris Knitting Mills Ltd. (1985), 60 N.R. 380; 4 C.P.R.(3d) 488 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 23, 44].

International Board of Standards and Prac­tices for Certified Financial Planners Inc. v. Canadian Institute of Financial Planning (1993), 63 F.T.R. 29 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Nodoz Trademark, [1962] R.P.C. 1 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Boutiques Progolf Inc. v. Registraire des Marques de Commerce (1989), 35 F.T.R. 66; 27 C.I.P.R. 3 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 29].

Sunway Fruit Products Inc. v. Productos Caseros Société Anonyme (1964), 42 C.P.R. 93 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. Regis­trar of Trademarks (1971) 65 C.P.R. 209 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

Plough (Canada) Ltd. v. Aerosol Fillers Inc., [1981] 1 F.C. 679; 34 N.R. 39 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

American Distilling v. Canadian Schenley Distilleries (1977), 38 C.P.R.(2d) 60 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36].

Anheuser-Busch v. Carling (1982), 45 N.R. 126 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Molson Companies v. Moosehead Brew­eries Ltd. (1984), 11 C.P.R.(3d) 207 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 36].

Moosehead Breweries Ltd. v. Molson Companies Ltd. and Registrar of Trade­marks (1985), 63 N.R. 140; 11 C.P.R.(3d) 208 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Noxzema Chemical Co. v. Sheran Manu­facturing Ltd. (1968), 55 C.P.R. 147 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

Sim & McBurney v. Majdell Manufactur­ing Co. and Registrar of Trademarks (1986), 7 F.T.R. 54; 11 C.P.R.(3d) 306 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 3].

Union Electric Supply Co. v. Canada Reg­istrar of Trademarks, [1982] 2 F.C. 263 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 44, footnote 4].

Labatt (John) Ltd. v. Cotton Club Bottling Co. (1976), 25 C.P.R.(2d) 115 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 54].

Registrar of Trademarks v. Harris Knitting Mills Ltd. (1982), 66 C.P.R.(2d) 158 (F.C.T.D.), revd. (1985), 60 N.R. 380; 4 C.P.R.(3d) 488 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

Professional Gardener Co. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1985), 5 C.P.R.(3d) 568 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 54].

Morris (Philip) Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (1987), 8 F.T.R. 310; 13 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 56].

Keepsake Inc. v. Prestons Ltd., [1983] 2 F.C. 489 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 57].

Wolfville Holland Bakery Ltd., Re (1964), 42 C.P.R. 88 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61].

Thomson (Lewis) & Son Ltd. v. Rogers, Bereskin & Parr (1988), 21 C.P.R.(3d) 483 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 62, foot­note 6].

Lewis Thomson & Son Ltd. - see Thom­son (Lewis) & Son Ltd.

Noshery Ltd. v. Penthouse Motor Inn Ltd. (1969), 61 C.P.R. 207 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 2, sect. 4 [para. 41]; sect. 18(1)(c) [para. 37]; sect. 45 [para. 2 et seq.]; sect. 56(1), sect. 56(5) [para. 33]; sect. 57 [para. 26].

Trade Marks (Amendment) Act (U.K.), 1984, c. 19, sect. 26(1)(b) [paras. 27, 60, footnote 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed. 1976), vol. 48, pp. 78 to 80, paras. 110, 111 [para. 27].

Vaver, D., Summary Expungement of Registered Trademarks on the Ground of Non-Use (1983), 21 Osgoode Hall L.J. 17, p. 20 [para. 38].

Counsel:

Roger T. Hughes, Q.C., for the appellant;

Marc Boisselle, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Sim, Hughes and Dimock, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Clair, Laplante & Associés, Drummond­ville, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Montréal, Qué­bec, on September 16, 1993, before Mar­ceau, Desjardins and Létourneau, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered in Ottawa, Ontario, on November 19, 1993, including the fol­lowing opinions:

Marceau, J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 4;

Létourneau, J.A. (concurring) - see paragraphs 5 to 28;

Desjardins, J.A. (dissenting) - see para­graphs 29 to 68.