Caricline Ventures Ltd. v. ZZTY Holdings Ltd. et al., (2001) 213 F.T.R. 245 (TD)

• Judge: O'Keefe, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 05, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 213 F.T.R. 245 (TD)

Caricline Ventures v. ZZTY Holdings (2001), 213 F.T.R. 245 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.044

Caricline Ventures Ltd. (plaintiff) v. ZZTY Holdings Limited and Azim Zone Inc. (defendants)

(T-1608-97)

Caricline Ventures Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Farside Clothing Ltd. and Farside Skateboards & Snowboards Ltd. (defendants)

(T-1609-97; 2001 FCT 1342)

Indexed As: Caricline Ventures Ltd. v. ZZTY Holdings Ltd. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

O'Keefe, J.

December 5, 2001.

Summary:

The plaintiff commenced two actions for trade-mark infringement. The actions were heard together. One of the defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that the plaintiff had not been entitled to secure registration of the trademark and an order striking out the entry of the trademark.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the actions and granted the plaintiff a permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement. The court ordered that the plaintiff could elect either damages or an accounting of the defendants' profits. The court directed the defendants to deliver up to the plaintiff or to destroy, under oath, all wares, signs and printed material, including all packaging advertising, promotional and labelling materials, use of which would violate the plaintiff's rights in the trademark. The court dismissed the counterclaim for lack of standing.

Practice - Topic 1335

Pleadings - The issues - Issues to be raised must be pleaded - The owner of the trademark "Pharsyde" sued Farside Clothing for trademark infringement - Farside Clothing brought a counterclaim, seeking to expunge the trademark "Pharsyde" - In argument, Farside Clothing asserted that "Pharsyde" had lost it distinctiveness - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the counterclaim for lack of standing - The court stated that Farside Clothing was not entitled to argue the issue of distinctiveness where it had not been raised in the pleadings - Further, "Pharsyde" was distinctive at the relevant date - The court noted that (1) there had been extensive advertising to promote the mark; (2) articles and recognition of the store name in newspapers and (3) advertising appeared in the Yellow Pages - The only infringement or dilution alleged was by the defendants - The plaintiff did not delay in issuing a desist notice - See paragraphs 65 to 74.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Distinctive marks - General - The owner of the trademark "Pharsyde" sued Farside Clothing for trademark infringement - Farside Clothing used the trademark "Farside" under and in association with its store - Farside Clothing brought a counterclaim, seeking to expunge the trademark "Pharsyde" - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the counterclaim for lack of standing - Alternatively, prior use of the trademark "Farside" was not established - Although Farside Clothing claimed that there were prior sales, it provided no supporting evidence - Further, the design of trademark "Farside" changed over time and there were many designs - Designs were chosen that made shirts look nice and had a "cool comment" - Such design was ornamentation and did not distinguish the wares - Alternatively, the trademark "Pharsyde" was not confusing with the trademark "Farside" at the date of Pharsyde's registration - See paragraphs 45 to 64.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 885

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Who may apply for expungement - The Devji family owned Farside Clothing and 575726 Alberta Ltd (575726) - 575726 owned the trademark "Farside" - The Devji family began using "Farside" under and in association with Farside Clothing's store - The owner of the trademark "Pharsyde" sued Farside Clothing for trademark infringement - Farside Clothing brought a counterclaim, seeking to expunge the trademark "Pharsyde" - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that Farside Clothing lacked standing to bring the counterclaim where 575726 had not transferred its trademark rights to Farside Clothing - Sections 57 and 58 did not allow Farside Clothing to bring the action without an assignment - The specific provision in s. 17 requiring an expungement application to be brought by the applicant for registration or the applicant's successor in title overrode the general provisions of ss. 47 and 58 - See paragraphs 35 to 44.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.1

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Loss of distinctiveness - [See Practice - Topic 1335 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.2

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Prior use - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.5

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Confusion - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 4402

Trademarks - Practice - Pleadings - [See Practice - Topic 1335 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 4412

Trademarks - Practice - Standing - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 885 ].

Cases Noticed:

Prologic Systems Ltd. v. Prologic Corp. (1998), 141 F.T.R. 72; 78 C.P.R.(3d) 435 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

California Fashion Industries Inc. v. Reitman's (Canada) Ltd. (1991), 48 F.T.R. 251; 38 C.P.R.(3d) 439 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 34].

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. 50].

Golden Happiness Bakery Ltd. v. Goldstone Bakery & Restaurant Ltd. (1994), 76 F.T.R. 52; 53 C.P.R.(3d) 195 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 50].

Cornerstone Securities Canada Inc. v. Registrar of Trademarks et al. (1994), 87 F.T.R. 300; 58 C.P.R.(3d) 417 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 50].

Grants of St. James Ltd. v. Andres Wines Ltd. (1969), 58 C.P.R. 281 (T.M. Reg.), refd to. [para. 50].

King Features Syndicate Inc. et al. v. Lechter, [1950] Ex. C.R. 297, refd to. [para. 50].

Siscoe Vermiculite Mines Ltd. v. Munn & Steele Inc., [1959] Ex. C.R. 455, refd to. [para. 50].

Mr. Goodwrench Inc. v. General Motors Corp. (1994), 77 F.T.R. 142; 55 C.P.R.(3d) 508 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 50].

Part 1 Knitting Ltd. v. Tetra Music Ltd. (1992), 43 C.P.R.(3d) 154 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 52].

Hughes (W.J.) & Sons "Corn Flower" Ltd. v. Morawiec (1970), 62 C.P.R. 21 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].

Miss Universe Inc. v. Bohna (1994), 176 N.R. 35; 58 C.P.R.(3d) 381 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

United Artists Corp. v. Pink Panther Beauty Corp. et al. (1998), 225 N.R. 82; 80 C.P.R.(3d) 247 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Polysar Ltd. v. Gesco Distributing Ltd., [1985] F.C.J. No. 948 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 63].

Prêt-A-Porter Orly Ltd. v. Canada (1994), 176 N.R. 149 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

Mr. P's Mastertune Ignition Services Ltd. v. Tune Masters (1984), 82 C.P.R.(2d) 128 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 72].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 17 [para. 32]; 57, 58 [para. 43].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fox, Harold G., The Canadian Law of Trade Marks and Unfair Competition (3rd Ed. 1972), pp. 286, 287 [para. 71].

Hughes, Roger T., and Ashton, Toni Polson, Hughes on Trade Marks (1984) (Looseleaf), §18 [para. 52].

Counsel:

Keith E.W. Mitchell and J. Kevin Wright, for the plaintiff;

Carmen Plante and Melodi E. Ulku, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Davis & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the plaintiff;

Bishop & McKenzie LLP, Edmonton, Alberta, for the defendants.

O'Keefe, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, heard this application at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on January 29 to February 1, and June 5 and 6, 2001, and delivered the following reasons for order on December 5, 2001.