Compulife Software Inc. v. Compuoffice Software Inc., (2001) 205 F.T.R. 283 (TD)

• Judge: Muldoon, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 27, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 205 F.T.R. 283 (TD)

Compulife Software v. Compuoffice (2001), 205 F.T.R. 283 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.102

Compulife Software Inc. (applicant) v. Compuoffice Software Inc. (respondent)

(T-1398-97; 2001 FCT 559)

Indexed As: Compulife Software Inc. v. Compuoffice Software Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Muldoon, J.

May 31, 2001.

Summary:

Compulife Software Inc. applied under s. 57(1) of the Trade-marks Act to expunge the trademarks "Compuoffice" and "Across The Board", both registered to Compuoffice Software Inc. Compulife challenged the "Compuoffice" trademark on the grounds of confusion and lack of distinctiveness. The "Across The Board" trademark was challenged on the grounds of confusion and because it was descriptive of the character or quality of the goods.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 261

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Prohibition - Marks which are descriptive of the product - Compuoffice sold, under the trademark "Across The Board", computer software permitting insurance agents to evaluate financial information for multiple life insurance policies - A competitor applied to expunge the trademark on the ground that it was descriptive of the character or quality of the product (Trade-marks Act, s. 12(1)(b)) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application - To be descriptive, a trademark must be more than merely suggestive of the character or quality of the wares or services with which it was associated - Its descriptive character must go to the material composition, or intrinsic quality of the goods or services - The "Across The Board" trademark did not describe the material composition or intrinsic quality of the software - See paragraphs 42 to 51.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.1

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Loss of distinctiveness (incl. non-distinctiveness) - Since 1983, Compulife sold life insurance analysis software to the insurance industry under the "Compulife" trademark - Since 1990, Compuoffice sold general office management software under the "Compuoffice" trademark (registered in 1996) - Compulife applied under the Trade-marks Act to expunge the "Compuoffice" trademark on the grounds of confusion and lack of distinctiveness - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application - Neither trademark was inherently distinctive, but both acquired distinctiveness through continual use - Both trademarks were used concurrently without confusion for eight years until the "Compuoffice" trademark was registered - There was little likelihood of confusion as to the source of the two programs - The programs were different in nature and marketed differently to sophisticated and discerning purchasers - Although both trademarks used the prefix "Compu", the prefix was used in thousands of trademarks and the trademarks were distinguishable on the basis of their suffixes - See paragraphs 13 to 47.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.2

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Prior use - Compuoffice sold, under the trademark "Across The Board", computer software permitting insurance agents to evaluate financial information for multiple life insurance policies - A competitor applied to expunge the trademark on the ground of its prior use of "Across The Board" in association with its competing software - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application - The competitor failed to prove prior use as required by s. 4 of the Trade-marks Act - The court stated that "a passing reference in an undated advertisement is insufficient to prove that the option was ever finalized or incorporated into the [competitor's] product. Nor did the [competitor] adduce any evidence to show that the Across The Board opinion was used continuously and without significant interruption." - See paragraphs 47 to 51.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.5

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Confusion - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Uniwell Corp. v. Uniwell North America Inc. (1996), 109 F.T.R. 81; 66 C.P.R.(3d) 436 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Canada's Royal Gold Pinetree Manufacturing Co. v. Samann (1986), 65 N.R. 385; 9 C.P.R.(3d) 223 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Prologic Systems Ltd. v. Prologic Corp. (1998), 141 F.T.R. 72; 78 C.P.R.(3d) 435 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Garbo Group Inc. v. Brown (Harriet) & Co. et al. (1999), 176 F.T.R. 80; 3 C.P.R.(4th) 224 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Baylor University v. Hudson's Bay Co. (2000), 257 N.R. 231; 8 C.P.R.(4th) 64 (F.C.A.) refd to. [para. 18].

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. 19].

Man and His Home Ltd. v. Mansoor Electronics Ltd. et al. (1999), 163 F.T.R. 270; 87 C.P.R.(3d) 218 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Via Rail Canada Inc. v. Location Via-Route Inc. et al. (1992), 50 Q.A.C. 101; 45 C.P.R.(3d) 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Multiplicant Inc. v. Petit Bateau Valton S.A. (1994), 79 F.T.R. 241; 55 C.P.R.(3d) 372 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

MacDonald's Corp. et al. v. Coffee Hut Stores Ltd. (1996), 199 N.R. 106; 68 C.P.R.(3d) 168 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

SkyDome Corp. v. Toronto Heart Industries Ltd. et al. (1997), 128 F.T.R. 71; 72 C.P.R.(3d) 546 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 31].

Sum-Spec Canada Ltd. v. Imasco Retail Ltd. (1990), 35 F.T.R. 44; 30 C.P.R.(3d) 7 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 32].

Sealy Sleep Products Ltd. v. Simpson Sears Ltd. (1960), 33 C.P.R. 129 (Exch. Ct.), refd to. [para. 32].

Kellogg Salada Canada Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Maximum Nutrition Ltd. (1992), 145 N.R. 131; 43 C.P.R.(3d) 349 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Unitel Communications Inc. v. Bell Canada (1995), 92 F.T.R. 161; 61 C.P.R.(3d) 12 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 44].

Cheung Kong (Holdings) Ltd. v. Living Realty Inc. (1999), 179 F.T.R. 161; 4 C.P.R.(4th) 71 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 51].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 2 [para. 15]; sect. 4(1), sect. 4(2) [para. 47]; sect. 6 [para. 16]; sect. 12(1)(b) [para. 43]; sect. 12(1)(d) [para. 14]; sect. 16(1)(a), sect. 16(1)(c) [para. 36]; sect. 18(1)(a) [para. 13]; sect. 57(1) [para. 10].

Counsel:

John C. Cotte and John Craig, for the applicant;

Jonathan G. Colombo and Bridgett Chang, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Bereskin & Parr, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on November 27, 2000, at Toronto, Ontario, before Muldoon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on May 31, 2001.