Diamant Elinor Inc. v. 88766 Canada Inc., (2010) 378 F.T.R. 189 (FC)

• Judge: Shore, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 15, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2010), 378 F.T.R. 189 (FC);2010 FC 1184

Diamant Elinor Inc. v. 88766 Can. (2010), 378 F.T.R. 189 (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: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.001

Diamant Elinor Inc. (demanderesse) v. 88766 Canada Inc. (défenderesse)

(T-1209-09; 2010 FC 1184; 2010 CF 1184)

Indexed As: Diamant Elinor Inc. v. 88766 Canada Inc.

Federal Court

Shore, J.

November 25, 2010.

Summary:

The applicant's trademark Yves Delorme & Design was registered in association with the wares "Watches and Jewellery". The Registrar of Trademarks determined that the mark should be expunged from the register for absence of use in accordance with s. 45 of the Trade-marks Act (TMA). The applicant appealed under s. 56 of the TMA, challenging the Registrar's decision regarding watches. The applicant filed affidavit evidence on the appeal.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Lack of use or abandonment - The applicant registered the trademark Yves Delorme & Design in association with the wares "Watches and Jewellery" - The Registrar of Trademarks determined that the mark should be expunged from the register for absence of use in accordance with s. 45 of the Trade-marks Act - The applicant appealed, challenging the Registrar's decision regarding watches - The applicant filed affidavit evidence on the appeal - The Federal Court dismissed the appeal - The court could not infer use of the mark from the evidence as a whole - The affidavits and their supporting exhibits were ambiguous and insufficient - There was no indication of the dates or connection to watches - Further, the applicant adduced no examples of its alleged use of the mark as registered - The applicant had registered the mark "Yves Delorme" as a fictitious signature - However, the affidavits showed use of the mark "Yves Delorme" in plain characters with a panther design placed above the words - Given that the mark as filed in evidence did not bear the graphic feature of the signature and included an additional design element, the court found that the applicant had not used the mark as filed - Use of the mark as registered was ambiguous in the evidence - The ambiguities in the evidence had to be interpreted against the registered owner - See paragraphs 71 to 77.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Lack of use or abandonment - The applicant's trademark Yves Delorme & Design was registered in association with the wares "Watches and Jewellery" - The Registrar of Trademarks determined that the mark should be expunged from the register for absence of use in accordance with s. 45 of the Trade-marks Act - The applicant appealed, challenging the Registrar's decision regarding watches - The applicant filed, inter alia, an advertisement poster as new evidence - The Federal Court dismissed the appeal - Case law had established that advertisements were not in themselves sufficient to establish use of a trademark - Nothing in the applicant's evidence showed that the advertisements were used at the time of the transfer of the property - The poster would not have materially affected the Registrar's decision - See paragraphs 46 to 48.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Lack of use or abandonment - The applicant's trademark Yves Delorme & Design was registered in association with the wares "Watches and Jewellery" - The Registrar of Trademarks determined that the mark should be expunged from the register for absence of use in accordance with s. 45 of the Trade-marks Act - The applicant appealed, challenging the Registrar's decision regarding watches - The applicant filed, inter alia, three watch warranty cards bearing the mark - The Federal Court dismissed the appeal - The differences between the warranty cards filed on the appeal and the warranty card filed by the applicant before the Registrar were trivial - The court therefore could not find that the warranty cards were new evidence - Like the evidence before the Registrar, the evidence did not show how the warranty cards were used or whether the cards bore the mark - The Registrar's decision regarding this evidence was reasonable - See paragraphs 49 to 53.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Lack of use or abandonment - The applicant (Diamant Élinor Inc.) registered the trademark Yves Delorme & Design in association with the wares "Watches and Jewellery" - The Registrar of Trademarks determined that the mark should be expunged from the register for absence of use in accordance with s. 45 of the Trade-marks Act - The applicant appealed, challenging the Registrar's decision regarding watches - The applicant produced five invoices from Fiori Canada showing that the applicant bought watches bearing the mark for the relevant period - It also produced a series of statements of account to show that the watches bought by the applicant were resold retail during the relevant period - The Federal Court dismissed the appeal - Two of the five invoices were issued after the relevant period - The other three were similar to an invoice from Fiori Canada that was filed before the Registrar - In that sense, they could not have materially affected the Registrar's decision - It was reasonable for the Registrar to find that the purchase of watches by the applicant did not show use of the mark by the owner - With respect to the statements of account, the court stated that "These statements indicate the sales figures for the company Diamant Élinor Inc., including for wares bearing the initials 'MYD'. The mark 'Yves Delorme' is not mentioned anywhere. The applicant confirmed in its affidavit [translation] 'that the designation "MYD" stands for "Montres Yves Delorme"' ... In other words, the statements of account do not refer to the sale of watches. Nor do customers' names appear on these statements of account. The applicant failed to discharge the burden of showing that the mark was used in association with the wares" - See paragraphs 54 to 63.

Cases Noticed:

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

Brouillette Kosie Prince v. Orange Cove-Sanger Citrus Association (2007), 322 F.T.R. 212; 2007 FC 1229, refd to. [para. 2].

Uvex Toko Canada Ltd. v. Performance Apparel Corp. (2004), 249 F.T.R. 105; 2004 FC 448, refd to. [para. 2].

Plough (Canada) Ltd. v. Aerosol Fillers Inc., [1981] 1 F.C. 679; 34 N.R. 39; 5 A.C.W.S.(3d) 317 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Morris (Philip) Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (1987), 8 F.T.R. 310; 3 A.C.W.S.(3d) 109 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 3].

Union Electric Supply Co. v. Registrar of Trademarks, [1982] 2 F.C. 263; 63 C.P.R.(2d) 56 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 4].

Coastal Culture Inc. v. Wood Wheeler Inc. (2007), 312 F.T.R. 158; 2007 FC 472, refd to. [para. 5].

Thomson (Lewis) & Sons Ltd. v. Rogers, Bereskin & Parr (1988), 21 C.P.R.(3d) 483; 12 A.C.W.S.(3d) 33 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

88766 Canada Inc. v. Monte Carlo Restaurant Ltd., [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 789; 63 C.P.R.(4th) 391; 2007 FC 1174, refd to. [para. 7].

Boutique Limité Inc. v. Limco Investments Inc. - see Boutique Limité Inc. v. Registrar of Trademarks.

Boutique Limité Inc. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998), 232 N.R. 190; 84 C.P.R.(3d) 164 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Grapha-Holding AG v. Illinois Tool Works Inc., [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 679; 161 A.C.W.S.(3d) 181; 2008 FC 959, refd to. [para. 7].

Footlocker Group Canada Inc. v. Steinberg et al. (2004), 253 F.T.R. 109; 35 C.P.R.(4th) 443; 2004 FC 717, revd. (2005), 332 N.R. 340; 38 C.P.R.(4th) 508; 2005 FCA 99, refd to. [para. 8].

Eclipse International Fashions Canada Inc. v. Shapiro Cohen (2005), 348 N.R. 86; 48 C.P.R.(4th) 223; 2005 FCA 64, refd to. [para. 9].

Eclipse International Fashions Canada Inc. v. Shapiro Cohen (2004), 259 F.T.R. 5; 2004 FC 617, refd to. [para. 10].

Curb v. Smart & Biggar (2009), 339 F.T.R. 224; 72 C.P.R.(4th) 176; 2009 FC 47, refd to. [para. 11].

Bereskin & Parr v. Fairweather Ltd. - see Fairweather Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks et al.

Fairweather Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks et al. (2006), 301 F.T.R. 263; 2006 FC 1248, affd. (2007), 371 N.R. 86; 62 C.P.R.(4th) 266; 2007 FCA 376, refd to. [para. 12].

Plough (Canada) Ltd. v. Aerosol Fillers Inc., [1980] 2 F.C. 338; [1979] 3 A.C.W.S. 460 (T.D.), affd. [1981] 1 F.C. 679; 34 N.R. 39; 53 C.P.R.(2d) 62 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Dion Neckwear Ltd. v. Christian Dior, S.A. et al., [2002] 3 F.C. 405; 286 N.R. 336; 2002 FCA 29, refd to. [para. 15].

Molson Breweries, A Partnership v. Labatt (John) Ltd. et al., [2000] 3 F.C. 145; 252 N.R. 91 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

United Grain Growers Ltd. v. Lang Michener, [2001] 3 F.C. 102; 269 N.R. 385; 2001 FCA 66, refd to. [para. 39].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 40].

Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Ltd. v. Canadian Jewellers Association (2010), 363 F.T.R. 83; 2010 FC 309, refd to. [para. 42].

Garbo Group Inc. et al. v. Brown (Harriet) & Co. et al. (1999), 176 F.T.R. 80; 3 C.P.R.(4th) 224 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

BMW Canada Inc. et al. v. Nissan Canada Inc. (2007), 380 N.R. 147; 60 C.P.R.(4th) 181; 2007 FCA 255, refd to. [para. 46].

Tint King of California Inc. v. Registrar of Trademarks et al. (2006), 304 F.T.R. 174; 2006 FC 1440, refd to. [para. 67].

Compagnie Internationale pour l'Informatique CII Honeywell Bull v. Registrar of Trademarks, [1985] 1 F.C. 406; 61 N.R. 286 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Promafil Canada ltée v. Munsingwear Inc. (1992), 142 N.R. 230; 44 C.P.R.(3d) 59 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 2 [para. 31]; sect. 4 [para. 32]; sect. 45 [para. 33]; sect. 56 [para. 35].

Counsel:

Claude Benabou, for the applicant;

Laurent Carrière and Catherine Daigle, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Madar Benabou, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

Robic, LLP, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 15, 2010, at Montreal, Quebec, before Shore, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on November 25, 2010.