Fibergrid Inc. v. Precisioneering Ltd., (1991) 42 F.T.R. 114 (TD)

• Judge: Cullen, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 13, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 42 F.T.R. 114 (TD)

Fibergrid Inc. v. Precisioneering Ltd. (1991), 42 F.T.R. 114 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Fibergrid Inc. (applicant) v. Precisioneering Limited (respondent)

(T-684-90)

Indexed As: Fibergrid Inc. v. Precisioneering Ltd.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Cullen, J.

February 13, 1991.

Summary:

Fibergrid applied under s. 57 of the Trade Marks Act for expungement of Precisioneer­ing's registration of the trademark "Fiber­grate", used in association with reinforced plastic grating.

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

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 261

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Prohibition - Descriptive marks - The manufacturer of reinforced plastic grating registered the trademark "Fibergrate" in 1970 - A competitor applied under s. 57 of the Trade Marks Act for expungement of the trademark on the ground that regis­tration was invalid (s. 18(1)(b)) where the trademark was descriptive of the character or quality of the goods contrary to s. 12(1)(b) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "Fibergrate" was a coined word and was not descriptive of "plastic grating made out of FRP" - The court rejected the contention that "Fiber­grate" was an "elliptical" reference to the character or quality of FRP - See para­graphs 36 to 42.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.1

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Loss of distinctive­ness - Section 18(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act empowered the court to expunge a trademark from the register where "the trademark is not distinctive at the time proceedings bringing the validity of the registration into question are com­menced" - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that a s. 57 applicant must prove a lack of distinctiveness at the time expungement proceedings were com­menced - A lack of distinctiveness at the time of registration was not sufficient - See paragraphs 19 to 22.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.1

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Loss of distinctive­ness - A manufacturer of reinforced plas­tic grating registered the trademark "Fiber­grate" in 1970 - A competitor applied under s. 57 of the Trade Marks Act for expungement of the trademark on the ground that the trademark was not distinc­tive (s. 18 (1)(b)) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application - The competitor failed to prove the trademark was not distinctive at the time of the expungement application - There were no others whose goods were sold in Canada in association with the "Fibergrate" trademark - There was also no concurrent "use" of the trademark in Canada that would detract from the dis­tinctiveness - See paragraphs 17 to 35.

Cases Noticed:

Adidas (Canada) Ltd. v. Collins Inc. (1978), 38 C.P.R.(2d) 145 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Sarco Canada Ltd. v. Sarco Canada Inc., [1968] 2 Ex. C.R. 537, refd to. [para. 23].

Westwind Investments Ltd. v. Yannacoulis (1990), 34 F.T.R. 147; 30 C.P.R.(3d) 231 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

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. 23].

Wilkinson Sword (Canada) Ltd. v. Juda, [1968] 2 Ex. C.R. 137, refd to. [para. 23].

Moore Dry Kiln Co. of Canada Ltd. v. U.S. Natural Resources Inc. (1976), 12 N.R. 361; 30 C.P.R.(2d) 40 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Citrus Growers Association Ltd. v. Bran­son (William D.) Ltd., [1990] 1 F.C. 641; 32 F.T.R. 53 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

Morris (Philip) Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (1987), 81 N.R. 28; 15 C.I.P.R. 181 (F.C.A.), leave denied 87 N.R. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Impex Electrical Ltd. v. Weinbaum (1927), 44 R.P.C. 405, refd to. [para. 25].

Foodcorp. v. Chalet Bar B Q (Canada) Inc. et al. (1982), 47 N.R. 172; 66 C.P.R.(2d) 56 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Parker-Knoll Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1977), 32 C.P.R.(2d) 148 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 29].

Syntex Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (1984), 55 N.R. 135; 1 C.P.R.(3d) 145 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Clairol International Corp. et al. v. Thomas Supply & Equipment Co. Ltd. et al. (1968), 55 C.P.R. 176 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 32].

Wool Bureau of Canada Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1978), 40 C.P.R.(2d) 25 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 37].

Clarkson Gordon v. Registrar of Trademarks (1985), 5 C.I.P.R. 167 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

Pizza Pizza v. Registrar of Trademarks (1982), 67 C.P.R.(2d) 202 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

Home Juice Co. v. Orange Maison Ltée, [1970] S.C.R. 942, refd to. [para. 39].

S.C. Johnson and Son Ltd. v. Marketing International Ltd., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 99; 29 N.R. 515, refd to. [para. 39].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 319(1)(c) [para. 11].

Trade Marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 2 [para. 24]; sect. 4 [para. 28]; sect. 12(1)(b) [para. 36]; sect. 18 [para. 14]; sect. 50 [para. 6]; sect. 57 [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fox, Canadian Law of Trade Marks and Unfair Competition (3rd Ed. 1972), pp. 24 [para. 19]; 309 [para. 15].

Counsel:

John S. McKeown and Stevan Novoselac, for the applicant;

Colleen Spring Zimmerman and David Allsebrook, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Cassels, Brock & Blackwell, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Fasken Campbell Godfrey, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 23 and 24, 1991, at Toronto, Ontario, before Cullen, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on February 13, 1991.