Kirkbi AG et al. v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. et al., (2002) 220 F.T.R. 161 (TD)

• Judge: Gibson, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 24, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2002), 220 F.T.R. 161 (TD)

Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. (2002), 220 F.T.R. 161 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.020

Kirkbi AG and Lego Canada Inc. (plaintiffs/defendants by counterclaim) v. Ritvik Holdings Inc./Gestions Ritvik Inc. (defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim)

(T-2799-96; 2002 FCT 585)

Indexed As: Kirkbi AG et al. v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Gibson, J.

May 24, 2002.

Summary:

The plaintiffs, members of the Lego group of companies, sued the manufacturer of the "Micro" line of building blocks for passing off, in violation of s. 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act.

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

Actions - Topic 1628

Cause of action - Torts - Situs of action - The plaintiffs, members of the Lego group of companies, sued the manufacturer of the "Micro" line of building blocks for passing off, in violation of s. 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act - One issue raised was whether the defendants were able to claim a limitation period, and if so, what the applicable period was - The Trade-marks Act was silent with respect to passing off actions - The issue then became whether the cause of action arose "otherwise than in a province", to bring it under the limitation provisions of the Federal Court Act (six years; s. 39) - The defendants' manufacturing, marketing and distributing facilities were located in Quebec and the applicable limitation period in that province was either two or three years - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that "it simply cannot be said that all of the elements of the cause of action before me arose in Quebec or in any other particular province" - See paragraphs 155 to 162.

Torts - Topic 5144

Interference with economic relations - Unfair competition - Passing off - Deception of customers - Requirement of - The plaintiffs, members of the Lego group of companies, sued the manufacturer of the "Micro" line of building blocks for passing off, in violation of s. 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that actual confusion between the products was proven in the Canadian marketplace, and went on to consider whether that confusion amounted to a deception of the public due to a misrepresentation - Lego argued that the defendants, as "second-comers" in the field, should have taken steps to distinguish their products from Lego's - Instead, Lego argued, the defendants had adopted a "get-up" which was likely to create confusion, and this constituted a misrepresentation - The court rejected this argument and concluded that the confusion between these products was not a deliberate strategy on the part of the defendants - See paragraphs 119 to 145.

Torts - Topic 5147

Interference with economic relations - Unfair competition - Passing off - Get-up -[See Torts - Topic 5144 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 253

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Distinguishing guise - The plaintiffs, members of the Lego group of companies, sued the manufacturer of the "Micro" line of building blocks for passing off, in violation of s. 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the Lego trademark (an image of a 2-stud by 4-stud rectangular block) was not inherently distinctive so as to contribute to Lego's goodwill - The court then considered whether it had acquired distinctiveness through its long use, dominant market position and extensive marketing, and answered this question in the affirmative - See paragraphs 68 to 75 and 87 to 118.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 253

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Distinguishing guise - The plaintiffs, members of the Lego group of companies, sued the manufacturer of the "Micro" line of building blocks for passing off, in violation of s. 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act - The defendants argued that the "studs" on the top of the block depicted in the (unregistered) Lego trademark represented a functional element of Lego bricks contributing to the "clutch power" (the ability of the blocks to grip when assembled) which was the essence of the Lego building block system - The defendants urged that such a purely functional feature simply could not be a trade mark - Lego countered that the concept of functionality was explicit in the definition of "distinguishing guise" in a former version of the Act, and the omitting of that concept from the current Act was significant - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed Lego's action - Lego's purported trademark was functional in all respects save for the "Lego" mark inscribed on each stud - See paragraphs 44 to 62.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 264.1

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Prohibition - Functional trademarks - [See second Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 253 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 3002

Trademarks - Infringement actions - Limitation period - [See Actions - Topic 1628 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 3068

Trademarks - Unfair competition - Passing off - [See Torts - Topic 5144 and second Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 253 ].

Words and Phrases

Otherwise than in a province - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, considered the meaning of this phrase, as used in s. 39(2) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 - See paragraphs 155 to 162.

Cases Noticed:

Enterprise Car and Truck Rentals Ltd. v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. et al. (1998), 223 N.R. 114; 79 C.P.R.(3d) 45 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 14].

Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. v. Singer - see Enterprise Car and Truck Rentals Ltd. v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. et al.

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 Q.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 15].

Asbjorn Horgard A/S v. Gibbs/Nortac Industries Ltd. et al. (1987), 80 N.R. 9; 14 C.P.R.(3d) 314 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41, footnote 17].

Vapor Canada Ltd. et al. v. MacDonald, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 134; 7 N.R. 477, refd to. [para. 41, footnote 18].

Ital-Press Ltd. v. Sicoli et al. (1999), 170 F.T.R. 66; 86 C.P.R.(3d) 129 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 19].

Top-Notch Construction Ltd. v. Top-Notch Oilfield Services Ltd. (2001), 207 F.T.R. 260; 13 C.P.R.(4th) 515 (T.D.), refd to. [paras. 42, 79, footnotes 20, 39].

Remington Rand Corp. et al. v. Philips Electronics N.V. (1995), 191 N.R. 204; 64 C.P.R.(3d) 467 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1996), 204 N.R. 394; 67 C.P.R.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 22].

Harvard College v. Commissioner of Patents (Can.) (2000), 290 N.R. 320; 7 C.P.R.(4th) 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 57, footnote 25].

Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Sask.) Ltd., [1981] 1 S.C.R. 504; 35 N.R. 390; 122 D.L.R.(3d) 203; 56 C.P.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 26].

Whirlpool Corp. et al. v. Camco Inc. et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 263 N.R. 88, refd to. [para. 64, footnote 28].

Canadian Shredded Wheat Co. v. Kellogg Co., [1938] 1 All E.R. 618 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 29].

Kun Shoulder Rest Inc. v. Kun (Joseph) Violin and Bow Maker Inc. et al. (1998), 157 F.T.R. 1; 83 C.P.R.(3d) 331 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 67, footnote 30].

Parke Davis & Co. v. Empire Laboratories Ltd., [1964] S.C.R. 351, refd to. [para. 68, footnote 31].

Williams (J.B.) Co. v. Bronnly (H.) & Co. (1909), 26 R.P.C. 765 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 32].

Oxford Pendaflex Canada Ltd. v. Korr Marketing Ltd., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 494; 41 N.R. 553, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 33].

Interlego A.G.'s Trademark Applications, [1998] R.P.C. 69 (Ch. Div.), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 34].

Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin - Michelin & Cie National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) (1996), 124 F.T.R. 192; 71 C.P.R.(3d) 348 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 35].

Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc. et al., [1990] R.P.C. 341; 107 N.R. 161; [1990] 1 All E.R. 873 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 76, footnote 36].

Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 120; 143 N.R. 241; 58 O.A.C. 321; 44 C.P.R.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 77, footnote 37].

Big Sisters Association of Ontario and Big Sisters of Canada v. Big Brothers of Canada (1997), 131 F.T.R. 161; 75 C.P.R.(3d) 177 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 242 N.R. 171; 86 C.P.R.(3d) 504 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 39].

Eli Lilly and Co. et al. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al. (1997), 130 F.T.R. 1; 73 C.P.R.(3d) 371 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 265 N.R. 137; 10 C.P.R.(4th) 10 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 39].

Enterprise Car and Truck Rentals Ltd. v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car et al. (1996), 109 F.T.R. 185; 66 C.P.R.(3d) 453 (T.D.), affd. (1998), 223 N.R. 114; 79 C.P.R.(3d) 45 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 39].

Prince Edward Island Mutual Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co. of Prince Edward Island (1999), 159 F.T.R. 112 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 39].

Westfair Foods Ltd. v. Pattison (Jim) Industries Ltd. (1989), 26 C.P.R.(3d) 28 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1990), 30 C.P.R.(3d) 174 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 39].

Molson Canada v. Oland Breweries Ltd., [2001] O.T.C. 129 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 79, footnote 39].

Canada Post Corp. v. Paxton Developments Inc. (2000), 198 F.T.R. 72; 9 C.P.R.(4th) 429 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 90, footnote 48].

Renwal Manufacturing Co. v. Reliable Toy Co. and Reliable Plastics Co. (1949), 9 C.P.R. 67 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 120, footnote 57].

Walt Disney Productions v. Triple Five Corp. et al. (1994), 149 A.R. 112; 63 W.A.C. 112; 53 C.P.R.(3d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 124, footnote 59].

Park Avenue Furniture Corp. v. Wickes/ Simmons Bedding Ltd. (1991), 130 N.R. 223; 37 C.P.R.(3d) 413 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 125, footnote 60].

White Consolidated Industries Inc. v. Beam of Canada Inc. (1991), 47 F.T.R. 172; 39 C.P.R.(3d) 94 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 77].

Canada v. Maritime Group (Canada) Inc. et al., [1995] 3 F.C. 124; 185 N.R. 104 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 158, footnote 82].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 39 [para. 156].

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 6(1), sect. 6(2), sect. 6(3), sect. 6(5) [para. 25]; sect. 7(b) [para. 24].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Report of the Trade Mark Law Revision Committee (January 20, 1953), generally [para. 56, footnote 24].

Fox, Harold G., The Canadian Law and Practice relating to Letters Patent for Inventions (4th Ed. 1969), p. 163 [para. 63, footnote 27].

Halsbury's Laws of England (1984) (4th Ed. - Reissue), vol. 48, p. 108 [para. 80, footnote 41].

Halsbury's Laws of England (2000) (4th Ed. - Reissue), vol. 48, p. 195, para. 308 [para. 80, footnote 41].

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 807 [para. 174, footnote 87]; 810 [para. 175]; paras. 12.116, 12.117 [para. 89, footnote 47].

Counsel:

Robert H.C. MacFarlane, Michael E. Charles, Christine M. Pallota and Adam Bobker, for the plaintiffs/defendants by counterclaim;

Ronald E. Dimock, Dino P. Clarizio and Henry Lue, for the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim.

Solicitors of Record:

Bereskin & Parr, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiffs/defendants by counterclaim;

Dimock Stratton Clarizio, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim.

This action was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on January 14 to 18, 20 to 25, 28 to 31, 2002 and February 1, 4 to 7, 2002, in Toronto, Ontario, by Gibson, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on May 24, 2002, in Ottawa, Ontario.