Maple Leaf Foods Inc. v. Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma, (2012) 407 F.T.R. 286 (FC)

• Judge: O'Keefe, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 19, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 407 F.T.R. 286 (FC);2012 FC 416

Maple Leaf Foods v. Consorzio (2012), 407 F.T.R. 286 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.075

Maple Leaf Foods Inc. (applicant) v. Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma (respondent)

(T-253-11; 2012 FC 416)

Indexed As: Maple Leaf Foods Inc. v. Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma

Federal Court

O'Keefe, J.

April 12, 2012.

Summary:

The Registrar of Trademarks refused the applicant's application to register the trademark PARMA & Design in light of the respondent's existing official mark PARMA & Design. The applicant appealed.

The Federal Court allowed the appeal. The court set aside the Registrar's decision and directed the Registrar to allow the applicant's trademark application. The court declared that the respondent was not a "public authority" within the meaning of s. 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trade-marks Act and that the disputed official mark was invalid and void ab initio.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 4002

Trademarks - Prohibited marks - Marks adopted or used by public authority (official marks) - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 4005 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 4005

Trademarks - Prohibited marks - Public authority - What constitutes - The Registrar of Trademarks refused the applicant's application to register the trademark PARMA & Design in light of the respondent's existing official mark PARMA & Design - The applicant appealed - The Federal Court allowed the appeal - Section 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trade-marks Act stated that "No person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for, ... (n) any badge, crest, emblem or mark ... (iii) adopted and used by any public authority, in Canada as an official mark for wares or services" - "Public authority" in s. 9(1)(n)(iii) did not broadly refer to a public authority controlled by any country worldwide - Rather, it was limited to public authorities controlled by a Canadian government - There was no evidence that the respondent (Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma) was subject to control by the Canadian government - Conversely, there was evidence that it was subject to control by the Italian government - The Registrar therefore erred in granting public notice of the adoption and use of the official mark by the respondent - The court set aside the Registrar's decision and directed the Registrar to allow the applicant's trademark application - The court declared that the respondent was not a "public authority" within the meaning of s. 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Act and that the disputed official mark was invalid and void ab initio.

Cases Noticed:

Canada Post Corp. v. United States Postal Service (2007), 358 N.R. 154; 2007 FCA 10, refd to. [para. 14].

Maple Leaf Meats Inc. v. Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma et al. (2000), 197 F.T.R. 272 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v. Maple Leaf Meats Inc., [2001] 2 F.C. 536; 205 F.T.R. 176 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Maple Leaf Foods Inc. v. Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma et al. (2010), 407 N.R. 199 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

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. 20].

Brouillette Kosie Prince v. Orange Cove-Sanger Citrus Association (2007), 322 F.T.R. 212; 2007 FC 1229, refd to. [para. 21].

Ontario Association of Architects v. Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, [2003] 1 F.C. 331; 291 N.R. 61; 2002 FCA 218, refd to. [para. 21].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 22].

See You In - Canadian Athletes Fund Corp. v. Canadian Olympic Committee (2007), 311 F.T.R. 245; 2007 FC 406, refd to. [para. 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-Marks Act, RSC 1985, c. T-13, sect. 9(1)(n)(iii) [para. 23].

Counsel:

Kevin Sartorio, for the applicant;

Daniel Glover, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 19, 2012, at Toronto, Ontario, before O'Keefe, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on April 12, 2012.