Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin - Michelin & Cie v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), (1996) 124 F.T.R. 192 (TD)

• Judge: Teitelbaum, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 12, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 124 F.T.R. 192 (TD)

Michelin & Cie v. NAATGWU (1996), 124 F.T.R. 192 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin - Michelin & Cie (plaintiffs) v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Basil Hargrove and Larry Wark (defendants)

(T-825-94)

Indexed As: Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin - Michelin & Cie v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Teitelbaum, J.

December 19, 1996.

Summary:

The National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW) attempted to unionize the employees of Michelin. During the organization campaign, the CAW distributed leaflets, displayed posters and issued information sheets that reproduced the term "Michelin". The CAW also used Michelin's corporate logo, the Michelin Tire Man or "Bibendum" design, a drawing of a beaming marshmallow-like rotund figure composed of tires. Michelin's parent company held trademarks and copyrights in the term "Michelin" and the "Bibendum" design. CAW used the "Michelin" name and "Bibendum" design without permission. Michelin's parent company sued CAW, seeking damages for infringement of intellectual property rights and a permanent injunction to restrain CAW from using its trademarks and copyrights in future organizing drives. CAW argued that it did not infringe Michelin's rights and, furthermore, if ss. 3 and 27 of the Copyright Act and ss. 20 and 22 of the Trade-marks Act prohibited CAW from using Michelin's trademarks and copyrights in a union organizing campaign, then those provisions violated CAW's freedom of expression contrary to s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed Michelin's claim for trademark infringement but held that CAW was liable for copyright infringement. The court held that there was no breach of s. 2(b) of the Charter. The court granted an injunction restraining CAW's activities.

Civil Rights - Topic 1803

Freedom of speech or expression - Freedom of expression - Scope of - During an organizing campaign at Michelin tire plants, the union (CAW) distributed leaflets and posters including a modified version of Michelin's logo, the Michelin Tire Man or "Bibendum" design - Michelin alleged copyright infringement - CAW argued that if the Copyright Act, ss. 3 and 27, prohibited its actions, then those sections violated CAW's freedom of expression (Charter, s. 2(b)) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that CAW's freedom of expression was not restricted where CAW failed to prove that the right to use another's private property was within the protected scope of freedom of expression - The court opined that even if s. 2(b) was violated, the impugned provisions would be saved by s. 1 of the Charter and even if they were not, reading down was not an appropriate remedy - See paragraphs 76 to 120.

Civil Rights - Topic 1843.2

Freedom of speech or expression - Limitations on - Copyright - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1803 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1803 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.18

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Reading down - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1803 ].

Copyright - Topic 4401

Infringement of copyright - General principles - Pursuant to the Copyright Act, only the owner can reproduce the work or a substantial part of the work - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed what was meant by "substantial part" - See paragraphs 48 to 58.

Copyright - Topic 4409

Infringement of copyright - Infringement by personal action - During an organizing campaign at three Michelin tire plants, the union (CAW) distributed leaflets and posters which included a modified version of Michelin's logo, the Michelin Tire Man or "Bibendum" design - Michelin alleged copyright infringement by CAW for distributing a work that they knew violated the copyright of another when such distribution would have a prejudicial affect (Copyright Act, s. 27(4)(b)) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that CAW was not liable for copyright infringement under s. 27(4)(b) - See paragraphs 74, 75.

Copyright - Topic 4496

Infringement of copyright - Acts constituting an infringement - Parody - During an organizing campaign at Michelin tire plants, the union (CAW) distributed leaflets and posters which included a modified version of Michelin's logo, the Michelin Tire Man or "Bibendum" design - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that CAW and those who authorized the copying, infringed Michelin's copyright - There was reproduction of a substantial part of Michelin's work - The court rejected CAW's argument that the use of "Bibendum" as a parody was a form of fair dealing for the purpose of criticism and therefore an exception to copyright infringement (Copyright Act, s. 27(2)(a.1)) - Further, even if parody constituted fair dealing, CAW failed to explicitly mention the source and author's name on their materials and did not treat the original work fairly as required by s. 27(2)(a.1) - See paragraphs 48 to 75.

Copyright - Topic 4496

Infringement of copyright - Acts constituting an infringement - Parody - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1803 ].

Copyright - Topic 4645

Defences - Fair dealing - Parody - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that parody was not a form of criticism within the meaning of s. 27(1)(a.1) of the Copyright Act such as to come within the fair dealing exception to copyright infringement - See paragraphs 59 to 67.

Copyright - Topic 4645

Defences - Fair dealing - Section 27(2)(a.1) of the Copyright Act provided that fair dealing with any work for the purposes of criticism, review or newspaper summary did not constitute copyright infringement if the source and the author's name, if given in the source, were mentioned - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed what was meant by "mentioned" in s. 27(2)(a.1) - See paragraphs 68, 69.

Copyright - Topic 4645

Defences - Fair dealing - [See first Copyright - Topic 4496 ].

Courts - Topic 103

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - American decisions - During an organizing campaign at Michelin tire plants, the union (CAW) distributed leaflets and posters which included a modified version of Michelin's logo, the Michelin Tire Man or "Bibendum" design - Michelin sued for copyright infringement - CAW, relying on American case law argued that their use of "Bibendum" was a parody which was a form of criticism and therefore an exception to copyright infringement under s. 27(2)(a.1) of the Copyright Act - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected CAW's argument and declined to apply the American case law where the American copyright regime differed from Canadian law - See paragraphs 64 to 67.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1804

Trademarks - Infringement - Acts not constituting an infringement - During an organizing campaign at three Michelin tire plants, the union (CAW) distributed leaflets and information bulletins which included Michelin's logo, the Michelin Tire Man or "Bibendum" design and the term "Michelin" - Michelin sued for trademark infringement - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that CAW did not infringe Michelin's trademarks under ss. 20 and 22 of the Trade-marks Act because the CAW did not "use" Michelin's registered trademarks in the sale, distribution or advertisement of wares or services in association with a confusing trademark or in a manner that was likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attached to the trademark - See paragraphs 16 to 47.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1807

Trademarks - Infringement - Use - General - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed what must be established to prove "use" of a trademark such as to constitute infringement within the meaning of ss. 19, 20 and 22 of the Trade-marks Act - See paragraphs 16 to 47.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1807

Trademarks - Infringement - Use - General - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1804 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1808

Trademarks - Infringement - Use - Depreciation of goodwill - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1804 ].

Words and Phrases

Mention - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed the meaning of the word "mentioned" in s. 27(2)(a.1) in the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42 - See paragraphs 68, 69.

Cases Noticed:

Clairol International Corp. v. Thomas Supply & Equipment Co. et al. (1968), 38 Fox Pat. C. 176 (Ex. Ct.), folld. [para. 16].

Canadian Council of Blue Cross Plans et al. v. Blue Cross Beauty Products Inc. et al. (1971), 3 C.P.R.(2d) 223 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Amandista Investments Ltd. (1987), 81 N.R. 257; 19 C.P.R.(3d) 3 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Eye Masters Ltd. v. Shopper's Optical (1992), 56 F.T.R. 274; 44 C.P.R.(3d) 459 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 34].

Future Shop Ltd. v. A. & B. Sound Ltd. (1994), 55 C.P.R.(3d) 182 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Syntex Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (1984), 55 N.R. 135; 1 C.P.R.(3d) 145 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

Rôtisseries St-Hubert ltée v. Syndicat des travailleurs(euses) de la Rôtisserie St-Hubert de Drummondville (CSN) (1986), 17 C.P.R.(3d) 461 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 39].

Hartco Enterprises Inc. v. Becterm Inc. (1989), 24 F.T.R. 69; 24 C.P.R.(3d) 223 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 40].

U & R Tax Services Ltd. v. H & R Block Canada Inc. (1995), 97 F.T.R. 259; 62 C.P.R.(3d) 257 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 50].

Canada v. Lorimer (James) & Co., [1984] 1 F.C. 1065 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Canadian Tire Corp. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 1518 of United Food and Commercial Workers Union et al. (1985), 7 C.P.R.(3d) 415 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 50].

Joy Music Ltd. v. Sunday Pictorial Newspapers (1920) Ltd., [1960] 1 All E.R. 703; [1960] 2 Q.B. 60, refd to. [para. 52].

Motel 6 Inc. v. No. 6 Motel Ltd. et al. (1981), 127 D.L.R.(3d) 267 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 52].

Schweppes Ltd. v. Wellingtons Ltd. (1984), 10 F.S.R. 210 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 54].

Williamson Music Ltd. v. Pearson Partnership Ltd. (1987), 13 F.S.R. 97 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 55].

Ludlow Music Inc. v. Canint Music Corp. (1967), 62 D.L.R.(2d) 200 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

MCA Canada Ltd. (ltée) et al. v. Gillberry & Hawke Advertising Agency Ltd. et al. (1976), 28 C.P.R.(2d) 52 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 60].

ATV Music Publishing of Canada Ltd. v. Rogers Radio Broadcasting Ltd. (1982), 65 C.P.R.(2d) 109 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Zamacoïs v. Douville and Marchand (1943), 3 Fox Pat. C. 44 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61].

Campbell a.k.a. Luke Skywalker v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. (1994), 114 S. Ct. 1164 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), not folld. [para. 62].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 616; 4 N.R. 277, refd to. [para. 65].

Blue Crest Music Inc. et al. v. Compo Co., [1980] 1 S.C.R. 357; 29 N.R. 296, refd to. [para. 65].

Bishop v. Télé-Métropole Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 467; 111 N.R. 376, refd to. [para. 65].

Husband v. Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Dictionnaires Robert Canada S.C.C. and Editions France-Amérique (1984) ltée v. Librairie du Nomade Inc. and Sussman (1987), 11 F.T.R. 44; 16 C.P.R.(3d) 319 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 81].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur général), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Butler and McCord, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452; 134 N.R. 81; 78 Man.R.(2d) 1; 16 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 85].

Weisfeld v. Canada, [1995] 1 F.C. 68; 171 N.R. 28 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada (1991), 120 N.R. 241; 77 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 88].

Harrison v. Carswell (1975), 5 N.R. 523; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 68 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, [1984] 2 F.C. 410; 55 N.R. 143 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

Ramsden v. Peterborough (City) (1993), 156 N.R. 2; 66 O.A.C. 10; 106 D.L.R.(4th) 233 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 97].

Toronto (City) v. Quickfall (1994), 68 O.A.C. 190; 111 D.L.R.(4th) 687 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 97].

Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Northwest Territories (Commissioner) et al. (1990), 112 N.R. 269; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 102].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 102].

Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. William Hill (Football) Ltd., [1964] 1 W.L.R. 273 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 103].

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson et al. (1994), 43 B.C.A.C. 1; 69 W.A.C. 1; 113 D.L.R.(4th) 368 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161, refd to. [para. 108].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 112].

Royal College of Dental Surgeons (Ont.) v. Rocket and Price, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 232; 111 N.R. 161; 40 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 112].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 81]; sect. 2(b) [para. 82].

Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 42, sect. 3 [para. 3]; sect. 3(1) [para. 49]; sect. 27 [para. 3]; sect. 27(1) [para. 49]; sect. 27(2)(a.1) [para. 59]; sect. 27(4)(b) [para. 74]; Schedule III [para. 109].

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 2 [para. 21]; sect. 4 [para. 24]; sect. 6 [para. 45]; sect. 19, sect. 20, sect. 22 [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Collins Dictionary (2nd Ed.) [paras. 61, 70].

Concise Oxford Dictionary (8th Ed. 1990) [para. 69].

Harris, Lesley Ellen, Canadian Copyright Law (1995), p. 124 [para. 65, footnote 12].

Zegers, James, Parody and Fair Use in Canada after Campbell v. Acuff-Rose (1994), 11 C.I.P.R. 205, generally [para. 65]; p. 208 [para. 71].

Counsel:

Jacques A. Léger, Q.C., and Diane Leduc Campbell, for the plaintiff;

Ronald A. Pink, Q.C., for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Léger, Robic, Richard s.e.n.c., Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Pink, Breen, Larkin, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the defendants.

This action was heard on June 11, 12 and July 12, 1996, at Montreal, Quebec, and on August 28, 29 and September 9, 1996, at Vancouver, British Columbia, by Teitelbaum, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on December 19, 1996.