Omega Engineering Inc. v. Omega SA, (2006) 311 F.T.R. 171 (FC)

• Judge: Blais, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 20, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 311 F.T.R. 171 (FC);2006 FC 1472

Omega Eng. Inc. v. Omega SA (2006), 311 F.T.R. 171 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.032

Omega Engineering, Inc. (applicant) v. Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd.) (respondent)

(T-189-06; 2006 FC 1472)

Indexed As: Omega Engineering Inc. v. Omega SA

Federal Court

Blais, J.

December 8, 2006.

Summary:

At the request of the applicant, the Registrar of Trademarks forwarded a notice pursuant to s. 45 of the Trade-marks Act to the respondent as the listed registered owner of the trademark OMEGA & Design (the design was the Greek letter for omega). The notice required the respondent to demonstrate whether the trademark was used in Canada at any time within the preceding three years respecting each of the wares within the registration. The respondent Omega submitted evidence. The Registrar decided that some of the elements on the register should be deleted. The applicant appealed.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 266 F.T.R. 174, allowed the appeal in part and ordered that certain wares and the general class containing them be expunged. The respondent appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 343 N.R. 226, allowed the appeal and ordered that the decision of the Federal Court judge, ordering the expungement of the wares and the general class in question, be set aside. The applicant sought an order under s. 57 of the Act that the registration for the trademark be amended or, alternatively, a declaration that the trademark had been abandoned.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 703

Trademarks - Registration - General - Application - Amendment - The applicant sought an order under s. 57 of the Trade-marks Act that the registration for the respondent's trademark OMEGA & Design (the design was the Greek letter for omega) be amended - The applicant did not suggest that the registration of the respondent's trademark as a whole was invalid - Rather, it argued that the general classification that preceded the statement of wares was not descriptive of the wares that followed that statement - The Federal Court reviewed the nature of proceedings under s. 57 and dismissed the application - The applicant was essentially asking the court to replace the existing general classification of wares which formed part of the respondent's valid registration with a different general classification - Such a remedy was not allowed in a s. 57 application - As such an amendment could negatively impact the rights of third parties, notice would have to be given to allow anybody to oppose the new general classification if they had any reason for it - See paragraphs 8 to 38.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Lack of use or abandonment - The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent's trademark OMEGA & Design (the design was the Greek letter for omega) had been abandoned due to a long period of disuse - The Federal Court dismissed the application - Given that there was evidence of use of the trademark in association with the specific wares listed in the registration that followed the general classification, the applicant had not met its burden to show that use of the trademark has been abandoned solely in respect of the general classification - See paragraphs 39 to 46.

Cases Noticed:

Ridout & Maybee LLP v. Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd.) et al. (2005), 343 N.R. 226; 43 C.P.R.(4th) 18; 2005 FCA 306, refd to. [para. 5].

Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1993), 63 F.T.R. 241 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Labatt (John) Ltd. v. Carling Breweries Ltd. (1974), 18 C.P.R.(2d) 15 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v. Maple Leaf Meats Inc., [2001] 2 F.C. 536; 205 F.T.R. 176; 11 C.P.R.(4th) 48 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot ltée et al. (2006), 349 N.R. 111 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Ling Chi Medicine Co. (H.K.) Ltd. v. Persaud et al. (1998), 232 N.R. 61; 81 C.P.R.(3d) 369 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Andres Wines Ltd. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery (1975), 11 N.R. 560; 25 C.P.R.(2d) 126 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Ridout & Maybee LLP v. Omega SA (Omega AG)(Omega Ltd.) et al. (2004), 266 F.T.R. 174; 39 C.P.R.(4th) 261; 2004 FC 1703, refd to. [para. 28].

Patou (Jean) Inc. v. Luxo Laboratories Ltd. (1998), 158 F.T.R. 16 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 30].

Royal Doulton Tableware Ltd. v. Cassidy's ltée, [1986] 1 F.C. 357; 1 C.P.R.(3d) 214 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36].

Promafil Canada ltée v. Munsingwear Inc. (1992), 142 N.R. 230; 44 C.P.R.(3d) 59 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Morris (Philip) Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (1987), 81 N.R. 28; 17 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Good Humor Corp. of America v. Good Humor Food Products Ltd., [1937] Ex. C.R. 61, refd to. [para. 43].

Kom Inc. v. Levitan, Kohl & Associates Ltd. (1991), 35 C.P.R.(3d) 121 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 45].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 57 [para. 9].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fox, Harold G., The Canadian Law of Trade Marks and Unfair Competition (3rd Ed. 1972), generally [para. 15]; p. 11-24 [para. 16].

Counsel:

Mitchell Charness, for the applicant;

Barry Gamache, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Ridout & Maybee, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Léger Robic Richard s.e.n.c.r.l., Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on November 20, 2006, before Blais, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on December 8, 2006, in Ottawa, Ontario.