Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., (2014) 470 F.T.R. 182 (FC)

• Judge: Bédard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 14, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 470 F.T.R. 182 (FC);2014 FC 1237

Philip Morris v. Imperial Tobacco (2014), 470 F.T.R. 182 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.019

Philip Morris Products S.A. (applicant) v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited (respondent)

(T-2066-13; 2014 FC 1237)

Indexed As: Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.

Federal Court

Bédard, J.

December 18, 2014.

Summary:

Philip Morris Products S.A. applied to register the proposed trademark "FLIP-TOP" in association with tobacco and a variety of tobacco products. The Registrar of Trademarks, on behalf of the Trademarks Opposition Board, refused the application. Philip Morris appealed.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Distinctive marks - General - Philip Morris applied to register the proposed trademark "FLIP-TOP" in association with tobacco and a variety of tobacco products - The Registrar of Trademarks, on behalf of the Trademarks Opposition Board, refused the application - The Board found that the proposed mark was not distinctive because it described a type of packaging commonly used for tobacco products - Philip Morris appealed - The Federal Court dismissed the appeal - The court held that it was open to the Board to conclude that the term "flip-top" in association with tobacco products was not inherently adapted to distinguish the tobacco products of one manufacturer from those of other manufacturers - The Board's decision was reasonable - However, the court noted that it was not saying, that the term "flip-top" could never acquire distinctiveness over time though use.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Distinctive marks - General - The Federal Court stated that a proposed mark, that had not yet been used, had to be inherently distinctive in order to be protected and eligible for registration - Therefore, the fact that there might be trademarks on the register or in the market which, despite not being inherently distinctive, might have acquired distinctiveness with time was not material to the assessment of whether a proposed trademark was inherently distinctive - See paragraph 54.

Cases Noticed:

Plastic Packaging Products Ltd. v. Universal Electric Products Co. (1964), 43 C.P.R. 155, refd to. [para. 17].

Labatt (John) Ltd. v. Molson Companies Ltd. (1986), 9 C.P.R.(3d) 385 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 18].

Canada Dry Ltd. v. McCain Foods Ltd. (1988), 21 C.P.R.(3d) 99 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 19].

Ralston Purina Canada Inc. v. Effem Foods Ltd. (1989), 24 C.P.R.(3d) 125 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 19].

Procter & Gamble Inc. v. Colgate- Palmolive Canada Inc. (2010), 364 F.T.R. 288; 2010 FC 231, refd to. [para. 26].

RA Brands LLC v. Calsper Developments Inc., [2006] TMOB No. 155, refd to. [para. 26].

Molson Canada 2005 v. Labatt Breweries of Canada (2011), 97 C.P.R.(4th) 160 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), dist. [para. 30].

Bridgestone Corp. v. Campagnolo S.R.L. (2014), 446 F.T.R. 40; 117 C.P.R.(4th) 1; 2014 FC 37, refd to. [para. 33].

Vivat Holdings Ltd. v. Levi Strauss & Co. (2005), 276 F.T.R. 40; 41 C.P.R.(4th) 8; 2005 FC 707, refd to. [para. 33].

Simmons IP Inc. v. Park Avenue Furniture Corp. (1994), 56 C.P.R.(3d) 284 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 34].

AstraZeneca AB v. Novopharm Ltd. et al. (2003), 300 N.R. 266; 24 C.P.R.(4th) 326; 2003 FCA 57, refd to. [para. 37].

Canadian Council of Professional Engineers v. APA - The Engineered Wood Association (2000), 184 F.T.R. 55; 7 C.P.R.(4th) 239 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 38].

York Barbell Holdings Ltd. v. ICON Health and Fitness Inc. (2001), 13 C.P.R.(4th) 156 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 38].

674802 B.C. Ltd. v. Encorp Pacific (Canada), 2011 TMOB 180, refd to. [para. 38].

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. e-Funds Ltd. (2008), 71 C.P.R.(4th) 22 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 43].

Mattel Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 772; 348 N.R. 340; 2006 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 47].

Molson Breweries, A Partnership v. Labatt (John) Ltd. et al., [2000] 3 F.C. 145; 252 N.R. 91 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Products Ltd. (2014), 452 F.T.R. 63; 2014 FC 300, refd to. [para. 47].

Verger du Minot Inc. v. Clos Saint- Denis Inc. (2014), 466 F.T.R. 95; 2014 FC 997, refd to. [para. 47].

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. 57].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 59].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 59].

Labatt (John) Ltd. v. Molson Companies Ltd. (1990), 36 F.T.R. 70; 30 C.P.R.(3d) 293 (T.D.), affd. (1992), 144 N.R. 318; 42 C.P.R.(3d) 495 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of Cyprus v. Producteurs Laitiers du Canada et al. (2011), 420 N.R. 124; 93 C.P.R.(4th) 255; 2011 FCA 201, leave to appeal refused (2012), 435 N.R. 384 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Kirkbi AG et al. v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 302; 341 N.R. 234; 2005 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 61].

Western Clock Co. v. Oris Watch Co., [1931] Ex. C.R. 64; [1931] 2 D.L.R. 775, refd to. [para. 61].

Novopharm Ltd. v. AstraZeneca AB et al. (2003), 240 F.T.R. 300; 233 D.L.R.(4th) 150; 2003 FC 1212, refd to. [para. 64].

Breck's Sporting Goods Co. v. Sportcam Co. and Magder, [1973] F.C. 360; 10 C.P.R.(2d) 28 (F.C.A.), affd. [1976] 1 S.C.R. 527; 3 N.R. 601; 17 C.P.R.(2d) 201 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 66].

Apotex Inc. et al. v. Registrar of Trademarks et al. (2010), 366 F.T.R. 77; 2010 FC 291, refd to. [para. 66].

Novopharm Ltd. v. Bayer Inc. et al., [2000] 2 F.C. 553; 178 F.T.R. 260; 3 C.P.R.(4th) 305 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 264 N.R. 384; 9 C.P.R.(4th) 304 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Apotex Inc. et al. v. Registrar of Trademarks et al. (2010), 410 N.R. 196; 2010 FCA 313, refd to. [para. 67].

Shell Canada Ltd. v. P.T. Sari Incofood Corp. (2008), 380 N.R. 317; 68 C.P.R.(4th) 390; 2008 FCA 279, leave to appeal refused (2009), 395 N.R. 391 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 78].

Molson Companies Ltd. v. Labatt (John) Ltd. (1987), 91 N.R. 148; 19 C.P.R.(3d) 88 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 78].

Home Juice Co. v. Orange Maison Ltée, [1970] S.C.R. 942; 16 D.L.R.(3d) 740, refd to. [para. 78].

Compulife Software Inc. v. Compuoffice Software Inc. (2001), 205 F.T.R. 283; 13 C.P.R.(4th) 117; 2001 FCT 559, refd to. [para. 80].

Counsel:

Simon Hitchens, for the applicant;

Mark L. Robbins and Brigitte Chan, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Bereskin & Parr LLP/S.E.N.C.R.L., s.r.l., Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on October 14, 2014, by Bédard, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons on December 18, 2014.