Ridout & Maybee LLP v. Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd.) et al., (2004) 266 F.T.R. 174 (FC)

• Judge: Tremblay-Lamer, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 24, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 266 F.T.R. 174 (FC);2004 FC 1703

Ridout & Maybee LLP v. Omega SA (2004), 266 F.T.R. 174 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.046

Ridout & Maybee LLP (applicant) v. Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd.) and The Registrar of Trademarks (respondents)

(T-2248-03; 2004 FC 1703)

Indexed As: Ridout & Maybee LLP v. Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd.) et al.

Federal Court

Tremblay-Lamer, J.

December 3, 2004.

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 submitted evidence. The Registrar decided that some of the elements on the register should be deleted. The applicant appealed.

The Federal Court allowed the appeal.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Lack of use or abandonment - The Registrar of Trademarks forwarded a notice pursuant to s. 45 of the Trade-marks Act to the respondent as the registered owner of the trademark "Omega" & Design (the design was the Greek letter for omega) requiring the respondent to demonstrate whether the trademark was used in Canada within the preceding three years - The respondent submitted affidavit evidence showing use of a mark in association with wares in a sale transaction - The mark was modified in that there was a line of oblong marks and the word "Electronics" located beneath the trademark as registered - The font size of the word "Electronics" was smaller than the font size of the word "Omega" and the Greek letter - Given the difference in font size and the separation of the mark from the word "Electronics" by oblong marks, the Registrar concluded that the composite image nevertheless constituted use of the "Omega" & Design mark "per se" - The Federal Court held that this decision was not unreasonable, particularly in view of the Registrar's expertise in discerning how marks were likely to be perceived from the point of view of the relevant consumer and any confusion or misperception likely to arise therefrom - See paragraphs 9 to 16.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Lack of use or abandonment - The Registrar of Trademarks forwarded a notice pursuant to s. 45 of the Trade-marks Act to the respondent requiring it to show use of the trademark in Canada within the preceding three years - The Federal Court reviewed the test for what was required to "show use" - The court stated that the test should be formulated more precisely as follows: "evidence is required to show use of every ware specified in the registration unless demonstrated use of a particular ware or wares can serve as evidence of use of an entire category of wares on a plain reading of the registration. In that scenario, showing use of every single ware identified is not strictly required. And whether a ware or wares can legitimately serve as a category representative is likely to be case-specific." - See paragraphs 19 to 30.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Lack of use or abandonment - The Registrar of Trademarks forwarded a notice pursuant to s. 45 of the Trade-marks Act to the respondent requiring it to show use of the trademark in Canada within the preceding three years - The respondent submitted evidence of the sale of certain wares (wares used in the sports timing industry) to support a broader category of wares (wares of a scientific or technical application) - The Registrar accepted most of this evidence - The Federal Court held that the Registrar's interpretation was unreasonable - There was simply no evidence demonstrating use of any ware(s) remotely related to anything outside the sports timing field - This did not amount to a redefinition of the statement of wares - Rather, such wares were "deadwood" and should be deleted from the registration - See paragraphs 31 to 33.

Cases Noticed:

Molson Breweries, A Partnership v. Labatt (John) Ltd. et al., [2000] 3 F.C. 145; 252 N.R. 91; 5 C.P.R.(4th) 180 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Carter-Wallace Inc. v. Wampole Canada Inc. (2000), 184 F.T.R. 143; 8 C.P.R.(4th) 30 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 7].

Nightingale Interloc Ltd. v. Prodesign Ltd. (1984), 2 C.P.R.(3d) 535 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 10].

Compagnie Internationale pour l'Informatique CII Honeywell Bull v. Registrar of Trademarks (1985), 61 N.R. 286; 4 C.P.R.(3d) 523 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Promafil Canada Ltée v. Munsingwear Inc. (1992), 142 N.R. 230; 44 C.P.R.(3d) 59 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Brouillette Kosie Prince v. Andrés Wines Ltd. (2004), 259 F.T.R. 16; 2004 FC 812, dist. [para. 14].

Morris (Philip) Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (1987), 8 F.T.R. 310; 13 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Renaud Cointreau & CIE v. Cordon Bleu International Ltd. (2000), 193 F.T.R. 182; 10 C.P.R.(4th) 367 (T.D.), affd. (2002), 289 N.R. 178; 18 C.P.R.(4th) 415, refd to. [para. 20].

Morris (Philip) Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. et al. (1987), 91 N.R. 76; 17 C.P.R.(3d) 237 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Scott Paper Co., Re, [1997] T.M.O.B. No. 139, refd to. [para. 23].

Swabey Ogilvy Renault v. Targa Electronics Systems Inc. (2001), 11 C.P.R.(4th) 413 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

Austin Nichols & Co. v. Cinnabon Inc., [1998] 4 F.C. 569; 231 N.R. 362; 82 C.P.R.(3d) 513 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Saks & Co. v. Registrar of Trademarks et al. (1989), 25 F.T.R. 65; 24 C.P.R.(3d) 49 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

Plough (Canada) Ltd. v. Aerosol Fillers Inc., [1981] 1 F.C. 679; 34 N.R. 39; 53 C.P.R.(2d) 62 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Labatt (John) Ltd. v. Rainier Brewing Co. (1984), 54 N.R. 296; 80 C.P.R.(2d) 228 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Swabey Ogilvy Renault v. Enterprises Krasnow Ltée/Krasnow Enterprises Ltd. (1997), 83 C.P.R.(3d) 259 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Eclipse International Fashions Canada Inc. v. Shapiro Cohen (2004), 259 F.T.R. 5; 2004 FC 617 refd to. [para. 29].

Boutique Limité Inc. v. Limco Investments Inc. - see Boutique Limité Inc. v. Registrar of Trademarks.

Boutique Limité Inc. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998), 232 N.R. 190; 84 C.P.R.(3d) 164 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

ConAgra Foods Inc. v. Fetherstonhaugh & Co. (2002), 225 F.T.R. 193; 23 C.P.R.(4th) 49, refd to. [para. 30].

Counsel:

Mitchell Charness, for the applicant;

Barry Gamache, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Léger Robic Richard, S.E.N.C., Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 24, 2004, before Tremblay-Lamer, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on December 3, 2004.