Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Ltd. v. Canadian Jewellers Association, 2010 FC 309

JudgeKelen, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateMarch 02, 2010
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations2010 FC 309;(2010), 363 F.T.R. 83 (FC)

Worldwide Diamond v. Cdn. Jewellers (2010), 363 F.T.R. 83 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.032

Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Limited (applicant) v. Canadian Jewellers Association (respondent)

(T-890-09; T-891-09; T-892-09; 2010 FC 309)

Indexed As: Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Ltd. v. Canadian Jewellers Association

Federal Court

Kelen, J.

March 17, 2010.

Summary:

The Registrar of Trademarks, sitting as the Trademarks Opposition Board, dismissed Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Ltd.'s three applications for trademarks, because the proposed trademarks were clearly descriptive of their associated wares and services, pursuant to s. 12(1)(b) of the Trade-marks Act. The proposed trademarks described diamonds with a pure Canadian pedigree, and with a report or a certificate or an appraisal. Worldwide appealed, and filed additional affidavit evidence.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal. The proposed trademarks clearly described certified Canadian diamonds or wares or services associated with Canadian diamonds, and had not become distinctive. "Seeking such a trademark for a Canadian diamond is analogous to seeking a trademark such as 'THE COFFEE SHOP' for a coffee shop".

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 261

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Prohibition - Marks which are descriptive of the product - Section 12(1)(b) of the Trade-marks Act prohibited the registration of a trademark that was clearly descriptive or misdescriptive of the quality of the character or quality of the associated wares or services - The Federal Court discussed the purpose of s. 12(1)(b) as set out in the leading jurisprudence, and stated the law as follows - "Whether a trade-mark is clearly descriptive is a decision of first impression which requires the ascertainment of the immediate impression created by the mark as a whole in association with the product and by critically analyzing the individual words ... The decision-maker must also apply common sense in making its determination" - See paragraphs 46 to 49.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 261

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Prohibition - Marks which are descriptive of the product - The applicant submitted that its three proposed trademarks were not clearly descriptive of the wares in question, namely, Canadian diamonds and certificates or reports of authenticity and appraisals - On appeal, it raised the issue that the proposed trademarks contained words which formed parts of previously accepted trademark registrations - The Federal Court, on a correctness standard, found that the state of the register with respect to similar marks could not render the proposed trademarks non-descriptive and therefore registrable - The proposed trademarks contained previously registered trademarks which were by themselves clearly descriptive - The only part which was not descriptive was the Canadian flag-like design with a diamond, instead of a maple leaf - However, the Registrar found that the symbol was not a dominant part of the proposed trademarks - See paragraphs 50 to 59 - However, in obiter, the court found that the flag-like design, without the descriptive words, was registrable - See paragraph 63.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Distinctive marks - General - The Registrar of Trade-marks, sitting as the Trade-marks Opposition Board, dismissed Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Ltd.'s three applications for trademarks, because the proposed trademarks were clearly descriptive of their associated wares and services, pursuant to s. 12(1)(b) of the Trade-marks Act - Worldwide appealed and filed additional affidavit evidence - It submitted that if the proposed trademarks were clearly descriptive, they were nevertheless registrable by reason of their acquired distinctiveness through substantial use or promotion (Trade-marks Act, s. 12(2)) - The Federal Court considered the distinctiveness of the proposed trademarks as of the date of filing of the application for registration - See paragraph 67 - In the end result, the court concluded, on a de novo basis and on a correctness standard, that the new evidence of substantive use was not sufficiently probative to justify the court's intervention - Most of the evidence related to use outside the relevant period of consideration - "There has to be very strong evidence to show that the proposed trade-marks were distinctive at the time of the application. Subsection 12(2) of the Act is an exceptional provision which places a 'heavy onus' on the applicant" - See paragraphs 64 to 76.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 985

Trademarks - Registration - Appeals or judicial review - Fresh evidence - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 988

Trademarks - Registration - Appeals or judicial review - Scope of review of decision of registrar (incl. Opposition Board) - The applicant submitted that it had provided additional evidence with this appeal which would have materially affected the Registrar's decision so that the standard of review was correctness - The Federal Court stated that "[t]he jurisprudence establishes that the expertise on the part of the Registrar of Trade-marks requires deference and the Registrar's decision under section 38(8) of the Act is reviewed on a standard of reasonableness. However, as the Federal Court of Appeal held in Molson Breweries, Partnership v. John Labatts Ltd. ... , a Registrar's decision is reviewed on a correctness standard ... 'where additional evidence is adduced in the Trial Division that would have materially affected the Registrar's findings of fact or the exercise of his discretion'" - Accordingly, the court held that "the standard of review in this proceeding shall be correctness with respect to the descriptiveness of the proposed trade-marks in light of the new evidence, but reasonableness with respect to the balance of the Registrar's findings" - See paragraphs 36, 39 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

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, appld. [para. 34].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 34].

Molson Breweries, A Partnership v. Labatt (John) Ltd. et al., [2000] 3 F.C. 145; 252 N.R. 91 (F.C.A.), appld. [para. 36].

Scotch Whisky Association v. Glenora Distillers International Ltd. (2009), 385 N.R. 159; 2009 FCA 16, refd to. [para. 36].

Jose Cuervo S.A. de C.V. v. Bacardi & Co. et al. (2009), 357 F.T.R. 60; 2009 FC 1166, refd to. [para. 38].

Reed Stenhouse Co. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1991), 57 F.T.R. 317; 45 C.P.R.(3d) 79 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 39].

Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (1996), 119 F.T.R. 295 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 39].

Mattel Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 772; 348 N.R. 340; 2006 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 40]

Garbo Group Inc. v. Brown (Harriet) & Co. et al. (1999), 176 F.T.R. 80 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

GWG Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1981), 55 C.P.R.(2d) 1 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 47].

Eastman Photographic Materials Co. v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, [1898] A.C. 571, refd to. [para. 47].

Molson Companies Ltd. v. Carling O'Keefe Breweries of Canada Ltd., [1982] 1 F.C. 275, 55 C.P.R. (2d) 15 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

Neptune S.A. v. Canada (Procureur général) (2003), 237 F.T.R. 240; 2003 FCT 715, refd to. [para. 48].

Labatt (John) Ltd. v. Carling Breweries Ltd. (1974), 18 C.P.R.(2d) 15 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Sherwin Williams Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1937] Ex. C.R. 205, refd to. [para. 53].

Provenzano v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1977), 37 C.P.R.(2d) 189 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 58].

Park Avenue Furniture Corp. v. Wickes/Simmons Bedding Ltd. (1991), 130 N.R. 223; 37 C.P.R.(3d) 413 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Canadian Council of Professional Engineers v. APA - The Engineered Wood Association (2000), 184 F.T.R. 55 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 68].

Drolet v. Gralsbotschaft et al. (2009), 341 F.T.R. 44; 2009 FC 17, refd to. [para. 69].

Matol Biotech Laboratories Ltd. v. Jurak Holdings Ltd. (2008), 335 F.T.R. 171; 2008 FC 1082, refd to. [para. 71].

Best Canadian Motor Inns Ltd. v. Best Western International Inc. (2004), 246 F.T.R. 113; 30 C.P.R.(4th) 481 (F.C.), refd to. [paras. 18, 82].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 12(1)(b) [paras. 28, 46]; sect. 12(2) [paras. 29, 65]; sect. 38(8) [para. 27]; sect. 56(1), sect. 56(5) [para. 31].

Counsel:

Karen F. MacDonald, for the applicant;

No one appearing, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Smart & Biggar, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant.

This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 2, 2010, by Kelen, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment and judgment, dated March 17, 2010.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Ottawa Athletic Club Inc. v. Athletic Club Group Inc. et al., (2014) 459 F.T.R. 39 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • January 13, 2014
    ...(2009), 80 C.P.R.(4th) 467 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 29]. Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Ltd. v. Canadian Jewellers Association (2010), 363 F.T.R. 83; 2010 FC 309, refd to. [para. Canadian Tire Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2009), 80 C.P.R.(4th) 407 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 29]. ......
  • Diamant Elinor Inc. v. 88766 Canada Inc., (2010) 378 F.T.R. 189 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • November 15, 2010
    ...329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 40]. Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Ltd. v. Canadian Jewellers Association (2010), 363 F.T.R. 83; 2010 FC 309, refd to. [para. Garbo Group Inc. et al. v. Brown (Harriet) & Co. et al. (1999), 176 F.T.R. 80; 3 C.P.R.(4th) 224 (T.D.......
  • Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Limited c. Canadian Jewellers Association,
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • March 17, 2010
    ...législateur n’a pa s voulu que la simple util isation d’uneT-890-09T-891-09T-892-092010 FC 309Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Limited(Applicant)v.Canadian Jewellers Association (Respondent)INDEXED AS: WORLDW IDE DIAMOND TRADEMA RKSLIMITED V. CANADIAN JEWELLERSASSOCIATIONFede......
  • Les Marques Metro / Metro Brands S.E.N.C. v. 1161396 Ontario Inc., 2017 FC 806
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • September 8, 2017
    ...on appeal remain subject to a reasonableness standard of review (Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Limited v Canadian Jewellers Association, 2010 FC 309 at para 43, aff’d 2010 FCA 326, citing Garbo Creations Inc v Harriet Brown & Co (1999), 176 FTR 80 (FCTD). See also Community Credit Union ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Ottawa Athletic Club Inc. v. Athletic Club Group Inc. et al., (2014) 459 F.T.R. 39 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • January 13, 2014
    ...(2009), 80 C.P.R.(4th) 467 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 29]. Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Ltd. v. Canadian Jewellers Association (2010), 363 F.T.R. 83; 2010 FC 309, refd to. [para. Canadian Tire Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. (2009), 80 C.P.R.(4th) 407 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 29]. ......
  • Diamant Elinor Inc. v. 88766 Canada Inc., (2010) 378 F.T.R. 189 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • November 15, 2010
    ...329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 40]. Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Ltd. v. Canadian Jewellers Association (2010), 363 F.T.R. 83; 2010 FC 309, refd to. [para. Garbo Group Inc. et al. v. Brown (Harriet) & Co. et al. (1999), 176 F.T.R. 80; 3 C.P.R.(4th) 224 (T.D.......
  • Les Marques Metro / Metro Brands S.E.N.C. v. 1161396 Ontario Inc., 2017 FC 806
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • September 8, 2017
    ...on appeal remain subject to a reasonableness standard of review (Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Limited v Canadian Jewellers Association, 2010 FC 309 at para 43, aff’d 2010 FCA 326, citing Garbo Creations Inc v Harriet Brown & Co (1999), 176 FTR 80 (FCTD). See also Community Credit Union ......
  • Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Limited c. Canadian Jewellers Association,
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • March 17, 2010
    ...législateur n’a pa s voulu que la simple util isation d’uneT-890-09T-891-09T-892-092010 FC 309Worldwide Diamond Trademarks Limited(Applicant)v.Canadian Jewellers Association (Respondent)INDEXED AS: WORLDW IDE DIAMOND TRADEMA RKSLIMITED V. CANADIAN JEWELLERSASSOCIATIONFede......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT