|
Trademarks - Certification Marks. Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
In Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, this brought against the earlier dismissal of a Federal Court appeal, and that against the refusal of the Registrar of Trademarks to register a trademark.
Here the court considered features of a 'certification mark':A. Did the Federal Court err in focusing on the KISS element of the marks and in holding that the SWISS element is a descriptive certification mark that cannot be distinctive?
[24] Counsel for the appellant submits that the Federal Court erred in holding that a certification mark is not a trademark, and that a descriptive certification mark is incapable of bringing distinctiveness to a traditional trademark that includes it because by its very nature a descriptive certification mark can only be descriptive of the origin of the goods. The crux of the Federal Court’s reasoning in this respect is found at paragraph 176 of its reasons, which I quote in full because of its centrality to the present appeal:[176] Chocosuisse giving PIM permission to use the descriptive certification mark SWISS to denote chocolate of Swiss origin does not mean PIM’s use of the word SWISS in their own SWISSKISS Trademark Applications is somehow automatically distinctive of PIM. By having a license to use the SWISS descriptive certification mark, PIM may be free and clear from infringement and confusion as against Chocosuisse in association with its “Chocolate of Swiss origin”. However, in incorporating the word SWISS into their SWISSKISS Trademarks, they ran the risk that the descriptive certification mark’s nature as clearly descriptive of chocolates of Swiss origin would mean SWISS cannot be inherently distinctive or serve as a source identifier in its trademark. In fact, by its very definition, SWISS as a descriptive certification mark can only be descriptive of the origin of the goods. To suggest a descriptive certification mark could be anything other than exclusively descriptive of the origin of the goods would be to simultaneously undermine the descriptive certification mark itself, and section 25 of the TMA. [emphasis in original] [25] The Federal Court went on to add that a trademark and a descriptive certification mark differ fundamentally in nature:[177] As can be seen at section 2 of the TMA […], Parliament carved out a separate definition for certification mark other than a trademark, as they are signs that serve to distinguish goods or services differently. A trademark like the one PIM seeks to obtain must be a sign proposed to be used by a person for the purpose of distinguishing or so as to distinguish their goods from those of others (a source identifier that points to a trader). A descriptive certification mark like SWISS is a sign that is used for the purpose of distinguishing or so as to distinguish goods of a defined standard from those that are not of that defined standard with respect to the area with which the goods are produced (a source identifier that points to the geographic region/terroir of the defined standard). [emphasis in original] ....
[31] To determine whether the SWISSKISS Marks are likely to cause confusion with respect to the respondent’s marks KISS and KISSES, one must have regard to all the surrounding circumstances including, pursuant to subsection 6(5) of the Act, (a) the inherent distinctiveness of the trademarks and trade names and the extent to which they have become known, (b) the length of time the trademarks or trade names have been in use, (c) the nature of the goods, services or business, (d) the nature of the trade, and (e) the degree of resemblance between the trademarks or trade names, including in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them.
[32] In the case at bar, the parties did not spend much time on criteria (b), (c), and (d). The appellant conceded that the length of time the trademarks have been in use favours the respondent, and the appellant has not forcefully argued that the nature of the goods and the likely channels of trade are or would be different, thereby favouring once again the respondent. Indeed, there is scant evidence that Swiss chocolate can be distinguished from other types of chocolates on the basis of quality or price, and there is no restriction on the channels of trade in the applications to register the SWISSKISS Marks.
[33] That leaves us with the inherent distinctiveness and the degree of resemblance factors, on which the appellant hangs its hat. This is where the new evidence with respect to certification marks would have an impact and would necessitate a new analysis, claims the appellant. To assess this argument, I must first step back and examine more closely the nature of a certification mark.
[34] Pursuant to section 2 of the Act, "“trademark”" means:(a) a sign or combination of signs that is used or proposed to be used by a person for the purpose of distinguishing or so as to distinguish their goods or services from those of others, or
a) signe ou combinaison de signes qui est employé par une personne ou que celle-ci projette d’employer pour distinguer, ou de façon à distinguer, ses produits ou services de ceux d’autres personnes;
(b) a certification mark; (marque de commerce)
b) marque de certification. (trademark) [35] To better understand what a certification mark is, we must then turn to the definition of that expression in the same section of the Act:certification mark means a sign or combination of signs that is used or proposed to be used for the purposes of distinguishing or so as to distinguish goods or services that are of a defined standard from those that are not of that defined standard, with respect to
"marque de certification"" Signe ou combinaison de signes qui est employé ou que l’on projette d’employer pour distinguer, ou de façon à distinguer, les produits ou services qui sont d’une norme définie par rapport à ceux qui ne le sont pas, en ce qui concerne :"
(a) The character or quality of the goods or services,
"a)"" soit la nature ou la qualité des produits ou services;"
(b) The working conditions under which the goods are produced or the services performed,
"b)"" soit les conditions de travail dans lesquelles ont lieu leur production ou leur exécution;"
(c) The class of persons by whom the goods are produced or the services performed, or
"c)"" soit la catégorie de personnes qui les produit ou exécute;"
(d) The area within which the goods are produced or the services performed; (marque de certification)
"d)"" soit la région dans laquelle ont lieu leur production ou leur exécution. (certification mark"")" [36] From these two definitions, it is clear that a certification mark falls within the definition of a trademark under the Act, but is of a different nature than a traditional trademark. Whereas the purpose of an ordinary trademark is to indicate a source or origin, the certification mark exists to identify goods and services of a defined standard. In other words, a certification mark can be analogized to a seal of approval that helps consumers recognize products or services that meet certain desired standards, as opposed to those that do not refer to any standards. Section 23 of the Act also sets out different requirements for the registration of a certification mark.
[37] Since a certification mark is a form of trademark, it should notionally be subject to the requirements for registrability found in section 12 of the Act:12 (1) Subject to subsection (2), a trademark is registrable if it is not
12 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), la marque de commerce est enregistrable sauf dans l’un ou l’autre des cas suivants :
(a) a word that is primarily merely the name or the surname of an individual who is living or has died within the preceding thirty years;
a) elle est constituée d’un mot n’étant principalement que le nom ou le nom de famille d’un particulier vivant ou qui est décédé dans les trente années précédentes;
(b) whether depicted, written or sounded, either clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive in the English or French language of the character or quality of the goods or services in association with which it is used or proposed to be used or of the conditions of or the persons employed in their production or of their place of origin;
b) qu’elle soit sous forme graphique, écrite ou sonore, elle donne une description claire ou donne une description fausse et trompeuse, en langue française ou anglaise, de la nature ou de la qualité des produits ou services en liaison avec lesquels elle est employée, ou en liaison avec lesquels on projette de l’employer, ou des conditions de leur production, ou des personnes qui les produisent, ou de leur lieu d’origine;
(c) the name in any language of any of the goods or services in connection with which it is used or proposed to be used;
c) elle est constituée du nom, dans une langue, de l’un des produits ou de l’un des services à l’égard desquels elle est employée, ou à l’égard desquels on projette de l’employer;
(d) confusing with a registered trademark;
d) elle crée de la confusion avec une marque de commerce déposée;
(e) a sign or combination of signs whose adoption is prohibited by section 9 or 10;
e) elle est un signe ou une combinaison de signes dont les articles 9 ou 10 interdisent l’adoption;
(f) a denomination the adoption of which is prohibited by section 10.1;
f) elle est une dénomination dont l’article 10.1 interdit l’adoption;
(g) in whole or in part a protected geographical indication identifying a wine, where the trademark is to be registered in association with a wine not originating in a territory indicated by the geographical indication;
g) elle est constituée, en tout ou en partie, d’une indication géographique protégée désignant un vin et elle doit être enregistrée en liaison avec un vin dont le lieu d’origine ne se trouve pas sur le territoire visé par l’indication;
(h) in whole or in part a protected geographical indication identifying a spirit, where the trademark is to be registered in association with a spirit not originating in a territory indicated by the geographical indication;
h) elle est constituée, en tout ou en partie, d’une indication géographique protégée désignant un spiritueux et elle doit être enregistrée en liaison avec un spiritueux dont le lieu d’origine ne se trouve pas sur le territoire visé par l’indication;
(h.1) in whole or in part a protected geographical indication, and the trademark is to be registered in association with an agricultural product or food — belonging to the same category, as set out in the schedule, as the agricultural product or food identified by the protected geographical indication — not originating in a territory indicated by the geographical indication; and
h.1) elle est constituée, en tout ou en partie, d’une indication géographique protégée et elle doit être enregistrée en liaison avec un produit agricole ou un aliment appartenant à la même catégorie figurant à l’annexe que celle à laquelle appartient le produit désigné par l’indication géographique protégée dont le lieu d’origine ne se trouve pas sur le territoire visé par l’indication;
(i) subject to subsection 3(3) and paragraph 3(4)(a) of the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, a mark the adoption of which is prohibited by subsection 3(1) of that Act.
i) elle est une marque dont l’adoption est interdite par le paragraphe 3(1) de la Loi sur les marques olympiques et paralympiques, sous réserve du paragraphe 3(3) et de l’alinéa 3(4)a) de cette loi. [38] Pursuant to paragraph 12(1)(b), a trademark is not registrable if it is "“clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive in the English or French language of the character or quality of the goods or services in association with which it is used or proposed to be used […] or of their place of origin”". That would clearly have been an obstacle for certification marks that distinguish their goods or services on the basis of the area within which the goods are produced or the service performed. By their very nature, such certification marks would fall within the ambit of paragraph 12(1)(b) as they are descriptive of the place of origin of the goods or services. Indeed, there is a long line of cases that have held that geographic locations are normally descriptive words and therefore not inherently distinctive: see, for example, Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. v. Banff Lake Louise Tourism Bureau, 2018 FC 108 at para. 52; California Fashion Industries v. Reitmans (Canada) Ltd., 1991 CanLII 14371 (FC), 1991 CarswellNat 209 at para. 13; Prince Edward Island Mutual Insurance v. Insurance Co. of Prince Edward Island, 1999 CanLII 7462 (FC) at para. 32; London Drugs Limited v. International Clothiers Inc., 2014 FC 223 at para. 49.
[39] It is to save these descriptive certification marks that Parliament enacted section 25 of the Act, which reads as follows:Descriptive certification mark
"Marque de certification descriptive"
25 A certification mark that is descriptive of the place of origin of goods or services, and not confusing with any registered trademark, is registrable if the applicant is the administrative authority of a country, state, province or municipality that includes or forms part of the area indicated by the certification mark, or is a commercial association that has an office or representative in that area, but the owner of any certification mark registered under this section shall permit its use in association with any goods or services produced or performed in the area of which it is descriptive.
25 ""Une marque de certification descriptive du lieu d’origine des produits ou services et ne créant aucune confusion avec une marque de commerce déposée est enregistrable si le requérant est l’autorité administrative d’un pays, d’un État, d’une province ou d’une municipalité comprenant la région indiquée par la marque de certification ou en faisant partie, ou est une association commerciale ayant un bureau ou un représentant dans une telle région. Toutefois, le propriétaire d’une marque de certification déposée aux termes du présent article doit en permettre l’emploi en liaison avec tout produit ou service dont la région de production ou d’exécution est celle que désigne la marque de certification." [40] Pursuant to that section, it is clear that the only ground upon which a descriptive certification will not be registrable is where there is confusion with a registered trademark. From this exclusion, we can also infer that section 12 was not meant to apply to descriptive certification marks; otherwise, the exclusion of paragraph 12(1)(d) as a ground for non registrability in section 25 would have been redundant. As the Trade Marks Opposition Board stated in Sanna, Inc. v. Chocosuisse Union des Fabricants Suisses de Chocolat, 1986 CanLII 7698 (CA TMOB), 1986 CarswellNat 579 [Sanna] at paragraph 10:Having regard to the presence of the words “and not confusing with any registered trade mark” in s. 25, I consider that it must have been intended that a certification mark registrable under s. 25 not be subject to being held unregistrable because of the provisions of s. 12. If it had been intended that such marks be subject to s. 12, they would necessarily have been subject to s. 12(1)(d) and the words “and not confusing with any registered trade marks” in s. 25 would not have been necessary. [41] It is therefore clear in my view that the certification marks SWISS, SUISSE, and SWITZERLAND are descriptive of the place of origin of wares from Switzerland, as found in Sanna (at para. 9), and that these certification marks were registrable only because of the presence of section 25 in the Act and not because they have any distinctive character. It is indeed telling that certification marks that are used to distinguish goods and services on the basis of the location where they are produced or performed are referred to in the title of section 25 as "“descriptive certification mark”".
[42] In light of the foregoing, I am unable to find any error in the Federal Court’s analysis of a descriptive certification mark. Justice Tsimberis was absolutely correct when she states at paragraph 170 that "“descriptive certification marks, which are registered to protect particular goods or services originating from a common place of origin, have been carved out from the ordinary trademark and general certification mark registrability requirements because, by their very nature, they are prima facie unregistrable under section 12”". That SWISS, SUISSE, and SWITZERLAND are without question descriptive in nature of the chocolate’s origin is made clear by these descriptive certification marks that the appellant filed in the Papaconstantinou 2 affidavit. In the SWISS descriptive certification mark (TMA325314), for example, the "“Certification Mark Text”" states that "“the (associated) goods or the chocolate product components thereof originate in Switzerland”". There is therefore no merit in the appellant’s assertion that the Federal Court erred by refusing to consider the SWISS certification mark included in the SWISSKISS Marks as a "“specific type of trademark and not as a simple geographically descriptive term”". Far from being a specific type of trademark, SWISS is a descriptive certification mark of the type contemplated by section 25 of the Act without any inherent distinctiveness. The fact that a certification mark is capable of distinguishing certain goods based on a specific standard, such as the area in which the goods are produced, does not mean that they are "“distinctive”" within the meaning of section 2 of the Act.
....
[46] .... I am therefore of the view that the Federal Court did not err in its analysis of descriptive certification marks, and in finding that the existence of the SWISS certification mark has no impact on the confusion analysis. The fact that the word SWISS incorporated in the SWISSKISS Marks is a descriptive certification mark does not change the confusion analysis. The SWISS component of the SWISSKISS Marks remains descriptive of the area where the chocolate goods are produced, and has therefore no (or very little) distinctiveness. That would remain the case even if one were prepared to accept that the incorporation of a geographic location protected by a certification mark into a traditional trademark could somehow heighten its distinctiveness. The word SWISS would remain largely descriptive, and even if the first syllable or word of a trademark is often the most significant for the purposes of distinguishing between marks, it would not be the focus of consumers when looking at the appellant’s proposed trademarks considering the large number of traders who used the term SWISS in association with chocolate. KISS would therefore be the most striking part of both the appellant’s marks and the respondent’s marks, and there is a meaningful degree or resemblance between the appellant’s marks and the registered marks of the respondent as found by the Board and the Federal Court.
|
