|
Trademarks - Expungement. Wanakome Inc. v. Martin
In Wanakome Inc. v. Martin (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against an earlier dismissal of an action seeking various trademark-related declarations.
Here the court considers the SOR for expungement of a trademark:[8] Finally, we do not see any reason to interfere with the Federal Court’s decision not to expunge the copyright registration in the WANAKOME logo. An application to expunge a registration under subsection 57(4) of the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, turns on the specific facts and the evidence: Gemstone Travel Management Systems Inc. v Andrews, 2017 FC 463 at para. 16; Neugebauer v. Labieniec, 2010 FCA 229 at para. 2. Based on the evidence, the Federal Court found that Ms. Martin was the author of the logo and that the copyright in the artistic work was validly registered by Park on behalf of Ms. Martin: Federal Court Decision at paras. 143-144, 148, and 150. Wanakome Inc. has not pointed to a palpable and overriding error that would require overturning the Federal Court. . Comité interprofessionnel du vin de champagne v. Coors Brewing Company
In Comité interprofessionnel du vin de champagne v. Coors Brewing Company (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal, here brought against the dismissal of an "appeal the appellants had filed under section 56 ['Appeal'] of the [SS: Trademarks Act] Act from a decision of the Registrar ... refusing to expunge, at their request, three registrations related to beer products".
Here court considers Trademarks Act s.45 [SS: 'Registrar may request evidence of use'] and expungement issues:[1] This appeal concerns section 45 of the Trademarks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13 (the Act). This provision, and more specifically subsection 45(3), authorizes the Registrar of Trademarks (the Registrar), at the request of any person or on the Registrar’s own initiative, and following a proceeding initiated by a notice to the registered owner under subsection 45(1), to expunge from the Register of Trademarks (the Register) the registration of a trademark that was not in use in Canada at any time during the period covered by that provision, where the absence of use, if that was indeed the case, was not due to special circumstances.
....
[10] For the reasons that follow, I am of the view that, based on the decision of this Court in Centric Brands, the Federal Court did not err in rejecting the appellants’ position that section 45 of the Act requires" that the justification for the non-use of a trademark referred to in a notice under subsection 45(1) cover the entire period between the date when the mark was last in use and the date of the notice, thus ruling out the possibility, regardless of the circumstances of a given case, of considering the acquisition date of the mark at issue to be the starting point of the period to be justified."
....
[15] I note in passing that, under subsection 45(2) of the Act, the Registrar may receive written representations from the registered owner and from the person at whose request the notice under subsection 45(1) was given. However, the Registrar may not receive any evidence other than what is submitted by the registered owner.
[16] The expungement proceeding initiated by the notice under subsection 45(1) of the Act is essentially "“summary and administrative”" in nature. In other words, it simply offers "“an opportunity for the registered owner to show, if he can, that his mark is in use or if not, why not”". Above all, it must not be mistaken for a proceeding authorizing a "“trial of a contested issue of fact”" or for an alternative to what is provided under section 57 of the Act to attack a trademark (Sport Maska Inc. v. Bauer Hockey Corp., 2016 FCA 44 at para. 55 (Bauer), citing Dart Industries Inc. v. Baker & McKenzie LLP, 2013 FC 97 at para. 13, and Meredith & Finlayson v. Canada (Registrar of Trade Marks) (FCA), 1991 CanLII 14352 (FCA), [1991] FCJ No. 1318 (QL)).
....
[39] In my view, Centric Brands, which according to the doctrine of horizontal stare decisis is binding on this panel of the Court, settles this issue by authorizing a more flexible reading of section 45 of the Act than that advanced by the appellants. In so doing, it permits the date of acquisition of a registered mark to be used, depending on the circumstances, as the starting point of the period of non-use of the mark that requires justification.
[40] Before a more detailed discussion of Centric Brands, it is worth reproducing section 45 of the Act:Registrar may request evidence of use
Le registraire peut exiger une preuve d’emploi
45(1) After three years beginning on the day on which a trademark is registered, unless the Registrar sees good reason to the contrary, the Registrar shall, at the written request of any person who pays the prescribed fee — or may, on his or her own initiative — give notice to the registered owner of the trademark requiring the registered owner to furnish within three months an affidavit or a statutory declaration showing, with respect to all the goods or services specified in the registration or to those that may be specified in the notice, whether the trademark was in use in Canada at any time during the three-year period immediately preceding the date of the notice and, if not, the date when it was last so in use and the reason for the absence of such use since that date
45 (1) Après trois années à compter de la date d’enregistrement d’une marque de commerce, sur demande écrite présentée par une personne qui verse les droits prescrits, le registraire donne au propriétaire inscrit, à moins qu’il ne voie une raison valable à l’effet contraire, un avis lui enjoignant de fournir, dans les trois mois, un affidavit ou une déclaration solennelle indiquant, à l’égard de chacun des produits ou de chacun des services que spécifie l’enregistrement ou que l’avis peut spécifier, si la marque de commerce a été employée au Canada à un moment quelconque au cours des trois ans précédant la date de l’avis et, dans la négative, la date où elle a été ainsi employée en dernier et la raison pour laquelle elle ne l’a pas été depuis cette date. Il peut cependant, après trois années à compter de la date de l’enregistrement, donner l’avis de sa propre initiative.
Form of evidence
Forme de la preuve
(2) The Registrar shall not receive any evidence other than the affidavit or statutory declaration, but may receive representations made in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time by the registered owner of the trademark or by the person at whose request the notice was given.
(2) Le registraire ne peut recevoir aucune preuve autre que cet affidavit ou cette déclaration solennelle, mais il peut recevoir des observations faites — selon les modalités prescrites — par le propriétaire inscrit de la marque de commerce ou par la personne à la demande de laquelle l’avis a été donné.
Service
Signification
(2.1) The registered owner of the trademark shall, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, serve on the person at whose request the notice was given any evidence that the registered owner submits to the Registrar. Those parties shall, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, serve on each other any written representations that they submit to the Registrar.
(2.1) Le propriétaire inscrit de la marque de commerce signifie, selon les modalités prescrites, à la personne à la demande de laquelle l’avis a été donné, la preuve qu’il présente au registraire, et chacune des parties signifie à l’autre, selon les modalités prescrites, les observations écrites qu’elle présente au registraire.
Failure to serve
Absence de signification
(2.2) The Registrar is not required to consider any evidence or written representations that was not served in accordance with subsection (2.1).
(2.2) Le registraire n’est pas tenu d’examiner la preuve ou les observations écrites qui n’ont pas été signifiées conformément au paragraphe (2.1).
Effect of non-use
Effet du non-usage
(3) Where, by reason of the evidence furnished to the Registrar or the failure to furnish any evidence, it appears to the Registrar that a trademark, either with respect to all of the goods or services specified in the registration or with respect to any of those goods or services, was not used in Canada at any time during the three year period immediately preceding the date of the notice and that the absence of use has not been due to special circumstances that excuse the absence of use, the registration of the trademark is liable to be expunged or amended accordingly.
(3) Lorsqu’il apparaît au registraire, en raison de la preuve qui lui est fournie ou du défaut de fournir une telle preuve, que la marque de commerce, soit à l’égard de la totalité des produits ou services spécifiés dans l’enregistrement, soit à l’égard de l’un de ces produits ou de l’un de ces services, n’a été employée au Canada à aucun moment au cours des trois ans précédant la date de l’avis et que le défaut d’emploi n’a pas été attribuable à des circonstances spéciales qui le justifient, l’enregistrement de cette marque de commerce est susceptible de radiation ou de modification en conséquence.
Notice to owner
Avis au propriétaire
(4) When the Registrar reaches a decision whether or not the registration of a trademark ought to be expunged or amended, he shall give notice of his decision with the reasons therefor to the registered owner of the trademark and to the person at whose request the notice referred to in subsection (1) was given.
(4) Lorsque le registraire décide ou non de radier ou de modifier l’enregistrement de la marque de commerce, il notifie sa décision, avec les motifs pertinents, au propriétaire inscrit de la marque de commerce et à la personne à la demande de qui l’avis visé au paragraphe (1) a été donné.
Costs
Frais
(4.1) Subject to the regulations, the Registrar may, by order, award costs in a proceeding under this section.
(4.1) Sous réserve des règlements et dans le cadre d’une procédure visée au présent article, le registraire peut, par ordonnance, en adjuger les frais.
Order of Federal Court
Ordonnance de la Cour fédérale
(4.2) A certified copy of an order made under subsection (4.1) may be filed in the Federal Court and, on being filed, the order becomes and may be enforced as an order of that Court.
(4.2) Une copie certifiée de l’ordonnance sur les frais peut être déposée à la Cour fédérale. Dès le dépôt de cette copie, l’ordonnance est assimilée à une ordonnance rendue par cette cour et peut être exécutée comme telle.
Action by Registrar
Mesures à prendre par le registraire
(5) The Registrar shall act in accordance with his decision if no appeal therefrom is taken within the time limited by this Act or, if an appeal is taken, shall act in accordance with the final judgment given in the appeal.
(5) Le registraire agit en conformité avec sa décision si aucun appel n’en est interjeté dans le délai prévu par la présente loi ou, si un appel est interjeté, il agit en conformité avec le jugement définitif rendu dans cet appel. [41] In paragraphs 8 and 9 of its decision, the Federal Court of Appeal began by reviewing the general legal principles applicable to section 45 proceedings, adopting those the Federal Court had identified, namely, that section 45 is a summary procedure that aims to remove "“deadwood”" from the Register, and that absence of use of a mark can be penalized by expungement unless the registered owner is able to establish special circumstances. As for the principles applying more specifically to whether or not such circumstances exist, the Court, once again citing the Federal Court judgment, provided the following list:A. The general rule is that absence of use of a trademark by the owner during the relevant period will be penalized by expungement, and the exception will apply only if the special circumstances are the reason for the non-use of the trademark (Scott Paper at paras. 21–22, Harris Knitting at para. 10);
B. Special circumstances are circumstances not found in most cases of absence of use of a trademark (Scott Paper at para. 22, Harris Knitting at para. 10);
C. Factors to consider in determining whether special circumstances exist that excuse non-use include (i) the length of time during which the trademark has not been in use, (ii) whether the non-use was due to circumstances beyond the registered owner's control, and (iii) whether there was an intention to resume use of the mark in the near term (Harris Knitting at para. 11).
Centric Brands at para. 9 [42] The Court also found it useful to recall the following principles:(a) Registered owners may not hold on to a registration notwithstanding that the mark is no longer in use.
(b) The burden of proof on the registered owner subject to section 45 proceedings is not a heavy one, however.
(c) Such proceedings are summary and administrative in nature.
(d) It is not the appropriate vehicle for a trial of a contested issue of fact.
(e) The usual penalty for non-use is expungement, and there is a threshold to meet before the exception for special circumstances applies.
(f) To be "“special”", the circumstances must be unusual, uncommon or exceptional.
(g) Plans for future use of the mark at issue do not in themselves explain the period of non-use and therefore cannot amount to special circumstances.
Centric Brands at paras. 22, 25–27 ....
[54] With respect, I cannot agree with the appellants’ arguments concerning the impact of Centric Brands on this appeal. It seems clear and unequivocal that, in settling the issue of the starting point of the period of non-use under section 45 of the Act, the Court rejected the argument that the starting point had to be the date when the mark was last in use. Instead, it ruled that section 45 could be interpreted, in the appropriate circumstances, to allow the starting point to be the date of acquisition of the mark at issue, thereby relieving the registered owner of the burden of having to excuse the absence of use before the acquisition.
[55] In Centric Brands, this Court expressly considered the validity of the New Owner Jurisprudence. The fact that it stated the opinion that the principle had already received implicit approval in Harris Knitting and Scott Paper takes nothing away from the fact that the Court has now expressly recognized its validity. That was the central purpose of the first issue it put forth, arising as it did in a context where the New Owner Jurisprudence had never actually been validated by this Court even though it had been applied for over 30 years.
[56] Accordingly, an analysis of the text, the context and the purpose of section 45 revealed to the Court that there was nothing that "“excludes the possibility that a recent arms’ length acquisition of a trademark may constitute special circumstances such that the acquirer could be relieved of the obligation to provide evidence of use, or justify a period of non-use, prior to the acquisition”" (Centric Brands at para. 40).
[57] Thus, the Court in Centric Brands considered essentially the same arguments as those the Court has used in this case to address the issue, central to both matters, of the starting point of the period of non-use for the purposes of the requirement to excuse an absence of use under subsection 45(3) of the Act.
....
[81] I see nothing here that would allow the Court to intervene, and the appellants have not persuaded me otherwise. In other words, I discern no palpable and overriding error in the findings of the Federal Court or of the Registrar on the issue of special circumstances excusing the absence of use of the Marks during the period found to be applicable in this case.
[82] Moreover, in Centric Brands, this Court ruled that the activities performed by the registered owner after the transaction closed and it became the official owner of the mark at issue, and thus after the date of the Notice served on the owner under subsection 45(1) of the Act, "“suggests that there would have been use of the Mark if that period had not been so short”" (Centric Brands at para. 62). In my opinion, this provides further support for the findings of the Federal Court and the Registrar on this issue. . Live! Holdings, LLC v. Oyen Wiggs Green & Mutala LLP
In Live! Holdings, LLC v. Oyen Wiggs Green & Mutala LLP (Fed CA, 2020) the Federal Court of Appeal considered an interesting trade mark expungement case [paras 21-51].
|
