Canada Canada Kanada. Report Q195. in the name of the Canadian Group by Rose-Marie PERRY, Q.C. and Steve GARLAND

Transcription

1 Canada Canada Kanada Report Q195 in the name of the Canadian Group by Rose-Marie PERRY, Q.C. and Steve GARLAND Limitations of the Trademark Protection Questions Note: the following topics are not to be covered in the Group answers: Exhaustion Limitations on trademark rights by competition law Limitations on trademark rights by the right to freedom of expression Comparative advertising Acquiescence. I) Analysis of current law and case law The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws: 1) Are there statutory limitations of trademark rights in your trademark law? If so, which ones? If not, have similar concepts been developed in case law? (Please only briefly list the limitations here; more detailed explanations will be required below). Section of the Trade-marks Act provides that a protected geographical indication does not prevent a person from using in the course of trade that person s name or the name of the person s predecessor except where the name is used such a manner as to mislead. Section 11.18(3) and (4) in respect of wines or spirits provides that a protected geographical indication does not prevent the adoption, use or registration as a trade-mark or otherwise in connection with a business of certain identified generic geographic names. Section 20(1) of the Trade-marks Act which deals with infringement provides that no registration of a trade-mark prevents a person from making (a) any bona fide use of his personal name as a trade name or (b) any bona fide use other than as a trade-mark (i) of the geographical name of his place of business or (ii) of any accurate description of the character or quality of the wares or services, in as such manner as is not likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching to the trade-mark. Pursuant to section 20(2), no registration of a trade-mark prevents a person from making any use of any of the generic geographic indications identified in under Section (3) and (4) in association with wine or with spirits. Pursuant to section 21 of the Canadian Trade-marks Act, a Court may under certain circumstances and under terms it deems just, permit a third party to use a trade-mark that is considered to be confusing with a registered mark, if the Court concludes that such contemporaneous use is not contrary to the public interest. 1

2 In the case of a certification mark which is descriptive of the place of origin of the wares or services, and not confusing with any registered trade-mark, the certification mark may be registered by the administrative authority of the country, state, province or municipality, including or forming part of the area indicated by the mark but the owner of the mark registered under this section shall permit the use of the mark in association with any wares or services produced or performed in the area of which the mark is descriptive (Section 25). 2) If descriptive use defences are recognised under your trademark law, what is descriptive use and what types of descriptive use defences are recognised? (Please only briefly list the types of descriptive use defences here; more detailed explanations will be required below) Section 20 of the Trade-marks Act deals with infringement but provides that no registration of a trade-mark prevents a person from making: a) any bona fide use of his personal name as a trade name or b) any bona fide use other than as a trade-mark i) of the geographic name of his place of business or ii) of any accurate description of the character or quality of his wares or services in such manner as is not likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching to the trade-mark. Moreover, no registration of a trade-mark prevents a person from making any use of any indication of a geographic indication of origin under Section 11.18(3) that deals with wines or any geographic indication in Subsection 11.18(4) in association with spirits. 3) Is use of one s own name permissible under your trademark law? If so, under which circumstances? Specifically, may anyone use his or her name as a trademark? Section 12(1)(a) of the Canadian Trade-marks Act provides that 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 is not registrable. In order to determine the primary meaning of the word, examiners must determine what in their opinions would be the response of the general public of Canada to that word. If the name or surname significance is greater than the other significance of the word, an objection pursuant to section 12(1)(a) is made to the application. On the other hand, if the other significance of the word predominates in the mind of the hypothetical Canadian, no objection will be made. For example, ELDERS was found to be registrable because it was not primarily a surname; it had another dictionary meaning. Even if a mark is considered to be primarily, merely a name or surname, it may still be registrable if it has been so used in Canada by the applicant or his predecessor in title as to have become distinctive as of the date of filing of the application in Canada (Section 12(2)). As noted above, pursuant to section 20(1), a person is entitled to make a bona fide use of their personal name as a trade name. 4) Is a company entitled to make use of the own name defence? Specifically, is the own name defence only available to a company whose name includes a surname (e.g. William Smith Limited)? Section 20(1) of the Trade-marks Act provides that the right of an owner of a registered trademark to its exclusive use will be infringed by a person not entitled to its use who sells, distributes or advertises wares or services in association with a confusing trade-mark or trade name but no registration of a trade-mark prevents a person from making: a) any bona fide use of his personal name as a trade name or any bona fide use, other than as a trade-mark 2

3 i) of the geographical name of his place of business or ii) any accurate description of the character or quality of the wares or services. A trade name is defined in the Trade-marks Act as meaning the name under which any business is carried on, whether or not it is the name of a corporation, or partnership or an individual. Section 20(1) of the Trade-marks Act provides an exception to what would otherwise constitute an infringement of a registered trade-mark, stipulating that no registration of a trade-mark prevents a person from making any bona fide use of his/her personal name as a trade name, or any bona fide use other than as a trade-mark in such a manner that would not likely have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching to the trade-mark. However, in the Exchequer Court decision in Kayser-Roth v. Fascination Lingerie (1971) 3 C.P.R. 2nd 27, the court held that a corporation is not entitled to this defence and that the section applies only to an individual person or self. Subsequent attempts to invoke this defence on behalf of corporations have failed. How are conflicts between the company s use of its own name and confusingly similar trademarks resolved? Canada is comprised of a federal government and 13 provincial and territorial governments. In Canada, companies may be incorporated either federally or provincially under a company name. In some jurisdictions, a company may be required to register a business name (trade name) under which it operates that is different from the company name. In many cases, the provincial jurisdiction will require an extra territorial company operating within its jurisdiction to register its company or business name with the provincial company or business name registrar, for example, a company incorporated under the laws of British Columbia will be required to register its name with the Ontario Registrar of Company/Business Names if the company is conducting business within the province of Ontario. Federally, a company name is registered under the Canadian Business Corporations Act. Under Section 12(1) of the Canadian Business Corporations Act, a corporation cannot be incorporated or continued if its name is identical to an existing registered company name. It is to be noted that registration of a corporate name or trade name under federal or provincial legislation (as discussed above) does not constitute a defence under the Trademarks Act or common law in respect of an action for trade-mark infringement, depreciation of goodwill, or passing off. Under Section 16(1) of the Trade-marks Act, a party cannot register a trade-mark if it is confusing with a trade name that has been previously used in Canada. A trade-mark will be considered to be confusing with a trade name if the use of both the trade-mark and trade name in the same area would likely lead to the inference that the wares or services associated with the business carried on under the trade-mark and those associated with the business carried on under the trade name are manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by the same person whether or not the wares or services are of the same general class. (Section 16(3) of the Trade-marks Act). Conversely, section 20 prevents a third party from using a trade name that is confusing with a registered mark. A trade name may also be registered as a trade-mark if it is used as a trade-mark as defined in the Act, that is, it is used for the purpose of distinguishing or so as to distinguish wares or services manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by the company from those of others. Pursuant to section 7(b) and section 7(c) of the Trade-marks Act, the owner of a trade name, unregistered trade-mark or registered trade-mark may bring an action to prevent another person from passing off or directing public attention to its wares or services in such a way that 3

4 it is likely to cause confusion between the wares and services of the two parties, for example, by using a confusing trade-mark or trade name. The law with respect to the incorporation of provincial companies varies from province to province but the protection afforded in each province is generally the same and, therefore, the Province of Ontario can be used as being representative of the other provinces. In Ontario, a company name is registered pursuant to the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA). Pursuant to Section 9 of the OBCA, no company can use a name that is deceptively similar to that used by any other company association, sole proprietorship, trust, partnership or individual. Business names (including extra territorial company/business names) are required to be registered in accordance with the Ontario Business Names Act. The company name and the business name will not be accepted for registration if they are identical to an existing company or business name. The owner of a provincial business name has the same protection available to it under the Trade-marks Act as a federal business name referred to above. 5) Is the use of indications concerning the characteristics of the goods or services, including the kind, quality, value, geographical origin or time of production of goods permissible under your trademark law? If so, under which circumstances? A mark that is, when depicted, written or sounded, merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive in English or French of the character or quality of the wares or services in association with which it is proposed to be used or the conditions of or the persons employed in their production or of their place of origin is not registrable. However, such marks can be registered by Canadians on proof of secondary meaning pursuant to section 12(2) of the Trade-marks Act. When invoking section 12(2), it is necessary to file evidence to show that the mark is recognized and distinctive of the applicant for registration. In the case of a foreign applicant that is a member of the Convention, it is entitled to claim the benefits of section 14 of the Trade-marks Act which provides that notwithstanding that the mark is descriptive in Canada and if the applicant has caused that trade-mark to be registered in the country of the Union, then the trade-mark is registrable in Canada if it is: a) not confusing with the registered trade-mark; b) and it is not without distinctive character in Canada having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the length of time during which it has been used in any country; c) it is not contrary to morality or public order of such a nature as to deceive the public; d) it is not a trade-mark of which the adoption is prohibited in Canada. 6) Is the use of another s mark to indicate product compatibility permissible under your trademark law? If so, under what circumstances? Is only the use of another s word mark in ordinary script or neutral letters permissible or also the use of another s logo or special script format of the mark? Section 22 of the Trade-marks Act provides that no person shall use a trade-mark registered by another person in a manner that is likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching thereto. For a plaintiff to be successful in an action pursuant to section 22 of the Trade-marks Act for damages for depreciating the goodwill of the registered trademark, the defendant must have used the plaintiff s registered trade-mark in association with wares or services. In the case of Clairol International Corp. and Clairol Inc. of Canada v. Revlon Supply & Equipment Co. Ltd. (1968) 55 C.P.R. 176, the court found that the defendant s use of the competitor s registered trade-mark for hair products on the defendant s package constituted use of the mark and therefore contravened Section 22 of the Trade-marks Act whereas, the comparative use of the competitor s trade-mark in a brochure was not 4

5 considered use of the registered mark and therefore did not constitute a breach of section 22. The case of Cie Generale des Establishments Michelin-Michelin & Cie v. C.A.W. - Canada et al (1996) 7 C.P.R. (3d) 348, involved the use of the Bibendum figure (Michelin Man) used by the defendant union in organizing a campaign to become the bargaining agent for the work force at three plants of the plaintiff. An action was brought pursuant to section 20 and 22 of the Trade-marks Act, that is for infringement and for depreciation of the value of the goodwill attaching to the trade-mark. The action also included an action for infringement of copyright. The court held that the use of the Bibendum design was not a trade-mark infringement and did not depreciate the goodwill attaching to the trade-mark but was found to be infringement of copyright. As to the special script format, in view of the Michelin case, the use of the special script of the trade-mark may not be a trade-mark infringement or may not depreciate the value of the goodwill of the trade-mark provided the mark is not used in association with the wares or services. However, the use of the special script could be found to be an infringement of copyright in the design of the script of the mark. 7) Is decorative use of another s mark permissible under your trademark law? If so, under what circumstances? We assume for the purposes of this question that decorative use is equivalent to the Canadian concept of ornamental use. Under Canadian law, if the owner of a design uses it in a merely ornamental way, such that the design does not serve to distinguish the wares or services of the owner from those of others, then the design is not subject to trade-mark protection. To the extent that there exists a valid design trade-mark, it is difficult to imagine a circumstance where a purely decorative or ornamental use may be made by a third party of that design mark, on wares or services, such that it would not constitute use of the design as a trade-mark and therefore be actionable. However, if in fact such third party use was regarded as purely ornamental use, then such use may be permissible under the Trade-mark law. However, an issue of copyright infringement may still arise. 8) Is use of descriptive terms permissible regardless of whether it is in accordance with honest or fair practices or whether it constitutes unfair competition? If descriptive use of another s mark is only permissible if it is in accordance with honest or fair practices, what are typical examples of use which are not in accordance with honest or fair practices? Section 20 of the Trade-marks Act provides that any use of a registered trade-mark cannot be infringed by a person who makes a bona fide use, other than as a trade-mark of any accurate description of the character or quality of the wares or services in such manner as is not likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching to the trade-mark. 9) Do the above mentioned types of descriptive use constitute limitations of trademark rights because they would not be regarded as use as a mark or are they specifically exempted regardless of whether trademark use is involved? The allowable descriptive use as provided for in section 20 is based on the premise that it is being used in bona fide way other than as a trade-mark. 10) If your trademark law recognises other types of descriptive use defences which have not been discussed above, please explain. 11) Does your trademark law provide for a prior user right/defence? If so, under what circumstances? Pursuant to section 18(1) (in combination with section 16 and 17(1)) of the Trade-marks Act, a defendant in a trade-mark infringement action may, as a defence attack the validity of the registration on the basis of, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not the person entitled to the 5

6 registration on the basis of a prior use or making known of the trade-mark by the defendant. However, section 17(2) of the Trade-marks Act provides that in proceedings commenced after the expiration of five years from the date of registration of a trade-mark or from July 1, 1954, whichever is the later, no registration shall be expunged or amended or held invalid on the ground of the previous use or making known of a confusing trade-mark unless it is established that the person who adopted the registered trade-mark in Canada did so with the knowledge of the previous use or making known. Section 21 of the Trade-marks Act provides that in any proceeding respecting a registered trade-mark, the registration of which is incontestable pursuant to section 17(2) of the Trademarks Act, it is made to appear to the Federal Court that one of the parties to the proceeding other than the registered owner, had, in good faith, used the confusing trade-mark or trade name before the date of filing of the application for registration and the court considers that it is not contrary to the public interest that the continued use of the confusing trade-mark or trade name should be permitted in a defined territorial area concurrently with the use of the registered trade-mark, the court may subject to the terms as it deems just order that the other party may continue to use the confusing trade-mark or trade name within that area with an adequate specified distinction from the registered mark. The rights conferred by the order take effect only if within three months an application is made to the Registrar to enter it on the register in connection with the registration of the registered trade-mark. Section 9(1)(n)(i) to (iii) provides that no person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for: n) any badge, crest, emblem or mark i) adopted or used by any of Her Majesty s Forces as defined in the National Defence Act, ii) of any university, or iii) adopted and used by any public authority, in Canada as an official mark for wares or services, in respect of which the Registrar has, at the request of Her Majesty or of the university or public authority, as the case may be, given public notice of the adoption and use. If the trademark was used prior to the date of the notice, the trade-mark owner can continue the use of its mark but not register the trade-mark if it is identical to the Section 9 mark. 12) If your trademark law provides for other limitations of trademark rights which have not been discussed above, please explain. II) Proposals for adoption of uniform rules The Groups are invited to put forward proposals for adoption of uniform rules regarding limitations of trademark rights. More specifically, the Groups are invited to answer the following questions: 1) Should descriptive use of another s trademark be permissible? If so, under what circumstances? The Canadian group had a divergence of views on this question. While arguably, the present state of the Canadian jurisprudence may not permit such use, some members were of the view that it should, provided that the mark is not being used as a trade-mark so that there is no likelihood of confusion or depreciation of goodwill. Should descriptive use of another s trademark be permissible regardless of whether it is in accordance with honest or fair practices or whether it constitutes unfair competition? No. 6

7 2) Should use of one s own name be permissible? If so, under which circumstances? What should the position regarding the use of corporate names be? Section 12(1)(a) of the Canadian Trade-marks Act provides that 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 is not registrable. In order to determine the primary meaning of the word, examiners must determine what in their opinions would be the response of the general public of Canada to that word. If the name or surname significance is greater than the other significance of the word, an objection pursuant to section 12(1)(a) is made to the application. On the other hand, if the other significance of the word predominates in the mind of the hypothetical Canadian, no objection will be made. For example, ELDERS was found to be registrable because it was not primarily a surname; it had another dictionary meaning. Even if a mark is considered to be primarily, merely a name or surname, it may still be registrable if it has been so used in Canada by the applicant or his predecessor in title as to have become distinctive as of the date of filing of the application in Canada (Section 12(2)). Section 20(1) of the Trade-marks Act provides an exception to what would otherwise constitute an infringement of a registered trade-mark, stipulating that no registration of a trade-mark prevents a person from making any bona fide use of his/her personal name as a trade name, or any bona fide use other than as a trade-mark in such a manner that would not likely have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching to the trade-mark. As noted above, pursuant to section 20(1), a person is entitled to make a bona fide use of their personal name as a trade name. However, in the Exchequer Court decision in Kayser-Roth v. Fascination Lingerie (1971) 3 C.P.R. 2nd 27, the court held that a corporation is not entitled to this defence and that the section applies only to an individual person or self. Subsequent attempts to invoke this defence on behalf of corporations have failed. The Canadian group is of the view that the present state of the law in Canada, as described, above is satisfactory. 3) Should the use of indications concerning the characteristics of the goods or services, including the kind, quality, value, geographical origin or time of production of goods be permissible? If so, under which circumstances? A mark that is, when depicted, written or sounded, merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive in English or French of the character or quality of the wares or services in association with which it is proposed to be used or the conditions of or the persons employed in their production or of their place of origin is not registrable. However, such marks can be registered by Canadians on proof of secondary meaning pursuant to section 12(2) of the Trade-marks Act. When invoking section 12(2), it is necessary to file evidence to show that the mark is recognized and distinctive of the applicant for registration. In the case of a foreign applicant that is a member of the Convention, it is entitled to claim the benefits of section 14 of the Trade-marks Act which provides that notwithstanding that the mark is descriptive in Canada and if the applicant has caused that trade-mark to be registered in the country of the Union, then the trade-mark is registrable in Canada if it is: a) not confusing with the registered trade-mark; b) and it is not without distinctive character in Canada having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the length of time during which it has been used in any country; c) it is not contrary to morality or public order of such a nature as to deceive the public; d) it is not a trade-mark of which the adoption is prohibited in Canada. The Canadian Group is of the view that the current state of the Canadian law, as described above, is satisfactory. 7

8 4) Should the use of another s mark to indicate product compatibility be permissible? If so, under what circumstances? Should only the use of another s word mark in ordinary script or neutral letters be permissible or also the use of another s logo or special script format of the mark? The Canadian group had a divergence of views on this question. While arguably, the present state of the Canadian jurisprudence may not permit such use, some members were of the view that it should, provided that the mark is not being used as a trade-mark so that there is no likelihood of confusion or depreciation of goodwill. 5) Should decorative use of another s mark be permissible? If so, under what circumstances? The Canadian group had a divergence of views on this question. While arguably, the present state of the Canadian jurisprudence may not permit such use, some members were of the view that it should, provided that the mark is not being used as a trade-mark so that there is no likelihood of confusion or depreciation of goodwill. 6) Should trademark law provide for a prior user right? If so, under what circumstances? Yes. Pursuant to section 18(1) (in combination with section 16 and 17(1)) of the Trade-marks Act, a defendant in a trade-mark infringement action may, as a defence attack the validity of the registration on the basis of, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not the person entitled to the registration on the basis of a prior use or making known of the trade-mark by the defendant. However, section 17(2) of the Trade-marks Act provides that in proceedings commenced after the expiration of five years from the date of registration of a trade-mark or from July 1, 1954, whichever is the later, no registration shall be expunged or amended or held invalid on the ground of the previous use or making known of a confusing trade-mark unless it is established that the person who adopted the registered trade-mark in Canada did so with the knowledge of the previous use or making known. Section 21 of the Trade-marks Act provides that in any proceeding respecting a registered trade-mark, the registration of which is incontestable pursuant to section 17(2) of the Trademarks Act, it is made to appear to the Federal Court that one of the parties to the proceeding other than the registered owner, had, in good faith, used the confusing trade-mark or trade name before the date of filing of the application for registration and the court considers that it is not contrary to the public interest that the continued use of the confusing trade-mark or trade name should be permitted in a defined territorial area concurrently with the use of the registered trade-mark, the court may subject to the terms as it deems just order that the other party may continue to use the confusing trade-mark or trade name within that area with an adequate specified distinction from the registered mark. The rights conferred by the order take effect only if within three months an application is made to the Registrar to enter it on the register in connection with the registration of the registered trade-mark. Section 9(1)(n)(i) to (iii) provides that no person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for: n) any badge, crest, emblem or mark i) adopted or used by any of Her Majesty s Forces as defined in the National Defence Act, ii) of any university, or iii) adopted and used by any public authority, in Canada as an official mark for wares or services, in respect of which the Registrar has, at the request of Her Majesty or of the university or public authority, as the case may be, given public notice of the adoption and use. If the trade- 8

9 mark was used prior to the date of the notice, the trade-mark owner can continue the use of its mark but not register the trade-mark if it is identical to the Section 9 mark. The Canadian Group is of the view that the current state of the Canadian law, as described above, is satisfactory in this regard. 7) Should trademark law provide for other limitations of trademark rights which have not been discussed above? If so, under what circumstances? National Groups are invited to comment on any additional issue concerning limitations of trademark rights which they find relevant. Summary In Canada, there are certain limitations to the exercise of a party s registered or common law trademark rights. For example Section 20(1) of the Trade-marks Act, which deals with infringement, provides that no registration of a trade-mark prevents a person from making (a) any bona fide use of his personal name as a trade name or (b) any bona fide use other than as a trade-mark (i) of the geographical name of his place of business or (ii) of any accurate description of the character or quality of the wares or services, in as such manner as is not likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching to the trade-mark. Canadian courts have held that a corporation is not entitled to this defence and that the section applies only to an individual person or self. Pursuant to section 20(2), no registration of a trade-mark prevents a person from making any use of any certain generic geographic indications identified in under Section (3) and (4) of the Act in association with wine or with spirits. Pursuant to section 21 of the Canadian Trade-marks Act, a Court may under certain circumstances and under terms it deems just, permit a third party to use a trade-mark that is considered to be confusing with a registered mark, if the Court concludes that such contemporaneous use is not contrary to the public interest. Section 22 of the Trade-marks Act provides that no person shall use a trade-mark registered by another person in a manner that is likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching thereto. For a plaintiff to be successful in an action pursuant to section 22 of the Trademarks Act for damages for depreciating the goodwill of the registered trade-mark, the defendant must have used the plaintiff s registered trade-mark in association with wares or services. This provision has been relied upon, under certain circumstances, to prevent comparative-type advertising that has included a competitor s trade-mark. Pursuant to section 18(1) (in combination with section 16 and 17(1)) of the Trade-marks Act, a defendant in a trade-mark infringement action may, as a defence attack the validity of the registration on the basis of, inter alia, that the plaintiff was not the person entitled to the registration on the basis of a prior use or making known of the trade-mark by the defendant. However, section 17(2) of the Trade-marks Act provides that in proceedings commenced after the expiration of five years from the date of registration of a trade-mark or from July 1, 1954, whichever is the later, no registration shall be expunged or amended or held invalid on the ground of the previous use or making known of a confusing trade-mark unless it is established that the person who adopted the registered trade-mark in Canada did so with the knowledge of the previous use or making known. 9

10 Résumé Au Canada, il y a certaines limitations à l exercice des droits de marques de commerce déposées ou de ceux détenus en common law d une partie. Par exemple, le paragraphe 20(1) de la Loi sur les marques de commerce, qui traite de la violation, stipule qu aucun enregistrement d une marque de commerce ne peut empêcher une personne: a) d utiliser de bonne foi son nom personnel comme nom commercial; b) d employer de bonne foi, autrement qu à titre de marque de commerce: (i) soit le nom géographique de son siège d affaires, (ii) soit toute description exacte du genre de la qualité de ses marchandises ou services, d une manière non susceptible d entraîner la diminution de la valeur de l achalandage attaché à la marque de commerce. Les tribunaux canadiens ont soutenu qu une société n a pas droit à cette défense et que le paragraphe s applique seulement à une personne individuelle ou à soi. En vertu du paragraphe 20(2), l enregistrement d une marque de commerce n a pas pour effet d empêcher une personne d utiliser les indications géographiques génériques mentionnées au paragraphe 11.18(3) et 11.18(4) de la Loi en liaison avec un vin ou un spiritueux. En vertu de l article 21 de la Loi sur les marques de commerce, un tribunal peut, dans certaines circonstances, et sous réserve des conditions qu il estime justes, permettre à une partie tierce d utiliser une marque de commerce qui est réputée créer de la confusion avec une marque déposée, si le tribunal conclut qu une telle utilisation simultanée ne va pas à l encontre de l intérêt public. L article 22 de la Loi sur les marques de commerce stipule que nul ne peut employer une marque de commerce déposée par une autre personne d une manière susceptible d entraîner la diminution de la valeur de l achalandage attaché à cette marque de commerce. Pour qu un demandeur réussisse dans une action intentée aux termes de l article 22 de la Loi sur les marques de commerce relativement à des dommages-intérêts pour la diminution de la valeur de l achalandage attaché à la marque de commerce déposée, le défendeur doit avoir utilisé la marque de commerce déposée du demandeur en liaison avec des marchandises ou des services. On s est fondé sur ces dispositions, dans certaines circonstances, pour empêcher la publicité de genre comparatif qui a inclus la marque de commerce d un concurrent. En vertu de l article 18(1) (en combinaison avec l article 16 et le paragraphe 17(1)) de la Loi sur les marques de commerce, un défendeur dans une action de violation d une marque de commerce peut, comme défense, attaquer la validité de l enregistrement sur la base de, entre autres, que le demandeur n était pas la personne ayant droit d obtenir l enregistrement sur la base d une utilisation ou révélation antérieure de la marque de commerce par le défendeur. Toutefois, le paragraphe 17(2) de la Loi sur les marques de commerce stipule que dans des procédures ouvertes après l expiration de cinq ans à compter de la date d enregistrement d une marque de commerce à compter du 1er juillet 1954, en prenant la date qui est postérieure à l autre, aucun enregistrement ne peut être radié, modifié ou jugé invalide du fait de l utilisation ou révélation antérieure mentionnée, à moins qu il ne soit établi que la personne qui a adopté au Canada la marque de commerce déposée l ait fait alors qu elle était au courant de cette utilisation ou révélation antérieure. Zusammenfassung In Kanada bestehen gewisse Beschränkungen bezüglich der Geltendmachung von den Rechten einer Partei hinsichtlich eingetragener oder privatrechtlicher Marken. Artikel 20(1) des Warenzeichengesetzes, der sich mit Rechtsverletzung befasst, sieht z.b. vor, dass keine Markeneintragung eine Person daran hindert, seinen Eigennamen als Handelsbezeichnung oder (i) einen geographischen Namen seines Sitzes oder (ii) einer zutreffenden Beschreibung des Charakters oder der Qualität der Waren oder Dienstleistungen gutgläubig - anders als Marke - so zu benutzen, dass sie nicht den Goodwill der Marke herabsetzt. Kanadische Gerichte haben es 10

11 bisher für angemessen erachtet, dass eine Firma nicht zu dieser Verteidigung berechtigt ist, und dass dieser Artikel sich nur auf ein Individuum oder das Ich bezieht. Gemäss Artikel 20(2) hindert keine Markeneintragung eine Person an der Benutzung gewisser gattungsgemässer geographischer Angaben in Verbindung mit Wein oder Spirituosen, die in Artikel 11.18(3) und 11.18(4) des Gesetzes identifiziert sind. Unter Artikel 21 des kanadischen Warenzeichengesetzes ist ein Gericht unter Umständen sowie unter Bedingungen, die es für angemessen erachtet, berechtigt, Dritten Erlaubnis zu gewähren, eine mit einer eingetragenen Marke verwechslungsfähige Marke zu benutzen, sollte das Gericht beschliessen, dass solche gleichzeitige Benutzung nicht dem öffentlichen Interesse entgegensteht. Artikel 22 des Warenzeichengesetzes sieht vor, dass keine Person eine von einer anderen Person eingetragene Marke so benutzen wird, dass sie evtl. deren Goodwill herabsetzt. Um bei einer solchen Schadenersatzklage gemäss Artikel 22 des Warenzeichengesetzes erfolgreich zu sein, muss der Beklagte die vom Kläger eingetragene Marke in Verbindung mit den Waren oder Dienstleistungen benutzt haben. Man hat sich auf diese Vorschrift in gewissen Umständen verlassen, um vergleichsartige Werbung, die eine Marke eines Konkurrenten umfasst, zu verhinden. Gemäss Artikel 18(1) - in Verbindung mit Artikel 16 sowie 17(1) - des Warenzeichengesetzes kann ein Beklagter in einem Verletzungsverfahren die Gültigkeit der Eintragung angreifen, u.a. auf der Basis, dass der Kläger nicht die Person ist, die einen Anspruch auf die Registrierung wegen älterer Benutzung oder Bekanntmachung der Marke von dem Beklagten hat. Artikel 17(2) des Warenzeichengesetzes sieht jedoch vor, dass keine Eintragung gestrichen, geändert oder für ungültig gehalten wird bei Verfahren, die nach Ablauf von fünf Jahren von dem Eintragungstag oder vom 1. Juli welches immer später ist - auf Grund der älteren Benutzung oder Bekanntmachung einer verwechselnden Marke, es sei denn, dass es bewiesen wird, dass die Person, die die eingetragene Marke in Kanada angenommen hat, dies mit der Kenntnis der älteren Benutzung oder Bekanntmachung getan hat. 11