trade-mark infringement. three types of infringement s.19 – use of the same mark in respect of the...
Post on 16-Dec-2015
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Trade-Mark Infringement
Three Types of Infringement
s.19 – Use of the same mark in respect of the same wares Rarely litigated
s.20 – Use of a confusing mark Most common
s.22 – Depreciation of goodwill Equivalent to what is known as
“dilution” in Us. law Scope unclear – very limited caselaw Controversial
Depreciation of Goodwill
22 (1) 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 Controversial and rarely (but not never)
used Important especially for famous marks
Where confusion is difficult to show because wares are not similar
Section 19Same Mark, Same Wares
Marks are registered in respect of specified wares
Same mark, same wares = s.19 infringement
NO need to show confusion Same mark, different wares is NOT
caught by s.19 Similar mark, same wares is NOT
caught by s.19
Section 19
s.19. . . the registration of a trade-mark in respect of any wares or services, unless shown to be invalid, gives to the owner of the trade-mark the exclusive right to the use throughout Canada of the trade-mark in respect of those wares or services.
s.19 “Use”
“Use” in s.19 has been judicially interpreted to mean “use as a mark” ie for the purpose of distinguishing the wares.
Use of the mark by a competitor in comparative advertising does not infringe s.19
Confusing use
20 (1) The right of the owner of a registered trade-mark to its exclusive use shall be deemed to be infringed by a person . . .who sells, distributes or advertises wares or services in association with a confusing trade-mark or trade- name . . . May be same mark, different wares Different mark, same wares Different mark, different wares
s.19 & 20
The section headings to ss.19 & 20 respectively are Rights conferred by registration – s. 19 Infringement – s. 20(1)
This suggests that s.19 defines the right and s.20 defines infringement
However, the sections are generally understood to define two different heads of infringement
Bona Fide Use of Personal Name
s.20(1). . . 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 (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 his wares or services,
in such a manner as is not likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching to the trade- mark This part of s.20 is generally
understood to apply to protect any use, whether the infringement is claimed under s.19 or s.20
Bona Fide Use of Personal Name
This part of s.20 is generally understood to apply to protect any use, whether the infringement is claimed under s.19 or s.20
Personal Name
Note that you can use your personal name as a trade-name even if it is confusing Eg Brick’s Fine Furniture (owned by the
Bricks) and Brick Furniture Warehouse However, it is probably the case that
you cannot use your personal name as a trade mark if that would be confusing Eg A person named Heintzman can sell
pianos under the name “Heintzman Piano Company”, but cannot sell “Heintzman pianos”
Confusing Use: s.20
Confusion
20 (1) The right of the owner of a registered trade-mark [is] infringed by a person . . .who sells . . .wares . . .in association with a confusing trade-mark or trade-name . . .
Confusion
“Confusion” defined by s.6 "confusing", when applied as an
adjective to a trade-mark or trade-name, means a trade-mark or trade-name the use of which would cause confusion in the manner and circumstances described in section 6;
Confusion as to the Source
6(2) The use of a trade-mark causes confusion with another trade-mark if the use of both trade-marks in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference that the wares or services associated with those trade-marks are manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by the same person,. . .
Only confusion as to the source of the goods constitutes infringement Recall: Goal of trade-marks is to inform
consumers as to the source of the goods Only a use which interferes with this
function constitutes infringement
Confusion as to the Source
6(2) The use of a trade-mark causes confusion with another trade-mark if the use of both trade-marks in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference that the wares . . .are manufactured, [or] sold. . .by the same person. . .
Confusion as to the Source
Only confusion as to the source of the goods constitutes infringement Recall: Goal of trade-marks is to inform
consumers as to the source of the goods Only a use which interferes with this
function constitutes infringement
Actual Confusion
6(2) The use of a trade-mark causes confusion with another trade-mark if the use of both trade-marks in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference that the wares . . .are manufactured, [or] sold. . .by the same person. . .
The question is a hypothetical No requirement that the marks
actually be used in the same area / no actual confusion required
Why not?
Confusion as to the Source
6(2) The use of a trade-mark causes confusion with another trade-mark if the use of both trade-marks in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference that the wares . . .are manufactured, [or] sold. . .by the same person. . .
Actual Confusion
Though is it not necessary to show actual confusion, actual confusion or lack thereof is not irrelevant
Evidence of actual confusion is strong evidence of likelihood of confusion
Absence of evidence of actual confusion may be evidence of absence of likelihood of confusion When the marks have been used in the
same market for some time Eg Pepsi-Cola v Coca-Cola
“Have Regard” to Factors
6(5) In determining whether trade-marks. . .are confusing, the court . . . shall have regard to all the surrounding circumstances including. .
The list which follows is not exhaustive The ultimate question is likelihood of
confusion
“Have Regard” to Factors
The court must “have regard” to the listed factors, but
There is no need to show that all of these conditions are ‘satisfied’
The factors are not necessarily of equal weight The weight given to each will depend on
the circumstances
Factors
Including (a) the inherent distinctiveness of the
trade-marks or trade-names and the extent to which they have become known;
(b) the length of time the trade-marks or trade-names have been in use;
(c) the nature of the wares, services or business;
(d) the nature of the trade; and (e) the degree of resemblance between
the trade-marks or trade-names in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them
Strength
(a) the inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks or trade-names and the extent to which they have become known;
The “strength” of the mark A mark may be strong because
It is inherently very distinctive: eg fanciful marks – Exxon
It has become very famous through use, eg Vogue
A stronger mark has a broader field in which it is protected Confusion might be found in respect of
A broader range of wares )Use of a less similar mark
Strength
A stronger mark has a broader field in which it is protected Confusion might be found in
respect of A broader range of wares Use of a less similar mark
Taxonomy
(1) generic – the name of the wares: shredded wheat
(2) descriptive – descriptive of the wares: Canadian beer
(3) suggestive – Alpine beer arbitrary (a real word applied out of
context) (4) fanciful (not a real word – eg
Exxon)
Field
(c) the nature of the wares, services or business;
The more similar the wares, the greater the likelihood of confusion Though it is not necessary that the
mark be registered in respect of the defendant’s wares for confusion to arise
The same mark in completely different fields may not be confusing Dodge Dart and Dart plastic coffee cup
lids
Nature of the Trade
(d) the nature of the trade; and The circumstances in which the
wares are sold Are the wares sold together, in the
same shop? Who are the purchasers?
Are they professional buyers? Are they purchased hastily, or
after close inspection?
Resemblance
(e) the degree of resemblance between the trade-marks or trade-names in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them
The more similar, the greater the likelihood of confusion
The similarity may be appearance or sound
Length of Use
(b) the length of time the trade-marks or trade-names have been in use;
May be relevant in different ways A mark which is long established
may be stronger See United Artists
But if two marks have been used together for a long period, it may become necessary to show actual confusion See Pepsi-Cola
Mr Submarine
At this point the learned judge considered and appears to have taken into account that there was no similarity in the style of lettering used and the colouring of the signs of the parties and that the appearances of the two marks as actually used on signs, boxes, etc, is quite different.
Mr Submarine
These in my opinion would be very relevant considerations if the proceeding were a passing-off action at common law. They are irrelevant in a proceeding for infringement of a registered trade mark and should have been given no weight in determining whether the trade marks and trade names in issue are confusing with the appellant's registered mark.
Mr Submarine
Why are these factors irrelevant? REGISTRATION NUMBER: TMA187539 TRADE-MARK: MR. SUBMARINE DISCLAIMER TEXT: The right to the exclusive use of the
word SUBMARINE is disclaimed apart from the trade-mark.
Mr Submarine
Note: JB Submarine (TMA489039) and Captain Submarine (TMA195908) are both registered marks
Are these confusing with “Mr. Submarine”?
Nominative Use
Nominative Use
Despite the wording of s.19, that section only prohibits the use of the mark “as a mark”, that is, in identifying the source of the wares Yeast-Vite, adopted in Clairol v Thomas
Supply Nominative use of the mark is not
actionable under s.19 The situation with respect to s.22 is
not clear
New Kids
Why are the New Kids objecting to the use of their name in the polls?
top related