Trade-marks in Quebec and the Charter of the French Language: the end of a debate?

April 14, 2016

According to information presently available, it appears that the Quebec government will forgo implementing legislative amendments that would have forced companies conducting business in Quebec to add a French descriptor to signs displaying their non-French trade-marks.

Instead, after some reflection and consultation, the government has apparently opted for regulations which will oblige companies to use French language on their facades. We will have to wait for draft regulations to know the full scope of these new obligations.

This decision will hopefully put an end to the debate on the necessity of adding a French descriptor to non-French trade-marks.

We are closely monitoring developments in this matter and will keep you informed once the draft regulations are published.

For any questions regarding the application of the Charter of the French Language in Quebec, please do not hesitate to contact members of our team.

Back to the publications list

Author

Isabelle Jomphe
Partner, Lawyer and Trademark Agent

Stay tuned for the latest legal news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Subscribe to publications

Publications that might interest you

February 8, 2024

Official marks in Canada: The prospect of upcoming changes

Before delving into the topic, let’s begin with a definition. Official marks are statutory instruments specific to Canadian practice. They are not trademarks per se, but are treated similarly, because they are adopted and used by a limited group of organizations including universities, Canadian public authorities and Her Majesty’s Forces.1 In this article, we will be focusing on Canadian public authorities. There are several hundred marks in the Register belonging to public authorities, including the federal and provincial governments, government agencies and municipalities. Unlike traditional trademarks, official marks do not protect specific goods or services, but instead cover all classes of goods and services. They may even be descriptive, as they are not required to be distinctive. Moreover, they are not registered in the usual sense of the word. Instead, a notice of adoption is simply published in the Trademarks Journal. One unique feature of official marks is that they are not subject to a renewal process. They can therefore remain in the Register indefinitely. That being so, official marks may hinder the registration of a trademark filed subsequently, unless the public authority concerned voluntarily withdraws the notice of adoption of its official mark. Lastly, it is important to note that official marks are not subject to examination or opposition proceedings. In other words, the Registrar of Trademarks (the “Registrar”) makes no official verification as to their validity or compliance with the standard registration criteria. Thus, because of the extensive protection afforded to official marks, they appear to be virtually unassailable. But is that really the case? The Registrar considers that they have no discretion to refuse to give public notice of an official mark, unless it has not been registered by a Canadian public authority or such authority has not adopted or used its official mark at the time of filing its application. When the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) was amended in June 2019, trademark professionals were hoping that the criteria providing these marks with extensive protection would be revised. However, Parliament chose not to undertake an in-depth review of the laws governing official marks. That being said, the Office of the Registrar did provide some clarification in October 2020 as to its practice regarding official marks. First, since 2020, the Registrar requires evidence of public authority status. This change was made further to several comments on the questionable status of certain so-called “public authorities.” The decision in Ontario Association of Architects v. Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario (C.A.), 2002 FCA 218, clearly states that for a body to qualify as a public authority, the government must exercise a significant degree of control over its activities, particularly as relates to its governance and decision-making, and such activities must benefit the public. Given that the laws governing public authorities have been in force for several decades, it is reasonable to assume that many published official marks are no longer held by public authorities or no longer meet the criteria defining a public authority. What is the proper way to respond to an opposition based on the resemblance between an official mark and a trademark? The options are limited. It is important to remember that subsection 9(1) of the Act states that no person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trademark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for, an official mark. The test is not based on a likelihood of confusion, as is the case when examining the likelihood of confusion between two trademarks. Instead, it is based on resemblance. Trademark professionals may argue that the applied-for mark is not identical or so similar to the official mark as to be confused with it. Another option—mainly in cases where the applied-for trademark is identical or very similar to an official mark—is to seek the consent of the official mark’s owner to use and register the trademark. In some cases, however, contacting a public authority may prove difficult, either because it no longer exists, or because it simply will not respond to requests for consent. Some public authorities ask for financial compensation in exchange for their consent. Can an official mark be contested? For the time being, there is no simple mechanism for contesting an official mark. The process of publishing a public notice of an official mark is not subject to opposition proceedings. Third parties have the option of contesting an official mark by means of an appeal or an application for judicial review to the Federal Court. They may do so in cases where an official mark was not adopted and used before the public notice was issued, or the body in question is not considered a public authority, or the official mark infringes on another mark. However, it should be noted that such proceedings are costly and take time. So what does the future hold? While the laws governing official marks remain essentially intact, some amendments are expected. The Canadian legislative authorities intend to add two new sections to the Act, namely sections 9(3) and 9(4). The purpose of these amendments is to clarify that even where a public notice has been issued concerning an official mark, such notice does not apply if the entity that requested it is not a public authority or no longer exists. In such circumstances, the Registrar may, on their own initiative or at a person’s request, give public notice that section 9 does not apply. Our understanding is that the Registrar will have new powers, including that of requesting—either on their own initiative or at the request of a person who pays the prescribed fee—that a so-called official mark be invalidated should its owner fail to respond to the Registrar’s notice requiring evidence of public authority status. This amendment to the Act should be introduced shortly. On another note, there were some interesting decisions handed down in 2023. KASAP TURKISH STEAKHOUSE & Design: The decision in The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System and EDAM Ltd., 2023 TMOB 161, clearly establishes the limitations of official marks when it comes to assessing the likelihood of confusion between two marks. The Board of Regents of the University of Texas opposed the application for the trademark KASAP TURKISH STEAKHOUSE & Design (hereinafter “Kasap”): in particular, on the grounds that the Kasap mark bore such a resemblance to the official mark of the University of Texas that it could be confused with its official mark as shown below: However, as previously mentioned, when assessing the resemblance between a trademark and an official mark, particular attention is paid to the similarity between the marks. The Trademarks Opposition Board concluded that the applicant’s applied-for mark did not resemble the official mark as to be likely to be mistaken for it, despite the presence of an image of a longhorn cow’s head in both marks. The distinctiveness of the word “KASAP” in the applicant’s mark was deemed sufficient to distinguish the two marks. As such, the opposition was rejected. A mark that includes an official mark along with other elements does not “consist of” that official mark. Via Rail Canada Inc. and Via Transportation, Inc., 2023 TMOB 155 This decision concerns an opposition filed by Via Rail Canada Inc. (the Opponent and owner of an official mark) against a trademark application submitted by Via Transportation, Inc. (the Applicant). The application was for the mark “VIA & Design” as shown below: for use in association with the transportation of passengers and related mobile application software and telecommunication services. The Opponent opposed the application based on an allegation that the mark caused confusion with its trademarks, official marks and trade names containing the word “VIA” and used in association with its national railway services and related goods and services. Ultimately, the Applicant’s application was rejected in part because the Applicant’s mark was not registrable under section 12(1)(e), as it was deemed too similar to the Opponent’s official “VIA” mark, which was likely to cause confusion. The hearing officer summarized the resemblance test as follows in paragraph 106: The resemblance test under section 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Act differs from a standard confusion analysis in that it requires a likelihood that consumers will be mistaken as between the marks themselves rather than a likelihood that consumers will be confused as to the source of the goods or services. In short, the general consensus is that the laws governing official marks in Canada could certainly use a thorough revision, one that would help weed out any marks cluttering up the register of official marks that no longer fit the definition. Examples of university official marks: Université de Montréal (0910712), Universität Heidelberg (0923735), Louisiana State University (0923069). It should be noted that universities are not required to be Canadian to request publication of an official mark. The Armed Forces have adopted several marks on behalf of Her Majesty, including PORTE DAUPHINE (0903172) & Design, SKY HAWKS (0903269) and CORMORANT & Design (0903170). More specifically, we refer to sections 9 and following of the Trademarks Act.

Read more
October 6, 2023

Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO): Fee Increase

CIPO has announced an increase in their fees as of January 1, 2024. Their current fees will be increased by at least 25%. This increase will apply not only to trademarks, but also to patents, industrial designs and copyrights. For example, the anticipated official fee to file an application for registration of a trademark is being increased from $347.35 to $458.00 for the first class, and from $105.26 to $139.00 for each additional class. A majority of CIPO’s other fees are subject to a similar adjustment. As such, this increase will have an impact not only upon filing an application for registration, but also during the registration process and upon renewal. We therefore recommend that you review your intellectual property portfolio to determine if new applications should be filed or renewals effected before the end of the year. CIPO indicates that the increase will contribute to supporting its strategy on intellectual property which is aimed at offering services comparable to those offered worldwide. We hope that it will also reduce turnaround times!

Read more
June 15, 2023

Team trademarks: naming the champions

Choosing the name of a sports team can be a perilous exercise. In addition to representing certain values, names are supposed to fire up the fan base and motivate the athletes themselves. It must sometimes meet with the approval of major sponsors. But when sports teams are companies seeking to profit commercially from the use of their brand, legal considerations also come into play. Team names are typically linked to the organization of sports events for which tickets are sold. They may also be associated with products such as caps or jerseys that fans take pride in wearing. In these respects, the team’s name is a trademark and does not only serves to differentiate a team from its competitors but can also help to fill a company’s coffers. Team names are often associated with logos that also embody certain values. Logos may incorporate various design features, in addition to the team name, and often displayed on a wide range of products. Trademarks in sports has given rise to various problems, as seen in the examples below. Trademark Confusion Do you remember when the Canadian Football League was home to the Saskatchewan Roughriders as well as the Ottawa Rough Riders? This type of situation is far from ideal when watching a game and from the point of view of trademarks, it is to be avoided, since it will probably be impossible for at least one of the two teams to register its trademark. Remember that trademark registrations generally grants national exclusivity. Similar nominal trademarks, however, are quite common among sports teams, particularly when different sports are involved. Examples include the New York Rangers (hockey) and the Texas Rangers (baseball), or the Florida Panthers (hockey) and the Carolina Panthers (football). This form of “nominal coexistence” might prevent one team from registering its trademark, especially if the description of the other team’s products and services is wide-ranging. For instance, if the description of the services provided by the first team to register its trademark includes the presentation of sports events or the sale of jerseys, without specifying the associated sport, there would then be a risk of confusion from the legal point of view between the two nominal trademarks. To register as a design mark which includes both the team’s name and a logo can sometimes resolve this problem if the teams’ logos are substantially different from each other. However, this will be ineffective if the design mark primarily consists of the team’s name. In that case, the Intellectual Property Office will consider the logo along with any accompanying text to assess the likelihood of confusion. A logo that does not include the team’s name is often easier to register, provided that it is different from the logos of other existing teams. The case of teams with the same name playing the same sport in different leagues is more complicated. Such situations often arise with minor league and major league hockey teams that have the same name. No problem arises when the minor league team is owned by the same business interests, since it is then easy to conclude a licensing agreement between the two and consolidate trademark ownership to only one company. On the other hand, such situations might also stem from a random choice of name or an unconscious desire to be associated with a major league team. At the very least, teams with the same name should consider signing a coexistence agreement. For example, on January 10, 2018, the U.S. Army’s parachute team, nicknamed the Golden Knights, filed a notice of opposition with the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) calling for the rejection of the trademark registration application filed by the NHL’s Vegas Golden Knights. Both teams ending up signing a coexistence agreement: the risk of confusion between them was perhaps more limited given the very different nature of their activities. In addition, team trademarks should aim to be distinctive and should not be limited to generic descriptions of the sport or the place where the team is based. Socially unacceptable trademarks Although they may be registered and legally valid from an intellectual property perspective, team logos or names may, however, be socially unacceptable. The notion of social acceptability actually evolves over time. Some trademarks that were used for years are no longer acceptable today. (Come to think of it, were they ever?) Take trademarks like Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben’s, which, following decades of commercial use, were renamed to be less offensive. In the world of sports, one only has to think back to the former Cleveland Indians and their logo featuring “Chief Wahoo”. In the face of social pressure, the team dropped its logo and became the Cleveland Guardians. The same phenomenon has been observed in Canada: The Edmonton Eskimos, of CFL fame, became the Edmonton Elks after the organization acknowledged that its name could be offensive to the Inuit and other Indigenous peoples of Canada. In 2019, McGill University changed the name of its varsity sports teams from the Redmen to the Redbirds. This decision followed a referendum in which 78.8% of participating students voted in favour of the name change. In 2020, the Ahuntsic College Indians became the Eagles following a student vote. To protect their trademarks, sports teams must take into account evolving standards of social acceptability. Trademarks that avoid racial or discriminatory stereotypes are more likely to “stand the test of time”. One might wonder how much longer certain team names will last. In the NFL, the Kansas City Chiefs and the Minnesota Vikings both have names that play on stereotypes that have been contested for years. In the NHL, the same questions arise for the Chicago Blackhawks. While various communities are calling for a new name and logo, others insist that the name pays tribute to a real-life Native American. In Major League Baseball, the Atlanta Braves have faced similar scrutiny and social pressure. Team nicknames created by fans Certain team names were created by the fans themselves, not by the owners or the organizations involved. Take, for example, the “Habs” (Montreal Canadiens), the “Als” (Montreal Alouettes) or “Nos Amours” (former Montreal Expos). Are these nicknames the intellectual property of the fans that invented them? In fact, a number of these nicknames have been successfully trademarked in Canada: “Habs” has been a registered trademark since 2003 for entertainment services and since 2007 for merchandise such as clothing and other promotional items. “Als” has been a registered trademark since 2014 for all promotional items and entertainment services. “Barça”, the nickname of Barcelona’s professional soccer club (officially FC Barcelona), has been a registered trademark in Canada since 2022 for all promotional products. However, the French nicknames “Nos Amours” (Montreal Expos) and “La Sainte-Flanelle” (Montreal Canadiens) have not yet been trademarked in Canada, although applications for “Tricolore Sports” and “Bleu Blanc Rouge” were recently filed by the Montreal Canadiens. The issue that arises stems from sports teams taking the opportunity to trademark and protect nicknames that became distinctive thanks to widespread use by fans. Trademarks linked to a sponsor Sports teams might wish to adopt a name and /or a trademark that pays tribute to their owner or a major sponsor. One example that comes to mind is the Anaheim Mighty Ducks (now the Anaheim Ducks), which were originally named after the Disney-owned film franchise. This situation is not problematic per se since two separate companies were involved. However, things can get tricky if relations with sponsors become tense or if they decide to withdraw their sponsorship. For that reason, an agreement should be in place setting out the sponsor’s trademark rights and, if the sponsorship comes to an end, how quickly the team has to change its name and trademarks. Departing sponsors should also be prevented from interfering in the management of the team. Teams should also reserve the right to change their names and trademarks for various reasons, including reputational risk. And if a sponsor sells sports equipment or other team-related products, teams should ensure that they can sell their own promotional products without infringing the sponsor’s trademark. If not contractually regulated, such situations could even affect the validity of the sponsor’s registered trademarks since the sponsor would not exercise adequate control over the trademark. The issues outlined above might not just affect the company’s image, but could also prevent it from adequately protecting its trademark. A registered trademark ensures nationwide protection; it may also cover multiple countries if applications are filed outside Canada. Above all, trademark registration provides a greater degree of legal certainty. This also greatly facilitates intervention against malicious actors seeking to counterfeit—and profit from—registered trademark and, in many cases, serves to block imports of counterfeit merchandise. From the outset, sports teams that wish to profit commercially from their brand should check at the outset whether it can be registered as a nominal and/or design trademark. If it cannot, they are advised to work closely with their legal teams and trademark agents to find an alternative name or logos that are not affected by the above-mentioned issues.

Read more
February 2, 2023

TRADEMARKS IN CANADA: The Federal Court clarifies the concept of “bad faith”

In the decision Beijing Judian Restaurant Co. Ltd. v. Wei Meng, 2022 FC 743, rendered by the Honourable Angela Furlanetto on May 18, 2022, the Federal Court clarified what constitutes bad faith in trademark law. Prior to the decision, the concept of bad faith in relation to trademarks was interpreted rather cautiously in Canadian jurisprudence. Background Beijing Judian Restaurant Co. Ltd. (the “Applicant”) petitioned the Court to invalidate the registration of Respondent Wei Meng (the “Respondent”) for the trademark depicted below (the “Respondent’s Mark”), on the grounds that the registration was obtained in bad faith, and to strike the trademark from the Canadian Register of Trademarks, in accordance with subsection 57(1) and paragraph 18(1)(e) of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”). In support of its application, the Applicant filed two affidavits of its representatives, which set out the facts below. The Respondent did not cross-examine the Applicant on the affidavits, file any evidence, or appear at the hearing. The following facts are therefore undisputed. The facts Since 2005, the Applicant has been running a chain of restaurants in China and using, in connection with its restaurants, the mark below, as well as each of the components of this mark, alone or in combination (the “JU DIAN Marks”). The JU DIAN Marks are highly visible in China. They are featured in numerous advertisements promoting the Applicant’s restaurants and the JU DIAN Marks. The JU DIAN Marks and the Applicant’s chain of restaurants are therefore well known in that country. Moreover, in 2011 and 2013, respectively, the Applicant began promoting its restaurants in association with the JU DIAN Marks on the WEIBO and WECHAT platforms in an effort to target the Chinese population in and outside China. In 2015, the Applicant considered the possibility of bringing its chain of restaurants to Canada. The Applicant decided to open its first restaurants in Canada in the Vancouver and Toronto regions, as these have a large Chinese population that would likely be familiar with the Applicant’s chain of restaurants. The Applicant opened restaurants in Vancouver and Toronto in 2018, and a restaurant in Richmond, British Columbia, in 2019. The Applicant was however unaware that the Respondent had applied to register the Respondent’s Mark in Canada a few months earlier, on June 27, 2017, based on proposed use in association with restaurant services, among others. It appears that, during the same period, the Respondent had also applied to register in Canada several marks belonging to other Chinese restaurant chains. In April 2019, the Respondent visited the Applicant’s Vancouver restaurant and accused the Applicant of stealing his mark. A series of meetings and discussions between the parties ensued, during which the Respondent demanded that the Applicant pay him the sum of $1,500,000 to use the Respondent’s Mark without acquiring its ownership, and threatened to contact the Canada Revenue Agency if the Applicant did not cease using the mark. The Applicant refused to pay the Respondent any sum whatsoever and did not yield to his threats. In the meantime, the Respondent’s Mark was registered in Canada. In June 2019, the Applicant learned of an advertisement that the Respondent had posted on a British Columbia website. The advertisement was for the sale of the registration of the Respondent’s Mark. The Applicant contacted the Respondent anonymously to obtain more information on the offer. The Respondent offered the Applicant a trademark license at a cost of $100,000 per year, justifying the price by stating that the mark was already well known in China with the Applicant’s restaurants. The Applicant then sent the Respondent a formal notice demanding that he cease using the Applicant’s mark and abandon its registration in Canada. The Respondent refused to comply. The Applicant thus filed an application for invalidation and expungement of the registration. The law Although paragraph 18(1)(e) of the Act provides that a registration may be invalidated if the application for registration was filed in bad faith, the Federal Court noted in its decision that the Act contains no definition of the term “bad faith.” It pointed out that, because paragraph 18(1)(e) of the Act is relatively new, very little Canadian jurisprudence has examined what constitutes bad faith in trademark matters. In its decision, the Federal Court drew on various sources to determine whether the registration of the Respondent’s Mark could be invalidated on the basis of bad faith. First, the Court considered the observations of the Parliament of Canada regarding the adoption of the amendments to the Act, which state that: The amendments aim, notably, to hinder the registration of a trademark for the sole purpose of extracting value from preventing others from using it. The amendments would prevent the abusive use of the trademark regime, such as by applying for registration with the sole intention of seeking remuneration from the legitimate owner of a trademark. Second, the Court analyzed certain Canadian decisions rendered prior to the adoption of paragraph 18(1)(e) of the Act in matters of bad faith. It noted that Canadian jurisprudence had already invalidated trademark registrations on the basis of bad faith where the applicant had filed a series of applications for registration in Canada for well-known trademarks. Lastly, the Court reviewed decisions rendered in Europe and the United Kingdom. It concluded that in these jurisdictions, filing an application for registration of a trademark without intending to use it for a legitimate commercial purpose and with the sole intention of preventing a third party from entering the market or interfering with its business may constitute bad faith. The same is true where an applicant wishes to register a trademark for extortion purposes. The Court then analyzed the relevant date in order to assess bad faith under paragraph 18(1)(e) of the Act. It stated that while the relevant date is the date on which the application was filed, evidence subsequent to that date may be considered relevant if it helps to clarify the reasons why the application was filed. The Court held that the Applicant had the burden of establishing bad faith, which had to be proven on a balance of probabilities with clear and convincing evidence. The Court however specified that where the facts could only be known to the Respondent, circumstantial evidence and inferences from proven facts could be sufficient to establish the Respondent’s objectives at the time of the application’s filing. The facts show that, at the time the application was filed, the Respondent was aware of the Applicant’s restaurants in China and that the JU DIAN Marks had acquired a certain reputation, at the very least, among the Chinese population in British Columbia. The Court also concluded that it was highly unlikely that the Respondent had created a mark identical to that of the Applicant on his own, considering the originality of the mark. It was therefore more likely that the Respondent had wanted to register the same mark, knowing that it was associated with the Applicant’s restaurants in China, in order to benefit from its reputation. The Court nonetheless made the following clarification: filing an application for a trademark, even if it is identical to that of a third party, is insufficient to invalidate its registration, as there may be a legitimate basis to obtain a registered trademark in Canada for the same trademark that is registered and used by a third party elsewhere, where the third party’s trademark has no reputation in Canada. Thus, it is the intention to “abuse the trademark regime” or the bad faith of the owner that must be established on a balance of probabilities. The Court concluded that the Applicant’s evidence established that the Respondent had registered the trademark without a legitimate commercial purpose: The JU DIAN Marks are known in Canada, at least by the Chinese population in British Columbia. The Respondent acknowledged in his exchanges that the JU DIAN Marks are associated with the Applicant’s chain of restaurants and are well-known trademarks. The Respondent applied to register the Respondent’s Mark in Canada for the purpose of extorting money by leveraging the trademark’s reputation. The Respondent applied to register trademarks in Canada belonging to Chinese restaurant chains. The Court therefore held that the circumstances of the case constituted bad faith, but noted that in the United Kingdom, an inference of bad faith may be rebuttable where there is registration of a known trademark by an applicant who has no connection with the legitimate owner of the trademark. However, in the United Kingdom, where an applicant has engaged in a pattern of acquiring multiple such registrations, rebutting the inference of bad faith becomes significantly more difficult. In the absence of evidence from the Respondent to rebut the inference of bad faith created by the circumstantial evidence, the Court found that the evidence on file established the Respondent’s intent to use the registration for extortion purposes. The Court invalidated the registration of the Respondent’s Mark and ordered that the registration be expunged from the Register of Trademarks. What this means It appears from this decision that the Court’s analysis is largely factual and that the burden of establishing the intent of the owner of a given trademark at the time an application is filed may be difficult, especially where a foreign applicant’s trademark has no reputation in Canada.

Read more