Ottawa, Ontario, this 27th day of January, 2006
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE
BETWEEN:
- and -
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O'KEEFE J.
[1] This is an appeal by 1147015 Ontario Ltd. (the "appellant"), pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13 (the "Trade-marks Act"), from a decision of the Registrar of Trade-marks (the "Registrar") dated June 19, 2003 which expunged the appellant's registered trade-mark no. TMA 465,588 for the mark BASEMENT BOSS (the "mark").
[2] The appellant requests that the decision of the Registrar be set aside and the registration for the mark be reinstated.
Background
[3] On November 1, 1996, the appellant registered the trade-mark BASEMENT BOSS for use in association with:
Provision of construction and repair services to residential home-owners and commercial customers including leaking basement repairs, basement finishing, and a full range of building and home repairs, renovations, constructing additions and other building related services including repair, replacement and construction of fences, garages, decks, walks, driveways, and gardens.
[4] By notice dated September 9, 2002 and issued at the request of Réno-Dépôt Inc. (the "respondent"), the appellant was required to furnish an affidavit showing that the mark had been used, in association with each of the wares and services appearing on the register, at any time within the three years preceding the date of the notice (the "relevant period"). According to the appellant, it never received this notice.
[5] On June 19, 2003, the Registrar expunged the mark from the register for failure to file evidence of use. The appellant was not aware that the registration of the mark had been expunged until approximately December 1, 2004, when the appellant's president accessed the database of the Canadian Trade-marks Office to review the status of its various trade-mark registrations.
[6] The appellant initiated this appeal by notice of application dated January 12, 2005. The appellant subsequently filed affidavit evidence to establish use of the mark within the relevant period. The grounds of this appeal are that:
1. The appellant did not file evidence of use with the Registrar because the appellant did not receive notice of the commencement of the summary expungement proceeding;
2. The appellant's evidence established that the appellant had used, by itself or through a licensee, the mark during the relevant period; and
3. As the mark was in use during the relevant period, the Registrar erred in concluding that the registration ought to have been expunged.
Issue
[7] Should the decision of the Registrar be set aside and the registration of the mark be reinstated?
Appellant's Evidence and Submissions
[8] The appellant filed the affidavit of its president, Mary Lou Downs, who asserted the following facts:
1. On January 1, 1999, the appellant executed a license agreement granting 1307763 Ontario Ltd. ("Basement Boss") the right to use and sub-license the mark BASEMENT BOSS in respect of basement repair and home renovation services. This license agreement provided that the "Licensee shall use and require subsequent Licensees to employ only those standards, methods, procedures and specifications for the wares and/or services approved by the Trade Mark Owner", and permitted the trade mark owner to enter the premises of the licensee or sub-licensee in order to enforce this provision.
2. Basement Boss sub-licensed the use of the mark to independent contractors who acted as authorized Basement Boss dealers. A copy of a sample sub-license is attached to the affidavit. It provides that the "Licensed Dealer shall employ only those standards and procedures for the wares and/or service of the Licensor".
3. Continuously from January 1, 1999, and during the relevant period, Basement Boss promoted and advertised services in association with the mark, namely, "leaking basement repairs, basement finishing, and a full range of building and home repairs, renovations, constructing additions and other building related services including repair, replacement and construction of fences, garages, decks, walks, driveways, and gardens".
4. During the relevant period, Basement Boss displayed the mark on an overhead sign at its sales office and showroom in Chatham, Ontario, and in local parades, professional trade shows and on the sides of trucks.
5. Customers who purchased construction materials, labour, or expertise in association with the BASEMENT BOSS trade-mark during the relevant period received invoices bearing the BASEMENT BOSS trade-mark. Copies of representative invoices were attached as exhibits to the affidavit. Customers included home owners, local businesses, members of the construction trade and farmers.
6. Since February 2000, Basement Boss has maintained a website at www.basementboss.com.
7. During the relevant period, Basement Boss advertised its wares and services by means of flyers bearing the BASEMENT BOSS trade-mark.
[9] The appellant submitted that it has no explanation for why it failed to receive the notice from the Registrar that commenced the summary expungement proceeding, other than a failure in rural mail delivery.
[10] The appellant submitted that even though it did not file any evidence before the Registrar, subsection 56(5) of the Trade-marks Act permits the appellant to file new evidence on this appeal.
[11] The appellant submitted that where additional evidence is adduced in the Federal Court that would have materially affected the Registrar's findings of fact or the exercise of the Registrar's discretion, the Court must come to its own conclusion as to the correctness of the Registrar's decision (see Molson Breweries, a Partnership v. John Labatt Ltd., [2000] 3 F.C. 145, 5 C.P.R. (4th) 180 at paragraph 29 (C.A.)).
[12] The appellant, relying on subsections 50(1) and (2) of the Trade-marks Act, submitted that the use of its mark pursuant to the licensing and sub-licensing agreements had the same effect as use of the mark by the appellant.
[13] The appellant submitted that its evidence demonstrated use of the mark during the relevant period, and thus the registration for the mark should be reinstated.
Respondent's Submissions
[14] The respondent has no interest in the present proceeding and has not filed evidence or written submissions. The respondent also noted in its November 17, 2005 letter to the Court that it was not disputing the appellant's evidence.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
[15] The relevant sections of the Trade-marks Act are as follows:
| 2. In this Act,
. . .
"use", in relation to a trade-mark, means any use that by section 4 is deemed to be a use in association with wares or services;
. . .
4. (1) A trade-mark is deemed to be used in association with wares if, at the time of the transfer of the property in or possession of the wares, in the normal course of trade, it is marked on the wares themselves or on the packages in which they are distributed or it is in any other manner so associated with the wares that notice of the association is then given to the person to whom the property or possession is transferred.
(2) A trade-mark is deemed to be used in association with services if it is used or displayed in the performance or advertising of those services.
(3) A trade-mark that is marked in Canada on wares or on the packages in which they are contained is, when the wares are exported from Canada, deemed to be used in Canada in association with those wares.
45. (1) The Registrar may at any time and, at the written request made after three years from the date of the registration of a trade-mark by any person who pays the prescribed fee shall, unless the Registrar sees good reason to the contrary, give notice to the registered owner of the trade-mark requiring the registered owner to furnish within three months an affidavit or a statutory declaration showing, with respect to each of the wares or services specified in the registration, whether the trade-mark 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.
(2) The Registrar shall not receive any evidence other than the affidavit or statutory declaration, but may hear representations made by or on behalf of the registered owner of the trade-mark or by or on behalf of the person at whose request the notice was given.
(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 trade-mark, either with respect to all of the wares or services specified in the registration or with respect to any of those wares 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 trade-mark is liable to be expunged or amended accordingly.
(4) When the Registrar reaches a decision whether or not the registration of a trade-mark ought to be expunged or amended, he shall give notice of his decision with the reasons therefor to the registered owner of the trade-mark and to the person at whose request the notice referred to in subsection (1) was given.
(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.
50. (1) For the purposes of this Act, if an entity is licensed by or with the authority of the owner of a trade-mark to use the trade-mark in a country and the owner has, under the licence, direct or indirect control of the character or quality of the wares or services, then the use, advertisement or display of the trade-mark in that country as or in a trade-mark, trade-name or otherwise by that entity has, and is deemed always to have had, the same effect as such a use, advertisement or display of the trade-mark in that country by the owner.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, to the extent that public notice is given of the fact that the use of a trade-mark is a licensed use and of the identity of the owner, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proven, that the use is licensed by the owner of the trade-mark and the character or quality of the wares or services is under the control of the owner.
56. (1) An appeal lies to the Federal Court from any decision of the Registrar under this Act within two months from the date on which notice of the decision was dispatched by the Registrar or within such further time as the Court may allow, either before or after the expiration of the two months.
(2) An appeal under subsection (1) shall be made by way of notice of appeal filed with the Registrar and in the Federal Court.
(3) The appellant shall, within the time limited or allowed by subsection (1), send a copy of the notice by registered mail to the registered owner of any trade-mark that has been referred to by the Registrar in the decision complained of and to every other person who was entitled to notice of the decision.
(4) The Federal Court may direct that public notice of the hearing of an appeal under subsection (1) and of the matters at issue therein be given in such manner as it deems proper.
(5) On an appeal under subsection (1), evidence in addition to that adduced before the Registrar may be adduced and the Federal Court may exercise any discretion vested in the Registrar. |
|
2. Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent à la présente loi. . . .
« emploi » ou « usage » À l'égard d'une marque de commerce, tout emploi qui, selon l'article 4, est réputé un emploi en liaison avec des marchandises ou services.
. . .
4. (1) Une marque de commerce est réputée employée en liaison avec des marchandises si, lors du transfert de la propriété ou de la possession de ces marchandises, dans la pratique normale du commerce, elle est apposée sur les marchandises mêmes ou sur les colis dans lesquels ces marchandises sont distribuées, ou si elle est, de toute autre manière, liée aux marchandises à tel point qu'avis de liaison est alors donné à la personne à qui la propriété ou possession est transférée.
(2) Une marque de commerce est réputée employée en liaison avec des services si elle est employée ou montrée dans l'exécution ou l'annonce de ces services.
(3) Une marque de commerce mise au Canada sur des marchandises ou sur les colis qui les contiennent est réputée, quand ces marchandises sont exportées du Canada, être employée dans ce pays en liaison avec ces marchandises.
45. (1) Le registraire peut, et doit sur demande écrite présentée après trois années à compter de la date de l'enregistrement d'une marque de commerce, par une personne qui verse les droits prescrits, à moins qu'il ne voie une raison valable à l'effet contraire, donner au propriétaire inscrit un avis lui enjoignant de fournir, dans les trois mois, un affidavit ou une déclaration solennelle indiquant, à l'égard de chacune des marchandises ou de chacun des services que spécifie l'enregistrement, 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 lieu et la raison de son défaut d'emploi depuis cette date.
(2) Le registraire ne peut recevoir aucune preuve autre que cet affidavit ou cette déclaration solennelle, mais il peut entendre des représentations faites par le propriétaire inscrit de la marque de commerce ou pour celui-ci ou par la personne à la demande de qui l'avis a été donné ou pour celle-ci.
(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 marchandises ou services spécifiés dans l'enregistrement, soit à l'égard de l'une de ces marchandises 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.
(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.
(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.
50. (1) Pour l'application de la présente loi, si une licence d'emploi d'une marque de commerce est octroyée, pour un pays, à une entité par le propriétaire de la marque, ou avec son autorisation, et que celui-ci, aux termes de la licence, contrôle, directement ou indirectement, les caractéristiques ou la qualité des marchandises et services, l'emploi, la publicité ou l'exposition de la marque, dans ce pays, par cette entité comme marque de commerce, nom commercial - ou partie de ceux-ci - ou autrement ont le même effet et sont réputés avoir toujours eu le même effet que s'il s'agissait de ceux du propriétaire. (2) Pour l'application de la présente loi, dans la mesure où un avis public a été donné quant à l'identité du propriétaire et au fait que l'emploi d'une marque de commerce fait l'objet d'une licence, cet emploi est réputé, sauf preuve contraire, avoir fait l'objet d'une licence du propriétaire, et le contrôle des caractéristiques ou de la qualité des marchandises et services est réputé, sauf preuve contraire, être celui du propriétaire.
56. (1) Appel de toute décision rendue par le registraire, sous le régime de la présente loi, peut être interjeté à la Cour fédérale dans les deux mois qui suivent la date où le registraire a expédié l'avis de la décision ou dans tel délai supplémentaire accordé par le tribunal, soit avant, soit après l'expiration des deux mois.
(2) L'appel est interjeté au moyen d'un avis d'appel produit au bureau du registraire et à la Cour fédérale.
(3) L'appelant envoie, dans le délai établi ou accordé par le paragraphe (1), par courrier recommandé, une copie de l'avis au propriétaire inscrit de toute marque de commerce que le registraire a mentionnée dans la décision sur laquelle porte la plainte et à toute autre personne qui avait droit à un avis de cette décision.
(4) Le tribunal peut ordonner qu'un avis public de l'audition de l'appel et des matières en litige dans cet appel soit donné de la manière qu'il juge opportune.
(5) Lors de l'appel, il peut être apporté une preuve en plus de celle qui a été fournie devant le registraire, et le tribunal peut exercer toute discrétion dont le registraire est investi. |
Analysis and Decision
[16] The appellant correctly pointed out that pursuant to subsection 56(1) of the Trade-marks Act, an appeal of the Registrar's decision must be filed within two months from the date on which notice of the decision was dispatched by the Registrar. The appellant did not meet this time limit as it did not become aware of the decision until approximately 18 months after the decision to expunge the mark was released. Apparently, notice of this decision was not delivered to the appellant. Subsection 56(1) of the Trade-marks Act allows me to extend the time for filing the appeal. Based on the evidence of non-delivery by the mail service of the Registrar's notices, I am satisfied that this time limit should be extended. Accordingly, I will extend the time for filing the appeal until January 12, 2005, the date the appeal was filed.
[17] The appellant submitted new evidence on the appeal of the Registrar's decision. In fact, all of the appellant's evidence is new evidence given that it did not file any evidence for the original decision as it did not know of the expungement proceeding. Ordinarily, the decision of the Registrar is entitled to some deference if evidence was tendered before the Registrar. However, in a case where significant new evidence is submitted by the trade-mark holder, the reviewing Court must come to its own conclusion based on the evidence before it. As noted earlier, all of the evidence here is new evidence. Thus, I must reach my own conclusion based on this evidence.
[18] I am satisfied that the appellant has provided sufficient new evidence to show that in the three years preceding the date of the Registrar's notice it had used its trade-mark BASEMENT BOSS in association with basement repair and home renovation services, through a licensing agreement with 1307763 Ontario Ltd. The appellant provided evidence of this licensing agreement, as well as samples of invoices and advertising. By way of examples, tab 13 of the applicant's record shows the use of the mark BASEMENT BOSS in an accepted proposal for services and tab 53 shows a "Basement Boss" flyer that was used in 1999 and 2000 to advertise "Basement Boss" services.
[19] I would therefore allow the appellant's appeal. The Registrar's decision is set aside and the Registrar is ordered to reinstate the appellant's trade-mark BASEMENT BOSS to the Trade-mark Register.
[20] The appellant and respondent have agreed that there shall be no order for costs against the respondent. Thus, I order that there shall be no costs against the respondent.
ORDER
[21] IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The appellant's appeal is allowed. The Registrar's decision dated June 19, 2003 is set aside and the Registrar is ordered to reinstate the appellant's trade-mark BASEMENT BOSS to the Trade-mark Register.
2. There shall be no order for costs against the respondent.
J.F.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
January 27, 2006
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-38-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: 1147015 ONTARIO LTD.
- and -
RÉNO-DÉPÔT INC.
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: December 5, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF: O'KEEFE J.
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Michael J. Collins
|
|
| No One Appearing
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Michael J. Collins Ottawa, Ontario
|
|
| Leger Robic Richard Montreal, Quebec
|