Trade-marks traditionally protect visible brands – a design, word or slogan. The brand that is visible on packaging or advertising is like a tool to assist consumers so they know, when they consider a purchase, who stands behind the product or service. So why can’t these indicators or “tools” be non-visible? Scent marks have been registered or applied-for in other countries:

• The EU: The EU permits scent marks as long as they can be described or depicted graphically.  OHIM, the office that handles registration of Community Trade Marks (CTM), has accepted the smell of fresh cut grass for tennis balls as an “olfactory mark” (Link to Decision (PDF)).
• USA: Scent marks are capable of being registered, and there is no requirement to sumbit a drawing or graphical depiction of the mark.  The USPTO has accepted the scent of Plumeria blossoms for sewing thread and embroidery yarn, and apple cider scent or fragrance in association with office supplies.
• Australia: Scent marks are registrable, though there is a requirement that a mark must be graphically depicted.  This can be satisfied with a written description of the scent and how it’s applied. In Australia, only one scent mark has been successfully registered: a eucalyptus scent for golf tees.
• Canada: If you try to search for “scent marks in Canada”, you will find articles about woodchucks and timber wolves marking their territory. Currently scent marks are not registrable in Canada, due to the requirement that marks must be depicted visually. To get around this legal conceptual barrier to scent marks, an amendment to the Trade-marks Act would be required, which is not likely in the near future.

There are several problems associated with scent marks. First, they must (in many countries, including Canada) overcome the hurdle of visual or graphical depiction in the trade-mark application. Next, the scent mark must not reflect the natural scent or aroma of the product itself – for example, the scent of fresh-baked bread should not be registrable for bread products. And perhaps most importantly, scent marks suffer from an inherent subjectivity that is difficult to overcome: “fresh-cut grass” means something different to different people, even if you can get over the other legal hurdles of adequately depicting or describing the scent for the purposes of the application. How can the problem of trade-mark confusion be solved in light of this subjectivity, where, for example two brands of tennis balls have similar cut-grass scents applied to them?

In Canada at least, this is one frontier that we will watch from the sidelines.

Related Reading: Holograms & Other Nontraditional Trade-marks in Canada

Also, see this good overview of: Nontraditional Trade-Marks in Canada

Calgary – 07:00

 

Lawsuits! Infringement! Litigation! Ah, there’s never a dull moment in the wonderful world of intellectual property law, and 2012 will be no exception. Here’s our list of what to watch in the coming year:

Copyright, Copyright, Copyright: For several years running, we have predicted that copyright reform will come to Canada. It might actually happen in 2012. There is good reason for optimism this time: First, the Supreme Court of Canada heard a clutch of copyright cases in December 2011, and their decision is expected in the first half of 2012. Second, the Harper government is promising/threatening (depending on your point of view) to pass Bill C-11, the current iteration of the Copyright Reform Bill. Change will come, one way or another.

Online Terms & Cloud Computing: In one sense, “cloud computing” is just another name for a trend that has been developing for a decade. In another sense, it really does capture a new way of doing business for many IT services. We predict that the law will develop in this area in both Canada and the US, as online terms and cloud-computing contracts are tested in court. Here’s one example of a pending decision: Sony faces a class action in the US over its online terms for the PlayStation Network.

Anti-Spam Law: In 2011, we rashly stated that Canada made “headway” in the anti-spam department, with the passing of the Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act. Canada’s anti-spam legislation did receive royal assent on December 15, 2010. However, the law is still not yet in force. Draft regulations are being debated and negotiated, and even if they do come into force in 2012, they will almost certainly be subject to a grace period which will delay implementation until late 2012, or maybe even 2013.

New CDRP Rules: In 2011, CIRA updated the rules governing dot-ca domain name disputes. Watch for our review of the changes, and the first decisions that have been released under the new rules. 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

Sound familiar at Christmas time? ‘Tis the season when trade-marks play a critical role in millions of buying choices of millions of consumers. So where is the line between two marks that appear similar, for similar products? With all due respect, the Supreme Court of Canada is not known for being succinct, but I have to admit this quote from the top court does capture the issue, and in this context the term “provenance” refers to source, or which company the products come from:

• “Trade-marks in Canada are an important tool to assist consumers and businesses. In the marketplace, a business marks its wares or services as an indication of provenance. This allows consumers to know, when they are considering a purchase, who stands behind those goods or services. In this way, trade-marks provide a “shortcut to get consumers to where they want to go” […]  Where the trade-marks of different businesses are similar, a consumer may be unable to discern which company stands behind the wares or services. Confusion between trade-marks impairs the objective of providing consumers with a reliable indication of the expected source of wares or services. […] “

That is the essence of trade-mark law in Canada.

A recent case from the Federal Court (MÖVENPICK HOLDING AG v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, 2011 FC 1397) has reiterated this concept, in a battle between the marks Marché Express for fast-food items sold at a convenience store, and Marché for restaurant services. The court stated that “The test to be applied is a matter of first impression in the mind of a casual consumer somewhat in a hurry who sees the [mark], at a time when he or she has no more than an imperfect recollection of the [prior] trade-marks …” Ultimately, the court decided that there was no confusion, partly since the term “Marché” was commonly used in this industry, indicating that consumers are accustomed to seeing the word and will use relatively small differences to distinguish between trade-marks.

ipblog.ca will be taking a break until January… So, for all those casual consumers somewhat in a hurry, slow down and have a great holiday!

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

The BlackBerry maker can’t get a break these days. On December 6th, an American company obtained a Temporary Restraining Order, from a US court barring RIM from using the mark BBX in association with software. The lawsuit is based on the registered trade-mark BBX owned by BASIS International Ltd. This has caused an embarassing renaming of RIM’s new operating system to BlackBerry 10.

Lessons for business?

• Trade-mark screening searches are critical when launching a new brand. Searches can be conducted country-by-country, and search services can screen top markets with quick “knock-out” searches to quickly determine availability.
• Sure, RIM has been beat up a bit by the markets recently, but it’s still a global titan in the mobile devices and software industry… but that didn’t stop a rival software maker from taking on a trade-mark fight. That’s because BASIS had registered trade-marks in its arsenal.  Without the benefit of a trade-mark registration, this fight would have been much more costly and time-consuming and the outcome would have been much different.
• Think about timing and territory – in this case, the preliminary injunction was rushed to court because of the BlackBerry Developer’s Conference in Asia on December 7 and 8, where the BBX mark would have been used extensively by RIM. Does a US court have jurisdiction to issue an order to a Canadian company regarding the use of its mark in Singapore? You might think the answer is no, but an American judge will have a different view. Faced with the US order, RIM decided to re-brand. 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 

 You’re in good company. Even the late Steve Jobs had his complaints about this. In a biography of the Apple founder, Mr. Jobs complains that Android was “grand theft”, and he vowed to fight back. Is Android a rip-off of the iPhone? It certainly followed Apple.  The iPhone was launched in 2007, Android was launched in October, 2008. Apple introduced its App Store in July, 2008. Android Market came out a few months later. Even though it entered the marketplace later, by 2010, Android captured 44% of all mobile app downloads in Q2 2011, passing Apple’s 31% stake (see CNET report) The numbers are hard to crunch (remember, iOS is on multiple hardware devices made by one manufacturer, and Android sits on over 40 smartphones made by six manufacturers), and Apple’s system comes out on top by some measures, but by August 2011, some estimates put Android at a leading 48% of the smartphone market share.

So there is no doubt that Android has stormed from behind as a credible alternative to Apple’s ecosystem, but does that make it a “stolen idea”? Not from the perspective of intellectual property law, since there is no protection in the overall idea of a mobile platform that can run third-party apps. The real question is whether Google copied iOS code (there’s been no suggestion of that), used Apple’s trade-marks (nope), or infringed any of Apple’s patents (see this story for one of the many Apple vs. Android patent fights). 

In any event, there is a fine line between infringement and inspiration. Legend has it that Mr. Jobs was “inspired” by the mouse he originally saw at a Xerox research facility. Neither did Mr. Jobs invent the MP3 player or the idea of a mobile device running third-party apps. My Palm Treo was doing that years before the iPhone was launched.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water….along comes another change to the domain name world.

This is a final reminder that the Sunrise period for the .XXX blocking process runs until Friday, October 28, 2011, to protect Canadian trade-marks. To be eligible for this procedure, the request must correspond to a trade-mark that was registered by Sept. 1, 2011. For more info, see this link. 

Next up:  The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) recently announced its own changes within the .CA domain. CIRA is currently proposing to introduce French-accented letters. The current system only recognizes .CA domain names in ASCII or non-accented letters (a-z) and numbers. CIRA is considering the implementation of French Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) at the second level (to the left of the dot). What does this mean? This would permit the use of accented letters such as those listed below:

1. é, ë, ê, è
2. â, à
3. ô
4. ù, û, ü
5. ç
6. î, ï

Yes, this would come complete with its own Sunrise period, to permit existing registrants to preregister and a landrush protocol which is similar to other domain name changes such as the introduction of the .XXX domain. For more info on CIRA’s proposed changes, see this link. Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

An app developer in Vancouver has been threatened with a take-down notice by CBC, in connection with his radio-streaming app sold through the Mac App Store.  The CBC has complained of copyright and trade-mark infringement, and Apple has reportedly threatened to pull the app if the developer and the CBC cannot come to an agreement. The dispute raises the classic issues of what constitutes copyright infringement: is an app, a photocopier, or an MP3 player, or a car radio for that matter, a tool which facilitates copyright infringement by allowing the copyright-protected works to be copied without the consent of the owner? Canadian law says …. it depends. In the CCH case , the Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the question of when someone is liable for facilitating or “authorizing” infringement. The court was clear that “authorization” means to approve of the infringement, and concluded “a person does not authorize copyright infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment (such as photocopiers) that could be used to infringe copyright.”  The mere act of providing the means of infringement is not an act of infringement.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

If you followed the headlines regarding the ongoing battles between Apple and Samsung this summer, you will have noticed that Apple succeeded in shutting down sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab in the EU, based on its allegation that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringed Apple’s industrial design (See: Industrial Design in Canada & US). Samsung succeeded in limiting that court order. That is a battle over the design of the iPad (part of the appeal of Apple’s designs are that they are minimalist and functional, which raises the question of what exactly is protectable… but we’ll leave aside for the moment).

Designs and trademarks are both useful intellectual property tools to ward off competitors. Canadian companies can register their industrial designs in the EU, as well as their trademarks across the EU (through a Community Trade Mark or CTM). In the recent case of DHL Express France SAS v Chronopost SA, Case C-235/09, 12 April 2011, the EU Court of Justice ruled that injunctions to prevent infringement of a CTM can be enforced across the EU. The scope of an injunction against infringement of a CTM extends to all 27 countries of the European Union.

Related Reading: Apple’s worldwide court battles against Samsung: where they stand and what they mean 

For assistance with your international brand protection, including in the US and EU, contact us at Field Law. 

Calgary – 07:00

 

Courts have often struggled with how to characterize a domain name using traditional legal concepts. On one level it’s just a “bundle of rights”  – a registration that provides the registrant with rights to exclude others from the use of the domain name, and point the domain name to a certain IP address on the internet.  The question of whether this intangible bundle is “property” has not been settled by any Canadian appeal court, until now.

In Tucows.Com Co. v. Lojas Renner S.A., 2011 ONCA 548, the court had to decide if the domain name renner.com was intangible personal property “located in Ontario”. This was an important issue in the case, since a finding that the domain name was property located in Ontario would permit the court to take jurisdiction and the lawsuit to proceed. The court decided that there is an emerging consensus among other courts that domain names are a form of property, and found that domain names, for the purposes of Ontario law, can be considered intangible personal property. 

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

As a follow-up to our earlier post (Domain Name Update: .xxx Blocking Process), this is a reminder that on Wednesday, September 7, 2011, the “Sunrise B” period will commence to permit the owners of registered trade-marks to block their marks from becoming part of a .XXX domain name. The opt-out process blocks eligible trade-marks at the .XXX registry so these trade-marks cannot be registered by others.  As an example, Microsoft might make use of this procedure to block the registration of “microsoft.xxx” as a domain name. This Sunrise period runs for 52 days until Friday, October 28, 2011. By that date, trade-mark owners must submit their Reservation Request under the Sunrise B procedure.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

In a new series, we review the basics of Canadian trade-mark, copyright and patent law.

• Canadian Trade-marks: Trade-marks protect the rights to brand names, such as a word, logo or design. A trade-mark is used in the marketplace to identify products of one company, and distinguish these products from others in the marketplace. Trade-marks can be extremely valuable assets of a company, and represent the company’s reputation with consumers. If mishandled or left unprotected, trade-mark rights can be eroded or lost. In Canada, trade-marks can be registered through the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, and a Trade-mark Agent can assist with screening searches and registration services.
• Best Practices:
• Registration – Seek registration for your core brands. This extends your rights to that mark, in connection with your products, across Canada. Unregistered marks do not enjoy the same scope of protection.
• Screening Searches – Make better business decisions with better information. Searches are critical, particularly before launching a new brand. This helps assess risk and provides insight about potential competitors in the marketplace.
• Notation –  Mark your brands with the â„¢ symbol or the ® symbol for registered marks. Consider establishing brand guidelines for your organization.
• Licensing – Marks used within a large corporate group, or between a parent company and its subsidiaries, licensees or franchisees, should be properly licensed. Otherwise, a company risks losing its rights to unlicensed marks.
• Trade-marks on the Internet: Trade-mark policing and enforcement is challenging in the context of the internet, since infringement can easily occur in any jurisdiction, and from any server. Establish a strategy that’s suitable and cost-effective in your industry, coordinating with your domain names and your national and international brand portfolio.
• Trade-marks Outside Canada: If you have or are seeking customers outside Canada, then get advice on trade-mark protection in those markets, whether in the US, China, the EU, or developing markets in South America. Trade-mark rights are governed country-by-country, so remember that trade-mark rights in Canada will not provide any protection in the US or elsewhere. Prioritize your brands and markets and seek assistance from professionals who can help establish a strategy for brand protection beyond Canada’s borders.

For more information and assistance with your trade-mark needs visit Field’s Intellectual Property & Technology Group. 

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

Can you get a trade-mark for .doc, .pdf or other file extensions? To follow up on our earlier post (Can File Extensions be Trade-marked?), in the US, the answer is “No”, as the makers of AutoCAD software discovered in 2009, when they tried to enforce a trade-mark for the file extension .dwg (referring to “drawing”), which is the file format for the AutoCAD software product. There, the Court made it clear that file extensions are functional and thus cannot be enforced as trade-marks. Autodesk has also failed to obtain a registration for the mark DWG at the USPTO because DWG is descriptive of software which assists in the creation of drawings which use a .dwg file extension. So far, their application to register DWG has been denied for these reasons. 

In Canada, the answer is apparently “Yes” since Autodesk has obtained a registered trade-mark for the mark DWG for use in association with “Computer programs and software in the field of computer aided design and instruction manuals sold as a unit.”  Canadian law generally accords with US law on the subject of descriptiveness and functionality.  In the Supreme Court’s famous decision in Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., 2005 SCC 65 (CanLII), (the Lego case), the Court was clear that Lego building blocks are not protectable as trade-marks in Canada, on the grounds that the shape of the blocks is purely functional in nature, and the Trade-marks Act is clear that descriptive marks are not registrable. Why this analysis does not apply to file extensions is not clear, but any attempt by Autodesk to assert a trade-mark infringement claim against a functional or descriptive use of .dwg as a file extension would likely run into that defence.

 

 

The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) has announced a new CDRP Policy and Rules, which will take effect August 22, 2011. Under the new dispute resolution procedure, the online filing system has been streamlined and some concepts have been updated to bring them in line with the UDRP. Among the other changes are:

1. Test for what is “Confusingly Similar” The Policy uses a test of “narrow resemblance” to determine whether one domain name is confusingly similar to a trade-mark. This moves the test away from Canadian trademark law concepts, and implements a uniform standard to be used by all arbitrators.
2. “Commercial Gain” is now a factor to determine “bad faith”.
3. Generic Domain Names. Previously, panelists had imposed a requirement to use generic domain names in order to establish a legitimate interest. This has been removed.

CIRA’s summary of the changes can be found here  

Related Reading: Domain Names in Canada: Don’t Mess with the UFC

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

There is an ongoing brand battle between the large American retailer Target and Canadian retailer Target Apparel over the Canadian rights to the TARGET trade-mark.  This is one of those disputes that is becoming more well-known than the brands themselves. Of the first dozen hits in a Google search for “Target Apparel”, 10 of them are related to the lawsuit rather than the actual products. In the case of Target Brands Inc. v. Fairweather Ltd. the US retailer applied to a Canadian court to block all use of the TARGET APPAREL brand in Canada pending the outcome of the lawsuit. In a recent decision in Canadian Federal Court, the court refused to grant the interim injuction against the Canadian retailer, saying the US company failed to prove that it will suffer “irreparable harm” if the Canadian company continues to use the TARGET APPAREL mark.  So the Canadian company will continue to use the mark while the matter goes to trial… or is settled.

One interesting element that came out of this decision was Target’s practice of licensing the little guys. Possibly in preparation for litigation, the US retailer went around to other small Canadian retailers who were using “Target” as part of their business name. Some of these users were confronted by Target and entered into license agreements where they acknowledged Target’s ownership of the TARGET mark, and were given a licence to continue using the name. This applied, for example, to Target Food Stores & Gas Ltd., which operates two small convenience stores now licensed by Target Brands Inc.  While this wasn’t conclusive in the injunction application, the court noted that Target’s practice of licensing small businesses using the TARGET mark did undercut its argument that it was harmed by the perception that Target Apparel stores were somehow linked with Target.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

In Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. et al. and Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc., the Federal Court sent a strong message to counterfeiters. This is a case of infringement of copyright and trade-mark rights, arising from the sale of counterfeit copies of Louis Vuitton and Burberry handbags through online sales and operations in Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. The Trade-marks Act provides for an award of damages or profits in relation to the sale of infringing goods. The Copyright Act provides for an award of both damages and profits from the sale of infringing goods, or statutory damages between $500 to $20,000 per infringed work. In this case, the Federal Court awarded Louis Vuitton and Burberry a total of over $2.4 million in damages against the defendants, catching both the corporate and personal defendants in the award.  

Related Reading: Retail Therapy for Brand Owners: Counterfeit Goods & Director Liability 

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

What constitutes “use” of a trade-mark in Canada? Under Canadian trade-mark law, 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. 

The Federal Court of Canada decision in TSA Stores Inc. v. Registrar of Trade-marks (2011 FC 273) adopts a liberal definition of “use”. 

TSA owns the registered mark THE SPORTS AUTHORITY in association with retail-store services in Canada. It operated six stores in Canada, but the stores were closed in 2000. It tried to maintain the validity of its mark by relying on display of the mark on a website that was accessible from Canada. In this case, TSA was able to show “use” of the mark through the operation of an information website through which US online sales were possible, but which did not permit Canadian sales. The court reasoned that “services” is a broad term and as long as some consumers or purchasers receive a benefit from an activity, then it qualifies as a “service” for the purpose of showing use of a mark. In other words, for services, use of a mark need not involve any sales or advertising, and could be established by any incidental activity by which some members of the Canadian consuming public receive a benefit.

What happens if we couple this with the decision in Masterpiece. Does this mean that any website on the internet which is accessible in Canada from which some Canadians derive some benefit, may establish trade-mark “use” in Canada? And is such use sufficient to invalidate a registered mark in Canada if it pre-dated the date-of-first-use of the registered mark?  Arguably, this would only apply in the case of services, but it certainly appears to lower the bar to establishing use in Canada and makes it difficult for trade-mark owners to assess the risks when filing a trade-mark application. This seems to raise more questions that it settles, and further clarity is required from the courts on this question.

Calgary – 07:00 MT

 

This is the last in our series on the recent landmark SCC decision in Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc., 2011 SCC 27. There is one point that is worth emphasizing from this decision, and that relates to the question of when an earlier common-law or unregistered mark can trump a later registered mark. 

Bear with me as we get into the thickets of the Canadian Trade-marks Act. The SCC decision to expunge a registered mark rested in part on the analysis that prior “use” under Section 16(a) of the Act was sufficient to displace the later registration. To put this another way, use since 2007 of the trade-mark XYZ (No. 1) for shoes can be used to challenge and cancel a registration for the trade-mark XYZ (No. 2) for shoes, when that later registration of XYZ (No. 2) was based on use since 2009. With me so far? This comes straight out of the reference in the decision: “Because Masterpiece Inc.’s use preceded Alavida’s proposed use, Alavida was not entitled under s. 16(3) to registration of its trade-mark.” The ambit of Section 16(3) includes not only a mark that has been used in Canada, but also a mark that has been made known in Canada; and it includes any trade-name that had been previously used in Canada. The term “made known” has a special meaning. A mark is “made known” only if it is used outside Canada and (1) the associated products are distributed in Canada, or (2) the associated products or services are advertised in print or through “radio broadcasts ordinarily received in Canada”, and it has become well known in Canada by reason of the distribution or advertising. So this test has to be met in order for an earlier mark that is simply “made known” to trump a later registration.

It’s also worth noting that previous use or making known of a confusing trade-mark will not invalidate a registration if that mark or trade-name has been abandoned, and it’s up to the owner of the earlier mark to establish that he had not abandoned the confusing trade-mark or trade-name. 

Lessons for business?

• Full trade-mark clearance searches are an essential step before you apply to register your mark. However, to be effective these searches must include common-law sources that can catch marks that are used or “made known”. Even then, it’s important to understand that a search cannot necessarily reveal whether such a mark would meet the test described above, and further research may be required.

Calgary – 07:00 MT

 

Canadian trade-mark owners can register their marks in the United States, through the USPTO . It’s important to remember that, as a Canadian business, registration of your mark in Canada does not afford any protection or trade-mark rights in the US, so a separate US application must be filed.  After application and registration of your mark, a declaration is required at the 5-year mark. This is known as a Section 8 & 15 combined declaration, which requires the trade-mark owner to file specimens to show that the mark has been used in the US. Here’s a tip: When preparing your initial trade-mark application and designing packaging and labelling for the products, it’s important to keep in mind the eventual requirement to file specimens of use, to ensure that the specimens of the mark-as-used will show use of the mark-as-registered.

Consider the case of the TTAB decision in In re E.A. Sween Company, where the applicant registered the mark DELI EXPRESS SAN LUIS for sweet rolls (shown at left). However, the specimen of use showed use of the DELI EXPRESS mark as a visually distinct mark in red, in the top left corner of the package label, and the words SAN LUIS to the right, separated spatially in such a way that the TTAB concluded that the two marks conveyed “two separate commercial impressions.” Thus, the applicant’s drawing of the mark as registered was not considered a “substantially exact representation” of the mark as used in commerce.

Contact Field Law for assistance with screening, filing and registering US trade-marks.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT 

 

 

 

Apple Inc. has a well-known family of iMarks registered in Canada, the US and around the world, including iTunes, iMac, iPhone, iPod and iPad. In Canada, it has even applied to register the iPad screen as a trade-mark under Application No. 1488599 (the IPAD TRADE DRESS ICON SCREEN Design) as well as the iPhone graphic (shown at right), under Application No. 1481515.

• The latest addition to the family is the iCloud mark. In the US, a company called iCloud Communications has sued Apple for alleged trade-mark infringement in the US District Court in Arizona. (See a copy of the Complaint Here). iCloud Communications claims use since 2005, though it does not have any registered marks. Prior to launching its new iCloud service, Apple bought the domain name icloud.com from Xcerion AB, a Swedish cloud-computing company, and there’s a pretty good bet that Apple has also acquired Xcerion’s registered US mark for ICLOUD which claims a priority date of November 29, 2007, for use with information management software.  Though the registration is still in the name of Xcerion, an Apple inhouse lawyer is named as the attorney of record. This strategic acquisition would allow Apple to rely on the earlier use claimed by this mark.
• In a recent Canadian case, Apple was the earlier user – in this case, it used its family of registered iTunes marks to oppose the application for the mark TUNECARDZ by Digi Media Cardz Inc., a BC company, for use with collectible cards allowing the card owner to download music. In the decision released by the Trade-marks Opposition Board (TMOB) (Apple Inc. v Digi Media Cardz Inc., 2011 TMOB 72 ), Apple prevailed by showing confusion between TUNECARDZ and its registered Canadian marks ITUNES and ITUNES MUSIC CARD for music downloads.

Apple has a long history of fighting strategic trade-mark battles, including for its core brand APPLE, starting in 1978, against Apple Records), against Cisco for its now-iconic iPhone trade-mark , and against Fujitsu, for the iPad trade-mark. Lessons for business? In many of these cases, the mark was already owned by someone else when Apple decided it was going to be an Apple brand.  This history is, in many ways, a reflection of the company’s approach to business: they did not invent tablet computing, smartphones, online music sales or the MP3 player. They simply stepped in, elbowed the early movers aside, and took over the top position. 

Calgary – 07:00 MT

It’s worth reviewing the concept of confusion in this landmark case. Confusion is a central concept in Canadian trade-mark law. 

The Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) decision in Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc., 2011 SCC 27 made it clear that, when comparing two trade-marks, the test for confusion is based upon the hypothetical assumption that the marks are used in the same geographical area, regardless of whether this is actually the case.  For the owner of a registered mark to enjoy exclusive use throughout Canada, that mark can’t be confusing with another trade‑mark anywhere in the country (registered or unregistered).  The actual location where the marks are used is not relevant for the purpose of this test, since the court assumes for the purpose of the test that the marks were used in the same place.

Next, remember it is the use of a trade‑mark and not registration itself that confers priority and the exclusive right to the trade‑mark in Canada.  For the first person to use a mark in Canada, trade-mark rights are granted in two ways.  First, you can earn the right to register a trade‑mark when you are the first user of that mark.  Second, you can also oppose applications of other marks, or apply to cancel someone else’s registration, based on your earlier use of a confusing trade‑mark. 

Calgary – 07:00 MT