TRADUCTION/TRANSLATION
SECTION 45 PROCEEDINGS
TRADE-MARK: OMEGA & DESIGN
REGISTRATION NO.: TMDA 05009
On August 2, 2001, at the request of Ridout & Maybee LLP, the Registrar forwarded a Section 45 notice to Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd.), the registered owner of the above-referenced trade-mark registration.
The trade-mark OMEGA & Design (shown below) is registered for use in association with the following wares:
(1) Montres et boîte pour montres;
(2) Pendulettes, appareils ou instruments à mesurer et à marquer le temps, chaînes de montres, outils et accessoires ainsi que toutes fournitures et parties détachées employées dans l’horlogerie et la bijouterie y soient inclus;
(3) Etuis et emballages, nommément: contenants sous forme de housses en tissus et boîtes; compteurs et chronographes qui servent au chronométrage sportif; et appareils techniques et scientifiques pour l’électricité, l’optique, la télégraphie, le cinéma, la radio, la téléphonie, la télégraphie, nommément: la cellules photo-électriques, portails à contact, appareils, coupe-fils, chronomètres à signal acoustique, compteurs enregistreurs sur films, compteurs enregistreurs sur bande de papier, appareils de déclenchement à plusieurs compteurs ou chronographes, appareils de transmission d’impulsion sans fil, pistolets de start à contacts électriques, appareils filmant les passages ou arrivées et les temps y soient inclus.
|
|
Section 45 of the Trade-marks Act requires the registered owner of the trade-mark to show whether the trade-mark has been used in Canada in association with each of the wares and/or services listed on the registration at any time within the three-year period immediately preceding the date of the notice, and if not, the date when it was last in use and the reason for the absence of use since that date. The relevant period in this case is any time between August 2, 1998 and August 2, 2001.
In response to the notice, an affidavit by Peter Stierli and two affidavits by Philippe Lefebvre were furnished. Each party filed a written argument and was represented at the oral hearing.
In his affidavit, Mr. Stierli states that he is Vice-President and Chief Finance Officer of the registrant. At paragraph 9, he indicates that during the relevant period the registrant has used the trade-mark in Canada in association with the wares:
1. Montres et boîte pour montres;.
2. Appareils ou instruments à mesurer et à marquer le temps, chaînes de montres, outils et accessoires ainsi que toutes fournitures et parties détachées employées dans l’horlogerie et la bijouterie y soient inclus;
3. Etuis et emballages, nommément housses en tissus et boîtes.
He indicates that such wares are manufactured and exported into Canada by the registrant. The registrant sells its wares to a Canadian distributor who generally resells the wares to Canadian retailers. He describes and shows the manner the trade-mark is associated with the wares and he provides invoices which he states show sales of such wares during the relevant period.
Mr. Stierli adds that the registrant has also used the trade-mark during the relevant period through its licensee Omega Electronics SA in association with the following wares:
Compteurs et chronographes qui servent au chronométrage sportif; et appareils techniques et scientifiques pour l’électricité, l’optique, la télégraphie, le cinéma, la radio, la téléphonie, la télégraphie nommément: la cellules photo-électriques, portails à contact, appareils coupe-fils, chronomètres à signal acoustique, compteurs enregistreurs sur films, compteurs enregistreurs sur bande de papier, appareils de déclenchement à plusieurs compteurs ou chronographes, appareils de transmission d’impulsion sans fil, pistolets de start à contacts électriques, appareils filmant les passages ou arrivées et les temps y soient inclus. (hereinafter “the licensed wares”)
He specifies that according to the terms of the license the registrant has knowledge and ultimate control over the character and quality of such wares as well as over the use and advertising of the trade-mark. At paragraph 30 it is indicated that such wares are not sold to the general public but to specialized purchasers such as sports committees. It is indicated at paragraph 29 that for the years 1998 and 1999 Canadian sales with respect to wares associated with the trade-mark, including these wares, were at least 100,000 Swiss francs each year.
In his initial affidavit, Mr. Lefebvre states that he is “Director du Marché sportif” for Servtrotech Inc. (“Servtrotech”) and that Servtrotech is a distributor of OMEGA products in North America. He explains that the OMEGA wares it sells emanate from Omega Electronics SA.
At paragraph 6 he lists the wares sold in association with the trade-mark OMEGA & Design as follows:
- Compteurs qui servent au chronométrage sportif;
- Appareils techniques et scientifiques pour l’électricité, l’optique, la télégraphie, le cinéma, la radio, la téléphonie, la télégraphie nommément:
- les cellules photo-électriques;
- les portails à contact;
- les compteurs enregistreurs sur bande de papier;
- les pistolets de start à contacts électriques.
He clearly indicates that such wares were sold in Canada during the relevant period. As Exhibit PL-1 he attaches a sales contract dated March 16, 2001 concerning the purchase by London Centennial Wheelers (“Centennial”) of such products associated with the trade-mark. In his second affidavit, he confirms that all items were delivered to Centennial in Ontario at the latest on May 22, 2001. He also confirms that the trade-mark appeared on the wares or on their packaging or on a leaflet which accompanied the wares. Concerning the packaging for the wares he indicates that such emanates from Omega Electronics SA.
The requesting party has raised several arguments concerning the evidence furnished. The main arguments are summarized as follows:
- The evidence is silent concerning the wares “pendulettes” and therefore such wares should be deleted from the registration.
- The evidence is insufficient to show use in association with the wares “appareils ou instruments à mesurer et à marquer le temps” and therefore such wares should be deleted from the registration.
- Concerning the “licensed wares”, “appareils techniques et scientifiques pour l’électricité, l’optique, la télégraphie, le cinéma, la radio, la téléphonie, la télégraphie nommément les cellules photo-électriques, portail à contact, appareils coupe-fils, chronomètres à signal acoustique, compteurs enregistreurs sur films, compteurs enregistreurs sur bande de papier, appareils de déclenchement à plusieurs compteurs ou chronographes, appareils de transmission d’impulsion sans fil, pistolets de start à contacts électriques, appareils filmant les passages ou arrivées et les temps y soient inclus”, the evidence is insufficient to show use with such wares and, further, any use by “Omega Electronics SA” is not use that enures to the registrant pursuant to Section 50 of the Act and is not use of the registered trade-mark “per se”.
As the registrant has conceded that the evidence does not show use of the trade-mark in association with “pendulettes”, such wares will be deleted from the registration.
Concerning the wares “montres et boîtes pour montres”, “étuis et emballages nommément contenants sous forme de housses et de tissus”, and “chaînes de montres, outils et accessoires ainsi que toutes fournitures et parties détachées employées dans l’horlogerie et la bijouterie y soient inclus”, the evidence shows that such wares are manufactured by the registrant and have been exported to Canada by the registrant during the relevant period. I am also satisfied that at the time of transfer of the wares in Canada the trade-mark as registered was associated with those wares in a manner complying with Section 4(1) of the Act. Accordingly, I conclude that such wares ought to be maintained on the registration.
Concerning the wares “appareils ou instruments à mesurer et à marquer le temps”, I agree with counsel for the requesting party that as watches are already listed in the statement of wares as separate and distinct wares, that such category must exclude “watches”. Consequently, I conclude that in order to maintain the category “appareils ou instruments à mesurer et à marquer le temps” the registrant has to show use with items in that category other than with watches. (Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v. 88766 Canada Inc., 72 C.P.R. (3d) 195.) Counsel for the registrant submitted that the use of the trade-mark with such category is shown by the sale of the watch having a tachometric scale, reference no. 357050. However, it is clear from invoice number 90169144 dated January 5, 2000 (part of Exhibit 3) that such an item is being sold as a watch. The fact that the watch incorporates a tachometer does not remove it from the category “watches”. As the item in question would be covered by the category “watches” and as there is no evidence of use with the category “appareils ou instruments à mesurer et à marquer le temps” other than with such a watch, I conclude that the wares “appareils ou instruments à mesurer et à marquer le temps” ought to be deleted.
Concerning the licensed wares, the requesting party argues that the evidence fails to show use with each of those wares. Further, it adds that any use shown is not of the trade-mark as registered and not use accruing to the registered owner pursuant to Section 50.
I agree that the evidence fails to show use in association with each of the licensed wares. In my view, the evidence is clearly insufficient to show use in association with the wares “appareils techniques et scientifiques pour l’électricité, l’optique, la télégraphie, le cinéma, la radio, la téléphonie, la télégraphie nommément: appareils coupe-fils, chronomètres à signal acoustique, compteurs enregistreurs sur films, appareils de déclenchement à plusieurs compteurs ou chronographes, appareils de transmission d’impulsion sans fil, appareils filmant les passages ou arrivées et les temps”. Although Mr. Stierli has indicated that the trade-mark was in use with such wares during the relevant period, merely stating that a trade-mark is in use is clearly insufficient to show use in the manner required by the Trade-marks Act. (see Plough Canada Ltd. v. Aerosol Fillers Inc., 45 C.P.R. (2d) 194 (FCTD) and 53 C.P.R. (2d) 62 (FCA)). Accordingly, I conclude that such wares ought to be deleted from the trade-mark registration.
However, I find it is sufficient concerning the wares “compteurs et chronographes qui servent au chronométrage sportif” et “appareils techniques et scientifiques pour l’électricité, l’optique, la télégraphie, le cinéma, la radio, la téléphonie, la télégraphie, nommément: cellules photo-électriques, portail à contact, compteurs enregistreurs sur bande de papier, pistolets de start à contact électriques”. I am satisfied that the Lefebvre affidavit is sufficient to permit me to conclude that sales of such wares were made during the relevant period in Canada and that the use shown complied with the requirements of Section 4(1) of the Act. However, the requesting party has submitted that with respect to the wares “appareils techniques et scientifiques pour l’électricité, l’optique, la télégraphie, le cinéma, la radio, la téléphonie, la télégraphie, nommément: cellules photo-électriques, portail à contact, compteurs enregistreurs sur bande de papier, pistolets de start à contact électriques” if it is determined that use has occurred and that such use is of the registered trade-mark and accrues to the registrant, then it should be made clear in the registration that these wares are “sports timing devices” or devices all for use in sport. The registrant argued that the Registrar does not have the authority to limit a particular statement of wares where use with such wares has been shown. I agree with the registrant’s contention and I rely on Lander Co. Canada Limited v. Scott Paper Company [June 12, 1997], trade-mark SCOTT & Design, Registration No. TMA 377,051, 67 C.P.R. (3d) 274, and Shapiro Cohen v. Trapeze Software Inc., 8 C.P.R. (4th) 409. Here as both Mr. Stierli and Mr. Lefebvre have characterized the products sold as “appareils techniques et scientifiques pour l’électricité, l’optique, la télégraphie, le cinéma, la radio, la téléphonie et la télégraphie” I accept that the products sold are items belonging to this category. Therefore, I conclude that as use has been shown with wares belonging to such category, I have no authority to limit the category in question.
The next issue is whether the use shown in association with the wares mentioned in the preceding paragraph is of the registered trade-mark “per se”.
The trade-mark shown to be in use with such wares is as follows:
The requesting party argues that the above-mentioned trade-mark does not constitute use of the registered trade-mark “per se”. It submits that as the name of the licensee is Omega Electronics SA and as such name appears at the bottom of each invoice and on the literature, the customer dealing with Omega Electronics SA would likely perceive the trade-mark as being OMEGA ELECTRONICS & Design rather than OMEGA & Design as it would probably make the association between the trade-mark and such entity. The requesting party has a point, however, having regard to the evidence as a whole, I am not convinced that the trade-mark OMEGA & Design “per se” would not be perceived also as the trade-mark being used. The word “electronics” is descriptive and further it appears in a size which differs from the word OMEGA and the Greek letter Ω, and it is separated from the trade-mark OMEGA & Design by a line of oblongs. It seems the trade-mark OMEGA & Design stands out sufficiently from the additional matter as to be perceived as a distinct trade-mark. Consequently, I conclude that the use shown is of OMEGA & Design “per se”. The requesting party relied on decisions of the United Kingdom Trade Marks Registry in Revocation proceedings of Registration No. 699057 (particularly paragraph 41 of that decision) and Registration No. 1456848 (in particular, paragraph 51 thereof) in support of its argument that the use shown does not constitute use of the registered trade-mark. I have reviewed those decisions, however, I find them of no help here. The comments made in those paragraphs are clearly obiter and, therefore, are of no weight in this proceeding.
The final issue is whether the use shown by Omega Electronics SA enured to the registrant. Contrary to the requesting party’s contentions, I am of the view that the evidence is sufficient, for purposes of Section 45, to permit me to conclude that the use by Omega Electronics SA was in compliance with Section 50(1) of the Trade-marks Act.
It is clear from the evidence that the registrant has licensed Omega Electronics SA to use the trade-mark in association with the above-mentioned wares (paragraph 10 of the Stierli affidavit). As properly argued by the registrant, and consistent with the jurisprudence, there is no requirement that a license be in writing (see Quarry Corp. Ltd. v. Bacardi & Co., 72 C.P.R. (3d) 25 and 86 C.P.R. (3d) 127). Concerning the control required, for purposes of Section 45, so long as the use is under license and there is a statement in the affidavit that the owner has direct or indirect control over the character and quality of the wares and/or the services, the Registrar will, in the absence of indications to the contrary, accept that the use is in compliance with Section 50 of the Act (see Sara Lee Corp. v. Intellectual Property Holding Co., 76 C.P.R. (3d) 71, Fitzsimmons, MacFarlane v. Caitlin Financial Corp. N.V., 79 C.P.R. (3d) 154 at 57, Sim & McBurney v. Lesage Inc., 67 C.P.R. (3d) 571 and the Federated Department Stores Inc. v. John Forsyth Co., 10 C.P.R. (4th) 571). Here, I am of the view that it can be concluded from the statements contained in paragraphs 10, 12, 13 and 31of the Stierli affidavit that the registrant had direct control over the character and quality of the wares manufactured by Omega Electronics SA. Consequently, I am satisfied that any use by Omega Electronics SA enured to the registered owner. As for the sales by Servtrotech Inc., it is clear from the evidence that such company is merely a “distributor” for the wares emanating from Omega Electronics SA. Consequently, I conclude that the use shown in association with the above-mentioned wares accrued to the registered owner.
In view of the above, I conclude that the wares “compteurs et chronographes qui servent au chronométrage sportif; et appareils techniques et scientifiques pour l’électricité, l’optique, la télégraphie, le cinéma, la radio, la téléphonie, la télégraphie nommément: la cellules photo-électriques, portails à contact, compteurs enregistreurs sur bande de papier, pistolets de start à contacts électriques” also ought to be maintained on the registration.
CONCLUSION
In view of the evidence furnished I conclude that Registration No. TMDA 05009 ought to be amended so that the statement of wares read:
(1) montres et boîtes pour montres;
(2) chaînes de montres, outils et accessoires ainsi que toutes fournitures et parties détachées employées dans l’horlogerie et la bijouterie y soient inclus;
(3) étuis et emballages, nommément contenants sous forme de housses en tissus et boîte; compteurs et chronographes qui servent au chronométrage sportif; et appareils techniques et scientifiques pour l’électricité, l’optique, la télégraphie, le cinéma, la radio, la téléphonie, la télégraphie, nommément cellules photo-électriques, portails à contact, compteurs enregistreurs sur bande de papier, pistolets de start à contacts électriques.
Registration No. TMDA05009 will be amended accordingly in compliance with the provisions of Section 45(5) of the Act.
DATED AT GATINEAU, QUEBEC, THIS 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2003.
D Savard
Senior Hearing Officer
Section 45