Superior Court of Quebec Refuses Injunction in Trade-Mark Case
Superior Court of Quebec Refuses Injunction in Trade-Mark Case
Superior Court of Quebec Refuses Injunction in Trade-Mark Case
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
1<br />
SUPERIOR COURT OF QUEBEC REFUSES INJUNCTION IN TRADE-MARK CASE<br />
Stella Syrianos *<br />
LEGER ROBIC RICHARD, Lawyers<br />
ROBIC, Patent & <strong>Trade</strong>mark Agents<br />
Centre CDP Capital<br />
1001 Square-Victoria - Bloc E – 8 th Floor<br />
Montreal, <strong>Quebec</strong>, Canada H2Z 2B7<br />
Tel.: (514) 987 6242 - Fax: (514) 845 7874<br />
www.robic.ca - <strong>in</strong>fo@robic.com<br />
The <strong>Superior</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Quebec</strong> refused to grant an <strong>in</strong>junction to the Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff<br />
Illico Communication. The <strong>Court</strong> held that the services <strong>in</strong> association with the<br />
Parties’ trade-marks differed significantly, result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> its f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g that there was<br />
no risk <strong>of</strong> confusion between the trade-marks ILLICO, ILLICO<br />
COMMUNICATION and the trade-mark ILLICO (Illico Communication Inc. v.<br />
Vidéotron Ltée et al, No 500-05-067846-012, August 20 th , 2004).<br />
The facts<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff<br />
Illico Communication Inc, (here<strong>in</strong>after the “Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff”) <strong>of</strong>fers computer assisted<br />
jurisprudence searches. Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff also publishes a legal bullet<strong>in</strong> and on the<br />
Internet, publishes articles for the general public relat<strong>in</strong>g to case law searches.<br />
The vast majority <strong>of</strong> the Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff’s clientele is comprised <strong>of</strong> lawyers. Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff has<br />
been operat<strong>in</strong>g a web site s<strong>in</strong>ce 1997 allow<strong>in</strong>g ma<strong>in</strong>ly for the promotion <strong>of</strong> its<br />
services.<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff is the owner <strong>of</strong> the registered trade-mark ILLICO <strong>in</strong> association with<br />
computer assisted case law search services and the trade-mark ILLICO<br />
COMMUNICATION <strong>in</strong> association with graphics services relat<strong>in</strong>g to publicity <strong>in</strong><br />
magaz<strong>in</strong>es and banners as well as draft<strong>in</strong>g, translated and edit<strong>in</strong>g publicity texts.<br />
Defendants<br />
Vidéotron Ltée, (here<strong>in</strong>after “Videotron”), has been <strong>of</strong>fer<strong>in</strong>g digital television<br />
services and <strong>in</strong>teractive television services s<strong>in</strong>ce September 2001, under the<br />
<br />
© LEGER ROBIC RICHARD / ROBIC, 2004<br />
* Published at (December 2004),18-12 World Intellectual Property Report. Publication 142.169.<br />
Published at (November 2004), 4-11 World E-Commerce & IP Report 9 under the title 'Illico"<br />
marks For Web-Search,Digital TV Services Not Confus<strong>in</strong>gly Similar.
2<br />
name ILLICO. In July, 2001, Videotron filed trade-mark applications for the trademarks<br />
ILLICO, ILLICO.CA, ILLICO.COM and ILLICO.TV, <strong>in</strong> association with several<br />
services, amongst others, access and navigation on the Internet, transactional<br />
services as well as <strong>in</strong>teractive television services, such as access to video games,<br />
electronic messag<strong>in</strong>g. In October 2001, Videotron also filed trade-mark<br />
applications for the marks “i”LLICO design and “i”design with similar services.<br />
On September 11 th , 2001, Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff sent a cease and desist letter to the<br />
Defendants order<strong>in</strong>g them to cease use <strong>of</strong> the trade-mark ILLICO, the latter<br />
deny<strong>in</strong>g any risk <strong>of</strong> confusion between the marks at issue.<br />
On November 1 st , 2001, Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff filed an <strong>in</strong>junction before the <strong>Superior</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Quebec</strong> alleg<strong>in</strong>g trade-mark <strong>in</strong>fr<strong>in</strong>gement . On June 14 th , 2002, the Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff<br />
aquired the design mark !LLICO and the same doma<strong>in</strong> name <strong>in</strong> relation to the<br />
conception and adm<strong>in</strong>istration <strong>of</strong> web sites.<br />
Issues at bar<br />
Among the issues addressed by the <strong>Court</strong> were the follow<strong>in</strong>g:<br />
(i) Did the Defendants violate the Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff’s exclusive trade-marks rights <strong>in</strong> its<br />
mark ILLICO?<br />
(ii) Does the <strong>Superior</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Quebec</strong> have jurisdiction to declare the<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff’s trade-mark ILLICO COMMUNICATION <strong>in</strong>effective aga<strong>in</strong>st the<br />
Defendants based on lack <strong>of</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>ctive character ?<br />
(iii) Is the claim <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>effectiveness by the Defendants prescribed under the<br />
<strong>Trade</strong>-marks Act ?<br />
<strong>Superior</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Quebec</strong> Decision<br />
(i)<br />
<strong>in</strong>fr<strong>in</strong>gement<br />
On the issue <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fr<strong>in</strong>gement, the <strong>Superior</strong> <strong>Court</strong> held that the Defendants did not<br />
violate Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff’s trade-mark marks <strong>in</strong> the mark ILLICO. After review<strong>in</strong>g the criteria<br />
for confusion under the <strong>Trade</strong>-marks Act, the <strong>Court</strong> op<strong>in</strong>ed that there was no risk<br />
<strong>of</strong> confusion between the marks at issue because the services <strong>of</strong>fered by the<br />
respective parties were “dramatically different”. The <strong>Court</strong> accorded<br />
considerable weight to this criteria. On the one hand, Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff <strong>of</strong>fered case law<br />
search services to a restricted portion <strong>of</strong> the public, mostly lawyers, who<br />
accounted for 80% <strong>of</strong> its bus<strong>in</strong>ess, while on the other, Videotron <strong>of</strong>fered digital<br />
television services to the general public.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> also stated that the nature <strong>of</strong> the Parties’ trades differed. Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff<br />
<strong>of</strong>fered its search services on-l<strong>in</strong>e, by telephone or by facsimile while Videotron
3<br />
<strong>of</strong>fered services only via a subscription which also required the purchase <strong>of</strong> a<br />
decoder at specific commercial establishments.<br />
(ii)<br />
jurisdiction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Superior</strong> <strong>Court</strong><br />
On this issue, cit<strong>in</strong>g case law and doctr<strong>in</strong>e, the <strong>Court</strong> held that it had the<br />
requisite jurisdiction to declare a trade-mark <strong>in</strong>effective aga<strong>in</strong>st the Defendants.<br />
The <strong>Court</strong> stated that the Defendants did not ask the <strong>Court</strong> expunge the<br />
Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff’s mark ILLICO COMMUNICATION which lies with<strong>in</strong> the Federal <strong>Court</strong>’s<br />
exclusive jurisdiction.<br />
The Defendants sought a declaration <strong>of</strong> non-enforcibility <strong>of</strong> the mark ILLICO<br />
COMMUNICATION aga<strong>in</strong>st them based on the argument that the Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff had<br />
abandoned this mark associated with graphics and related services. The <strong>Court</strong><br />
held that there was no evidence before it that would allow for a conclusion <strong>of</strong><br />
abandonment.<br />
(iii)<br />
The issue <strong>of</strong> prescription was not addressed <strong>in</strong> light <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Court</strong>s f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
on <strong>in</strong>effectiveness.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Based on the above f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs, the <strong>Superior</strong> <strong>Court</strong> denied the Pla<strong>in</strong>tiff’s<br />
<strong>in</strong>junction request. In so do<strong>in</strong>g, this decision supports the wave <strong>of</strong><br />
jurisprudence which demonstrates that <strong>in</strong>junctions are difficult to obta<strong>in</strong>,<br />
particularly <strong>in</strong> the case where the products and/or services <strong>in</strong> question<br />
radically differ from one another. <strong>Trade</strong>-mark practitioners should err on the<br />
side <strong>of</strong> caution when contemplat<strong>in</strong>g such an action <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g wares/services<br />
which are unrelated.
4<br />
ROBIC, un groupe d'avocats et d'agents de brevets et de marques de commerce voué<br />
depuis 1892 à la protection et à la valorisation de la propriété <strong>in</strong>tellectuelle dans tous les<br />
doma<strong>in</strong>es: brevets, dess<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong>dustriels et modèles utilitaires; marques de commerce, marques<br />
de certification et appellations d'orig<strong>in</strong>e; droits d'auteur, propriété littéraire et artistique, droits<br />
vois<strong>in</strong>s et de l'artiste <strong>in</strong>terprète; <strong>in</strong>formatique, logiciels et circuits <strong>in</strong>tégrés; biotechnologies,<br />
pharmaceutiques et obtentions végétales; secrets de commerce, know-how et<br />
concurrence; licences, franchises et transferts de technologies; commerce électronique,<br />
distribution et droit des affaires; marquage, publicité et étiquetage; poursuite, litige et<br />
arbitrage; vérification diligente et audit; et ce, tant au Canada qu'ailleurs dans le monde. La<br />
maîtrise des <strong>in</strong>tangibles.<br />
ROBIC, a group <strong>of</strong> lawyers and <strong>of</strong> patent and trademark agents dedicated s<strong>in</strong>ce 1892 to the<br />
protection and the valorization <strong>of</strong> all fields <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>tellectual property: patents, <strong>in</strong>dustrial designs<br />
and utility patents; trademarks, certification marks and <strong>in</strong>dications <strong>of</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>; copyright and<br />
enterta<strong>in</strong>ment law, artists and performers, neighbour<strong>in</strong>g rights; computer, s<strong>of</strong>tware and<br />
<strong>in</strong>tegrated circuits; biotechnologies, pharmaceuticals and plant breeders; trade secrets,<br />
know-how, competition and anti-trust; licens<strong>in</strong>g, franchis<strong>in</strong>g and technology transfers; e-<br />
commerce, distribution and bus<strong>in</strong>ess law; market<strong>in</strong>g, publicity and labell<strong>in</strong>g; prosecution<br />
litigation and arbitration; due diligence; <strong>in</strong> Canada and throughout the world. Ideas live<br />
here.<br />
COPYRIGHTER<br />
IDEAS LIVE HERE<br />
IL A TOUT DE MÊME FALLU L'INVENTER!<br />
LA MAÎTRISE DES INTANGIBLES<br />
LEGER ROBIC RICHARD<br />
NOS FENÊTRES GRANDES OUVERTES SUR LE MONDE DES AFFAIRES<br />
PATENTER<br />
R<br />
ROBIC<br />
ROBIC + DROIT +AFFAIRES +SCIENCES +ARTS<br />
ROBIC ++++<br />
ROBIC +LAW +BUSINESS +SCIENCE +ART<br />
THE TRADEMARKER GROUP<br />
TRADEMARKER<br />
VOS IDÉES À LA PORTÉE DU MONDE , DES AFFAIRES À LA GRANDEUR DE LA PLANÈTE<br />
YOUR BUSINESS IS THE WORLD OF IDEAS; OUR BUSINESS BRINGS YOUR IDEAS TO THE WORLD