Ottawa Athletic Club Inc. (Ottawa Athletic Club) v. Athletic Club Group Inc.

Ottawa Athletic Club Inc. (Ottawa Athletic Club) v. Athletic Club Group Inc.
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2014-07-09
Neutral citation
2014 FC 672
File numbers
T-1396-11
Decision Content
Date: 20140709
Docket: T-1396-11
Citation: 2014 FC 672
Ottawa, Ontario, July 9, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell
BETWEEN:
OTTAWA ATHLETIC CLUB INC
D.B.A. THE OTTAWA ATHLETIC CLUB
Applicant
and
THE ATHLETIC CLUB GROUP INC. AND
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE-MARKS
Respondents
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
INTRODUCTION [1] This is an application under s. 57 of the Trade-marks Act, RSC, 1985, c T-13 [Act] to strike a trade-mark from the register kept under s. 26 of the Act [Register], or in the alternative to amend the Register to narrow the scope of the registration. The Applicant also requests a prohibition on any future use of the allegedly invalid trade-mark or its common law equivalent on the grounds that it offends ss. 10 and 11 of the Act. The trade-mark in question bears the registration number TMA633,422 and was registered on February 22, 2005 [Registration]. The Respondent, the Athletic Club Group Inc. [Athletic Club, or Respondent] is the registered owner.
BACKGROUND [2] The Applicant, the Ottawa Athletic Club [OAC, or Applicant], has been operating a fitness facility in Ottawa since at least 1976 offering a range of athletic and fitness services. It claims to have used the trade name and trade-mark “Ottawa Athletic Club” continuously since that time.
[3] The Respondent, the Athletic Club (or its predecessors in title), established its first fitness facility in London, Ontario in 1997, and has since opened facilities in Amherstburg (1999), Brantford (2001), Guelph (2006), Kingsville (2001), Thunder Bay (2004), Waterloo (2011) and Ottawa, as well as a second facility in London (2000). The Respondent opened its “Ottawa-Orleans” facility in November 2010, and its “Ottawa-Trainyards” facility in February 2011.
[4] In July 2003, one of the Respondent’s current directors and shareholders, Alan Quesnel, applied to register the trade-mark in question, THE ATHLETIC CLUB & DESIGN [Athletic Club Trade-mark, or the Trade-mark], which appears as follows:
[5] The registration was completed on February 22, 2005, with Mr. Quesnel as the initial Registrant. Title to the Trade-mark was later transferred to a partnership between Mr. Quesnel and Mr. David Wu, another current director and shareholder of the Respondent, and was eventually transferred to the Respondent corporation, The Athletic Club Group Inc, on September 21, 2009, after being briefly held by related numbered companies.
[6] The Respondent claims that it (and its predecessors in title) has used the Trade-mark in association with its services continuously since 1997. The Trade-mark was registered in connection with the following services:
Restaurant services; snack bar services; operation of a facility for fitness training and/or weight training; operation of a facility for aerobics; personal training services; conducting dance classes; operation of a retail store selling sporting goods, men's and women's clothing, health foods and health supplements; fitness assessment services; conducting exercise, fitness and aerobics classes; operation of a tanning facility.
[7] The Registration includes the following disclaimer: “The right to the exclusive use of the words ATHLETIC CLUB is disclaimed apart from the trade-mark.”
[8] The Applicant seeks to have the Trade-mark expunged on a number of grounds, including that it is confusing with the Applicant’s own trade name and trade-mark, which had been in use for 21 years when the Respondent began using the Athletic Club Trade-mark.
[9] The Applicant has filed its own trade-mark application, for “OAC & design” [OAC Trade-mark], which the Respondent is opposing. It bears application number 1,421,086 and appears as follows:
[10] The Applicant claims that the OAC Trade-mark has been used in relation to:
The operation of a fitness club; conducting fitness classes; operation of a racquet club, namely tennis, squash and racquetball; and operation of an aquatics facility since at least as early as 1983; Personal training services since at least as early as 1989; Operation of an indoor golf facility since at least as early as 1995; Operation of summer sports camps since at least as early as 1993.
[11] Under s. 57 of the Act, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction to consider applications to strike or amend entries in the Register. Only a “person interested” can bring such an application, but this is a broad category that includes anyone who is or reasonably apprehends that they may be affected by the registration, and a de minimus threshold applies (see Omega Engineering, Inc v Omega SA, 2006 FC 1472 at para 11 [Omega Engineering]). There is no dispute here that the Applicant is a “person interested” as defined in the Act.
[12] The Applicant seeks a declaration that the Athletic Club Trade-mark is invalid, an order under s. 57(1) of the Act striking (or in the alterative amending) the registration for the Athletic Club Trade-mark on the grounds that it does not accurately express or define the existing rights of the registered owner, and an order pursuant to ss. 53.2, 10 and 11 of the Act that the Respondent be permanently prohibited from using, directly or via licence, the Athletic Club Trade-mark and its common law equivalent.
[13] While framed as an application, an expungement proceeding under s. 57 of the Act is neither a judicial review nor an appeal, but rather an exercise of the Court’s original jurisdiction. There is therefore no standard of review to be applied. The Court is to approach the issues with a fresh mind: see Roger T. Hughes, Toni Polson Ashton & Neal Armstrong, Hughes on Trade Marks, 2nd ed (looseleaf, rel 35-8/2013) (Markham, LexisNexis Canada, 2005) at 817-18 [Hughes on Trade Marks]; CIBC World Markets Inc v Stenner Financial Services Ltd, 2010 FC 397at para 18; General Motors of Canada v Décarie Motors Inc, [2001] 1 FC 665 (CA) at para 31; Emall.ca Inc (cob Cheaptickets.ca) v Cheap Tickets and Travel Inc, 2007 FC 243 at para 11, aff’d 2008 FCA 50 [Cheaptickets].
ISSUES [14] The Applicant raises the following issues in this application:
(a) Is the Athletic Club Trade-mark invalid under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act on the basis that:
(i) On the date of registration (February 22, 2005) the Trade-mark was clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive in the English language of the character or quality of the services in association with which the trade-mark was used, contrary to s. 12(1)(b) of the Act;
(ii) On the date of registration the Trade-mark was not distinctive as defined in s. 2 of the Act;
(iii) On the date of registration the Trade-mark was the name in any language of any of the services in connection with which it was used, contrary to s. 12(1)(c) of the Act; or
(iv) On the alleged date of first use and adoption (December 31, 1997) the Trade-mark designated the kind of services associated with it, contrary to s. 12(1)(e) and ss. 10 and 11 of the Act?
(b) Is the Athletic Club Trade-mark invalid under s. 18(1)(b) of the Act on the basis that:
(i) On the date of the Notice of Application in this matter (August 29, 2011) the Trade-mark was not distinctive, contrary to s. 2 of the Act?
(c) Is the Athletic Club Trade-mark invalid under s. 18(1) of the Act on the basis that:
(i) On the alleged date of first use (December 31, 1997), the Trade-mark was confusing with a previously used trade name / trade-mark (namely, the Ottawa Athletic Club), contrary to s. 16(1)(a) and 16(1)(c) of the Act?
(d) In the alternative, should the registration for the Athletic Club Trade-mark be amended by striking out some of the services listed; and
(e) Should the Respondent be permanently prohibited from using, directly or via licence, the Athletic Club Trade-mark and its common law equivalent, pursuant to ss. 53.2, 10 and 11 of the Act?
STATUTORY PROVISIONS [15] The following provisions of the Act are applicable in these proceedings:
Definitions
2. In this Act,
[…]
Définitions
2. Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente loi.
[…]
“confusing”
“confusing”, when applied as an adjective to a trade-mark or trade-name, means a trade-mark or trade-name the use of which would cause confusion in the manner and circumstances described in section 6;
[…]
« créant de la confusion »
« créant de la confusion » Relativement à une marque de commerce ou un nom commercial, s’entend au sens de l’article 6.
[…]
“distinctive”
“distinctive”, in relation to a trade-mark, means a trade-mark that actually distinguishes the wares or services in association with which it is used by its owner from the wares or services of others or is adapted so to distinguish them;
[…]
« distinctive »
« distinctive » Relativement à une marque de commerce, celle qui distingue véritablement les marchandises ou services en liaison avec lesquels elle est employée par son propriétaire, des marchandises ou services d’autres propriétaires, ou qui est adaptée à les distinguer ainsi.
[…]
“person interested”
“person interested” includes any person who is affected or reasonably apprehends that he may be affected by any entry in the register, or by any act or omission or contemplated act or omission under or contrary to this Act, and includes the Attorney General of Canada;
[…]
« personne intéressée »
« personne intéressée » Sont assimilés à une personne intéressée le procureur général du Canada et quiconque est atteint ou a des motifs valables d’appréhender qu’il sera atteint par une inscription dans le registre, ou par tout acte ou omission, ou tout acte ou omission projeté, sous le régime ou à l’encontre de la présente loi.
[…]
“trade-mark”
“trade-mark” means
(a) a mark that is used by a person for the purpose of distinguishing or so as to distinguish wares or services manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by him from those manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by others,
(b) a certification mark,
(c) a distinguishing guise, or
(d) a proposed trade-mark;
[…]
« marque de commerce »
Selon le cas :
a) marque employée par une personne pour distinguer, ou de façon à distinguer, les marchandises fabriquées, vendues, données à bail ou louées ou les services loués ou exécutés, par elle, des marchandises fabriquées, vendues, données à bail ou louées ou des services loués ou exécutés, par d’autres;
b) marque de certification;
c) signe distinctif;
d) marque de commerce projetée.
[…]
“trade-name”
“trade-name” means the name under which any business is carried on, whether or not it is the name of a corporation, a partnership or an individual;
[…]
« nom commercial »
« nom commercial » Nom sous lequel une entreprise est exercée, qu’il s’agisse ou non d’une personne morale, d’une société de personnes ou d’un particulier.
[…]
When deemed to be adopted
3. A trade-mark is deemed to have been adopted by a person when that person or his predecessor in title commenced to use it in Canada or to make it known in Canada or, if that person or his predecessor had not previously so used it or made it known, when that person or his predecessor filed an application for its registration in Canada.
[…]
Quand une marque de commerce est réputée adoptée
3. Une marque de commerce est réputée avoir été adoptée par une personne, lorsque cette personne ou son prédécesseur en titre a commencé à l’employer au Canada ou à l’y faire connaître, ou, si la personne ou le prédécesseur en question ne l’avait pas antérieurement ainsi employée ou fait connaître, lorsque l’un d’eux a produit une demande d’enregistrement de cette marque au Canada.
[…]
When mark or name confusing
6. (1) For the purposes of this Act, a trade-mark or trade-name is confusing with another trade-mark or trade-name if the use of the first mentioned trade-mark or trade-name would cause confusion with the last mentioned trade-mark or trade-name in the manner and circumstances described in this section.
Quand une marque ou un nom crée de la confusion
6. (1) Pour l’application de la présente loi, une marque de commerce ou un nom commercial crée de la confusion avec une autre marque de commerce ou un autre nom commercial si l’emploi de la marque de commerce ou du nom commercial en premier lieu mentionnés cause de la confusion avec la marque de commerce ou le nom commercial en dernier lieu mentionnés, de la manière et dans les circonstances décrites au présent article.
Idem
Idem
(2) The use of a trade-mark causes confusion with another trade-mark if the use of both trade-marks in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference that the wares or services associated with those trade-marks are manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by the same person, whether or not the wares or services are of the same general class.
(2) L’emploi d’une marque de commerce crée de la confusion avec une autre marque de commerce lorsque l’emploi des deux marques de commerce dans la même région serait susceptible de faire conclure que les marchandises liées à ces marques de commerce sont fabriquées, vendues, données à bail ou louées, ou que les services liés à ces marques sont loués ou exécutés, par la même personne, que ces marchandises ou ces services soient ou non de la même catégorie générale.
Idem
Idem
(3) The use of a trade-mark causes confusion with a trade-name if the use of both the trade-mark and trade-name in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference that the wares or services associated with the trade-mark and those associated with the business carried on under the trade-name are manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by the same person, whether or not the wares or services are of the same general class.
(3) L’emploi d’une marque de commerce crée de la confusion avec un nom commercial, lorsque l’emploi des deux dans la même région serait susceptible de faire conclure que les marchandises liées à cette marque et les marchandises liées à l’entreprise poursuivie sous ce nom sont fabriquées, vendues, données à bail ou louées, ou que les services liés à cette marque et les services liés à l’entreprise poursuivie sous ce nom sont loués ou exécutés, par la même personne, que ces marchandises ou services soient ou non de la même catégorie générale.
Idem
Idem
(4) The use of a trade-name causes confusion with a trade-mark if the use of both the trade-name and trade-mark in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference that the wares or services associated with the business carried on under the trade-name and those associated with the trade-mark are manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by the same person, whether or not the wares or services are of the same general class.
(4) L’emploi d’un nom commercial crée de la confusion avec une marque de commerce, lorsque l’emploi des deux dans la même région serait susceptible de faire conclure que les marchandises liées à l’entreprise poursuivie sous ce nom et les marchandises liées à cette marque sont fabriquées, vendues, données à bail ou louées, ou que les services liés à l’entreprise poursuivie sous ce nom et les services liés à cette marque sont loués ou exécutés, par la même personne, que ces marchandises ou services soient ou non de la même catégorie générale.
What to be considered
(5) In determining whether trade-marks or trade-names are confusing, the court or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall have regard to all the surrounding circumstances including
(a) the inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks or trade-names and the extent to which they have become known;
(b) the length of time the trade-marks or trade-names have been in use;
(c) the nature of the wares, services or business;
(d) the nature of the trade; and
(e) the degree of resemblance between the trade-marks or trade-names in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them.
[…]
Éléments d’appréciation
(5) En décidant si des marques de commerce ou des noms commerciaux créent de la confusion, le tribunal ou le registraire, selon le cas, tient compte de toutes les circonstances de l’espèce, y compris :
a) le caractère distinctif inhérent des marques de commerce ou noms commerciaux, et la mesure dans laquelle ils sont devenus connus;
b) la période pendant laquelle les marques de commerce ou noms commerciaux ont été en usage;
c) le genre de marchandises, services ou entreprises;
d) la nature du commerce;
e) le degré de ressemblance entre les marques de commerce ou les noms commerciaux dans la présentation ou le son, ou dans les idées qu’ils suggèrent.
[…]
Further prohibitions
10. Where any mark has by ordinary and bona fide commercial usage become recognized in Canada as designating the kind, quality, quantity, destination, value, place of origin or date of production of any wares or services, no person shall adopt it as a trade-mark in association with such wares or services or others of the same general class or use it in a way likely to mislead, nor shall any person so adopt or so use any mark so nearly resembling that mark as to be likely to be mistaken therefor.
[…]
Autres interdictions
10. Si une marque, en raison d’une pratique commerciale ordinaire et authentique, devient reconnue au Canada comme désignant le genre, la qualité, la quantité, la destination, la valeur, le lieu d’origine ou la date de production de marchandises ou services, nul ne peut l’adopter comme marque de commerce en liaison avec ces marchandises ou services ou autres de la même catégorie générale, ou l’employer d’une manière susceptible d’induire en erreur, et nul ne peut ainsi adopter ou employer une marque dont la ressemblance avec la marque en question est telle qu’on pourrait vraisemblablement les confondre.
[…]
Further prohibitions
11. No person shall use in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise, any mark adopted contrary to section 9 or 10 of this Act or section 13 or 14 of the Unfair Competition Act, chapter 274 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952.
[…]
Autres interdictions
11. Nul ne peut employer relativement à une entreprise, comme marque de commerce ou autrement, une marque adoptée contrairement à l’article 9 ou 10 de la présente loi ou contrairement à l’article 13 ou 14 de la Loi sur la concurrence déloyale, chapitre 274 des Statuts revisés du Canada de 1952.
[…]
When trade-mark registrable
12. (1) Subject to section 13, a trade-mark is registrable if it is not
[…]
(b) whether depicted, written or sounded, either clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive in the English or French language of the character or quality of the wares or services in association with which it is used or proposed to be used or of the conditions of or the persons employed in their production or of their place of origin;
(c) the name in any language of any of the wares or services in connection with which it is used or proposed to be used;
[…]
(e) a mark of which the adoption is prohibited by section 9 or 10;
[…]
Marque de commerce enregistrable
12. (1) Sous réserve de l’article 13, une marque de commerce est enregistrable sauf dans l’un ou l’autre des cas suivants :
[…]
b) qu’elle soit sous forme graphique, écrite ou sonore, elle donne une description claire ou donne une description fausse et trompeuse, en langue française ou anglaise, de la nature ou de la qualité des marchandises ou services en liaison avec lesquels elle est employée, ou à l’égard desquels on projette de l’employer, ou des conditions de leur production, ou des personnes qui les produisent, ou du lieu d’origine de ces marchandises ou services;
c) elle est constituée du nom, dans une langue, de l’une des marchandises ou de l’un des services à l’égard desquels elle est employée, ou à l’égard desquels on projette de l’employer;
[…]
e) elle est une marque dont l’article 9 ou 10 interdit l’adoption;
[…]
Idem
Idem
(2) A trade-mark that is not registrable by reason of paragraph (1)(a) or (b) is registrable if it has been so used in Canada by the applicant or his predecessor in title as to have become distinctive at the date of filing an application for its registration.
[…]
(2) Une marque de commerce qui n’est pas enregistrable en raison de l’alinéa (1)a) ou b) peut être enregistrée si elle a été employée au Canada par le requérant ou son prédécesseur en titre de façon à être devenue distinctive à la date de la production d’une demande d’enregistrement la concernant.
[…]
Registration of marks used or made known in Canada
16. (1) Any applicant who has filed an application in accordance with section 30 for registration of a trade-mark that is registrable and that he or his predecessor in title has used in Canada or made known in Canada in association with wares or services is entitled, subject to section 38, to secure its registration in respect of those wares or services, unless at the date on which he or his predecessor in title first so used it or made it known it was confusing with
(a) a trade-mark that had been previously used in Canada or made known in Canada by any other person;
(b) a trade-mark in respect of which an application for registration had been previously filed in Canada by any other person; or
(c) a trade-name that had been previously used in Canada by any other person.
[…]
Enregistrement des marques employées ou révélées au Canada
16. (1) Tout requérant qui a produit une demande selon l’article 30 en vue de l’enregistrement d’une marque de commerce qui est enregistrable et que le requérant ou son prédécesseur en titre a employée ou fait connaître au Canada en liaison avec des marchandises ou services, a droit, sous réserve de l’article 38, d’en obtenir l’enregistrement à l’égard de ces marchandises ou services, à moins que, à la date où le requérant ou son prédécesseur en titre l’a en premier lieu ainsi employée ou révélée, elle n’ait créé de la confusion :
a) soit avec une marque de commerce antérieurement employée ou révélée au Canada par une autre personne;
b) soit avec une marque de commerce à l’égard de laquelle une demande d’enregistrement avait été antérieurement produite au Canada par une autre personne;
c) soit avec un nom commercial qui avait été antérieurement employé au Canada par une autre personne.
[…]
Effect of registration in relation to previous use, etc.
17. (1) No application for registration of a trade-mark that has been advertised in accordance with section 37 shall be refused and no registration of a trade-mark shall be expunged or amended or held invalid on the ground of any previous use or making known of a confusing trade-mark or trade-name by a person other than the applicant for that registration or his predecessor in title, except at the instance of that other person or his successor in title, and the burden lies on that other person or his successor to establish that he had not abandoned the confusing trade-mark or trade-name at the date of advertisement of the applicant’s application.
Effet de l’enregistrement relativement à l’emploi antérieur, etc.
17. (1) Aucune demande d’enregistrement d’une marque de commerce qui a été annoncée selon l’article 37 ne peut être refusée, et aucun enregistrement d’une marque de commerce ne peut être radié, modifié ou tenu pour invalide, du fait qu’une personne autre que l’auteur de la demande d’enregistrement ou son prédécesseur en titre a antérieurement employé ou révélé une marque de commerce ou un nom commercial créant de la confusion, sauf à la demande de cette autre personne ou de son successeur en titre, et il incombe à cette autre personne ou à son successeur d’établir qu’il n’avait pas abandonné cette marque de commerce ou ce nom commercial créant de la confusion, à la date de l’annonce de la demande du requérant.
When registration incontestable
(2) In proceedings commenced after the expiration of five years from the date of registration of a trade-mark or from July 1, 1954, whichever is the later, no registration shall be expunged or amended or held invalid on the ground of the previous use or making known referred to in subsection (1), unless it is established that the person who adopted the registered trade-mark in Canada did so with knowledge of that previous use or making known.
Quand l’enregistrement est incontestable
(2) Dans des procédures ouvertes après l’expiration de cinq ans à compter de la date d’enregistrement d’une marque de commerce ou à compter du 1er juillet 1954, en prenant la date qui est postérieure à l’autre, aucun enregistrement ne peut être radié, modifié ou jugé invalide du fait de l’utilisation ou révélation antérieure mentionnée au paragraphe (1), à moins qu’il ne soit établi que la personne qui a adopté au Canada la marque de commerce déposée l’a fait alors qu’elle était au courant de cette utilisation ou révélation antérieure.
When registration invalid
18. (1) The registration of a trade-mark is invalid if
(a) the trade-mark was not registrable at the date of registration,
(b) the trade-mark is not distinctive at the time proceedings bringing the validity of the registration into question are commenced, or
(c) the trade-mark has been abandoned,
and subject to section 17, it is invalid if the applicant for registration was not the person entitled to secure the registration.
Quand l’enregistrement est invalide
18. (1) L’enregistrement d’une marque de commerce est invalide dans les cas suivants :
a) la marque de commerce n’était pas enregistrable à la date de l’enregistrement;
b) la marque de commerce n’est pas distinctive à l’époque où sont entamées les procédures contestant la validité de l’enregistrement;
c) la marque de commerce a été abandonnée.
Sous réserve de l’article 17, l’enregistrement est invalide si l’auteur de la demande n’était pas la personne ayant droit de l’obtenir.
Exception
(2) No registration of a trade-mark that had been so used in Canada by the registrant or his predecessor in title as to have become distinctive at the date of registration shall be held invalid merely on the ground that evidence of the distinctiveness was not submitted to the competent authority or tribunal before the grant of the registration.
[…]
Exception
(2) Nul enregistrement d’une marque de commerce qui était employée au Canada par l’inscrivant ou son prédécesseur en titre, au point d’être devenue distinctive à la date d’enregistrement, ne peut être considéré comme invalide pour la seule raison que la preuve de ce caractère distinctif n’a pas été soumise à l’autorité ou au tribunal compétent avant l’octroi de cet enregistrement.
[…]
Disclaimer
35. The Registrar may require an applicant for registration of a trade-mark to disclaim the right to the exclusive use apart from the trade-mark of such portion of the trade-mark as is not independently registrable, but the disclaimer does not prejudice or affect the applicant’s rights then existing or thereafter arising in the disclaimed matter, nor does the disclaimer prejudice or affect the applicant’s right to registration on a subsequent application if the disclaimed matter has then become distinctive of the applicant’s wares or services.
[…]
Désistement
35. Le registraire peut requérir celui qui demande l’enregistrement d’une marque de commerce de se désister du droit à l’usage exclusif, en dehors de la marque de commerce, de telle partie de la marque qui n’est pas indépendamment enregistrable. Ce désistement ne porte pas préjudice ou atteinte aux droits du requérant, existant alors ou prenant naissance par la suite, dans la matière qui fait l’objet du désistement, ni ne porte préjudice ou atteinte au droit que possède le requérant à l’enregistrement lors d’une demande subséquente si la matière faisant l’objet du désistement est alors devenue distinctive des marchandises ou services du requérant.
[…]
Power of court to grant relief
53.2 Where a court is satisfied, on application of any interested person, that any act has been done contrary to this Act, the court may make any order that it considers appropriate in the circumstances, including an order providing for relief by way of injunction and the recovery of damages or profits and for the destruction, exportation or other disposition of any offending wares, packages, labels and advertising material and of any dies used in connection therewith.
[…]
Pouvoir du tribunal d’accorder une réparation
53.2 Lorsqu’il est convaincu, sur demande de toute personne intéressée, qu’un acte a été accompli contrairement à la présente loi, le tribunal peut rendre les ordonnances qu’il juge indiquées, notamment pour réparation par voie d’injonction ou par recouvrement de dommages-intérêts ou de profits, pour l’imposition de dommages punitifs, ou encore pour la disposition par destruction, exportation ou autrement des marchandises, colis, étiquettes et matériel publicitaire contrevenant à la présente loi et de toutes matrices employées à leur égard.
[…]
Jurisdiction of Federal Court
55. The Federal Court has jurisdiction to entertain any action or proceeding for the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Act or of any right or remedy conferred or defined thereby.
[…]
Juridiction de la Cour fédérale
55. La Cour fédérale peut connaître de toute action ou procédure en vue de l’application de la présente loi ou d’un droit ou recours conféré ou défini par celle-ci.
[…]
Exclusive jurisdiction of Federal Court
57. (1) The Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction, on the application of the Registrar or of any person interested, to order that any entry in the register be struck out or amended on the ground that at the date of the application the entry as it appears on the register does not accurately express or define the existing rights of the person appearing to be the registered owner of the mark.
[…]
Juridiction exclusive de la Cour fédérale
57. (1) La Cour fédérale a une compétence initiale exclusive, sur demande du registraire ou de toute personne intéressée, pour ordonner qu’une inscription dans le registre soit biffée ou modifiée, parce que, à la date de cette demande, l’inscription figurant au registre n’exprime ou ne définit pas exactement les droits existants de la personne paraissant être le propriétaire inscrit de la marque.
[…]
ARGUMENT Applicant [16] The Applicant argues that the Athletic Club Trade-mark is invalid for essentially three reasons: it was not registrable on the date of registration, based on several alleged grounds (s.18(1)(a)); it was not distinctive at the time the present proceeding was commenced (s.18(1)(b)); and, at the time it was first used, it was confusing with a previously used trade-mark or trade name, such that the Respondent was not “the person entitled to secure the registration” (ss. 6, 16(1) and 18(1)).
Trade-mark confusing with a previously used trade-mark or trade name [17] The Applicant argues that the Athletic Club Trade-mark is, and was at the time of its first use, confusing with the OAC’s long-established trade name and Trade-mark, and is therefore invalid pursuant to s. 18(1) of the Act.
[18] Subsection 18(1) states that a trade-mark is invalid “if the applicant for registration was not the person entitled to secure the registration.” The Applicant says a trade-mark applicant is not entitled to register a trade-mark (or to retain their registration when subsequently challenged) if, on the date they first used it, the trade-mark was confusing with either a trade-mark (s.16(1)(a)) or a trade name (s. 16(1)(c)) previously used in Canada by any other person.
[19] The Applicant argues that the OAC has made continuous and widespread use of the trade name / trade-mark “Ottawa Athletic Club” to advertise its services since 1976, including through signage, community sponsorships, program guides, promotional items, radio advertisements, yellow pages, trades shows, websites and more. This precedes the Respondent’s use of the Athletic Club Trade-mark by 21 years. The OAC is a landmark in the sports and fitness industry and enjoys an excellent reputation.
[20] The Applicant says there is ample evidence that the Athletic Club Trade-mark is confusing with the OAC trade name and trade-mark, and argues the following with respect to the criteria for confusion set out in s. 6(5) of the Act:
(a) inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks or trade-names and the extent to which they have become known: the Athletic Club Trade-mark is clearly descriptive and therefore not distinctive, while the OAC operated and used its trade-mark / trade name for 21 years before the Respondent began using its Trade-mark;
(b) the length of time the trade-marks or trade-names have been in use: see above;
(c) the nature of the wares, services or business: the parties’ respective trade-marks are used in association with the same services;
(d) the nature of the trade: the trade-marks are used in the same trade; and
(e) the degree of resemblance between the trade-marks or trade-names in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them: the words used in the parties’ trade-marks are almost identical – they sound alike and the ideas suggested by them are the same.
[21] The Applicant sites a number of examples of actual confusion, including:
• Members of the public calling the OAC believing that it and the Respondent are one and the same, or expressing surprise that they are two different companies;
• Members of the public calling the OAC or tweeting on their Twitter accounts with respect to promotions or activities of the Respondent;
• Members of the public mistakenly sending job applications to the OAC for positions advertised by the Respondent;
• Mistaken delivery of fitness equipment intended for the Respondent to the OAC;
• A call from a college professor to the OAC to complain of the treatment received by two of his students in interviews, when in fact these interviews were conducted by the Respondent;
• A technician arriving at OAC to perform work on athletic machinery that was in fact located at the Athletic Club;
• The United Way sending a marketing proposal to the OAC intended for the Respondent, with the latter’s Trade-mark located on the cover page; and
• Google search results for “Ottawa Athletic Club” demonstrating that the second organic result is for The Athletic Club.
[22] In addition, the Applicant says the Respondent has promoted its services using a billboard with the same stock photograph used on the OAC’s website for approximately two years, and launched a Facebook page titled “The Athletic Club in Ottawa” a year after the OAC launched its own page, titled “Ottawa Athletic Club.” The Applicant says the OAC did not receive inquiries from persons trying to reach other athletic clubs, or applying for jobs at other athletic clubs, prior to the Respondent advertising in Ottawa.
[23] The Applicant acknowledges that, pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Act, it can only seek to invalidate the Respondent’s Trade-mark based on confusion with its own trade-mark or trade name if the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Applicant’s previous use of the allegedly confusing trade-mark or trade name prior to its own adoption of the Trade-mark. This is because the Applicant brought this proceeding to expunge the Respondent’s Trade-mark more then five years after the latter was registered. However, the Applicant says that actual knowledge is established by: 1) the presence of a NUANS corporate name search in the incorporating documents of the Respondent’s predecessor company (and now subsidiary), signed by Alan Quesnel and David Wu and dated June 25, 1997, which lists the Ottawa Athletic Club; and 2) the failure of the Respondent’s affiant, Mr. Chuck Kelly, to provide satisfactory responses regarding whether Mr. Quesnel and Mr. Wu knew of this search at the time they signed those incorporating documents.
[24] The Applicant says this Court made an interlocutory order confirming that solicitor-client privilege was waived with respect to the communication of the NUANS search to the Athletic Club, its principles or shareholders by the lawyer who handled the incorporation. Despite this, the Applicant alleges, and despite questions being put and undertakings made during further cross-examination, Mr. Kelly refused to provide files or solicitor reporting letters that would clarify the point, to make appropriate inquiries of Mr. Quesnel, Mr.Wu or the incorporating lawyer, or to conduct appropriate searches of corporate records. The Respondent also refused to make Mr. Quesnel or Mr. Wu available for cross-examination, despite the fact that these two founders of the Athletic Club have the most knowledge of the origins of the Athletic Club Trade-mark and trade name.
[25] As a result of these alleged failures of the Respondent to properly respond to relevant inquiries on cross-examination, the Applicant argues that the Court should draw an adverse inference and find that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Applicant’s use of its trade name and trade-mark at least as early as June 1997. It is well established, the Applicant argues, that an adverse inference can be drawn if, without reasonable explanation, a party fails to adduce evidence available to it that could have resolved the issue: Milliken & Co v Interface Flooring Systems (Canada) Inc, [1998] 3 FC 103 at para 26 [Milliken]. In the present case, the OAC has no ability to obtain the reporting letter or invoices relating to the incorporation of the London Athletic Club Inc. except from the Respondent. The documents or information are exclusively within the knowledge of the Respondent, and in such circumstances, where the Respondent refuses to produce such evidence, the Court will infer that the facts are adverse to the Respondent’s interest: Hoffman-La Roche Ltd v Apotex Inc (1983), 145 DLR (3d) 270 (Ont SC) at para 25 [Hoffman].
Trade-mark not registrable at the date of registration [26] The Applicant asserts on a number of grounds that the Athletic Club Trade-mark was not registrable at the date of its registration, which is February 22, 2005, and is therefore invalid pursuant to s. 18(1)(a) of the Act.
Trade-mark clearly descriptive of services [27] First, the Applicant notes that under s. 12(1)(b) of the Act, a trade-mark is not registrable if it is “whether depicted, written or sounded, either clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive in the English or French language of the character or quality of the wares or services in association with which it is used or proposed to be used….” The Applicant says this provision aims to prevent traders from obtaining a monopoly over words that belong “in the public stock of commonplace words that should remain available to all traders in describing their wares or services”: Ontario Teachers Pension Plan Board v Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FCA 60 at para 37 [Ontario Teachers].
[28] The Applicant submits that whether a trade-mark is clearly descriptive is a question of first impression from the point of view of the average purchaser of those wares or services: Wool Bureau of Canada Ltd v Canada (Registrar of Trade Marks) (1978), 40 CPR (2d) 25, [1978] FCJ No 307 at paras 7, 11 (FCTD) [Wool Bureau]; Mitel Corporation v Canada (Registrar of Trade Marks) (1984), 79 CPR (2d) 202 at para 7 (FCTD) [Mitel]. It is not appropriate to carefully and critically analyze the words to determine if they have alternative implications; rather, the proper approach is “to ascertain what those words in the context in which they are used would represent to the public”: Riverside Paper Corp v First Base Inc, [1999] FCJ No 1291 at para 10 (FCTD) [Riverside Paper], quoting John Labatt Ltd v Carling Breweries Ltd (1974), 18 CPR (2d) 15. The word “clearly” in the phrase “clearly descriptive” is to be interpreted as “easy to understand, sufficient or plain” rather than “accurately” (Drackett Co of Canada Ltd v American Home Products Corp, [1968] 2 Ex CR 89 at para 21; Evert-Fresh Corp v Green Bag Pty Ltd, 2011 TMOB 236 at para 18 [Green Bag]) and de