RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q2/CAN/1
20June1997
ORGANIZATION(97-2546)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
Canada
Thepresent document reproduces theintroductory statement made bythedelegation ofCanada,
thequestions puttoitandtheresponses given inthereview oflegislation ontrademarks, geographical
indications andindustrial designs inthecontext oftheCouncil 'smeeting of11-15 November 1996.1
_______________
I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT AND REPLY TOTHE GENERAL QUESTION
CONCERNING PRIORITY RIGHTS2
Canada hasmade asubstantial number ofamendments toitsdomestic legislation inorder to
bring itintocompliance withtheobligations intheTRIPS Agreement relating toindustrial designs,
trademarks andgeographical indications. First, asignificant number ofamendments weremade on
orprior to1January 1994 toimplement theNorth American FreeTrade Agreement, theIPchapter
ofwhichincludedmuchoftheTRIPSportionofthe1991Dunkeltext.Furtheramendments,particularly
intheareaofgeographical indications forwines andspirits, weremade intheWorld Trade Organization
Agreement Implementation Act,theintellectual property provisions ofwhich came intoforce on
1January 1996.
Withrespecttoindustrialdesigns,inordertocomplywiththeobligationsoftheParisConvention
thatareincorporated byTRIPS Article 2,theIndustrial Design Act3wasamended todelete mandatory
marking requirements, toextend thegrace period forpaying renewal feesfrom three months to
sixmonths andtoallow claims topriority tobebased onapplications previously filedinaWTO
Member. Inorder tocomply withparagraph 1ofTRIPS Article 26.1, amendments were made to
extend therights conferred ontheowner ofaprotected industrial design. Specifically, Section 11
oftheIndustrial Design Actnowprovides theowner ofaregistered design withtheexclusive right
tomake, import forthepurpose oftrade orbusiness, orsell,rent,orofferorexpose forsaleorrent,
1Theminutes ofthismeeting arecontained indocument IP/C/M/11.
2Atthemeeting oftheTRIPS Council of11-15 November 1996, Members agreed torespond tothefollowing question
inthecontext ofthepresent review (Seedocument IP/C/M/11, paragraph 43):
Does yourcountry recognize arightofpriority onthebasis ofanearlier trademark application filedinanyother WTO
Member byanational ofaWTO Member?
3Thetextofthislawandtheamendments thereto arecontained indocument IP/N/1/CAN/D/1.IP/Q2/CAN/1
Page2
anyarticle inrespect ofwhich thedesign isregistered andtowhich thedesign oradesign notdiffering
substantially therefrom hasbeenapplied.
Withrespect totrademarks, inorder tocomply withtheobligations oftheParis Convention,
theTrade-marks Act4wasamended toprovide protection foremblems ofinternational intergovernmental
organizations andtoallow claims topriority tobemade bynationals ofWTO Members. Inaccordance
withTRIPS Article 15.3, sub-section 40(3) oftheTrade-marks Actwasamended toguarantee that
where atrademark application isfiledonthebasis ofproposed use,theapplicant willhaveatleast
three years fromthefiling dateoftheapplication tofileadeclaration stating thatusehascommenced.
Tocomply withTRIPS Article 19.1, Section 45oftheTrade-marks Acthasbeenamended toallow
forcancellation onthebasisofnon-use onlyiftheowner cannot establish either useofthetrademark
within thethree-year period preceding thedateofanotice issued bytheRegistrar ofTrade-marks or
special circumstances excusing suchnon-use. Inorder toensure compliance withTRIPS Article 19.2,
theTrade-marks Acthasbeenamended todeem controlled useofatrademark byalicensee tobea
usebytheowner.
With respect togeographical indications forwines andspirits, acompletely newCanadian
statutory regime covering geographical indications forwines andspirits hasnowbeenplaced inthe
Canadian Trade-marks Act. Under thisnewregime, alistofprotected geographical indications for
wines andspirits willbekeptbytheRegistrar ofTrade-marks. Useofaprotected geographical
indication, orofitstranslation, isprohibited inrespect ofawineorspirit notoriginating intheterritory
indicatedbytheprotectedgeographicalindication.Inaddition,registrationisprohibitedofanytrademark
covering wines orspirits thatisinwhole orinpartaprotected geographical indication unless thewine
orspirit actually originates inthatgeographic area.
Protection under thenewCanadian legislation inrespect ofwines andspirits issubject toa
number ofexceptions inaccordance withTRIPS Article 24.First, there isanexception forgeneric
terms, thatisforanytermwhich iscurrently customarily usedinCanada asthename ofawineor
spirit orofagrape variety. TheActthensetsoutalistof22winenames and15spirits names which
areexplicitly exempted fromprotection, allofwhich areterms thatarealready incommon useinCanada
asgeneric terms. Other exceptions areprovided fortheusebyaperson ofhisownname, foruses
which commenced ingoodfaithbefore 15April 1994, andforsituations where atrademark hasbeen
registered orapplied forbefore 1January 1996 orbefore thegeographical indication isprotected in
itscountry oforigin.
Inorder forageographical indication toappear onthelistofprotected geographical indications,
theindication mustfirstbethesubject ofapublication intheofficial Canada Gazette bytheMinister
ofIndustry. Anadministrative application process hasbeenestablished toallow responsible authorities
torequest publication ofparticular indications intheCanada Gazette. Details ofthisprocess were
published asanIndustry NotebytheDepartment ofAgriculture andAgri-food Canada on31July1996.
Once ageographical indication hasbeenpublished intheCanada Gazette, itwillbesubject
toapossible objection procedure butonlyonthebasisthatthepublished indication isnotageographical
indication. Where ageographical indication hasbeenpublished intheCanada Gazette andeither no
objection hasbeenfiledoranyobjection hasbeendecided against theobjector orhasbeenwithdrawn,
thegeographical indication willbeentered onthelistofprotected geographical indications keptby
theRegistrar ofTrade-marks.
4Thetextofthislawandtheamendments thereto arecontained indocument IP/N/1/CAN/T/1.IP/Q2/CAN/1
Page3
II. REPLIESTOQUESTIONSPOSEDBYTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIESANDTHEIR
MEMBER STATES
1. CouldCanadaexplainindetailhowCanadianlawprotectsgeographicalindicationsforproducts
other thanwines andspirits? Isthislegislation incompliance withArticle 22oftheTRIPS Agreement?
Please explain.
Canada complies withArticle 22oftheTRIPS Agreement. TRIPS Article 22.2requires Canada
toprovide alegalmeans forinterested parties toprevent certain misleading andunfair practices. In
Canada, arightholder could bring aprivate action against aperson whomade useofamark which
waslikely tomislead thepublic astothegeographical origin ofproducts other thanwines andspirits
under sub-paragraph 7(d)(ii) oftheTrade-marks Act,which provides asfollows:
"Noperson shall...make use,inassociation withwares orservices, ofanydescription
thatisfalse inamaterial respect andlikely tomislead thepublic asto...the
geographical origin ...ofthewares orservices."
Inappropriate circumstances, arightholder could alsobring anaction under paragraph 7(b)
oftheTrade-marks Act,which provides asfollows:
"Noperson shall...(b)direct public attention tohiswares, services orbusiness in
suchawayastocause orbelikely tocause confusion inCanada, atthetimehe
commenced sotodirection attention tothem, between hiswares, services orbusiness
andthewares, services orbusiness ofanother.",
orunder sub-paragraph 7(d)(i), which provides that:
"Noperson shall ...(d)make use,inassociation withwares orservices, ofany
description thatisfalseinamaterial respect andlikely tomislead thepublic asto:
(i) thecharacter, quality, quantity orcomposition ...ofthewares
orservices;".
Another possible ground foranaction would beSection 10oftheTrade-marks Act,which
provides asfollows:
"Where anymark hasbyordinary andbonafidecommercial usage become recognized
inCanada asdesignating thekind, quality, quantity, destination, value, place oforigin
ordateofproduction ofanywares orservices, noperson shalladopt itasatrade-mark
inassociation withsuchwares orservices orothers ofthesame general classoruse
itinawaylikely tomislead, norshallanyperson soadopt orsouseanymark sonearly
resembling thatmark astobelikely tobemistaken therefore."
Ofcourse, arightholder might alsoapply toacourt toprevent theimportation intoCanada
ofgoods containing anindication ofplace oforigin thathasbeenunlawfully applied tothem under
sub-section 53(1) oftheTrade-marks Act,which provides asfollows:
"Where acourt issatisfied, onapplication ofanyinterested person, thatanyregistered
trade-mark oranytrade-name hasbeenapplied toanywares thathavebeenimported
intoCanada orareabout tobedistributed inCanada insuch amanner thatthe
distribution ofthewares would becontrary tothisAct,orthatanyindication ofaplace
oforigin hasbeenunlawfully applied toanywares, thecourt maymake anorder forIP/Q2/CAN/1
Page4
theinterim custody ofthewares, pending afinaldetermination ofthelegality oftheir
importation ordistribution inanaction commenced within suchtimeasisprescribed
bytheorder."
Ofcourse, organizations responsible forgeographical indications might avail themselves of
thecertification marks provisions oftheTrade-marks Act(ss.23-25), which provide asfollows:
"23. (1) Acertification mark maybeadopted andregistered onlybyaperson
whoisnotengaged inthemanufacture, sale, leasing orhiring ofwares orthe
performance ofservices suchasthose inassociation withwhich thecertification mark
isused.
(2) Theowner ofacertification mark maylicense others tousethemark
inassociation withwares orservices thatmeet thedefined standard, andtheuseof
themark accordingly shallbedeemed tobeusethereof bytheowner.
(3) Theowner ofaregistered certification mark mayprevent itsuseby
unlicensed persons orinassociation withanywares orservices inrespect ofwhich
themark isregistered buttowhich thelicence doesnotextend.
(4) Where theowner ofaregistered certification markisanunincorporated
body, anyaction orproceeding toprevent unauthorized useofthemarkmaybebrought
byanymember ofthatbody onbehalf ofhimself andallother members thereof.
"24. Withtheconsent oftheowner ofacertification mark, atrade-mark confusing
withthecertification mark may, ifitexhibits anappropriate difference, beregistered
bysome other person toindicate thatthewares orservices inassociation withwhich
itisusedhavebeenmanufactured, sold, leased, hired orperformed byhimasone
ofthepersons entitled tousethecertification mark, buttheregistration thereof shall
beexpunged bytheRegistrar onthewithdrawal atanytimeoftheconsent oftheowner
ofthecertification mark oronthecancellation oftheregistration ofthecertification
mark.
"25. Acertification mark descriptive oftheplace oforigin ofwares orservices,
andnotconfusing withanyregistered trade-mark, isregistrable iftheapplicant isthe
administrative authority ofacountry, state, province ormunicipality including or
forming partoftheareaindicated bythemark, orisacommercial association having
anoffice orrepresentative inthatarea, buttheowner ofanymark registered under
thisSection shallpermit theuseofthemark inassociation withanywares orservices
produced orperformed intheareaofwhich themark isdescriptive."
Inaddition, there isthepossibility ofbringing anaction forthecommon lawtortofpassing
offoranaction forthecivillawdélitdelaconfusion, délitdelasubstitution ordélitdudénigrement ,
under Article 1457oftheCivilCode ofQuebec ,(which dealswithunfair competition), which provides
asfollows:
"Every person hasadutytoabide bytherulesofconduct which lieuponhim,according
tothecircumstances, usage orlaw,soasnottocause injury toanother.
"Where heisendowed withreason andfailsinthisduty, heisresponsible forany
injury hecauses toanother person andisliable toreparation fortheinjury, whether
itbebodily, moral ormaterial innature.IP/Q2/CAN/1
Page5
"Heisalsoliable, incertain cases, toreparation forinjury caused toanother bythe
actorfaultofanother person orbytheactofthings inhiscustody."
Inaddition, prosecutions maybebrought bythestate, inresponse tocomplaints ofmisleading
advertising under Section 52oftheCompetition Actoranyprovincial consumer protection legislation.
Section 52oftheCompetition Actprovides asfollows:
"1. Noperson shall, forthepurpose ofpromoting, directly orindirectly, thesupply
oruseofaproduct orforthepurpose ofpromoting, directly orindirectly, anybusiness
interest, byanymeans whatever:
(a) make arepresentation tothepublic thatisfalseormisleading
inamaterial respect;
(b) make arepresentation tothepublic intheformofastatement,
warranty orguarantee oftheperformance, efficacy orlength
oflifeofaproduct thatisnotbased onanadequate andproper
testthereof, theproof ofwhich liesontheperson making the
representation;
(c) make arepresentation tothepublic inaformthatpurports to
be:
(i) awarranty orguarantee ofaproduct; or
(ii) apromise toreplace, maintain orrepair anarticle or
anypartthereof ortorepeat orcontinue aservice until
ithasachieved aspecified result,
iftheformofpurported warranty orguarantee orpromise ismaterially
misleading orifthere isnoreasonable prospect thatitwillbecarried
out;or
(d) make amaterially misleading representation tothepublic concerning
theprice atwhich aproduct orlikeproducts havebeen, areorwill
beordinarily sold, andforthepurposes ofthisparagraph a
representation astoprice isdeemed torefertotheprice atwhich the
product hasbeensoldbysellers generally intherelevant market unless
itisclearly specified tobethepriceatwhich theproduct hasbeensold
bytheperson bywhom oronwhose behalf therepresentation ismade.
"2. Forthepurposes ofthisSection andSection 53,arepresentation thatis:
(a) expressed onanarticle offered ordisplayed forsale, its
wrapper orcontainer;
(b) expressedonanythingattachedto,insertedinoraccompanying
anarticle offered ordisplayed forsale, itswrapper or
container, oranything onwhich thearticle ismounted for
display orsale;IP/Q2/CAN/1
Page6
(c) expressed onanin-store orother point-of-purchase display;
(d) made inthecourse ofin-store, door-to-door ortelephone
selling toaperson asultimate user; or
(e) contained inoronanything thatissold, sent, delivered,
transmitted orinanyother manner whatever made available
toamember ofthepublic,
shallbedeemed tobemade tothepublic byandonlybytheperson whocaused the
representation tobesoexpressed, made orcontained and,where thatperson isoutside
Canada, by:
(f) theperson whoimported thearticle intoCanada, inacase
described inparagraph (a),(b)or(e);and
(g) theperson whoimported thedisplay intoCanada, inacase
described inparagraph (c).
"3. Subjecttosub-section(2),everyonewho,forthepurposeofpromoting,directly
orindirectly, thesupply oruseofaproduct oranybusiness interest, supplies toa
wholesaler, retailer orother distributor ofaproduct anymaterial orthing thatcontains
arepresentation ofanature referred toinsub-section (1)shallbedeemed tohavemade
thatrepresentation tothepublic.
"4. Inanyprosecution foracontravention ofthisSection, thegeneral impression
conveyed byarepresentation aswellastheliteral meaning thereof shallbetaken into
account indetermining whether ornottherepresentation isfalseormisleading ina
material respect.
"5. Anyperson whocontravenes sub-section (1)isguilty ofanoffence andliable:
(a) onconviction onindictment, toafineinthediscretion ofthe
court ortoimprisonment foratermnotexceeding fiveyears
ortoboth; or
(b) onsummary conviction, toafinenotexceeding twenty-five
thousand dollars ortoimprisonment foratermnotexceeding
oneyearortoboth."
TRIPS Article 22.3requires Canada torefuse orinvalidate theregistration ofatrademark in
certain circumstances.
-Sub-section 12(1) oftheTrade-marks Actprovides asfollows:
"Subject toSection 13,atrade-mark isregistrable ifitisnot...
(b) whetherdepicted,writtenorsounded,eitherclearlydescriptive
ordeceptivelymisdescriptiveintheEnglishorFrenchlanguage
ofthecharacter orquality ofthewares orservices in
association withwhich itisusedorproposed tobeusedorIP/Q2/CAN/1
Page7
oftheconditionsoforthepersonsemployedintheirproduction
oroftheirplace oforigin;
...
(e) amark ofwhich theadoption isprohibited bySection 9or
10;".
-Section 10oftheTrade-marks Act(quoted above).
2. Following TRIPS Article 23.1, whatarethelegalmeans available inCanadian legislation to
prevent themisuse ofageographical indication identifying awineoraspirit, where:
(a) thetrueorigin ofthegoods isindicated?
(b) thegeographical indication isaccompanied byexpressions suchas"kind", "type",
"style", "imitation", orthelike?
Sections 11.14 and11.15 oftheTrade-marks Actcreate anabsolute baragainst theadoption
oruseofaprotected geographical indication inrespect ofawineorspirit notoriginating intheterritory
indicated bythatprotected geographical indication. Such abarwould include usesinwhich thetrue
origin ofthegoods wasindicated andusesinwhich other information -suchas“type”,“style”or
“imitation ”-wasindicated. Arightholder insuchasituation could commence anaction against the
infringer, under Section 53.2oftheActand,ifsuccessful, could obtain damages, anaccounting of
profits, andaninjunction against thatinfringer. Thisprotection isofcourse subject tovarious
exceptions, inconformity withTRIPS Article 24.
[Follow-up question from theEC]
Initsanswer toquestion 2,Canada explains thatSections 11.14 and11.15 oftheTrade-marks
Actcreate anabsolute barrier against theadoption oruseofaprotected geographical indication in
respect ofawineorspirit notoriginating intheterritory indicated bythatprotected geographical
indication. Such abanwould include usesinwhich thetrueorigin ofthegoods wasindicated and
usesinwhich other information suchas"type", "style" or"imitation" wasindicated. Could Canada
substantiate thelegal basis itgrounds thisinterpretation in?
Sections 11.14 and11.15 oftheTrade-marks Actprohibit theadoption oruseofaprotected
geographical indication inrespect ofawineorspirit notoriginating intheterritory indicated bythat
protected geographical indication. Thislanguage isverybroad andinCanada 'sviewasamatter of
ordinary statutory interpretation would include usesinwhich thetrueorigin ofthegoods wasindicated
andusesinwhich other information suchas"type", "style" or"imitation" wasindicated.
3. Under Canadian law,where arightholder ofageographical indication forwines orspirits
disputes therights ofatrademark owner, userorapplicant whoclaims hisgoodfaithunder thissub-
section, willtheburden ofproof beonthelatter (TRIPS Article 24.5)?
Under Canadian law,theburden would beontheperson opposing therightholder ’slawful
continuing useunder Section 11.17 oftheTrade-marks Act.Trademark rights involve private rights
ofaction and,inCanada ’ssystem oflitigation, thelegalburden isalways onthemoving party toprove
itscase. (However, there would beanevidentiary burden ontheparty claiming theSection 11.17
exception toprove thefactsnecessary toenable ittoclaim thebenefit ofthatexception.) ItshouldIP/Q2/CAN/1
Page8
beemphasized thatSection 11.17 isarelatively narrow section inthatitonlyprovides anexception
tothenewrights conferred bySections 11.14 and11.15 oftheTrade-marks Act.
[Follow-up question from theEC]
Initsanswer toquestion 3,Canada explains thatitshould beemphasized thatSection 11.17
isarelatively narrow section inthatitonlyprovides anexception tothenewrights conferred by
Sections 11.14 and11.15 oftheTrade-marks Act.Could Canada clarify whatitunderstands by"the
newrights"?
Sections 11.14 and11.15 oftheTrade-marks Actareintheirentirety newprovisions which
were added effective 1January 1996 inorder tocomply withTRIPS Article 23.Thereference in
Canada 'sanswer toquestion 3refers totheentirety oftherights thatareconferred bySections 11.14
and11.15 oftheTrade-marks Act.
4. CanCanada explain whether theadoption, utilisation orregistration asterms customary in
common language ofprotected geographical indications, under sub-section 11.18(2) oftheCanadian
Trade-marks Act,isinlinewiththestandstill obligation ofTRIPS Article 24.3?
The“standstill provision ”(TRIPS Article 24.3) iscontained inSection 3-Geographical
Indications. Inenacting sub-section 11.18(2) oftheTrade-marks Act,Canada complied withTRIPS
Article 24.6which, byvirtue ofitsopening words, excludes theapplication ofTRIPS Article 24.3
inthecaseofterms customary incommon language forwines andspirits andcustomary names of
grape varieties.
Moreover, sub-section 11.18(2) oftheTrade-marks Actcreates anexception (asallowed by
TRIPS Article 24.6) tothenewrights provided insub-sections 11.14 and11.15 oftheAct. Thus,
itwould havenoeffect onanyrights thatexisted forprotecting geographical indications inCanada
prior tothecoming intoforce oftheWTO Agreement.
[Follow-up question from theEC]
Could Canada clarify whether sub-section 11.18(2) oftheTrade-marks Actdoesnothaveany
effect onexisting rights forgeographical indications forwines andspirits?
Sub-section 11.18(2) oftheTrade-marks Actonlyaffects theapplication ofnewSections 11.14
and11.15 andparagraphs 12(1)(g) and(h)andhasnoeffect onanyother rights forgeographical
indications forwines andspirits.
5. Section 11.18(3) oftheCanadian Trade-marks Act,adopted intheframework oftheWTO
implementing legislation, provides foralistofindications inrespect ofwines whose registration as
geographical indications doesnotprevent theiradoption, useorregistration astrademarks orotherwise.
CanCanada substantiate itsclaim thatthenames included intheabove-mentioned listshavebecome
terms customary inthecommon language (TRIPS Article 24.6)?
Canada hasconsulted withitsindustries andisconfident that,onahistorical basis, itcan
substantiate inrespect ofeachandevery name included inthelistofsub-section 11.18(3) ofthe
Trade-marks Act,thattheyhavebecome customary inthecommon language(s) ofCanada.IP/Q2/CAN/1
Page9
[Follow-up question from theEC]
Could Canada explain whatthecriteria aretodecide whether aname asreferred toinsub-
section11.18(3)oftheTrade-marksActhasbecomecustomaryinthecommonlanguage(s)?Furthermore,
Canada states thatitcould substantiate itsanswer inrespect ofeachandevery name listed insub-section
11.18(3) thattheyhavebecome customary inthecommon language(s). Could Canada please doso?
Thecriteria todecide whether aname asreferred toinsub-section 11.18(3) hasbeencustomary
inthecommon language arethecriteria setoutinTRIPS Article 24.6. TheGovernment ofCanada
usedanumber ofmethods toconfirm thestatus ofeachname inthelistofsub-section 11.18(3) and
isoftheviewthatthesemethods produced results inaccordance withthecriteria ofTRIPS Article 24.6.
6. Could Canada explain, inparticular, howithasdetermined thatnames, likeChampagne,
Madeira, PortandSherry, which werepreviously protected inCanada asgeographical indications
forwines fromFrance, Portugal orSpain through bilateral agreements withthose countries, canbe
nowdefined ascustomary inthecommon language inCanadian law(TRIPS Article 24.3standstill
obligation)?
Canada disagrees that"Champagne", "Madeira", "Port" and"Sherry" were protected as
geographical indications “immediately prior tothedateofentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement ”
within themeaning ofTRIPS Article 24.3.
TheCanada-France Trade Agreement ,of1933, under which "Champagne" wasprotected in
Canada,wasterminatedin1978.TheCanadiancourtshavepermittedtheuseofchampagnebyCanadian
producers (seeInstitut National desAppellations d’Origine desVinsetEaux-de-Vie etalv.Andres
Wines Ltdetalandtwoother actions ,40DLR (4th)239(Ontario High Court); 71DLR (4th)575
(Ontario Court ofAppeal); 74DLR (4th)viii(note) (Supreme Court ofCanada).
TheCanada-Portugal Trade Agreement ,of1954, inArticle IV(2), provided thatCanada
undertook tomake available inrespect of"Port" and"Madeira" onlytheprotection provided byits
national legislation concerning false, misleading anddeceptive labelling andadvertising. Inthe
Canada-Spain Trade Agreement (alsoof1954), Article VIII,Canada onlyundertook thesameobligation
withrespectto"theSpanishwinesknownasJerez,Xeres,Sherry".Ofcourse,Canadianlawsconcerning
false, misleading anddeceptive labelling andadvertising continue inforce.
7. CouldCanadaexplainhowtheamendmentstotheTrade-marksActconcerningtheimplementation
ofanewsystem toregister andprotect geographical indications forwines andspirits, which hasbeen
published asanIndustry NotebytheAgriculture andAgri-food Canada (AAFC) on31July1996,
operates? Could Canada elaborate onitscompliance withTRIPS Articles 22to24?
Theapplications andreview process published asanIndustry NotebyAgriculture andAgri-food
Canada (AAFC) on31July1996, isintended asanadministrative procedure toallow forgeographical
indications forwines andspirits tobeadded tothelistofprotected geographical indications asprovided
inSection 11.12 oftheTrade-marks Act,provided thatthecriteria oftheActarecomplied with. The
newrights conferred bySections 11.14 and11.15 oftheTrade-marks Actapply onlytothose
geographical indications entered ontothelistofprotected geographical indications.
Onlythosegeographicalindicationsforwinesandspiritswhichmeetthecriteriaofageographical
indication, asdefined inArticle 22.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, andwhich areprotected andusedin
thecountry oforigin asprovided forinArticle 24.9oftheTRIPS Agreement, maybeadded tothe
listofprotected geographical indications. Theinformation tobeprovided foreachgeographicalIP/Q2/CAN/1
Page10
indication through theapplication process isnecessary inorder toestablish conformity withtheabove
criteria andisconsistent withthatrequired under Section 11.12(3) oftheTrade-marks Act.
Foradministrative purposes, theapplication mustbesubmitted byaresponsible authority for
thewineorspirit inquestion. Aresponsible authority is,inrelation toawineorspirit, theperson,
firm, orother entity, thatbyreason ofstateorcommercial interest, issufficiently connected withand
knowledgeable ofthatwine orspirit tobeparty toanyproceedings inrespect ofanobjection filed
under sub-section 11.13(1) oftheTrade-marks Act.
Within threemonths afterthepublication intheCanada Gazette oftheintention bytheMinister
ofIndustry toinclude aparticular wine orspirit geographical indication onthelistofprotected
geographical indications, anyperson interested mayfileastatement ofobjection withtheRegistrar
ofTrade-marks. Objections maybebased onlyontheground thattheproposed indication isnota
geographical indication, within themeaning ofSection 2oftheTrade-marks Act(which isconsistent
withTRIPS Article 22.1).
(Additional information ontheapplications and review process isavailable at
"http://www.agr.ca/cb/newsrle.htlm".)
[Follow-up question from theEC]
Could Canada clarify whether, intheapplications andreview process forprotecting a
geographical indication ofanother WTO Member inCanada, afullexamination ofthecompliance
ofthelaws, regulations andadministrative practices ofthecountry oforigin withArticles 23and24
oftheTRIPS Agreement takes place?
Under Canada 'sFood andDrug Act,theprotection accorded togeographical indications for
certain spirits isinaccordance withthelawsapplying inthecountries oforigin ofthese spirits. Such
protection would appear tobegreater thanthataccorded under theregistration system forgeographical
indications forwineandspirit drinks intheTrade-marks Act.Could Canada confirm that,inaccordance
withArticle 24.3oftheTRIPS Agreement, thehigher levelofprotection willcontinue tobeprovided
forthese spirits?
Intheapplications andreview process forprotecting ageographical indication ofanother WTO
Member inCanada, anexamination willbecarried outbytheDepartment ofAgriculture andAgri-food
Canada toensure thattheindication isageographical indication asitisdefined intheTrade-marks Act
(which definition isconsistent withTRIPS Article 22.1) andthattheindication isprotected bythelaws
applicable totheWTO Member.
With respect totheprotection accorded togeographical indications forcertain spirits under
Canada 'sFood andDrug Act,Canada doesnotconsider suchprotection tobegreater thanthataccorded
under theregistration system forgeographical indications forwines andspirits intheTrade-marks Act
andaccordingly doesnotconsider TRIPS Article 24.3tohaveanyapplication tothissituation.
8. Given therestrictions setoutinSection 34oftheCanadian Trade-marks Actconcerning the
applications upon which aclaim ofpriority maybebased, itappears thatCanada isnotentirely in
compliance withArticle 4A(1) oftheParis Convention (1967) asisrequired byArticle 2.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement, sincepriority mayonlybebased onanapplication filedinacountry ofwhich theapplicant
wasacitizen orinwhich theapplicant hadarealandeffective industrial orcommercial establishment.
Please clarify thisissue.IP/Q2/CAN/1
Page11
Canada 'sTrade-marks Act,Section 34,includes apriority rightwithrespect toafiling date
inaParis/WTO country inwhich anon-Paris/WTO applicant isadomiciliary orhasarealandeffective
industrialorcommercialestablishment.However,Section34doesnotpermitapriorityrightwithrespect
toafiling inaParis/WTO country byanon-Paris/WTO applicant whoisadomiciliary orhasareal
andeffective industrial orcommercial establishment inanother Paris/WTO country. Todate, the
Canadian Government hasnotreceived acomplaint fromaParis/WTO country alleging denial ofthe
Section 34priority righttoitsnon-national domiciliary ortoanon-national having arealandeffective
industrial orcommercial establishment onitsterritory.
9. There isnomention ofcollective marks intheCanadian Trade-marks Act. Inlightofthis,
please confirm thatCanada isincompliance withArticle 7bisoftheParis Convention (1967) in
conjunction withArticle 2.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Canada fullycomplies withArticle 7bisoftheParis Convention, viatheTrade-marks Act
provisions withrespect tocertification marks. Seethedefinition inSection 2(2)andthesubstantive
provisions inSections 23-25.
Sections 23through 25oftheTrade-marks Actprovide forprotection ofcertification marks,
which aredefined as:
“amark thatisusedforthepurpose ofdistinguishing orsoastodistinguish wares
orservices thatareofadefined standard withrespect to:
(a) thecharacter orquality ofthewares orservices;
(b) theworking conditions under which thewares havebeenproduced
ortheservices performed;
(c) theclass ofpersons bywhom thewares havebeenproduced orthe
services performed; or
(d) theareawithin which thewares havebeenproduced ortheservices
performed,
from wares orservices thatarenotofthatdefined standard. ”
Theexpression “collective mark”isnotdefined intheParis Convention (1967). However,
p.130oftheGuide totheApplication oftheParis Convention fortheProtection ofIndustrial Property ,
G.H.C. Bodenhausen, states that:
“...These marks ...canroughly besaidtobesigns which serve nottodistinguish thegoods
orservices ofoneenterprise fromthose ofotherenterprises, buttodistinguish thegeographical
origin orother common characteristics ofgoods orservices ofdifferent enterprises which use
thecollective mark under thecontrol ofitsowner .These marks generally imply acertain
guarantee ofquality. ”(italics inoriginal).
ItisCanada 'sposition thatcertification marks under theTrade-marks Actfallwithin theconcept
ofcollective marks, asunderstood intheParis Convention (1967).IP/Q2/CAN/1
Page12
10. DoesCanadianlegislationprovidefortemporaryprotectionofindustrialdesignsandtrademarks
thatareexhibited"atofficialorofficiallyrecognizedinternationalexhibitions"heldinCanada(Article11
oftheParis Convention (1967) inconjunction withArticle 2.1oftheTRIPS Agreement), andifyes,
onwhatbasis andunder whatconditions?
Canada hasnodiscrete provision governing temporary protection forindustrial designs and
trademarks thatareexhibited. Such items would beprotectable bythegrace period provided under
sub-section 6(3)oftheIndustrial Designs Act.
With respect totrademarks, under sub-section 16(3) oftheTrade-marks Act,aperson may
apply foratrademark registration onthebasisoftheproposed useofthatmark inCanada. According
totheGuide totheApplication oftheParis Convention fortheProtection ofIndustrial Property ,
G.H.C. Bodenhausen, Article 11"...leaves thedomestic legislation ofaMember Statefreetochoose
themeans foroffering suchprotection." (p.150).
[Follow-up question from theEC]
Initsanswer toquestion 10ontemporary protection forindustrial designs andtrademarks
thatareexhibited "atofficial orofficially recognized international exhibitions" (Article 11,Paris
Convention), Canada explains thatsuchmarks areprotected ontheproposed useofsuchatrademark
andthatdesignswouldbeprotectablebythegraceperiodprovidedundersub-section6.3oftheIndustrial
Designs Act.Withregard totrademarks, doesthismean thatsuchtrademarks areprotected likeany
other "regular" trademark? Since theIndustrial Designs Acthasnotyetbeennotified, could Canada
clarify theprotection forsuchdesigns5?
Therights conferred bytheregistration ofatrademark based uponproposed usearethesame
astherights conferred bytheregistration ofatrademark onanyother basis.
Sub-section 6(3)oftheIndustrial Design Actestablishes aone-year grace period forindustrial
designs andprovides:
"The Minister shallrefuse toregister thedesign iftheapplication forregistration is
filedinCanada:
(a) more thanoneyearafterthepublication ofthedesign inCanada orelsewhere;
..."
III. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. Please explain whether, inthedetermination ofwhether amarkis"well known" under Canadian
law,account istaken ofknowledge ofthemark intherelevant sector ofthepublic andofthemark
inthepublic atlarge. Ifnot,please explain howCanadian lawisconsistent withTRIPS Article 16.2.
According totheGuide totheParis Convention fortheProtection ofIndustrial Property ,
G.H.C. Bodenhausen, "Thepurpose of[Article 6bis]istoavoid theregistration anduseofatrademark,
liable tocreate confusion withanother mark already wellknown inthecountry ofsuchregistration
oruse,although thelatter well-known mark isnot,ornotyet,protected inthatcountry byaregistration
which would normally prevent theregistration oruseofaconflicting mark." (p.90).Also, "Whether
5Asregard thenotification ofthislaw,reference ismade tofootnote 1above.IP/Q2/CAN/1
Page13
atrademark iswellknown inacountry willbedetermined byitscompetent administrative orjudicial
authorities."
Under paragraph 16(1)(a) oftheTrade-marks Act,atrademark isnotregistrable ifithasbeen
previously usedinCanada ormade known inCanada byanyother person. Thatdetermination ismade
bytheRegistrar, either during theexamination process or,based onevidence provided byanopponent,
during anopposition. Itmayalsobedetermined bythecourt onanexpungement proceeding under
Section 45orSection 57.
Rightholders ofwell-known marks would havetherighttobring anaction against acompeting
userunder paragraph 7(b)orparagraph 7(d)oftheTrade-marks Act,forthecommon lawtortofpassing
off,orforthedelicts ofunfair competition (délitdelaconfusion, délitdelasubstitution ,ordélitdu
dénigrement )under Article 1457 oftheCivilCode ofQuébec .
Inallofthese procedures thecompetent authority would takeintoaccount allthesurrounding
circumstances, including knowledge ofthemark intherelevant sector (andinthepublic atlarge).
2. Pursuant totheCharter oftheFrench Language (1977, Province ofQuebec), marks registered
bybusinesses inQuebec mustbeintheFrench language unless thereisnoFrench language equivalent
forthemark. Please explain howthisprovision isconsistent withTRIPS Article 20,which states that
useofatrademark shallnotbeunjustifiably encumbered byspecial requirements, suchasuseofthe
mark inaspecial form.
Section 51oftheCharter oftheFrench Language requires that"Every inscription onaproduct,
onitscontainer oronitswrapping, oronaleaflet, brochure orcardsupplied withit...mustbedrafted
inFrench ...". However, pursuant toSection 53ofthesame statute, theGovernment ofQuebec is
authorized tomake specific derogations fromthegeneral rule. TheRegulation respecting thelanguage
ofcommerce andbusiness (partofDecree 1756-93, of8December 1993, published intheOfficial
Gazette ofQuebec of22December 1993), provides thattrademarks recognized under theTrade-marks
Actmaybewritten exclusively inalanguage other thanFrench, except ifaFrench version ofthe
trademark hasbeen registered. Therefore, thisisnotaninstance ofanencumbrance byspecial
requirements.
3. Please explain howgeographical indications areprotected under Canadian law,asrequired
byTRIPS Articles 22and23.
Article 22
Seereply toECquestion 1.
Article 23
Geographical indications forwines andspirits areprotected inaccordance withSections 11.11
to11.19, Section 11.2, andparagraphs 12(1)(g) and(h)oftheTrade-marks Act.Theprocedure for
requesting thatprotection isexplained inthefollowing paragraphs.
Theapplications andreview process published asanIndustry NotebyAgriculture andAgri-food
Canada (AAFC) on31July1996, isintended asanadministrative procedure toallow forgeographical
indications forwines andspirits tobeadded tothelistofprotected geographical indications asprovided
inSection 11.12 oftheTrade-marks Act,provided thatthecriteria oftheActarecomplied with. The
newrightsconferredbySections11.14and11.5oftheTrade-marksActapplyonlytothosegeographical
indications entered ontothelistofprotected geographical indications.IP/Q2/CAN/1
Page14
Onlythosegeographicalindicationsforwinesandspiritswhichmeetthecriteriaofageographical
indication, asdefined inArticle 22.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, andwhich areprotected andusedin
thecountry oforigin asprovided forinArticle 24.9oftheTRIPS Agreement, maybeadded tothe
listofprotected geographical indications. Theinformation tobeprovided foreachgeographical
indication through theapplication process isnecessary inorder toestablish conformity withtheabove
criteria andisconsistent withthatrequired under Section 11.12(3) oftheTrade-marks Act.
Foradministrative purposes, theapplication mustbesubmitted byaresponsible authority for
thewineorspirit inquestion. Aresponsible authority is,inrelation toawineorspirit, theperson,
firm, orother entity, thatbyreason ofstateorcommercial interest, issufficiently connected withand
knowledgeable ofthatwine orspirit tobeparty toanyproceedings inrespect ofanobjection filed
under sub-section 11.13(1) oftheTrade-marks Act.
Within threemonths afterthepublication intheCanada Gazette oftheintention bytheMinister
ofIndustry toinclude aparticular wine orspirit geographical indication onthelistofprotected
geographical indications, anyperson interested mayfileastatement ofobjection withtheRegistrar
ofTrade-marks. Objections maybebased onlyonthegrounds thattheproposed indication isnota
geographical indication, within themeaning ofSection 2oftheTrade-marks Act(which isconsistent
withTRIPS Article 22.1).
(Additional information ontheapplications and review process isavailable at
"http://www.agr.ca/cb/newsrle.htlm".)
4. Please describe themethods bywhich industrial designs areprotected inCanada, inparticular:
(a) theformorforms ofintellectual property usedtoprotect thedesign
(e.g., patent, copyright, suigeneris);
(b) theconditions thatmustbesatisfied toobtain thegrant ofsuchprotection
(e.g., whether designs mustbenewororiginal andtheparameters ofthese concepts),
andabriefdescription oftheregistration orgranting procedure;
(c) thenature oftherights granted andthetermofprotection provided;
(d) thenature ofremedies available totheowner ofeachtypeofprotection, including
adescription oftheconditions thatmaybeimposed (e.g., whether commercial use
isrequired); and
(e) whether anyexceptions toprotection orrights existforeachtypeofintellectual property
involved.
(a) Protection forindustrial designs isdependent onregistration under theIndustrial Design
Act.Copyright protection isalsoautomatic under theCopyright Actforanydesign
originally created asawork ofart.Subject tocertain exceptions, thecopyright ina
design willbeunenforceable where thedesign isapplied toauseful article andthe
article isreproduced inaquantity ofmore than50orusedtoproduce more than50
useful articles.
(b) Industrial design. Adesign mustbebothoriginal andnovel, "original" meaning that
thedesign wasdeveloped independently bythefirstproprietor and"novel" thatthe
design isnotidentical withorclosely resembles aregistered design. (Applicants are
required tomake adeclaration oforiginality intheapplication form.)IP/Q2/CAN/1
Page15
Theregistration process inCanada begins onthedatethatanapplication isfiledwith
theCanadian Intellectual Property Office. Applications aredealtwithinorder offiling
date. Theapplication isfirstclassified andthenundergoes aformal examination by
which thedesign iscompared against registered designs fornovelty andregistrability.
Ifapproved, thedesign isregistered andacertificate ofregistration issenttotheowner.
Copyright. Copyright protection fordesigns arises automatically without aregistration
requirement. However, registration canbeuseful inalitigation context, since under
Section 53oftheCopyright Actitcreates arebuttable presumption ofownership of
copyright anditeliminates the"innocent infringer" limitation inSection 39oftheAct.
(c) Industrial Design. Registration ofanindustrial design provides theowner withthe
exclusive righttoprevent others frommaking, using, renting orselling thedesign in
Canada. Thetermofprotection is10years from thedateofregistration, subject to
thepayment ofmaintenance fees.
Copyright. Copyright inCanada istheexclusive righttoreproduce awork ortoallow
someone elsetoreproduce it.Subject tocertain exceptions, copyright expires atthe
endofthecalendar year, 50years fromthedeath oftheauthor. Adesign thatisnever
published hasunlimited copyright protection. Asinother members oftheBerne
Convention, inCanada, copyright protects onlytheformofexpression ofawork and
doesnotprotect against theindependent creation ofthesame orasimilar work.
(d) Industrial Design. Anaction forinfringement ofanexclusive rightmaybebrought
bytheowner ofthedesign orbyanexclusive licensee ofanyright therein. The
remedies thatmaybemade byacourt under infringement proceedings include orders
forrelief bywayofinjunction andtherecovery ofdamages orprofits; forpunitive
damages; andforthedisposal ofanyinfringing article orkit.Commercial useisnot
required byanowner inorder tohaveaccess toavailable remedies.
Copyright. Copyright owners havebothcivilandcriminal remedies available tothem
where awork hasbeen infringed. Thecivilremedies are"bywayofinjunction,
damages, accounts ordelivery upandotherwise thatmaybeconferred bylawforthe
infringement ofaright" (Copyright Act,Section 34).
Alternatively, acopyright owner maysuefortheinfringer 'sprofits from theactof
infringement (Section 35).Where, however, adefendant isnotaware oftheexistence
ofcopyright inawork, thecopyright owner isrestricted totheremedy ofinjunction
(Section 39),unless thecopyright wasregistered. Under Section 44.1, acopyright
owner mayapply totheFederal Court foranorder detaining goods imported into
Canada iftheyinfringe copyright.
Section 42makes itanoffence toknowingly reproduce, sell,exhibit, perform orimport
infringing works onacommercial scale.
(e) With respect toindustrial design rights, competition lawprovides thatcompulsory
licences maybeordered inrespect ofaregistered design where therehasbeencertain
anti-competitive behaviour.
Sub-sections 27(2) and(3)oftheCopyright Actcontain anumber ofexceptions to
copyright infringement, many ofwhich aretechnical innature. Paragraph 27(2)(a)
contains anexception for"anyfairdealing withawork forthepurpose ofprivate studyIP/Q2/CAN/1
Page16
orresearch". Theconcept offairdealing ismuch narrower thantheUSconcept of
"fairuse". Inaddition, paragraph 27(2)(b) deals withtheuseofmoulds, casts, etc.,
andparagraph 26(2)(c) deals withworks ofartistic craftsmanship.
5. Please explain howtextile designs areprotected under yourlaw.
Such designs areprotectable under theIndustrial Designs Act.
Inaddition, suchdesigns areprotectable under theCopyright Act.Ifthose designs areused
for"material thathasawoven orknitted pattern orthatissuitable forpiece goods orsurface coverings
orformaking wearing apparel" (within themeaning ofparagraph 64(3)(c)), theremedies mentioned
intheanswer toquestion 4forinfringement ofcopyright would apply totheinfringement ofatextile
design, eventhough thatdesign hadbeenreproduced onmore than50copies ofauseful article.