Archive for March, 2008
« Older Entries |More Champagne, anyone?
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008
We recently reported on the difficulties in registering wine trademarks consisting of names of geographic locations. The Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) concluded that geography was one of the most important considerations of the average consumer when purchasing a wine. Accordingly, the registration of a trademark consisting of a geographic description unfairly prevented other local winemakers from listing that place of origin on their brands. As all good wine gurus know, it is the land, air, water and weather where grapes are grown that make each wine unique. Geographic location is a huge selling point for exclusive brands, as is evident with the popularity of real French champagne.
For more than eight decades, only 319 select vineyards within specific boundaries of north-eastern France had the right to brand their sparkling white wines as “champagne“. But now, due to the increasing demand for champagne from China and Russia, the Institut national de l’origine et de la qualite, which governs the Appellation d’Origine Controlee designation for champagne, is set to expand the appellation’s boundaries. The move is expected to provide a windfall for the lucky vintners whose vineyards happen to lie within the expanded region and highlights the value of a trademark consisting of a geographic location. Worldwide exports of champagne hit an all time record in 2007.
The name champagne is legally protected in most countries in order to prevent sparkling wines from outside the Champagne region of France from using the brand. Until two years ago, US winemakers, in particular, capitalized on the popularity of the brand and commonly sold sparkling wines under the name “California Champagne”, ignoring the outcries from indignant French viticulturists. But now, only a few older grandfathered brands in the US may use the name “champagne” in a move to correctly label US sparkling wines as “sparkling wines”. In 2003, Canada and the European Union entered into an agreement which committed the parties into protecting each others’ geographical indications for wines and spirits and the use of the term “Canadian Champagne” will cease after December 31, 2013.
Last year, the wine regions of Sonoma County and Paso Robles, California; Chianti Classico, Italy; Tokaj, Hungary; and Victoria, and Western Australia, Australia added their names to a growing list of signatories of the Joint Declaration to Protect Wine Place & Origin, a set of principles aimed at educating consumers about the importance of location to winemaking.
Posted in Branding | No Comments »
Trademark Appeals: Stays and Service Requirements
Wednesday, March 26th, 2008
A recent blog noted that a failure to obtain a stay of a Federal Court judgment when an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal is sought, means the Registrar of Trademarks will act in accordance with the Federal Court judgment, which may be contrary to what the appellant is seeking before the Court of Appeal.
A recent Practice Notice from the Trademarks Office clarifies the issue. Section 50 of the Federal Courts Act allows the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal to stay proceedings. If there is an appeal from the Federal Court to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Registrar, absent a stay, must act in accordance with the judgment of the Federal Court.
There is, however, an exception in the case of opposition and section 45 procedings. If there is an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal the Registrar will not treat the Federal Court decision as final because it must, pursuant to sections 39(1) and 45(5) of the Trade-marks Act, act in accordance with “the final judgment given in the appeal”.
Thus, where there is an appeal from the Federal Court to the Federal Court of Appeal, it is important to consider whether an opposition or section 45 proceeding is at issue, and if not, obtain the requisite stay.
The Practice Notice also provides guidance regarding the service of court documents on the Registrar.
Where a decision of the Registrar is appealed under section 56 of the Trade-marks Act or where judicial review of a Registrar’s decision is sought, the Registrar must be served personally. This is best effected by leaving the document with an employee of the Executive Office who is authorized to accept service.
All Notices of Appeal filed with the Federal Court must also be filed with the Registrar. These may be transmitted by any means, but failure to comply with sections 56(1), (2) and (3) of the Act, including the filing requirement, may render the appeal a nullity.
Posted in Protection & Enforcement, Trade-mark Oppositions | No Comments »
Trademark Statistics: The Year in Review
Friday, March 14th, 2008
The Canadian Intellectual Property Office released its 2006-7 Annual Report earlier today. The report contains some interesting information:
- over 45,000 applications were filed in the twelve month period ending March 31, 2007, reflecting a 4% increase over the previous year
- Canada remains the most common country of applicant origin, with nearly 20,000 applications filed; the US placed second, with over 14,700 applications, while applicants from Germany, France and the United Kingdom rounded out the top 5
- 90% of Canadian trade-mark applications were filed online; prior to 2004, only 20% of applicants were using the e-filing system
- despite the addition of several new Examiners, turn-around times remained the same as in the previous year, and an examination backlog of approximately 20,000 files remains to be addressed
- the number of Statements of Oppositions filed continued to decline, with just over 1100 filings; however, the number of Section 45 (cancellation) notices issued increased slightly over the previous year.
The full report is available here.
Posted in Foreign Protection, Protection & Enforcement, Registration, Trade-mark Oppositions | No Comments »