Date: 20010223
Docket: T-1383-97
Ottawa, Ontario, February 23, 2001
Before: Pinard J.
IN RE an order to strike an entry in the Register pursuant to s. 57 of the Trade-marks Act for the trade-mark DIPLOMAT filed by Diplomat Fullhalter Gesellschaft Kurz & Räuchle GMBH & Co. KG, registered as No. TMA 380,351 on February 21, 1991 pursuant to ss. 17(2), 18(1)(a) and 57 of the Trade-marks Act.
Between:
FOUAD KELENDJI
doing business under the trade name
DIPLOMATE WATCH OF CANADA
Applicant
- and -
DIPLOMAT FULLHALTER GESELLSCHAFT
KURZ & RÄUCHLE GMBH & CO. KG
Respondent
ORDER
The applicant's motion filed pursuant to s. 57 of the Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, asking the Court to strike the entry in the Register of the trade-mark DIPLOMAT registered as No. TMA 380,351 on February 22, 1991, is dismissed with costs.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
Date: 20010223
Docket: T-1383-97
Neutral reference: 2001 FCT 110
IN RE an order to strike an entry in the register pursuant to s. 57 of the Trade-marks Act for the trade-mark DIPLOMAT filed by Diplomat Fullhalter Gesellschaft Kurz & Räuchle GMBH & Co. KG, registered as No. TMA 380,351 on February 21, 1991 pursuant to ss. 17(2), 18(1)(a) and 57 of the Trade-marks Act.
Between:
FOUAD KELENDJI
doing business under the trade name
DIPLOMATE WATCH OF CANADA
Applicant
- and -
DIPLOMAT FULLHALTER GESELLSCHAFT
KURZ & RÄUCHLE GMBH & CO. KG
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.
[1] By his motion filed pursuant to s. 57 of the Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13 ("the Act"), the applicant is asking the Court to strike from the Register the entry for the trade-mark DIPLOMAT in association with the wares "writing instruments, namely fountain pens, ball points, roller ball pens and mechanical pencils" which is registered as registration No. TMA 380,351, dated February 22, 1991.
[2] The applicant is a jeweller/watchmaker doing business under the trade name "Diplomate Watch of Canada". He is primarily engaged in the sale of the wares [TRANSLATION] "(1) Watches and clocks. (2) Pen wrist watches", as set out in the registration of his trade-mark DIPLOMATE. This mark has not been abandoned since its initial registration in 1968. The applicant sells his wares in his jewellery store in Montréal and throughout Canada by wholesalers. In early 1988 the applicant discovered that the respondent was distributing pens under the DIPLOMAT name in Montréal and sent it a notification on August 15, 1988 directing it to cease doing so.
[3] The respondent is a German company which has been doing business in Canada since May 1983 under its DIPLOMAT trade-mark. In July 1989, after using the mark in Canada for nearly six years, the respondent filed an application to register the mark DIPLOMAT in question. The respondent submitted that it was unaware of the applicant's mark until August 1988 when it was told of the mark in writing.
[4] The applicant, who has never objected to registration of the mark DIPLOMAT, is essentially arguing that the respondent adopted this mark in Canada knowing that it was creating confusion with his mark DIPLOMATE. What is at issue here is the application of s. 17 of the Act, which reads as follows:
| 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. |
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. |
|
| (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. |
(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. |
|
[5] After hearing the parties and reviewing the evidence, I consider that the applicant's proceeding is prescribed pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Act.
[6] The respondent's mark DIPLOMAT was registered on February 22, 1991. The instant notice of motion was filed on June 26, 1997 (and served on August 1, 1997), over five years after the registration of the respondent's trade mark. Under s. 3 of the Act, the mark is deemed to have been adopted by the respondent when the latter "commenced to use it in Canada". Section 3 of the Act reads:
| 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. |
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. |
|
[7] The evidence also indicated that the respondent commenced using the mark DIPLOMAT in Canada in May 1983. This evidence, which originates in para. 2 and Exhibit B of the affidavit of Gudrun Räuchle, filed on September 29, 1997, was not challenged. Additionally, there is no evidence that when the respondent adopted the mark DIPLOMAT in Canada, it was aware that the applicant had previously used the mark DIPLOMATE. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit of Gudrun Räuchle, supra, on the contrary, shows that when the respondent adopted the mark DIPLOMAT in Canada it was not aware of the existence of the applicant's mark DIPLOMATE, and only learned of it in August 1988 when the latter informed it of the mark in writing.
[8] In these circumstances, therefore, in view of s. 17(2) of the Act, the registration of the mark DIPLOMAT cannot be "expunged or amended or held invalid on the ground of the previous use or making known referred to in subsection (1)" of the said section.
[9] The applicant's motion is accordingly dismissed with costs.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
February 23, 2001
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-1383-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: FOUAD KELENDJI
-AND-
DIPLOMAT FULLHALTER GESELLSCHAFT
KURZ et al.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: February 20, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: February 23, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Fouad Kelendji FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Mitchell B. Charness FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ridout & Maybee FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Ottawa, Ontario
The defendant FOR THE DEFENDANT