Gentec v
The Gentec decision contains important guidance about the law of distinctiveness and related litigation and business strategy considerations. This guidance ranges from the role of consumer surveys in trademark litigation, to the importance of admissions made during trademark prosecution, to leveraging marketplace and media evidence to show an absence of distinctiveness.
Case Background: Gentec v
The defendant
Gentec alleged that
The Federal Court agreed with
Fasken successfully represented
Takeaways for Trademark Owners and Trademark Challengers
The concept of "distinctiveness" is the central pillar of trademark law, and refers to a trademark's ability to signal that goods or services come from a single business. A trademark has no distinctiveness if it cannot fulfill that branding function and is thus not entitled to any legal protection.
Here,
-
Dozens of third parties selling consumer electronics that incorporated the word "IQ" as part of their branding for the smart version of their products (i.e. if a company sold widgets under the trademark ACME, the ACME IQ would be the "smart" version of their widget).
- Hundreds of registered trademarks and tradenames that incorporated the word "IQ" in the field of consumer electronics and elsewhere.
- Extensive media use of the word "IQ" as synonymous with smart products (e.g. "The 2019 Smart-home Awards... everything you need to raise your home's IQ this season").
- Admissions made by Gentec during prosecution for its IQ trademark in 2007-2008.
- Gentec's failure to police its trademark rights in
Canada , leading to the ongoing entry of new IQ-formative marks to the Canadian marketplace, including marks for headphones, earbuds, and other hearables.
An expert witness analyzed this data and concluded the word "IQ" had come to act as a short-hand for a "smart product" among Canadian consumers. As a result, the word "IQ" - when standing alone and apart from any other branding element - had no trademark function. Gentec filed reply expert evidence disputing this conclusion and arguing that only a survey of consumers could prove a lack of distinctiveness.
The Federal Court ultimately agreed with
Trademark owners should take note of this case, since it confirms that marketplace and media evidence are sufficient to prove non-distinctiveness, and that there is no requirement for challengers to produce consumer surveys. This reinforces the need for trademark owners to police both the Canadian marketplace and the Canadian trademark register to prevent the widespread adoption of a mark by third parties. Gentec's failure to promptly deal with third-party use of "IQ" was one of the key factors that ultimately allowed
Additionally, trademark owners should carefully consider which arguments are made during trademark prosecution, since these arguments can come back to haunt the trademark owner at the enforcement stage. Here, Gentec admitted that IQ-formative marks were in widespread use in
Trademark challengers hoping to replicate
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
Fasken
Suite 3700
QC H4Z 1E9
Tel: 4163668381
Fax: 4163647813
E-mail: sdookhoo@fasken.com
URL: www.fasken.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2023 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source