Apple Inc. sells Apple-branded computers. Is Apple a trademark
or a trade name? And what's the difference anyway? And perhaps
most importantly, why should you even care?
A trademark is a protectable brand that distinguishes the source
of goods or services in the marketplace. A trade name is merely a
business name that may or may not overlap with a company's
trademark rights. It could be a trading name, doing-business-as, or
operating-as, such as 1234567 Alberta Ltd. doing business as ABC
Trading, where ABC Trading is the trade name. In the case of Apple,
the company name "Apple Inc." mirrors the company's
core mark (no pun intended). If we think back to earlier times, the
trade name "Research in Motion" was used by a certain
business whose main product was sold under a different trademark:
If you are a trademark owner, this kind of thing matters because
of the requirement in Canada to continually use a trademark in
order to maintain trademark rights. This means that a registered
trademark is vulnerable to be cancelled if it falls out of use.
There is a mechanism in the Trademarks Act to challenge an
owner's entitlement to a registered mark, where the owner must
show evidence of use. This is a challenge under Section 45 (and is
commonly verbed in Canada, as in "we section fortyfived that
In the recent decision by the Trademarks Opposition Board in Borden Ladner Gervais
LLP v GDC Communities, 2015 TMOB 50 (CanLII),
this issue was addressed. Someone challenged the registered mark
GDC COMMUNITIES which was registered in association with various
services of engineering, development, financing and management of
real estate, real estate marketing and residential home
construction. The mark owner responded with evidence showing use of
Some of the evidence showed use of the mark in a trade show
outside of Canada, which would not qualify as use in Canada;
Some of the evidence was in the form of a business card which,
according to the owner, was distributed to potential clients in
Some of the evidence showed use of the GDC COMMUNITIES on the
Lastly, the owner tendered email correspondence evidence,
showing the display of GDC COMMUNITIES.
The evidence was unconvincing because the decision-maker
concluded that wherever the mark appeared, it functioned as a trade
name (the name of the company), as opposed to a brand. The decision
puts it this way: "GDC COMMUNITIES is not set apart
from the surrounding text, but appears in the same size and
font. In addition, the copyright notice at the bottom of
the web page lists the copyright owner as GDC COMMUNITIES,
immediately followed by the Registrant's address, suggesting
that GDC COMMUNITIES is being used to identify the legal entity
that owns the copyright and is not being used as a trade-mark. This
is consistent with how GDC COMMUNITIES is used in the rest of the
web page. In all cases in which GDC COMMUNITIES appears in the
Registrant's evidence, it is not presented in a manner
which sets it apart from other corporate information or in a manner
such that it would be perceived by a consumer as a
trade-mark." (Emphasis added).
The lessons for business?
The mark must appear in marketing materials - such as
packaging, website materials, email footers, signage - in a way
that sets the mark apart from the surrounding text. It is not
necessarily fatal to a mark that it appears above the company's
address. For example, an email or webpage showing "Apple, 1
Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA" will not, by itself, jeopardize
the strength of that mark. However, if that is the only
use, it will lead to the conclusion that the mark is used merely as
a corporate or trade name.
The mark should appear in a different font, in bold, in a
different size or colour, and the proper notation should be used.
In this case, the mark was a registered mark and should be
accompanied by the circle-R mark.
Note: It is important that a mark is used as registered. Where
the mark changes over time, the mark owner should consider filing a
new application for the modified form of the mark. Otherwise, the
evidence of usage may show use of the modified mark, which may not
be accepted as evidence of use of the mark as it was
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.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The Federal Court dismissed a motion by Apotex seeking particulars from Allergan's pleading relating to the prior art, inventive concept, promised utility and sound prediction of utility of the patents at issue.
Last year we saw the Canadian Courts release trademark decisions that granted a rare interlocutory injunction, issued jailed sentences for failure to comply with injunctive relief, grappled with trademark and internet issues...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).