Propiedad intelectual Formación en PI Respeto por la PI Divulgación de la PI La PI para... La PI y… La PI en… Información sobre patentes y tecnología Información sobre marcas Información sobre diseños industriales Información sobre las indicaciones geográficas Información sobre las variedades vegetales (UPOV) Leyes, tratados y sentencias de PI Recursos de PI Informes sobre PI Protección por patente Protección de las marcas Protección de diseños industriales Protección de las indicaciones geográficas Protección de las variedades vegetales (UPOV) Solución de controversias en materia de PI Soluciones operativas para las oficinas de PI Pagar por servicios de PI Negociación y toma de decisiones Cooperación para el desarrollo Apoyo a la innovación Colaboraciones público-privadas Herramientas y servicios de IA La Organización Trabajar con la OMPI Rendición de cuentas Patentes Marcas Diseños industriales Indicaciones geográficas Derecho de autor Secretos comerciales Academia de la OMPI Talleres y seminarios Observancia de la PI WIPO ALERT Sensibilizar Día Mundial de la PI Revista de la OMPI Casos prácticos y casos de éxito Novedades sobre la PI Premios de la OMPI Empresas Universidades Pueblos indígenas Judicatura Recursos genéticos, conocimientos tradicionales y expresiones culturales tradicionales Economía Financiación Activos intangibles Igualdad de género Salud mundial Cambio climático Política de competencia Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible Tecnologías de vanguardia Aplicaciones móviles Deportes Turismo PATENTSCOPE Análisis de patentes Clasificación Internacional de Patentes ARDI - Investigación para la innovación ASPI - Información especializada sobre patentes Base Mundial de Datos sobre Marcas Madrid Monitor Base de datos Artículo 6ter Express Clasificación de Niza Clasificación de Viena Base Mundial de Datos sobre Dibujos y Modelos Boletín de Dibujos y Modelos Internacionales Base de datos Hague Express Clasificación de Locarno Base de datos Lisbon Express Base Mundial de Datos sobre Marcas para indicaciones geográficas Base de datos de variedades vegetales PLUTO Base de datos GENIE Tratados administrados por la OMPI WIPO Lex: leyes, tratados y sentencias de PI Normas técnicas de la OMPI Estadísticas de PI WIPO Pearl (terminología) Publicaciones de la OMPI Perfiles nacionales sobre PI Centro de Conocimiento de la OMPI Informes de la OMPI sobre tendencias tecnológicas Índice Mundial de Innovación Informe mundial sobre la propiedad intelectual PCT - El sistema internacional de patentes ePCT Budapest - El Sistema internacional de depósito de microorganismos Madrid - El sistema internacional de marcas eMadrid Artículo 6ter (escudos de armas, banderas, emblemas de Estado) La Haya - Sistema internacional de diseños eHague Lisboa - Sistema internacional de indicaciones geográficas eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediación Arbitraje Determinación de expertos Disputas sobre nombres de dominio Acceso centralizado a la búsqueda y el examen (CASE) Servicio de acceso digital (DAS) WIPO Pay Cuenta corriente en la OMPI Asambleas de la OMPI Comités permanentes Calendario de reuniones WIPO Webcast Documentos oficiales de la OMPI Agenda para el Desarrollo Asistencia técnica Instituciones de formación en PI Apoyo para COVID-19 Estrategias nacionales de PI Asesoramiento sobre políticas y legislación Centro de cooperación Centros de apoyo a la tecnología y la innovación (CATI) Transferencia de tecnología Programa de Asistencia a los Inventores (PAI) WIPO GREEN PAT-INFORMED de la OMPI Consorcio de Libros Accesibles Consorcio de la OMPI para los Creadores WIPO Translate Conversión de voz a texto Asistente de clasificación Estados miembros Observadores Director general Actividades por unidad Oficinas en el exterior Ofertas de empleo Adquisiciones Resultados y presupuesto Información financiera Supervisión
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Leyes Tratados Sentencias Consultar por jurisdicción

Trinidad y Tabago

TT020-j

Atrás

H.C.A. No. 1029 of 1994

In 1954, Walters Trinidad Brewery Co. Ltd submitted an application for the registration of the trademark “Pola Beer” in respect of beers, which was granted. In 1961, the ownership of the mark “Pola Beer” was assigned to Caribbean Development Company Limited, which did not use the assigned mark until December 1993. From December 1993 to June 1994, there was an unusually small production of beer using the mark “Pola Beer”. These beers were distributed throughout Trinidad and Tobago without any promotional advertising campaign.

In 1992, the trademark “Polar”, in respect of beers, was registered in the name of Cerveceria Polar C.A. At that time, there was a “Negative List” prohibiting the importation of foreign beer to Trinidad and Tobago, and there was a high tariff attached to beers produced outside of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM), of which Trinidad and Tobago was a part. Representatives of Cerveceria Polar C.A. visited Trinidad and Tobago and held discussions with certain firms there. Also, samples of products from Cerveceria Polar C.A. were sent to potential distributors in Trinidad and Tobago. However, there was no advertisement of the beer produced using the mark “Polar” in Trinidad and Tobago, nor was any dealership established in that territory.

On March 24, 1994, Caribbean Development Company Limited filed an action to have “Polar” struck off the Register of Trade Marks on the grounds that:

(a) the trademark of Cerveceria Polar C.A. was registered without any bona fide intention that it should be used in relation to the goods in respect of which it was registered, and that there had been in fact no bona fide use of the said trademark in relation to the goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being up to the date one month before the date of the application; and

(b) up to the date of one month before the date of the application, a continuous period of five years or longer had lapsed during which time there was no bona fide use in relation to the goods in respect of which the trademark was registered by any proprietor for the time being; and

(c) the trademark “Polar” was entered on the Register without sufficient cause and/or so nearly resembled the trademark of Caribbean Development Company Limited in respect of the same goods or description of goods as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

Likewise, on May 17, 1994, Cerveceria Polar C.A. filed an equivalent action against Caribbean Development Company Limited in relation to the mark “Pola Beer”, registered in the name of Caribbean Development Company Limited and excluded the ground identified at (c) above.

In making its decision, the court determined that the issues to be considered were:

(i) whether Cerveceria Polar C.A. registered its mark “Polar” with no bona fide intention of using it;

(ii) whether Caribbean Development Company Limited registered its mark “Pola Beer” with no bona fide intention of using it;

(iii) whether there had been bona fide use of the mark “Pola Beer” in relation to beers by Caribbean Development Company Limited up to one month before the date of the application by Cerveceria Polar C.A.;

(iv) whether there had been bona fide use of the mark “Polar” in relation to beers by Cerveceria Polar C.A. up to one month before the date of the application by Caribbean Development Company Limited; and

(v) whether the “Negative List” made the importation into Trinidad and Tobago of “Polar” beer practically impossible or banned it altogether.

As regards the first issue, the court found that there was an absence of a firm intention on the part of Cerveceria Polar C.A. to use its mark in the immediate future, and that the ignorance of its Export Director concerning the possibility of having “Polar” beers imported under a special license, the removal of the Negative List and the reduction of tariffs on ex-CARICOM beer, suggested a casual approach by Cerveceria Polar C.A. to the use of “Polar” in Trinidad and Tobago at the time of its registration. As a result, the court held that Cerveceria Polar C.A. lacked bona fide intention to use the mark “Polar” in Trinidad and Tobago.

Similarly, in relation to Caribbean Development Company Limited, the court found that there was no bona fide intention on its part to use the mark “Pola Beer” as it had not used the mark from 1961 to 1993, and depressed market conditions presented a challenge for such use only from 1989.

In respect of the third issue mentioned above, the court found that the evidence did not clearly show that the “Polar” samples sent to firms in Trinidad and Tobago were intended for the purpose of introducing the product into the country, and as such, the court held that there had not been a bona fide use of the trade mark “Polar” up to the date one month before the date of the application by Caribbean Development Company Limited.

Moreover, the court found that based on the extent of the sales of “Pola Beer”, which was unusually small, the production and sale of that beer was not a course of trading embarked upon as an end in itself, and further, was not a genuine use of the mark “Pola Beer” but rather a colorable use. As such, the court held that there had not been bona fide use of the mark “Pola Beer” in relation to beers by Caribbean Development Company Limited up to one month before the date of the application by Cerveceria Polar C.A.

Finally, in relation to (v) above, the court distinguished the facts of this matter from those of Aktirbologet Manus v RJ Fullwood and Bland Ltd (1948) 65 RPC 329 and (1949) 66 RPC 71, in which it was considered that war-time legislation and an Import Prohibition Order were special circumstances in trade that made it practically impossible for a Swedish firm to use their British mark for a period of more than five years. The court found that the Negative List did not totally prohibit imports and that the Export Director of Cerveceria Polar C.A. was unaware of the figures involved in the tariff and did not interest himself in finding out. As a result, the court held that Cerveceria Polar C.A.’s non-use of “Polar” in Trinidad and Tobago was not due to special circumstances in trade but to the absence of intention to use the mark.

Accordingly, the court held that both applicants succeeded and ordered both “Polar” and “Pola Beer” to be taken off of the Register of Trade Marks.

Cases referred to:

Re Ducker’s Trademark (1921) 1 CH 113;

Electrolux Ltd. v Electrix Ltd. (1954) RPC 23;

Aktirbologet Manus v RJ Fullwood and Bland Ltd (1948) 65 RPC 329 and (1949) 66 RPC 71.

Other authorities referred to:

Powell’s T.M. 2 Ch 388;

Concord Trade Mark (1987) 13 FSR 209;

Kerly’s Law of Trade Mark and Trade Names;

Kerly’s Law of Trade Mark and Trade Names 10th Ed., at para 11-43

Kerly’s Law of Trademark and Trade Names 12th Ed., paras 2-19

Notes of Official Rulings (1944) 61 R P C 148; and

“Bulova” Trademark 1967