À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Respect de la propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé Outils et services en matière d’intelligence artificielle L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Application des droits de propriété intellectuelle WIPO ALERT Sensibilisation Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Financement Actifs incorporels Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions WIPO Webcast Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Assistant de classification États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Lois Traités Jugements Recherche par ressort juridique

Trinité-et-Tobago

TT020-j

Retour

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