1. Loss of Distinctiveness

2. Generally, a mark can lose distinctiveness in two ways Generally, a mark can lose distinctiveness in two ways Used by a competitor as a mark for a sufficient period of time that the public no longer associates the mark with the original owner Used by a competitor as a mark for a sufficient period of time that the public no longer associates the mark with the original owner Unitel v Bell Unitel v Bell Becomes used as the name of the wares – “genericide” Becomes used as the name of the wares – “genericide” Aladdin v Thermos Aladdin v Thermos

3. Genericide It is very desirable in some ways for the mark to become the name of the goods It is very desirable in some ways for the mark to become the name of the goods After any patent or other monopoly expires, consumers who ask for “a thermos” are likely to be given a Thermos brand vacuum bottle After any patent or other monopoly expires, consumers who ask for “a thermos” are likely to be given a Thermos brand vacuum bottle It is difficult for competitors to compete if they cannot name the wares they are selling by the common name It is difficult for competitors to compete if they cannot name the wares they are selling by the common name

4. History The early UK / Canadian Acts did not have an equivalent to s 18(1)(b), providing for invalidity if the trade-mark is not distinctive at the time proceedings bringing the validity of the registration into question are commenced, The early UK / Canadian Acts did not have an equivalent to s 18(1)(b), providing for invalidity if the trade-mark is not distinctive at the time proceedings bringing the validity of the registration into question are commenced, Only grounds for abandonment were (a) not registrable at the date of registration or (c) abandonment Only grounds for abandonment were (a) not registrable at the date of registration or (c) abandonment Therefore owner could register novel mark, advertise widely and hope to have it become generic Therefore owner could register novel mark, advertise widely and hope to have it become generic

5. Genericide Now, three routes to genericide Now, three routes to genericide Use of the mark as the name by: Use of the mark as the name by: The owner of the mark The owner of the mark Internal policing Internal policing Competitors of the owner Competitors of the owner External policing External policing Consumers and the general public Consumers and the general public Brand awareness Brand awareness

6. Thermos Thermos was both generic and distinctive Thermos was both generic and distinctive Does this make sense? Does this make sense? In the result, can the defendant use the term "thermos" in Canada? In the result, can the defendant use the term "thermos" in Canada? In US trade mark was also saved but competitors were allowed to use thermos so long as they did not capitalize it, they added their own brand and did not use the words "genuine" or "original" In US trade mark was also saved but competitors were allowed to use thermos so long as they did not capitalize it, they added their own brand and did not use the words "genuine" or "original"

7. Thermos Can Cdn Thermos register the following mark in respect of vacuum bottles? Can Cdn Thermos register the following mark in respect of vacuum bottles? See Aladdin Industries Inc v Canadian Thermos Products Ltd 15 CPR (2d) 75 (1974) See Aladdin Industries Inc v Canadian Thermos Products Ltd 15 CPR (2d) 75 (1974) TMA201340 TMA201340

8. Not 2009

9. Unitel v Bell The marks in issue (WATS) etc, were found not to be descriptive at the time of registration The marks in issue (WATS) etc, were found not to be descriptive at the time of registration However, the marks were found to have lost distinctiveness However, the marks were found to have lost distinctiveness How did this occur? How did this occur? How could it have been prevented? How could it have been prevented?

10. Unitel v Bell None of the directory pages filed in evidence exhibit trade mark designations for the marks WATS, INWATS and OUTWATS None of the directory pages filed in evidence exhibit trade mark designations for the marks WATS, INWATS and OUTWATS Whatever might have been the reason, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that in respect of all of the marks, unauthorized use was of such an extent by the time these proceedings were commenced as to render the trade marks not distinctive of the services of the respondent and those entitled to use the trade marks under registered user arrangementsained by the Registrar Whatever might have been the reason, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that in respect of all of the marks, unauthorized use was of such an extent by the time these proceedings were commenced as to render the trade marks not distinctive of the services of the respondent and those entitled to use the trade marks under registered user arrangementsained by the Registrar 1 Surnames, marks descriptive in French English 1 Surnames, marks descriptive in French English 12(a)(b) 12(a)(b) 2 Generic: the name of the wares 2 Generic: the name of the wares 12(c) 12(c) 3 Mark / Quasi-mark owned by another 3 Mark / Quasi-mark owned by another 12(d) - (h) 12(d) - (h) 4 Functional marks 4 Functional marks Case-law Case-law