Osgoode Hall Law School of York University Osgoode Digital Commons PhD Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 3-6-2018 Translating Trademarks: Towards the Equal Treatment of Foreign- Language Marks Ung Shen Goh Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/phd Part of the International Law Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Translating Trademarks: Towards the Equal Treatment of Foreign-Language Marks Ung Shen Goh A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIRMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Graduate Program in Law York University Toronto, Ontario March 2018 © Ung Shen Goh, 2018 ABSTRACT Part A of this dissertation tells the story of The Coca-Cola Company‟s trademark registrations in Canada in order to illustrate the linguistic issues faced by trademark administrators. A trademark‟s registrability depends on its distinctiveness, which is its ability to can distinguish its trader‟s goods and services from those of another trader. Knowing how well a trademark will function to distinguish means ascertaining first what has already been registered, which is no easy task when the databases cannot administer foreign-language marks that are not Romanized. Part A proposes the solution of transcribing foreign-language marks that are not Romanized, so they can be filed/searched appropriately in databases. Part B of this dissertation tells the story of two competing Chinese bakeries in Canada in order to illustrate the linguistic struggles of the judiciary. These struggles are nothing new, as academics have noted that “[l]ong before the introduction of the registration system [by what was then England in 1875], owners of marks containing terms in foreign languages or scripts could in certain circumstances prevent their use by trade rivals” and that by 1905 English and North American case law “has been fruitful of conflicting holdings.” What is new in the 21st Century is the increasing frequency of foreign-language marks that are not Romanized, as the added complexity of foreign scripts makes it harder for courts to assess and compare trademarks that they cannot even read or sound out, much less understand. Part B proposes the solution of assuming linguistic knowledge for all foreign-language marks, so they can be assessed and compared appropriately in the case law. ii DEDICATION To Dr. Ling Goh: Beloved sister, Forever friend, and Consummate cheerleader! iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Supervisory Committee: Professor David Vaver (C.M.), Supervisor Dr. Carys Craig, Osgoode Hall Law School Professor Wee Loon Ng-Loy, National University of Singapore Examination Committee: Dr. Saptarishi Bandopadhyay, Chair Dr. Catherine Ng, University of Aberdeen Dr. Carys Craig, Osgoode Hall Law School Professor Eileen Fischer, Schulich School of Business Professor David Vaver (C.M.), Osgoode Hall Law School iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………………. ii DEDICATION ………………………………………………………………………………….. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………………………………….. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………………………………………... v INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………. 1 CHAPTER 1: ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEM ……………………………………………….. 7 1.1 The Problem of Classifying Foreign-Language Marks that are not Romanized ………... 7 1.2 The Problem is Widespread in Canada ……………………………………………….... 12 1.3 The Problem is Widespread Internationally ………………………………………….... 16 CHAPTER 2: ADMINISTRATIVE SOLUTION ……………………………………………... 20 2.1 The Solution of Transcribing Foreign-Language Marks that are not Romanized ……... 20 2.2 The Solution as Illustrated by the Foreign-Language Marks for COCA-COLA ………. 21 CHAPTER 3: ADMINISTRATIVE ALTERNATIVES ………………………………………. 29 3.1 Classify as Design Marks Because not in an Official Language ………………………. 29 v 3.2 Classify as Design Marks Because not in a Romanized Language ……………………. 32 3.3 Classify as Word Marks by Transcribing Every Dialect ………………………………. 36 3.4 Classify as Word Marks by Having Fluent Examiners ……………………………….... 39 CHAPTER 4: JUDICIAL PROBLEM ……………………………………………………….... 44 4.1 The Problem as Illustrated by Two Chinese Bakeries in Canada …………………….... 44 4.2 The Problem of Proving Linguistic Knowledge ……………………………………….. 50 4.3 The Problem of Proving Linguistic Knowledge Creates Inequality in Canada ………... 58 4.4 The Problem of Proving Linguistic Knowledge Lacks Statutory Basis in Canada ……. 64 CHAPTER 5: JUDICIAL SOLUTION ………………………………………………………... 68 5.1 The Solution of Assuming Linguistic Knowledge ……………………………………... 68 5.1.1 Assessing for Distinctiveness ………………………………………………….. 70 5.1.2 Comparing for Confusion …………………………………………………….... 74 5.1.2A Comparing for Confusion with Translations …………………………………... 77 5.1.2B Comparing for Confusion with Transliterations ……………………………….. 80 CHAPTER 6: JUDICIAL ALTERNATIVES …………………………………………………. 86 6.1 American Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents ……………………………………………. 86 6.1.1 Comparing English to a Foreign Language ……………………………………. 92 6.1.2 Comparing the Same Foreign Languages …………………………………….... 93 6.1.3 Comparing Different Foreign Languages …………………………………….... 95 6.1.4 Multiple Meanings Discourage Translation ……………………………………. 97 vi 6.1.5 Marketplace Meaning Discourages Translation ……………………………….. 98 6.1.6 Language Combination Discourages Translation …………………………….... 98 6.2 European Approach …………………………………………………………………... 100 6.2.1 Official & Working Languages ………………………………………………. 101 6.2.2 Indigenous, Regional & Minority Languages ……………………………….... 103 6.2.3 Foreign Languages ……………………………………………………………. 104 6.3 Chinese Approach …………………………………………………………………….. 105 6.3.1 Example of TRUMP ………………………………………………………….. 106 6.3.2 Example of JORDAN ……………………………………………………….... 109 CHAPTER 7: LINGUISTIC KNOWLEDGE ………………………………………………... 114 7.1 Registrability of Trademarks …………………………………………………………. 114 7.1.1 Names or Surnames …………………………………………………………... 115 7.1.2 Distinctiveness of Trademarks ………………………………………………... 117 7.1.2.1 Inherently Distinctive Marks …………………………………………. 119 7.1.2.2 Suggestive Marks ……………………………………………………... 120 7.1.2.3 Descriptive/Misdescriptive Marks ……………………………………. 120 7.1.2.4 Generic Marks ……………………………………………………….... 121 7.1.3 Confusion of Trademarks …………………………………………………….. 122 7.1.3.1 Reference Sources …………………………………………………….. 123 7.1.3.2 Social Influences …………………………………………………….... 124 vii 7.1.3.3 Government Documents …………………………………………….... 126 7.1.3.4 Corporate Materials …………………………………………………... 128 7.1.3.5 Expert Witnesses …………………………………………………….... 129 7.1.3.6 Lay Testimonies ………………………………………………………. 129 7.1.3.7 Translations vs Transliterations ………………………………………. 130 7.1.4 Prohibited Marks …………………………………………………………….... 132 7.1.5 Plant Breeders‟ Rights Act ……………………………………………………. 136 7.1.6 Geographical Indications ……………………………………………………... 137 7.1.7 Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act ………………………………………….. 138 7.2 Rights of (Limits/Defences to) Registration ………………………………………….. 138 7.2.1 Right against Infringement ………………………………………………….... 142 7.2.1.1 Rights without End ………………………………………………….... 144 7.2.1.2 Rights without Exceptions ……………………………………………. 149 7.2.1.3 Rights without Responsibilities ………………………………………. 153 7.2.2 Right against Depreciation ……………………………………………………. 154 7.2.2.1 Dilution of Trademark ………………………………………………... 156 7.2.2.2 Dilution of Goods and Services ………………………………………. 161 7.2.2.3 Dilution of Use ………………………………………………………... 165 7.2.2.4 Dilution of Territory ………………………………………………….. 171 7.2.3 Right to License ………………………………………………………………. 173 7.2.4 Right to Translate ……………………………………………………………... 177 7.2.4.1 Dilution by Blurring …………………………………………………... 179 viii 7.2.4.2 Dilution by Tarnishment …………………………………………….... 181 7.2.4.3 Free Riding ……………………………………………………………. 182 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………………….. 186 BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………………………….. 188 ix INTRODUCTION Law is a social construct that often features fictitious characters. Criminal law applies the standard of the reasonable person to establish criminal negligence.1 Civil law applies the same standard to establish tort liability for negligence.2 Intellectual property law also has its legal fictions. Patent law imagines a person skilled in the art to assess non-obviousness.3 Copyright law imagines a similar person or a lay person to assess copying,4 as well as the author to assess originality.5 Trademark law imagines the consumer to assess confusion.6 The trademark consumer is split into further fictitious characters, which is where the social construct starts to fall apart because the fictitious characters are arbitrarily given contradictory personalities. Examples include the sovereign versus the fool; 7 the passive 1 R v Hill, [1986] 1 SCR 313 at 324-325 (“The criminal law is concerned among other things with fixing standards for human behavior. We seek to encourage conduct that complies with certain societal standards of reasonableness and responsibility. In doing this, the law quite logically employs the objective standard of the reasonable person.”). 2 Vaughan v Menlove, (1937) 132 ER 490 (CP) (“The care taken by a prudent man has always been the rule laid down; … Instead, therefore, of saying that the liability for negligence should be co-extensive with the judgment of each individual, which would be as variable as the length of the foot of each individual, we ought rather to adhere to the rule which requires in all cases a regard to caution such as a man of ordinary prudence would observe.”). 3 Beloit Canada Ltd v Valmet Oy (1986), 8 CPR (3d) 289 at 294 (“The question to be asked is whether