Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Quebec's Bill 96 and Trademarks: Product Packaging and Labelling
On May 24, 2022, the Quebec government adopted Bill 96, An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec (the Act), which modifies the Charter of the French Language (the Charter) in several ways. The modifications brought by the Act will have a far-reaching impact on how businesses use trademarks on product packaging, labelling, public signage and in commercial advertising. This article is Part One of a two-part series on Bill 96 and trademarks and covers the effects of Bill 96 as they relate to product packaging and labelling and how best to comply with these new provisions. Part Two, next issue, will focus on public signage and in commercial advertising.
Product Packaging and Labelling Amendments
Prior to the adoption of Bill 96, a "recognized" trademark in a language other than French could be used in Quebec on a product package or label without being translated into French, provided that a French version of the trademark was not registered. See, s. 7(4) Regulation respecting the language of commerce and business, CQLR c C-11, r 9. The Act does not amend the Regulation.) The term "recognized trademark" had been interpreted to include both registered and applied for trademarks as well as common law trademarks. See, Quebec (AG) c 156158 Canada Inc. (Boulangerie Maxie's), 2015 QCCA 35.
With Bill 96, the scope of this exception is greatly reduced. See, s. 51.1 Charter of the French Language, CQLR c C-11. First, only registered trademarks will fall within the scope of the exception. For a trademark to appear on a product package or label without an accompanying – and equally prominent — French translation, it must be registered. It is important to keep in mind that this provision affects not only English trademarks, but any trademark in a language other than French. Consequently, a trademark that is composed of words in foreign languages may be equally affected by Bill 96. The Office québécois de la langue française (the OQLF) enforcement authority has even asserted in the past, albeit in a different context, that an invented trademark that includes a foreign language component may be "in a language other than French."
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?