Wanakome Inc. (Wanakome) is a Canadian corporation and Kemel Hadad (Hadad) was the controlling shareholder. Wanakome applied in Canada for the trademark WANAKOME. The application was eventually opposed by the defendants. Wanakome Inc. v. Martin 2024 FC 688
The defendants, Eric and Kara Martin, are the owners of the shares of Park Enterprises Worldwide Inc. (Park). Park’s commercial activities included the sale and distribution of various lines of clothing at a wholesale level, including clothing bearing the WANAKOME trademark.
For over two years, Hadad and his company Double J Fashion Group 2013 (Double J) were in a business relationship with Park, which involved the conception of the WANAKOME brand, the incorporation of Wanakome Inc. and the manufacture, production, distribution and sale of clothing bearing the WANAKOME trademark and sometimes, the Wanakome Logo. The logo was the subject matter of Canadian copyright registration owned by Park.
The defendants were looking for a business partner who could handle production and distribution of a new clothing brand while they would oversee marketing, design, communication, customer relations, and sales. Hadad had the attributes and the parties worked jointly and collaborated on the production and sale of the WANAKOME line of clothing. Hadad/Double J handled the finances, and was responsible for administration, manufacture and production of the clothing line, while Park was responsible for sales, marketing, public relations and most aspects of design.
The Martins conceived the WANAKOME trademark based on a trip they had taken to New Zealand. Hadid incorporated Wanakome Inc. and caused it to file trademark applications in several countries including Canada.
Hadid gave Eric Martin a draft shareholder agreement for Wanakome Inc., which identified Hadad, Eric Martin and Robert Carsley, a business associate of Hadad, as proposed shareholders. Over the Fall of 2019, Eric Martin contacted Hadad on several occasions to discuss the draft agreement and in January 2020, sent Hadad a mark-up of the draft; however, a final agreement was never made or executed.
The relationship between Hadad and Park soured. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff had misappropriated the Wanakome Brand and was “abusively” claiming sole ownership. They contended that when the trademark application was filed, they were reassured in writing they “would be taken care of in the Wanakome Inc. shareholder agreement” and that shares were to be issued to their benefit.
The Action
Hadad caused Wanakome Inc to bring an action against the Martins and Park seeking a declaration that Wanakome Inc was the owner of the WANAKOME mark and that the copyright registration was invalid. It was also alleged the defendants had engaged in passing off.
On the first issue the Judge referred to the fact that the parties for a considerable period acted on the basis there was a joint venture between them. Wanakome Inc.’s intellectual property would remain the sole property of Wanakome Inc. and not that of its shareholders, who were to include Hadad and Martin, amongst others.
There was a live dispute between Hadad and the Martins as to their respective interests in Wanakome Inc. that extended beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. In addition, it was not clear whether Hadad had authority to terminate the relationship with the defendants and take sole control over the WANAKOME trademark. As a result, the Judge refused to grant the requested declaration.
Based on this conclusion the plaintiff could not assert a claim to passing off. In an action under subsection 7(b), the plaintiff must meet an initial threshold requirement of establishing possession of a valid and enforceable trademark, either registered or unregistered, when the defendant first began directing public attention to its own goods and services.
Regarding the copyright the plaintiff failed to show that there was another joint author of the design. It also failed to establish any assignment to it of the copyright express or implied.
Comment
The parties started with a good approach. It seems better to have a corporate vehicle own the intellectual property of a new business since this allows for more flexibility in working out the respective interests of the parties involved. Having one individual own all or much of the intellectual property seems overly blunt. Unfortunately, in this case things broke down in negotiating the agreement between the parties.
If you have questions, please contact me at mckeown@gsnh.com
Goldman Sloan Nash & Haber LLP 480 University Avenue, Suite 1600 Toronto, Ontario M5G 1V2 Direct Line: (416) 597-3371 Fax: (416) 597-3370 Email: mckeown@gsnh.com
These comments are of a general nature and not intended to provide legal advice as individual situations will differ and should be discussed with a lawyer.
A version of this article originally appeared in the Law360 Canada published by LexisNexis Canada Inc.
Comments