Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd v Apotex Inc

Last updated


Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc.

Supreme Court of Canada 2.jpg

Hearing: March 27, 1992
Judgment: October 29, 1992
Full case nameCiba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Limited
Citations 1992 SCC 33, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 120, [1992] S.C.J. No 83
Docket No. 22251
Prior history Judgment against Ciba-Geigy in the Ontario Court of Appeal
Ruling Appeal allowed
Court Membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, William Stevenson, Frank Iacobucci
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons by Gonthier J.
Stevenson J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., [1992] 3 SCR 120, is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on trademark law and more specifically the issue of passing off. Ciba-Geigy brought an action against Apotex and Novopharm, alleging that their versions of the prescription drug metoprolol were causing confusion to the public due to their similar appearance to Ciba-Geigy’s version of the drug Lopresor. On appeal to the SCC, the issue was whether a plaintiff is required to establish that the public affected by the risk of confusion includes not only health care professionals but also the patients who consume the drugs in a passing off action involving prescription drugs of a similar appearance. The Supreme Court held affirmatively on this question.

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In common law countries such as the UK, Australia and New Zealand, passing off is a common law tort which can be used to enforce unregistered trade mark rights. The tort of passing off protects the goodwill of a trader from misrepresentation.

Apotex

Apotex Inc. is a Canadian pharmaceutical corporation. Founded in 1974 by Barry Sherman, the company is the largest producer of generic drugs in Canada, with sales exceeding CAD$1 billion per year. By 2016, Apotex employed over 10,000 people as one of Canada's largest drug manufacturers, with over 300 products selling in over 115 countries. Revenues were about CAD$1.19 billion annually. Apotex manufactures and distributes generic medications for a range of diseases and health conditions that include cancer, diabetes, high cholesterol, glaucoma, infections and blood pressure.

Contents

Background

Ciba-Geigy is a pharmaceutical laboratory which has manufactured and sold metoprolol tablets in Canada under the trade name “Lopresor” since 1977. Metoprolol is a prescription drug generally prescribed for hypertension. After Apotex obtained licenses to manufacture and sell metoprolol in Canada, its version of the tablets have had the same get-up (shape, size and colour) as those of Ciba-Geigy since 1986. Novopharm, another respondent joined in the action also manufactured tablets with the same get-up. The three drugs have been designated interchangeable pharmaceutical products by Ontario law, which means that a pharmacist may give a patient any one of them as long as the prescription does not specify no substitution. [1] In June 1986 the Ciba-Geigy brought passing-off actions against Apotex and Novopharm, alleging that its metoprolol tablets have a unique get-up by reason of their size, shape and colour and that this get-up has become associated with its product. [2] In order to establish that Apotex and Novopharm were engaged in passing off by confusing the public with their products, Ciba-Geigy needed to prove that the customers of these drugs were likely to be misled by the similarity of the products.

At the trial level, Ciba-Geigy failed to establish that the customers, namely physicians and pharmacists that prescribe or dispense metoprolol, were confused in choosing the brand of metoprolol to give to patients due to the similar appearance of the tablets. For this reason, the Supreme Court of Ontario refused to issue an interlocutory injunction because Ciba-Geigy failed to show that there was a "serious issue" to be tried. [3] At the Court of Appeal, Ciba-Geigy argued that the customers affected by the passing-off should include ultimate consumer of the prescribed drug as they are likely to be confused by the similar appearance of the products in question. The Court of Appeal rejected its argument and dismissed the appeal. [4]

Reasons of the court

The unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered by Justice Gonthier. The Court allowed the appeal and held that a plaintiff in an action for the alleged passing-off of a prescription drug must establish that the conduct complained of is likely to result in the confusion of physicians, pharmacists or patients/customers in choosing whether to prescribe, dispense or request either the plaintiff's or the defendant's product. Therefore, patients are considered to be part of the relevant public in a passing-off action as they are the ultimate consumes of the drugs. [5]

General principles of passing off

The Court concluded three necessary components of a passing-off action from previous case law: the existence of goodwill, deception of the public due to a misrepresentation and actual or potential damage to the plaintiff. In order for a manufacturer to succeed in a passing off action, he or she had to show that its product had acquired a secondary meaning with its customers and that the competing product was likely to create a risk of confusion in the public mind. [6] The confusion can arise from both wilful as well as negligent or careless misrepresentation by the manufacturer. [7]

Purposes of the passing off action

The Court stated that the purpose of a passing-off action is to protect all persons affected by the product, which include the persons who manufacture or market the products, on the one hand ("the manufacturers"), and on the other to those for whom the products are intended, the persons who buy, use or consume them ("the customers"). [8]

Protection of manufacturers

In determining the purpose of a passing off action, the Court cited Consumers Distributing Co. v. Seiko Time Canada Ltd.: [9] “The courts have wavered between two conceptions of a passing-off action -- as a remedy for the invasion of a quasi-proprietary right in a trade name or trade mark, and as a remedy, analogous to the action on the case for deceit, for invasion of the personal right not to be injured by fraudulent competition.”

The Court decided that the true basis of a passing off action is the latter, or that it injures a property right in the plaintiff, which is the owner’s right to the goodwill of his or her business. [10] It further concluded that the purpose of passing off is also to prevent unfair competition and loss of profit for the manufacturer injured by the misrepresentation. [11]

Protection of customers

The SCC has long recognized trademark laws as being enacted primarily in the interest and for the protection of the public. [12] The Court in this case also emphasizes that the purpose of a passing off action is to protect the public from misrepresentation by manufacturers.

Because the product’s appearance or its packaging, in terms of shape, size or colour, may be characteristic of a particular manufacturer, consumer may associate the appearance with either a brand or trademark in his or her mind, or rely on the appearance to indicate the use of the product without knowing the name of the product or manufacturer. [13] The question that needed to be addressed by the Court was that who are the consumers that must be protected from being confused by manufacturers when their products are of a similar appearance. Based on previous cases outside the field of pharmaceutical products, the Court observed that the “clientele” in whose minds confusion must be avoided includes all customers, whether direct (for example retailers) or indirect (consumers). [14]

Affected customers in the pharmaceutical field

An important precedent considered in this appeal is the case of Ayerst, McKenna & Harrison, Inc. v. Apotex Inc.(1983), [15] which addressed similar issues associated with drugs with similar appearance. In the Court of Appeal decision, Cory J.A. commented that for the purposes of a passing-off action the customers of pharmaceutical laboratories consist exclusively of health care professionals and not the patients who use the product. [16] This decision was subsequently followed by a number of cases. [17] The Court declined to follow the opinion in Ayerst, McKenna & Harrison. One of the reasons is that the field of prescription drugs is just like any other market, where the ultimate consumer should be taken into account in a tort of passing off, and there is no reason for the Court to adopt a different rule when the manufacturer is a pharmaceutical laboratory. [18] In addressing Ciba-Geigy’s argument, the Court also observed that despite the regulatory restriction on public advertising of prescription drugs, patients can still gain knowledge about the products through pharmaceutical advertising directed at health care professionals, and therefore risk being affected by confusion. [19] Another important consideration by the Court is that the Prescription Drug Cost Regulation Act which later came into force gave patients increased control over the brand of drug he or she wishes to obtain where the product is interchangeable. The Court found that patients do have the opportunity to exercise their choice over the product brand in the prescription process, therefore patients should be included in the customers covered by the passing-off action as they are also exposed to the risk of confusion. [20]

Related Research Articles

Food and Drug Administration agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services

The Food and Drug Administration is a federal agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments. The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the control and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), cosmetics, animal foods & feed and veterinary products. As of 2017, 3/4th of the FDA budget is paid by people who consume pharmaceutical products, due to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.

Novartis Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company

Novartis International AG is a Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company based in Basel, Switzerland. It is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies by both market capitalization and sales.

Over-the-counter drug medication available without a prescription

Over-the-counter (OTC) drugs are medicines sold directly to a consumer without a prescription from a healthcare professional, as opposed to prescription drugs, which may be sold only to consumers possessing a valid prescription. In many countries, OTC drugs are selected by a regulatory agency to ensure that they contain ingredients that are safe and effective when used without a physician's care. OTC drugs are usually regulated according to their active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) rather than final products. By regulating APIs instead of specific drug formulations, governments allow manufacturers the freedom to formulate ingredients, or combinations of ingredients, into proprietary mixtures.

Generic drug pharmaceutical drug that is equivalent to a brand-name product in dosage, strength, route of administration, quality, performance, and intended use

A generic drug is a pharmaceutical drug that has the same chemical substance as the drug that was originally developed, patented and innovated. Generic drugs are allowed for sale after the expiry of the patent of the original drugs. Because the active chemical substance is the same, the medical profile of generics is believed to be equivalent in performance. The generic drug has the same active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) as the original, but it may differ in characteristics such as manufacturing process, formulation, excipients, color, taste, and packaging.

Pharmacy academic discipline studying preparation and dispensation of medicines

Pharmacy is the science and technique of preparing, dispensing, and review of drugs and providing additional clinical services. It is a health profession that links health sciences with pharmaceutical sciences and aims to ensure the safe, effective, and affordable use of drugs. The professional practice is becoming more clinically oriented as most of the drugs are now manufactured by pharmaceutical industries. Based on the setting, the pharmacy is classified as a community or institutional pharmacy. Providing direct patient care in the community of institutional pharmacies are considered clinical pharmacy.

Prescription drug licensed medicine that is regulated by legislation to require a medical prescription before it can be obtained

A prescription drug is a pharmaceutical drug that legally requires a medical prescription to be dispensed. In contrast, over-the-counter drugs can be obtained without a prescription. The reason for this difference in substance control is the potential scope of misuse, from drug abuse to practicing medicine without a license and without sufficient education. Different jurisdictions have different definitions of what constitutes a prescription drug.

Metoprolol, marketed under the tradename Lopressor among others, is a medication of the selective β1 receptor blocker type. It is used to treat high blood pressure, chest pain due to poor blood flow to the heart, and a number of conditions involving an abnormally fast heart rate. It is also used to prevent further heart problems after myocardial infarction and to prevent headaches in those with migraines.

Canadian trademark law provides protection to marks by statute under the Trade-marks Act and also at common law. Trademark law provides protection for distinctive marks, certification marks, distinguishing guises, and proposed marks against those who appropriate the goodwill of the mark or create confusion between different vendors' goods or services. A mark can be protected either as a registered trade-mark under the Act or can alternately be protected by a common law action in passing off.

<i>Kirkbi AG v Ritvik Holdings Inc</i>

Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., popularly known as the Lego Case, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court upheld the constitutionality of section 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act which prohibits the use of confusing marks, as well, on a second issue it was held that the doctrine of functionality applied to unregistered trade-marks.

An online pharmacy, Internet pharmacy, or mail-order pharmacy is a pharmacy that operates over the Internet and sends the orders to customers through the mail or shipping companies.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising usually refers to the marketing of pharmaceutical products but also applies to the direct marketing of medical devices, consumer diagnostics and sometimes financial services. Avenues for DTC advertising include TV, print, radio and other mass and social media. This form of advertising is directed toward patients, rather than healthcare professionals. The objective of direct-to-consumer advertising by a pharmaceutical company is to promote a particular medication to the patient directly.

Subacute myelo-optic neuropathy (SMON) is an iatrogenic disease of the nervous system leading to a disabling paralysis, blindness and even death. Its defining manifestation was as an epidemic in Japan during the 1960s: the Japanese government estimated 11,000 were affected; however, the College of Medicine at the University of Tokyo put the number at 30,000, citing a lack of preservation of medical records for longer than five years and a lack of cooperation from doctors as the reasons for the discrepancy. On August 3, 1978, the Tokyo District Court ruled that the cause of SMON is Clioquinol. Its manufacturer, Ciba-Geigy, has publicly stated that "Medical products manufactured and sold by us have been responsible for the occurrence of [SMON] in Japan, we extend our apologies."

Pharmaceutical policy is a branch of health policy that deals with the development, provision and use of medications within a health care system. It embraces drugs, biologics, vaccines and natural health products. Pharmaceutical policy includes:

Bernard Charles "Barry" Sherman, was a Canadian businessman and philanthropist who was chairman and CEO of Apotex Inc. With an estimated net worth of US$3.2 billion at the time of his death, according to Forbes, Sherman was the 12th-wealthiest Canadian. Another publication, Canadian Business, stated his fortune at $4.77 billion (CAD), ranking him the 15th richest in Canada. Sherman and his wife were murdered in their home by unknown assailants, according to Toronto Police who are still investigating the case.

Drug coupon

A drug coupon is a coupon intended to help consumers save money on pharmaceutical drugs. They are offered by drug companies or distributed to consumers via doctors and pharmacists, and most can be obtained online. There are drug coupons for drugs from many categories such as cholesterol, acne, migraine, allergies, etc.

In Canada, passing off is both a common law tort and a statutory cause of action under the Canadian Trade-marks Act referring to the deceptive representation or marketing of goods or services by competitors in a manner that confuses consumers. The law of passing off protects the goodwill of businesses by preventing competitors from passing off their goods as those of another.

<i>Teva Canada Ltd v Pfizer Canada Inc</i>

Teva Canada Ltd v Pfizer Canada Inc2012 SCC 60 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the disclosure requirements for a patent in Canada.

Pharmaceutical industry in Switzerland

The pharmaceutical industry in Switzerland directly and indirectly employs about 135,000 people. It contributes to 5.7% of the gross domestic product of Switzerland and contributes to 30% of the country's exports.

References

  1. Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., [1992] 3 SCR 120 at paras 2-6.
  2. Ciba-Geigy at paras 7-9.
  3. Ciba-Geigy at para 13.
  4. Ciba-Geigy at paras 17-19.
  5. Christopher Wadlow, The Law of Passing-off: Unfair Competition by Misrepresentation (UK: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011) at 770.
  6. Ciba-Geigy at paras 33-36; Theresa M Corneau, ed, Trade-Mark Practice in Canada (Canada: Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 2011) at 102.
  7. Ysolde Gendreau, An Emerging Intellectual Property Paradigm: Perspectives from Canada (UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009) at 59; Emir Crowne & Sepideh Nassabi, “Parsing off the Elements of Passing Off in Canada” (2012) 39 Adv Q 452 at 455.
  8. Ciba-Geigy at paras 38-39.
  9. Consumers Distributing Co v Seiko Time Canada Ltd, [1984] 1 SCR 583.
  10. Ciba-Geigy at para 43.
  11. Ciba-Geigy at paras 46-47.
  12. David Vaver, Intellectual Property Law, 2d ed (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2011) at 427.
  13. Ciba-Geigy at paras 54-55.
  14. Ciba-Geigy at paras 62-65.
  15. Ayerst, McKenna & Harrison, Inc v Apotex Inc (1983), 41 OR (2d) 366 (ONCA).
  16. Ciba-Geigy at paras 70-72.
  17. Ciba-Geigy at para 107.
  18. Ciba-Geigy at para 98.
  19. Ciba-Geigy at paras 94-97.
  20. Ciba-Geigy at paras 83-92.

See also