Canada’s Intellectual Property Firm

IP Insights

A decision to watch: Groupe Swatch v Office québécois de la langue française

Authored byFrançois Larose and Francesca Roy

On October 27, 2025, the Tribunal administratif du Québec (TAQ) rendered a decision1 setting aside an order of the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) ordering Groupe Swatch (Canada) Ltée (Groupe Swatch) to add a “sufficient presence of French” to its storefront signage bearing the trademark SWATCH. This “sufficient presence of French” was required under the Charter of the French language (French Charter) and the Regulation respecting the language of commerce and business (Regulation), as they were in force when the OQLF issued its order. To our knowledge, it is the first decision rendered by the TAQ in an appeal of the OQLF’s new power to issue orders relating to trademarks under Bill 96.

Background

Groupe Swatch displays its registered trademark SWATCH on the exterior of a building located in Montréal, without any inscriptions in French.

On February 28, 2024, the OQLF sent a formal letter to Groupe Swatch, to notify it that its trademark was displayed outside a building solely in a language other than French, without ensuring a “sufficient presence of French”, as was required prior to the coming into force on June 1, 2025 of the new “markedly predominance of French” requirement under section 58.1. of the French Charter. Groupe Swatch refused to comply with the OQLF's direction, and the OQLF ultimately issued the order, which was appealed by Groupe Swatch before the TAQ.

The TAQ’s decision

On appeal, the OQLF argued that the requirements of the “recognized trademark” exception2 for public signage bearing a mark displayed outside a building only in a language other than French applied in the circumstances. As such, French text (such as a generic term or description of the goods or services, a slogan, or any other information useful to consumers) was required to allow Groupe Swatch to display SWATCH, a portmanteau word derived from the English language (“second ” and “watch”) and retaining its meaning in that language.

However, Groupe Swatch argued that the OQLF could not rely on the “recognized trademark” exception, since SWATCH is not a term in any language, but rather an “artificial combination of letters” benefiting from a specific exception under section 26 of the Regulation, such that no translation is required.

The TAQ agreed with Groupe Swatch's arguments and set aside the OQLF’s order. In doing so, the TAQ noted the following:

  • The assessment of whether a combination of letters is “artificial” must be made from the perspective of those targeted by it (although the TAQ also added that dissecting a word before looking for its meaning may be relevant when evidence shows that the word was chosen to circumvent the application of the French Charter).
  • It is unclear to the public what the “S” in SWATCH means (although, in our view, the meaning of “WATCH” in association with watches is probably clear to the public).
  • While “SWATCH” is actually an English word (meaning “échantillon” in French, i.e. sample), this specific meaning would not be relevant to the consumer of watches, as it is inapplicable to the commercial context (although it does not change the fact that it is an English word).
  • The Canadian Intellectual Property Office’s assessment of the registrability of a trademark may be relevant: descriptive trademarks or trademarks that consist of the name of the product with which they are associated are usually unregistrable. Such was not the case for SWATCH.

In the past few years, the TAQ and the courts have rejected the notion that names or marks are artificial combinations of letters when those names or marks originated from words in other languages (such as TiMES, GLOBOCAM, WELLARC, and KTK), even if those foreign words were not obvious to the public. In deciding that SWATCH was an “artificial combination of letters” that did not require translation, the TAQ seemed to have been influenced by Groupe Swatch’s longstanding use of its well-known mark (even though a trademark’s “fame” is not part of the test).  

The OQLF’s deadline to seek judicial review of the TAQ’s decision is December 8, 2025. At the time of writing, it had not yet filed an application for judicial review. We will continue to monitor this case and keep readers apprised of any developments.

The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and technology law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.

References

  1. Groupe Swatch (Canada) Ltée c Office québécois de la langue française, 2025 QCTAQ 10426.
  2. We refer you to our article “Quebec’s French language requirements for commerce and business: reform of the Charter of the French language” for an overview of French language requirements in Quebec for commerce and business under the French Charter.