that the trade-mark owner have the right to use the trade-mark
in any context without any constraint.
 As recently explained by the Human Rights Tribunal in
Cardinal v. Rogers Communications Inc.,  O.H.R.T.D.
No. 574, 2017 HRTO 570, the Trade-Marks Act does not provide
a positive right to use a trade-mark. The fact that a trade-mark
user is required to use a trade-mark to maintain its registration
does not mean that the holder has a positive right to use the
trade-mark in the face of other legislation that would prohibit
that use. The Trade-Marks Act grants exclusivity of use, not the
right to use itself.
 A similar approach was taken by the British Columbia
Supreme Court in Benson & Hedges (Canada) Ltd. v. British
Columbia (Attorney General),  B.C.J. No. 417, 27 D.L.R.
(3d) 257 (S.C.), where it considered provincial legislation restricting the advertising of liquor. One of the arguments made was that
the legislation improperly restricted Benson and Hedges’ use of
its registered trade-marks. The argument was rejected, with the
court concluding that the rights arising from a trade-mark cannot
be used in contravention of validly enacted provincial laws that
imposes restrictions on the public in general.
 The only authority produced by the Applicant to the
contrary is a dissenting opinion in the Manitoba Court of
Appeal where the dissenting judge makes passing comments on
paramountcy when considering the Trade-Marks Act and provincial legislation regulating business names (Reference re: Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 91, 92,  M.J. No. 190, 80 D.L.R. (4th) 431
 There is no operational conflict between the federal and
provincial laws in this matter. It is possible to comply both with
the VQAO legislative and regulatory scheme and with the
Trade-Marks Act. If a manufacturer chooses to register a term under the
Trade-Marks Act that is also subject to quality control standards
under the Quality Rules, it is possible to comply with both
schemes by adhering to the quality control standards under the
Act. Further, nothing in the Trade-Marks Act suggests that wine
manufacturers should be free from the requirement to comply
with provincial quality control standards simply because they
choose to register a term under that act that is also subject to
 Both the Act and the Trade-Marks Act have consumer protection purposes that are consistent and compatible with each
other. The Act furthers the consumer protection purpose of the
Trade-Marks Act by ensuring that when wine manufacturers use
certain terms that are also subject to provincial regulation, they