In brief
On 27 October 2025, the Tribunal administratif du Québec (“Tribunal”) issued its most recent decision on Quebec’s French language laws in Groupe Swatch (Canada) Ltée c. Office québécois de la langue française (2025 QCTAQ 10426), setting aside an order from the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) that required Swatch Canada to include French on its exterior signage at its downtown Montreal storefront.
The Tribunal held that the registered SWATCH trademark constituted an artificial combination of letters under the Charter of the French Language (“Charter”) and therefore qualified for an exemption permitting its display without accompanying French text. While the decision applied the Charter as it stood prior to the full implementation of Bill 96, it provides valuable insight into the interpretation of translation exemptions for trademarks and artificial terms. Notably, the Tribunal drew on principles of Canadian trademark law to assess whether a mark can benefit from a translation exemption as a coined word under the Charter.
In depth
Regulatory framework
The central issue was whether Swatch was required to adhere to Article 58 of the Charter and its regulations in force at the time of the OQLF’s order. Importantly, Article 58.1 – introduced as part of sweeping Bill 96 reforms and requiring businesses to display French in a markedly predominant manner on storefronts – did not apply to this case, as the conduct in question predated the full implementation of Bill 96 in June 2025.
Under Article 58 of the Charter, public signage and commercial advertising, including storefront signage, must be in French alone or, if another language is used, the French text must be ‘markedly predominant’ to the text in the other language. According to the now-repealed regulations, this required the French text to have ‘much greater visual impact’ than any accompanying text in another language. At the relevant time, the Regulation respecting the language of commerce and business (“Regulation”) provided three key exemptions from the requirement to include accompanying French text:
- Article 25(4): Permitted the display of a “recognized” trademark in a language other than French, provided no French version of the trademark had been registered.
- Article 25.1: Required that, where a trademark was displayed exclusively in a non-French language on storefront signage, a “sufficient presence” of French be ensured elsewhere on the premises (e.g., through generic descriptors or slogans), and which was not subject to any specific sizing requirements.
- Article 26: Allowed the use of artificial combinations of letters, syllables, or numbers in exterior signage, without requiring French descriptors.
Key facts and analysis
Swatch displayed its registered trademark SWATCH on its storefront signage without any accompanying French text. In February 2024, the OQLF notified Swatch, alleging that while “SWATCH” was exempt from translation on the basis that it was a recognized trademark, it had to be accompanied by a “sufficient presence” of French (per Articles 25 and 25.1 of the Charter), and in November 2024, the OQLF issued a formal order requiring Swatch to ensure its public signage included a sufficient presence of French.
Swatch contested the order, arguing that Article 25(4) did not apply because “SWATCH” is an artificial combination of letters, not a mark in “a language other than French.” Instead, Swatch claimed that the exception under Article 26 applied, exempting it from the French language requirement. The OQLF maintained that the signage was subject to the requirement for a sufficient French presence applicable to non-French trademarks under Articles 25(4) and 25.1, citing a decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal which held that “non-French” trademarks under Article 25(4) of the Regulation are trademarks which do not contain any French language component and therefore must be accompanied by a sufficient presence of French. As such, the OQLF argued that SWATCH lacks any French component and therefore is a “non-French” trademark captured under Article 25(4).
The Tribunal agreed with Swatch, emphasizing that exceptions to the Charter must be interpreted strictly, but recognized that Article 26 creates a distinct carve-out from the general translation rule, separate and apart from the exemptions under Articles 25 and 25.1 of the Regulation. The Tribunal’s analysis focused on public perception rather than advertiser intent and, crucially, required a contextual determination of whether the term was artificial. It rejected the OQLF’s argument that SWATCH derived meaning from being a combination of “second” and “watch” (a meaning published on Swatch’s own website), noting that this etymology is neither apparent to the public nor relevant in the context of commercial signage. Instead, the Tribunal found that SWATCH is an invented term without inherent meaning in any language, functioning solely as a distinctive trademark. The mere phonetic resemblance to “watch” or the fact that the use of the letter “s” could mean “Swiss” or “second” did not negate its artificial character.
Use of trademark principles
As part of its contextual analysis, the Tribunal referenced Canadian trademark law, observing that registrable marks cannot be merely descriptive of goods or origin. It noted that the Canadian Intellectual Property Office’s decades of acceptance of the SWATCH registration confirmed its non-descriptive nature, reinforcing that the term’s significance is purely associated with identifying Swatch as a source of goods. By way of example, the Tribunal likened the SWATCH trademark to the average consumer’s perception of the well-known ROLEX trademark, which is also a coined term. Further, the Tribunal noted that the inclusion of a Swiss flag in the SWATCH logo vitiated any concerns that the word “SWATCH” could be sufficiently descriptive in isolation of the origin of the associated goods.
As such, SWATCH was found to be a coined word that does not belong to any language and therefore could benefit from the exemption under Article 26, and was therefore not subject to the alternative but more onerous translation exemptions available under Articles 25 and 25.1 as they existed at the time of the OQLF’s order.
Swatch post-Bill 96
Though the effect of trademark exemptions under the Charter was reduced by the coming into force of Bill 96, which narrowed their application in several ways, the Swatch decision signals a willingness on the part of the Tribunal to borrow external legal concepts to interpret the exemptions more broadly. In particular, this decision, which at the time of writing has not been appealed, rejects the notion that the Charter operates as an isolated or idiosyncratic regime within Quebec’s legal system. Instead, the Tribunal’s use of Canadian trademark principles suggests that established trademark jurisprudence may inform the interpretation of certain Charter provisions, including exemptions relating to trademarks. Importantly, it leaves the door open to the potential use of other Canadian legal concepts as other interpretative aids – though this remains untested. Ultimately, it is unclear whether the OQLF will adopt or consider its enforcement activities to be constrained by the Tribunal’s interpretive approach, given that Quebec is not a common law jurisdiction.
Key takeaways
- Distinctive trademarks and interpretation. The Tribunal appears to confirm that coined or invented trademarks, even where seemingly composed of defined dictionary words in another language, are eligible for the artificial combination exemption, provided the impression of the public is the coined word.
- Multiple exemptions. Where multiple exemptions can apply, parties may take the position that the more advantageous exemption should govern.
- Coined marks remain strong. Marketing and branding teams operating in Quebec should note that trademarks that are coined words, which typically benefit from inherent distinctiveness and stronger trademark protection, may also, in some cases, benefit from the less burdensome exemption available to artificial combinations of letters.
- Design and marketing compliance. Where exemptions do not apply, businesses must adapt branding and advertising strategies to include French descriptors or slogans that meet visual predominance standards. Early planning is essential to avoid enforcement risk, lower compliance costs and maintain brand visibility.
- Trademark rights may be considered in the enforcement of language laws. Although trademark rights do not supersede French language requirements, the Tribunal’s reasoning suggests that the nature and use of a trademark may nevertheless influence how those language laws are interpreted and applied. Legal and marketing teams should therefore treat trademark strategy and signage design as relevant factors in anticipating how the Charter may be enforced, even as compliance with French predominance requirements remains mandatory absent an exemption.
- Heightened enforcement and penalties. This case provides a clear example of an OQLF enforcement timeline. It took the OQLF nearly nine months to issue an order for compliance after its initial notice.