A tale of two “SALAMS” in Toronto

A
TALEOFTWO“SALAMS”INTORONTO

LAURENTCARRIÈREANDLAURASEKULA*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,ANDPATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS
SUMMARY:TheFederalCourtofOntariorecentlydismissedanactionby“Salam
Toronto”fortrademarkinfringementagainstacompanyoperatingunderthesame
tradename.Itwasheldthat,despiteoperatingunderthesametradenameandboth
parties’focusonToronto’sIraniancommunity,therewasnoevidencetosatisfythe
testofconfusion:namelythatuseofthetradenamewouldleadthepublictoperceive
theIranianweeklynewspaperasalsoanimmigrationspecialist.Thustherewasheld
tobenotrademarkinfringementundersections7(b),19,20,22oftheTrade-marks
Act,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13.
Itwasthebestoftimes,itwastheworstoftimesforMr.Taghaviinthematterof
SalamTorontoPublicationsv.SalamTorontoInc.,2009FC24.Heisownerof“Salam
TorontoPublications”,journalistandpublisheroftherenownedbilingualEnglish-Farsi
newspaper“SalamToronto”.Mr.Taghaviregistered“SalamTorontoPublications”as
abusinessnamein2001,subsequentlyregistering“SalamToronto”asatrademarkin
2004.Hewentonabouthisbusinesshappily,publishingtheweeklynewspaperin
hardcopyandonline,muchtothedelightoftheIraniancommunityofToronto.
In2002,anothergentleman,Mr.Naghavi,registeredthebusinessname“Salam
Toronto”,usingitinconnectionwiththeprovisionofimmigrationandsettlement
services.Mr.Naghaviistheadministratorof“SalamTorontoInc.”,operatingunder
variousothertradenamesincluding“SalamTorontoImmigrationServices”and
“SalamTorontoImmigrationandSettlementServices”.Hetoobroughtjoytothe
IranianresidentsofTorontowithhisimmigrationadviceservices.
ButthiswascauseforconcerninMr.Taghavi’smind.Bothmenwereoperatingunder
almostidenticaltradenames(almostidenticalsurnamestoo);andastheywereboth
prominentmembersofToronto’sIraniancommunityhefearedhispublicationwould
beconfusedorotherwiseassociatedwithMr.Naghavi’simmigrationandsettlement

©CIPS,2009.*Lawyerandtrade-markagent,LaurentCarrière,isaseniorpartnerwithLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrade-markagents.LauraSekulaisaforeign
internwiththefirm.PublishedinaMarch2009issueofWorldMediaLawReport.Publication
328.061.

2
services.Thus,asanysensiblebusinessmanwoulddo,Mr.Taghavioptedtotake
legalactionagainstMr.Naghaviinanattempttoprotecthistrademark.Heallegedthe
following:
-Infringementofthemark”SalamToronto”throughuseofdomain
names(salamtoronto.net,salamtoronto.ca,salamtoronto.com
),email
addresses,advertisementsandstationary;
-Depreciationofgoodwillcontrarytosections19,20and22oftheTrade-
marksActR.S.C.1985,c.T-13(the“Act”);
-Confusioncontrarytosection7(b)oftheAct.

TheHonourableMadamJusticeSimpsonpassedjudgmentinJanuary,2009which
canbesurmisedasfollows:
Useof“SalamToronto”indomainnames,emailaddressesandadvertsclearlyfell
undertheambitofsection4(2)oftheAct,astheygivenotonlysubstantive
informationabouttheservicesbutserveadvertisingandpromotionalfunctions.
Displayofthemarkonstationaryontheotherhand,didnotmeetthisthresholdand
wasmerelyconsideredtocontaincontactinformation.
Onthequestionofconfusion,SimpsonJ.followedtheprinciplesestablishedinMattel
Inc.v.3894207CanadaInc.,([2006]1S.C.R772)andboundherselfstrictlytothe
requirementof“whetheraprobablepurchaserofordinaryintelligence,actingwith
ordinarycaution,wouldbeconfused”.Giventhat“SalamToronto”isaweaktrademark
andnotinherentlydistinctive,SimpsonJ.deemedsomeconfusiontobeunavoidable.
Onpreponderanceoftheevidenceinlightofsection6(4)and6(5)oftheAct,and
despitesomepotentialoverlapbetweenthecurrentaffairsnewspaperandimmigration
andsettlementservices,shedeemeditunlikelyfortheretobesignificantconfusion:
thePlaintiff’smarkseemedtohavebeencirculatedmorewidelyandhisdistinctive
statureasapublisherandjournalistrenderedtheprospectofbeingassociatedwitha
separateunrelatedimmigrationbusinesstooremote.Inaddition,thenewspaperand
theimmigrationservicesaretobeconsideredcompletelydifferentproducts,the
formerbeingfreeormodestlypricedandthelatterundoubtedlyinvolvingrelatively
significantcosts.
Onthebalanceofprobabilities,SimpsonJ.foundnoevidencetosuggestthatthe
Defendant’suseoftheMarkharmedthePlaintiffs’businessorreputation.Further,
consideringthattheDefendant’suseof“SalamToronto”didnotleadmembersofthe
IraniancommunityinTorontotoinferthatthePlaintiffwasbothapublisherandan
immigrationspecialist,nobreachofsection7(b)oftheActcouldbefound,meaning
confusionoccurred.Casedismissed!

3

ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstous
lesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriété
littéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielset
circuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secrets
decommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,
publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892
totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,
industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsof
origin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;
computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsand
plantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,
franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;
marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP(“ROBIC”)

4