Breakfast Cereals and Their Shapes: Dots, Loops, Rings and Whirls Are Sufficiently Different Federal Court of Canada Rules
BREAKFASTCEREALSANDTHEIRSHAPES:DOTS,LOOPS,RINGSANDWHIRLSARE
SUFFICIENTLYDIFFERENTFEDERALCOURTOFCANADARULES
By
StellaSyrianos*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
TheFederalCourtofCanadarecentlyruledthatinassessingtheriskofconfusion
betweeninherentlyweaktrade-marks,smalldifferencessufficetoavert
confusion(WeetabixofCanadaLimitedvs.KelloggCanadaInc.T-2343-97,June
24th,2002,Blais,J.).
Facts
OnMay1
st,1992,WeetabixofCanadaLimited(hereinafter“Applicant”)filed
anapplicationtoregisterthetrade-markFRUITDOTS,underapplication
number704,156,inassociationwithbreakfastcereal,basedonproposeduse
inCanada.
OnFebruary23
rd,1993,KelloggCanadaInc.(hereinafter“Respondent”)
opposedtheproposedregistrationonthegroundthattheproposedtrade-
markwasconfusingwithitsregisteredtrade-markFROOTLOOPSunder
registrationnumber215,186.BoththeApplicantandtheRespondentwere
presentatanoralhearing.
OnSeptember4
th,1997,theOppositionBoardrefusedtheapplicationfor
registrationoftheApplicant’strade-markonthebasisthatitwasconfusing
withtheRespondent’strade-mark.Anappealwasthereforelaunchedtothe
FederalCourtofCanada.
FederalCourtTrialDivisionDecision
BeforetheFederalCourtTrialDivision,theApplicantadducedadditional
evidencerelatingtothestateofthemarketplaceafterMay1
st,1992.Atissue
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.*OftheLawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andthePatentandTrademarkAgencyFirmROBIC,
g.p.Publication142.145.
weretwoelements:(1)thematerialdateforassessingconfusionwhenthe
challengedmarkisfiledonaproposedusebasisand(2)whetherthe
RegistrarerredinrefusingtoregistertheApplicant’strade-markFRUITDOTS.
Materialdateforassessingconfusion
TheApplicantallegedthatthematerialdateforassessingconfusionwas
September4
th,1997,thatisthedateoftheRegistrar’sdecision.The
Respondentallegedthatthematerialdateshouldbethedateofthefilingof
theapplication.
TheCourtnotedthateventhoughtherewascaselawsupportingboththe
positionthatthematerialdateshouldbethedateofthefilingofthe
oppositionorshouldbethedateoftheRegistrar’sdecision,thesedecisions
werefactdriven.Assuch,theCourtconcludedthattherewasnoreason
whyitshoulddepartfromtheexpresswordingofsubsection16(3)oftheAct
andthatthematerialdateforassessingconfusionisthedateofthefilingof
theApplicant’sapplication,namelyMay1
st,1992.Therefore,theadditional
evidencesubmittedbytheApplicantthatwassubsequenttothematerial
datewasignoredbytheCourt.
ConfusionbetweenFROOTLOOPSandFRUITDOTS
Inassessingtheriskofconfusion,theCourtputgreatemphasisonthelackof
inherentdistinctivenessoftheparties’trade-marks.TheCourtnotedthat
whenbrokendowntotheirbasicelements,thetrade-marksatissuehadvery
limitedinherentdistinctiveness.Theword“FRUIT”oritsphoneticequivalent
“FROOT’wasdescriptiveoftheflavouringofthebreakfastcereals.Thewords
“DOTS”and“LOOPS”alludedtotheshapeofthecerealandassuch,the
trade-markswerecomprisedofdescriptivewordswhichdidnotenhance
theirinherentdistinctiveness.
Notwithstandingthisweakelement,theRespondentreliedonarguingthatits
markFROOTLOOPSwasafamousmarkandhadacquireddistinctiveness
throughitsextensiveuseandadvertisingforover30years.
However,intheeyesoftheCourt,thislong-standingusecouldnotallowitto
reconciletheRegistrar’sdecisionofconfusiondespiteitsclearfindingthatthe
parties’markswerenotinherentlydistinctive.Whileitnotedthatitisthe
combinationofthetrade-markFROOTLOOPSthatmakestheRespondent’s
markdistinctive,theCourtneverthelessconcludedthatitdidnotbelieve
confusioncouldarisebetweentheparties’marks.
Inreachingitsconclusion,theCourttookseveralfactorsintoconsideration.
First,whenfacedwithmarkswhichlackinherentdistinctiveness,theCourt
heldthatsmalldifferencessufficedtodistinguishthemfromoneanother.In
thiscasethedifferencesresidedinthedifferentspellingofthefirstwords,
“FRUIT”versus“FROOT”andtheappearance,soundandmeaningofthe
secondwords,“DOTS”versus“LOOPS”.
Second,theCourtalsotookintoconsiderationthatthestateoftheRegister
showedcommonuseofmarkscomprisingthecombinationoftheword
“FRUIT”andanotherwordalludingtotheshapeofcerealsaswellasmarks
containingtheword“FRUIT”forcerealinthattheyallco-existedwiththe
Respondent’strade-markbeforethematerialdateforassessingconfusion:
FRUITRINGS,FRUITWHIRLS,FRUITFULBRAN,POSTFRUITANDFIBREandTOOTIE
FRUITIES.Havingregardtothirdpartymarksco-existingontheRegister,the
CourtheldthattheApplicant’strade-markwasnotthatdifferentfromthese
marksandthatitmayalsoco-exist.
Finally,theCourt’sdecisionwasalsogreatlyinfluencedbytheconcurrentuse
oftheparties’marksintheUnited-Statesformanyyears.Thisconcurrentuse,
priortothematerialdate,wasadeterminingfactorastheCourtheldthatit
wasagoodindicationofthelackofpossibleconfusionbetweenthemarksin
Canada.AccordingtotheCourt,ithadtheeffectofmitigatingtheriskof
confusionbetweenthemarksatissue.
Conclusion
Indeterminingtherewasnoriskofconfusionbetweenthetrade-markFROOT
LOOPSandFRUITDOTS,theCourtwasseeminglymoreinfluencedbythelack
ofinherentdistinctivenessofthesemarksratherthanthelong-standinguseof
theFROOTLOOPStrade-markforaperiodofover30years.
ThislackofdistinctivenesscoupledwithstateoftheRegisterevidenceofthe
commonuseofthewords“FRUIT”inassociationwithcerealaswellasthe
presenceofthecombinationoftheword“FRUIT”incombinationwithwords
alludingtotheshapesofcerealprovedtobeacrucialfactorintheCourt’s
findingthatCanadianconsumerswouldpaymoreattentiontotheother
featuresofthemarksatissueandwoulddistinguishbetweenthembythose
otherfeatures.Inthepresentcase,theseelementsbeingthedifferent
spellingbetweenthewords“FRUIT”and“FROOT”andthephoneticandvisual
differencesbetweenthewords“DOTS”and“LOOPS”.
TheCourt’srulinginfavoroftheApplicantdemonstratestheimportanceof
surroundingcircumstanceswhichmayinfluenceitsdecisions.Italsoservesas
aremindertotrade-markownersthattheirlong-standinguseofinherently
weaktrade-marksmaynotinandofitselfsufficeinpreventingothersfrom
adoptingsimilartrade-markswhichcouldeventuallybeconsideredbythe
courtsasnon-confusing.
Publishedat(2002),16-9WIPR4-5underthetitle’FrootLoops’,’FruitDots’Are
DifferentEnoughToAvoidConfusion
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.
ROBIC,ungrouped avocatsetd agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd origine;droitsd auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslivehere.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD