Common Presence of the Word “London” in Parties’ Trade-marks not Likely to Cause Confusion, Confirms Federal Court in Appeal Case

2014-04-08

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006

COMMONPRESENCEOFTHEWORD“LONDON”INPARTIES’
TRADE-MARKSNOTLIKELYTOCAUSECONFUSION,CONFIRMSFEDERALCOURTINAPPEALCASE
BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

ArecentdecisionbyCanada’sFederalCourthasconfirmedanearlierdecisionbythe
Trade-marksOppositionBoardthatthetrade-markSMITH&BARNESLONDONwas
unlikelytocauseconfusionwiththetrade-markLONDONDRUGSsincethecommon
wordLONDONisnotinherentlydistinctive(LondonDrugsLimitedv.International
ClothiersInc.,2014FC223(F.C.),deMontignyJ.,March6,2014).

LondonDrugsLimited(“LondonDrugs”)isawell-knownCanadiandrugstoreand
retailerofgeneralmerchandiseinWesternCanada.Itistheownerofvarious
registeredtrade-marksthatincludethewordLONDON,suchasLONDONDRUGS,
THEMANYFACESOFLONDONDRUGS(&DESIGN),THECOSMETICS
DEPARTMENTOFLONDONDRUGSandTHEOPTICALDEPARTMENTOF
LONDONDRUGS,tonameafew.Thetrade-markLONDONDRUGSisregisteredin
associationwiththeoperatingofmoderndaydrugstoresfeaturingalloftheservices
offeredbysuchestablishmentswithwhichthepublicisfamiliar.Thetrade-markis
alsoregisteredforalonglistofwaresthatareusuallysoldinadrugstore,from
shampooanddisposablediaperstotoenailclippersandpregnancytests.Oneofthe
oldestregistrationsforthetrade-markLONDONDRUGSwassecuredonJanuary4,
1980.
OnNovember22,2005,InternationalClothiersInc.(“InternationalClothiers”)filed
withtheCanadianTrade-marksOfficetwoapplicationstoregisterthetrade-mark
SMITH&BARNESLONDON.Oneapplicationwasfiledinassociationwith“retail
clothingstoreservices”and“retaildepartmentstoreservices”onthebasisof
proposeduseofthetrade-markinCanadawhilethesecondapplication,alsofiledon
thebasisofproposeduse,wasforalistofwaresthatincludeclothingaccessoriesfor
ladies,housewares,kitchenaccessories,homefurnishingandothersimilargoods.

BothapplicationswereopposedbyLondonDrugswhichallegedthatthetrade-mark
SMITH&BARNESLONDONwasnotregistrablebecauseitisconfusingwithLondon

©CIPS,2014.*LawyerwithROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentandtrade-markagents.
PublishedunderthetitleCanadaCourtRulesCommonWordUsedinCompetingTrade-marksNot
LikelytoConfuse(May2014),28:8WorldIntellectualPropertyReport6-7.Publication142.294.

2
Drugs’trade-marksusedwithawiderangeofwaresandservicesasdetailedinits
manyregistrations,thatallprotecttrade-markshavinga“LONDON”component.
BeforetheOppositionBoard,LondonDrugsestablishedthatitisaleadingCanadian
drugstoreandretailerofgeneralmerchandisethathasbeeninoperationsince
approximately1946.Ithasbeenusingthetrade-markLONDONDRUGSin
associationwiththeoperationofitsdrugstoresanddepartmentstoressince
approximately1977.Asof2008,itoperated69stores,mostoftheminWestern
Canada.Becauseofthefameassociatedwithitstrade-marks,LondonDrugsargued
thatconfusionwaslikelywiththetrade-markSMITH&BARNESLONDON.

Foritspart,InternationalClothiersfiledevidencebeforetheOppositionBoardin
supportofitsapplications;itarguedthatthisevidenceshowedthattherewereover
50registeredtrade-marks,whichincludedthewordLONDON,forwaressuchas
clothingand/oraccessories,headwear,footwear,leathergoodsandotherproducts.
Someoftheseregistrationsprotectedtrade-marksthatwereregisteredinassociation
withstoreservicesand/ordepartmentstoreservices.FromInternationalClothiers’
pointofview,confusionwasunlikely.
AssuggestedbyCanada’sSupremeCourtinMasterpieceInc.v.AlavidaLifestyles
Inc.,2011SCC27,theOppositionBoardfirstexaminedthedegreeofresemblance
betweentheparties’respectivetrade-markstodecidewhetherconfusionwaslikely.
TheBoardfoundthattherewasnosimilaritybetweentheSMITHandBARNES
elementsofthetrade-markSMITH&BARNESLONDONandtheDRUGSelementof
theopponent’sLONDONDRUGStrade-markineitherappearanceorsound.Inits
reasons,theBoardleftasidethewordLONDONbecauseofitsverylowlevelof
inherentdistinctivenessinlightofitsgeographicalconnotation.Apartfroma
referencetothewordLONDON,theBoardconcludedthattherewasnosimilarityin
theideasuggestedbybothtrade-marks.ThemerepresenceofthewordLONDON
wasnotsufficienttocreateanyappreciabledegreeofresemblancebetweenboth
trade-marks(paragraph11oftheCourt’sreasons).Intheend,theBoardagreedwith
InternationalClothiersandconcludedthat,despitethefameassociatedwiththe
trade-markLONDONDRUGS,confusionasallegedbytheopponentwasunlikelyin
thecircumstances.
LondonDrugsappealedtheOppositionBoard’sdecisionand,asallowedby
Canada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13,bothpartiesfiledadditional
evidencebeforetheCourt.Thepurposeofthisadditionalevidencewastomodifythe
factualsettinginordertoconvincetheCourtthat,inLondonDrugs’view,the
OppositionBoard’sdecisionshouldbeoverturnedor,fromInternationalClothiers’
perspective,theBoard’sdecisionshouldbeconfirmedasitsfindingsweresupported
evenmorestronglybyInternationalClothiers’additionalevidence.

TheCourtwasnotconvincedthatanyoftheparties’additionalevidencewouldhave
changedinanysignificantmannertheOppositionBoard’sdecision.Accordingly,as
requiredbyprinciplesofCanadianadministrativelaw,itappliedtoexaminethe
Board’sdecisiononastandardofreasonableness;inotherwords,wastheBoard’s

3
decisionreasonableunderthecircumstances?Diditfallwithinarangeofpossible,
acceptableoutcomesthataredefensiblewithrespecttothefactsandthelaw?
(paragraph41oftheCourt’sreasons).
TheCourtbeganitsanalysisbyexaminingtheinherentdistinctivenessofthetrade-
markLONDONDRUGS.AccordingtotheCourt,thedistinctivenessofatrade-mark
hastodowithitsoriginality,uniquenessandinventiveness(paragraph47ofthe
Court’sreasons).Moreover,geographicdesignations,alongwithnames,surnames,
initials,anddescriptivetermsarenotinherentlydistinctiveandthereforeshouldnot
begrantedahighlevelofprotectionunlessacquireddistinctivenessisalsoarelevant
factor(paragraph49oftheCourt’sreasons).However,evenifatrade-markhas
achievedareputationandcanclaimacquireddistinctivenessthroughuse,theissue
ofitslackofinherentdistinctivenessdoesnotbecomeirrelevant(paragraph53ofthe
Court’sreasons).
Ontheissueofresemblance(orlackthereof)betweentheparties’trade-marks,the
Courtremarkedthatthereisnosinglemethodorrecipetoassessthedegreeof
resemblancebetweentwotrade-marks;moreover,inmanycases,theevaluationof
resemblancebetweenmarksisatleastinpartintuitive(paragraphs57and60ofthe
Court’sreasons).LondonDrugsarguedbeforetheCourtthatthewordLONDONwas
themoststrikingfeatureofitsmark.TheCourtfoundthisargumentunpersuasive
sincetherewasnoevidenceestablishingthatanaverageconsumerwouldbe
immediatelydrawntothewordLONDONwhenlookingattheparties’respective
marks.TheCourtwasdoubtfulthatthisconsumerwouldforgetabouttheotherwords
ineachmark.ThislastpointisimportantsinceLONDONisthefirstwordinthe
opponent’smarkwhileitisthelastintheapplicant’smark(paragraph59ofthe
Court’sreasons).
Intheend,theCourtagreedthattheOppositionBoard’sdecisionwasreasonable
andshouldnotbedisturbed.
LondonDrugsalsocomplainedthattheBoardconsideredtheissueofconfusionby
onlycomparingtheapplicant’smarkwiththeopponent’strade-markLONDON
DRUGS.TheCourtfoundthiscomplaintunfoundedsincethetrade-markLONDON
DRUGSofferedtheopponentitsbestcasescenario;ifconfusionwasunlikelywith
thistrade-mark,itwasevenlesslikelywithothertrade-marksthatwereevenless
similartotheapplicant’smark(paragraph72oftheCourt’sreasons).

TheCourt’sdecisionconfirmsyetagainthelimitedscopeofprotectionthatisgranted
totrade-marksthatincorporate,likehere,awordthatcorrespondstoageographical
placeoranyothersimilarlydescriptiveword.Unlessthetrade-marksatissueare
virtuallyidentical,smalldifferenceswillsufficetodistinguishtrade-marksthathavea
commonelementthatisnotinherentlydistinctive.

Pourdesservicesdeconseilsdansledomainedelapropriété
intellectuelleetdestechnologiesdel’informationetdescommunications
(incluantlesservicesd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce)
demêmequedesservicesjuridiques.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriété
intellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèles
utilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellations
d’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetde
l’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéet
étiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.ROBIC,
agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892to
theprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,
industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;
biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-
how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnology
transfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityand
labelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.
®/MD

COPYRIGHTER
TM/MC

IDEASLIVEHERE
®/MD

ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
®/MD

LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
®/MD

LEGERROBICRICHARD
®/MD

NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
®/MD

PATENTER
®/MD

6
ou«R»stylisé®/MD

ROBIC®/
MD

ouROBIC++++
®/MD

ouROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
®/MD

ouROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
®/MD

THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TM/MC

TRADEMARKER
TM/MC

VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE
®/MD

YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
®/MD

MarquesdecommercedeROBIC,S.E.N.C.R.L.poursesservicesde
conseilsdansledomainedelapropriétéintellectuelleetdes
technologiesdel’informationetdescommunications(incluantles
servicesd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce)demême
quesesservicesjuridiques

*************************************************************************************************
*
Forservicespertainingtointellectualproperty,technologyand
communicationlawandrelatedmatters(includingpatentandtrade-mark
agencyservices)aswellaslegalservices.

7
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriété
intellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèles
utilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellations
d’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetde
l’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéet
étiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.ROBIC,
agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892to
theprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,
industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;
biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-
how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnology
transfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityand
labelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.
®/MD