Confusion Beyond a Reasonable Doubt? Federal Court of Appeal Rules on Burden of Proof Applicable to Trade-Mark Matters
CONFUSIONBEYONDAREASONABLEDOUBT?FEDERALCOURTOFAPPEAL
RULESONBURDENOFPROOFAPPLICABLETOTRADE-MARKMATTERS
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
TheFederalCourtofAppealofCanadarecentlyrenderedadecisionwhich
clearlyestablishesthatanapplicant’sburdenofproofinshowingthat
confusionisunlikelyandthathence,ithasrightstoitstrade-markregistration,
isonethatshouldnotbemoreonerousthantheoneapplicableincivil
proceedings(i.e.balanceofprobabilities)(DionNeckwearLtd.vs.Christian
Dior,S.A.etals.A-258-00,January23
rd,2002,Décary,J.A.).
TheFacts
OnMarch6
th,1992,theAppellant,DionNeckwearLtd.(“Dion”)filedan
applicationinCanadatoregisterthetrade-markDIONCOLLECTION&Design
basedonuseinCanadainassociationwithneckties,scarvesandascotsand
basedonproposeduseinCanadainassociationwithclothes,underwear,
wallets,umbrellas,belts,watchesandglasses.
OnMarch24
th,1993,theRespondent,ChristianDiorS.A.(“Dior”)opposedthe
proposedregistrationprimarilyonthegroundthattheproposedtrade-mark
wasconfusingwithitsDIORfamilyoftrade-marks(somemarksincludedthe
wordsCHRISTIANDIORandsomeincludedonlythewordDIOR)inassociation
withclothesandaccessories.
OnJune1
st,1993,Dionfileditscounterstatmentofopposition.BothDionand
DiorfiledaffidavitevidencebeforetheOppositionBoardbutnocross
examinationswereconducted.
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2002.*OftheLawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andthePatentandTrademarkAgencyFirm
ROBIC,g.p.Publication142.136.
TheRegistrar’sDecision
OnSeptember4
th,1996,theRegistrarrefusedtheapplicationforDion’strade-
markbasedonhisfindingthattheAppellantfailedtomeetthelegalburden
uponittoestablishthatconfusionbetweentheDIONCOLLECTION&Design
markandtheDIORmarkswasunlikely.
Inhisdecision,theRegistrarstatedthefollowing:“…Iamstillleftindoubtasto
whethertherewouldbeareasonablelikelihoodofconfusionbetweenthe
applicant’strade-markDIONCOLLECTION&DesignandtheOpponent’s
registeredtrade-marksDIORinviewofthedegreeofvisualsimilaritybetween
themarksasappliedtooverlappingwarestravellingthroughthesame
channelsoftrade.”
ANoticeofAppealwasfiledonNovember4
th,1996.TheAppellant
adducedadditionalevidenceintheformoftwoaffidavits.TheRespondent
chosetoadducenofurtherevidence.
TheFederalCourtTrialDivisionDecision
ThesubjectoftheappealwaswhethertheRegistrar’sconclusionthatthe
appellanthadnotdischargedtheonusofshowingthattherewasno
reasonablelikelihoodofconfusionbetweenthemarksatissue,wasclearly
wrong.
OnMarch31
st,2000,theFederalCourtTrialDivisiondismissedtheAppellant’s
appeal.JusticePelletierstatedthattheRegistrar’sdecisioncouldnotbesaid
tobeclearlywrong,whichisthestandardofreviewapplicabletodecisions
oftheRegistrar.
TheFederalCourtofAppealDecision
TheAppellantappealedthedecisionrenderedbytheFederalCourtTrial
Division.TheCourtstatedthattheapplicablestandardofreviewofthe
Registrar’sdecisionneednotbeexpandedsinceithadalreadybeen
canvassedbytheCourtofAppeal.Theissueonappealwaswhetherornot
theRegistrarerred(i.e.was“clearlywrong”)inconcludingthattheAppellant
hadnotdischargedtheonusofshowingthattherewasnoreasonable
likelihoodofconfusionbetweenthemarksatissue.
TheFederalCourtofAppealallowedtheappeal.Itruledthatbyapplyinga
“stillindoubtstandard”toanapplicant’sburdenofproofinshowingthat
confusionisunlikely,theRegistrarappliedanonusontheAppellantwhich
equatedtoproof“beyondareasonabledoubt”.Indoingso,theCourt
decidedthattheRegistrarimposedaburdenontheAppellantthatwasmore
onerousthattheoneapplicableincivilproceedings.
TheCourtrecognizedthatitiswellsettledincaselawthatinopposition
proceedings,doubtshouldberesolvedinfavouroftheopponent.However,
theCourtexpressedthatthisjurisprudencesupportsthepropositionthatthe
onusisonanapplicanttoprovethatconfusionisunlikelyandnotthe
ancillarypropositionthatanydoubtistoberesolvedinfavourofan
opponent.TheCourtstatedthatthereisnocaselawwherethe“beyonda
doubt”standardwasappliedbythecourtsandassuch,confirmedthe
Court’sviewthattheapplicablestandardisthebalanceofprobabilities
generallyapplicabletocivilmatters.Itisonlywhereprobabilitiesareequal
thataformofdoubtmayariseanditisinthesesituationswheredoubtshould
beresolvedinfavourofanopponent.
Therefore,theCourtwentontostatethattheRegistrarmustbereasonably
satisfiedthat,onabalanceofprobabilities,theregistrationisunlikelyto
createconfusionandthattheRegistrarneednotbesatisfiedbeyondany
doubtthatconfusionisunlikely.
Inapplyingtheestablishedprincipleofthestandardofreviewofthe
Registrar’sdecision,theCourtconcludedthat,onabalanceofprobabilities,
therewasnolikelihoodofconfusionbetweenthetrade-marksatissue,thatin
findingotherwise,theRegistrarwasclearlywrongandthatsuchanerror
warrantedtheinterventionoftheTrialJudge.
Itistritelawthatanapplicantfortheregistrationofatrade-markhasto
dischargeitsonusofdemonstratingthatconfusionisunlikely.Itisalsosettled
incaselawthatinoppositionproceedings,doubtistoberesolvedinfavour
ofanopponent.However,theFederalCourtofAppealhasclarifiedthatitis
notanydoubt,butratherthedoubtthatresultsfromequalprobabilitieswhich
shouldbeinterpretedinfavourofanopponent.Itisarulingwhichtrade-
markpractitionersshouldconsiderinassessingwhetherornottoappealthe
Registrar’sdecisionrelatedtoanapplicant’sburdenofproofforestablishing
thatconfusionisunlikely.
Publishedat(2002),16-3W.I.P.R.7underthetitleCourtCourtofAppealRules
onBurdenofProofinTrademarkMatters
©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