Court Gives Effect to Pinnacles Word Mark Owned by Winery in Opposition Case

2015-12-21

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

COURTGIVESFULLEFFECTTOPINNACLESWORDMARKOWNEDBY
WINERYINOPPOSITIONCASE

BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

Inadecisionthatunderlinestheadvantagesofhavingaregisteredtrade-mark
composedonlyofwords(asopposedtowordsanddesigns),Canada’sFederalCourt
allowedanappealfurthertoadecisionbyCanada’sTrade-marksOppositionBoard
thathadrejectedanoppositionbytheownerofthetrade-markPINNACLESagainst
anapplicationforregistrationofadesigntrade-markthatincludedthewords
DOMAINEPINNACLE(ConstellationBrandsInc.etal.vDomainesPinnacleInc.,
2015FC1083(F.C.,GagnéJ.,September16,2015)).

OnJune3,2004,theRespondentDomainesPinnacleInc.(“DomainesPinnacle”or
the“Respondent”)filedwiththeRegistrarofTrade-marksanapplicationtoregistera
wordanddesigntrade-marknamelyDOMAINEPINNACLE&DESIGN(the“Trade-
mark”),composedofbothwords(DOMAINEPINNACLE)anddesignelements(such
asanappleandasnowflake).Thisapplication,asamendedonJuly13,2005,
mentionedthatregistrationoftheTrade-markwassoughtinassociationwithapple-
basedalcoholicbeveragesalongwithapple-basednon-alcoholicproductssuchas
juice,cider,purees,compotes,jellies,jams,pies,saucesandothersimilarfood
products.
OnAugust5,2008,variousopponentsincludingConstellationBrandsInc.and
FranciscanVineyardsInc.(“FranciscanVineyards”)filedastatementofopposition
againsttheapplicationsubmittedbytheRespondent.Oneofthemaingroundsof
oppositionputforwardbytheopponentswasthelikelihoodofconfusionthatwas
createdbytheRespondent’sTrade-markandtheregisteredtrade-markPINNACLES
forwinebelongingtoFranciscanVineyards.TheOppositionBoardthereforehadto
determinewhetherthereexistedalikelihoodofconfusionbetweenFranciscan
Vineyards’PINNACLEStrade-markandtheRespondent’sTrade-markinassociation
witheachparty’srespectiveproducts.
TheBoardfoundthatbothparties’trade-markswereinherentlyweakastheywere
madeupoftheword“pinnacle”,alaudatorytermsuggestingthehighestpoint.

©CIPS,2015.*BarryGamacheisamemberofROBIC,LLP,afirmoflawyers,patentandtrademarkagents.
Publishedunderthetitle”CanadaCourtAllowsAppealFromTMOBOverFullEffectofWordMark”
(2015)29:1WordIntellectualPropertyReport3-4.Publication142.303.

2
However,theRespondent’sTrade-markwasbetterknownthanFranciscan
Vineyards’trade-markowingtotheRespondent’smoreimportantsalesfiguresin
Canada.
TheBoardfoundthatbothtrade-markswereinuseforsometimenow(1997forthe
PINNACLEStrade-markand2001fortheDOMAINEPINNACLE&DESIGNTrade-
mark).
Concerningthenatureoftheproducts,servicesorbusinessandthenatureofthe
parties’trade,theBoardconcludedthatbothparties’respectivealcoholicbeverages
werepartofthesameindustry.However,theothernon-alcoholicproductsmentioned
intheRespondent’sapplicationwereclearlydifferentthanthewineassociatedwith
thePINNACLEStrade-mark.
Finally,concerningthedegreeofresemblancebetweenbothtrade-marks,theBoard
concludedthattherewasafairdegreeofresemblancebetweenthemsincetheword
PINNACLEisthedominantelementofbothtrade-marks.However,bothtrade-marks
suggesteddifferentideassincetheRespondent’sTrade-marksuggestedtheideaof
coldandwinter(becauseofthepresenceofasnowflakeelement)whileFranciscan
Vineyards’trade-marksuggestedtheideaofapluralityofsummits.

Intheend,theRegistrarconcludedthattheRespondenthaddischargeditsburdenof
showing,onabalanceofprobabilities,thattherewasnoreasonablelikelihoodof
confusionbetweenthetrade-marks.
FranciscanVineyardsandtheotheropponentsappealedtheRegistrar’sdecision
beforetheFederalCourtandarguedthattheOppositionBoardfailedtotakeinto
accountthatthe“fairdegreeofresemblance”factorshouldbethemostinfluential
oneintheconfusionanalysiscarriedoutinthepresentcase.Accordingto
FranciscanVineyardsandtheotheropponents,whentheconfusiontest(as
describedbyCanada’sSupremeCourtinMasterpieceInc.vAlavidaLifestylesInc.,
2011SCC27(“Masterpiece”))iscorrectlyapplied,theappropriatefindingshouldbe
alikelihoodofconfusionbetweentheparties’trade-marksbecauseoftheir
resemblance.
Initsreasons,theCourthighlightedtheSupremeCourtofCanada’steachingin
Masterpiecewherebywasrejectedanyfindingofa“weaker”degreeofresemblance
betweentrade-marksbecauseofthecircumstancesofactualuseofaregistered
wordmark.Inotherwords,whenaregisteredwordmarkisusedinacertainwaythat
appearstoeliminatelikelihoodofconfusionwithanothermark(becausethe
registeredwordmarkisused,forexample,withadesignthatisdifferentthantheone
usedintheothermark),theCourt(andtheOppositionBoard)shouldnonetheless
examinealltheotherusesallowedundertheregistrationofthewordmark(for
example,adoptionbytheowneroftheregisteredwordmarkofanystyleoflettering,
colorordesignthatissimilartothelettering,colorordesignpresentintheother

3
mark).Itwasarguedinthiscasethatthisexercisewasnotcarriedoutbythe
OppositionBoard.
TheCourtagreedwithFranciscanVineyardsandtheotheropponentsthatthe
OppositionBoardshouldhavetakenintoaccountthatFranciscanVineyards’
registeredwordmarkPINNACLEScouldbeusedwithanystyleoflettering,coloror
designwhichwouldhavesuggested,forexample,theideaofcoldandwinter,ina
waysimilartotheRespondent’sDOMAINEPINNACLE&DESIGNTrade-markwhich
includedtherepresentationofasnowflake.
TheCourtthereforegrantedtheappealtoquashtheOppositionBoard’sdecisionand
remittedthematterbacktoadifferentBoardmemberforreconsideration.

Thisdecisionillustratestheadvantagesofhavingatrade-markregisteredonlyin
wordformat.Wheneveritmustbedeterminedifanothertrade-mark(thatmayinclude
designelements)isconfusingwitharegisteredtrade-markmadeuponlyofwords,
onemusttakeintoaccounthowsuchregisteredwordmarkcouldbeused,including
withlettering,colorordesignsimilartotheoneusedintheothertrade-mark.This
analysismustalwaysbecarriedouttogivefulleffecttotherightsgrantedbythe
registrationofawordmark.