Dismissal of injunction maintained on appeal, but different reasons outlined

DISMISSALOFINJUNCTIONMAINTAINEDONAPPEAL,BUTD
IFFERENT
REASONSOUTLINED

M
ARCELNAUD*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADEMARKAGENTS

InajudgmentrenderedonFebruary4,2010bytheCourtofAppealoftheprovince
ofQuebecinthecaseofOcteauc.KempterMarketingInc.,2010QCCA171
(CanLII),thebenchconfirmedtherulingmadebytheSuperiorCourtbyconcluding
thatitwasimprobablethata“casualconsumerinsomewhatofahurry”purchasing
medium-pricedHÖRSTDÜSSELDORFmen’sclothingproductsinaretailoutlet
wouldconsiderthemrelatedtohigh-endHORSTWATERPROOFcyclingproductsin
ahigh-endsportinggoodstore.
KempterMarketingInc.(“KMI”)andAngo-ModeInc.arebothusingtheterm“Hörst”
(withouttheumlautintheformercaseandwithitinthelatter)intheirrespective
trademarksusedinassociationwithdistinctproductssoldtodistinctclassesof
retailers.
Ango-Modesellsacompletecollectionofmenswearmarketedunderthetrademark
HÖRSTDÜSSELDORF,andspendssignificantamountsinadvertisementto
promoteit.
KMIspecializesinthesaleanddistributionofproductsassociatedwithskiingand
cycling.Amongtheseproductsarewaterproofbagstoattachtobicycles.Thesebags
aresoldinhigh-endsportsshopsunderthetrademarkHORSTWATERPROOF.

TheCourtnotedthat,aftercarefulconsiderationofthestatementfoundintheopinion
oftheSupremeCourtofCanadatotheeffectthat“[l]uxurychampagneandmid-
pricedwomen’swearareasdifferentaschalkandcheese”,thetrialjudgeindicated
thattherewasnolikelihoodofconfusionbetweenthetrademarksofKMIandAngo-
Mode.
TheappellantsattemptedtoconvincetheCourtofAppealofanerroneous
appreciationbythetrialjudgeofthedistinctivecharacteroftheHÖRST
DÜSSELDORFtrademarkandthatnoaccountofthreeofthecriteriathatmustbe

©CIPS,2010.*LawyerandtrademarkagentwithROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyersandpatentand
trademarkagents.PublishedintheWorldTrademarkReport.Publication293.064.

2
examinedinsubsection6(5)wastaken,namely(i)thedurationofuseofthe
trademarks,(ii)thenatureofthetradeand(iii)thedegreeofresemblancein
appearancebetweentheirmarksandthoseofKMI.
TheCourtofAppealacknowledgedthatthetrialjudgehasnotponderedallofthe
relevantcircumstancesthatmustbeexamined,includingfactorsenumeratedin
subsection6(5)oftheAct,andthenproceededwithitsownanalysisofthe
circumstances:
·Inrespectoftheinherentdistinctivenessofthetrademarksandtheextentto
whichtheyhavebecomeknown,theCourtfoundthatthetrademarkHÖRST
DÜSSELDORFwasnotdistinctiveenoughwhenKMI’sbegantouseitsHorst
Waterprooftrademarksoastojustifytheinjunctiveprotectionsought.

·Inrespectofthelengthoftimeofthetrademarkuse,theCourtwasoftheview
thatsincetheHÖRSTDÜSSELDORFtrademarkofAngo-modehadonly
beenrecentlymarketed,suchusewasnotsufficienttoconferadistinctive
charactertoit.

·Inrespectofthenatureofthewares,servicesorbusiness,theCourt
concludedthatthelikelihoodofconfusionbasedonthiscriterionwasatbest
ratherslightandmoreprobablynon-existent,especiallygiventheirrespective
productswerenotcurrentlyinthesamegeneralcategoryofwares.

·Inrespectofthenatureofthetrade,giventhedifferencesbetweentheparties
inthemeansofdistributionoftheirrespectivewares,theCourtsaidthatthe
likelihoodofconfusionwasnotenhancedbythesecircumstances.

·Inrespectofthedegreeofresemblancebetweenthetrademarksin
appearanceorsoundorintheideassuggestedbythem,theCourt’sviewwas
thatitwasinsufficienttogiverisetoalikelihoodofconfusion,notablyinlight
ofthefactthatthesecondwordinHORSTWATERPROOFisintendedtobe
descriptive,whichisnotthecaseforthesecondwordinHÖRST
DÜSSELDORF.

·Inrespectofanyotherrelevantsurroundingcircumstances,theCourtstated
thatnovalidconclusioncouldbedrawnfromKMI’sabandonmentofits
applicationtoregisteritsHORSTWATERPROOFtrademarkwhenconfronted
withAngo-Mode’soppositiontotheregistration,especiallygiventhatthe
positiontakenbytheTrademarkOfficeastotheexistenceofconfusionwas
notbasedonanythingmorethananexaminationofKMI’sapplication,without
anyevidentiaryhearingorlegalargument.

Inlightofitsanalysis,theCourtofAppealagreedwiththedismissalofthecaseby
thetrialjudgeandrejectedtheappealwithcosts.

3

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
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-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)

4