Doctrine Of Issue Estopel Has No Effect in ‘Fantasyland Hotel’ Trade-Mark Opposition Case, Federal Court Rules


DOCTRINEOFISSUEESTOPPELHASNOEFFECTIN’FANTASYLANDHOTEL’TRADE-
MARKOPPOSITIONCASE,FEDERALCOURTRULES

By
BarryGamache
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

Inarecentdecision,theTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadahadto
determinewhatwastheeffectofpreviousdecisionsoftheAlbertaCourtof
Appealconcerningpassing-offproceedingsbetweenDisneyEnterprisesInc.
(“Disney”)andFantasylandHoldingsInc.onthelatter’sapplicationtoregister
thetrade-markFANTASYLANDHOTEL(DisneyEnterprisesInc.vsFantasyland
HoldingsInc.,T-1674-97,November19,1998(CampbellJ.,F.C.T.D.)).

Intheearly1990’s,Disneyhadsuedforpassing-offregardingtheuseofthe
nameFANTASYLANDfortheclosed-inamusementparkintheWestEdmonton
Mall,intheprovinceofAlberta.InadecisionreportedatWaltDisney
ProductionsvsTripleFiveCorporationetal.(1992),43C.P.R.(3d)321(Alta.
Q.B.)DeaJ.concludedthatconfusionhadoccurredasthatamusementpark
calledFANTASYLANDintheWestEdmontonMallborethesamenameasthe
amusementparkcalledFANTASYLANDoperatedatDisneyland.DeaJ.issued
aninjunctionorderingthatuseofthenameFANTASYLANDbediscontinuedat
theWestEdmontonMall.ThisorderwasconfirmedbytheAlbertaCourtof
Appeal((1994)53C.P.R.(3d)129(Alta.C.A.)).

Asecondpassing-offactionwasinitiatedbyDisneyinordertoprecludethe
useoftheunregisteredtrade-markFANTASYLANDHOTELattheWest
EdmontonMall((1994),56C.P.R.(3d)129(Alta.Q.B.)).Inthatcase,however,
RookeJ.determinedthatDisneyhadfailedtoestablishthenecessary
elementstosustainapassing-offactioninrelationtothenameFANTASYLAND
HOTEL.Thatdecisionentitledthedefendanttocontinuetheuseofthewords
“FantasylandHotel”insignageontheexteriorofitshotelbutenjoineditfrom
usingFANTASYLANDinassociationwiththeWestEdmontonMallamusement
park.TheAlbertaCourtofAppealalsoconfirmedthisdecision((1996),67
C.P.R.(3d)444(Alta.C.A.)).


FantasylandHoldingsInc.hadfileditsapplicationtoregisterthetrade-mark
FANTASYLANDHOTELonFebruary13,1987.Itsapplicationcoveredvarious
waresandservicesincludinghotel,restaurantandhospitalityservices(butnot
theoperationofanamusementpark).Disneyopposedtheregistrationofthe
trade-markFANTASYLANDHOTELallegingthatthetrade-markwasnot
registrableasitwasconfusingwiththetrade-markFANTASYLANDthathad
beenmadeknowninCanadabyDisney;Disneyalsoallegedthatthe
applicantwasprecludedfromseekingregistrationofthetrade-mark
FANTASYLANDHOTELbyreasonofthedecisionofMr.JusticeDea.

BeforetheOppositionBoard,DisneyfiledthejudgementofMr.JusticeDea
andpleadedthattheBoardwasboundbythatdecisionindeterminingthe
outcomeoftheopposition.TheOppositionBoardwasofadifferentopinion
anddidnotconsideritselfboundbythatdecision(andanyotherdecisionon
thematter)anditwentontorejectDisney’soppositiontotheregistrationof
theFANTASYLANDHOTELtrade-mark.

Onappeal,theTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourthadtodecidewhetherthe
doctrineofissueestoppelcouldfindapplicationinoppositionproceedings.
TheCourtreferredtothecaseofAnglev.MinisterofNationalRevenue,[1975]
2S.C.R.248inwhichtheSupremeCourtofCanadastated:”thesecond
speciesofestoppelperremjudicatamisknownas”issueestoppel”,aphrase
coinedbyHigginsJ.oftheHighCourtofAustraliainHoysteadv.Federal
CommissionerofTaxation,(1921),29C.L.R.537atp.561:”Ifullyrecognizethe
distinctionbetweenthedoctrineofresjudicatawhereanotheractionis
broughtforthesamecauseofactionashasbeenthesubjectofprevious
adjudication,andthedoctrineofestoppelwhere,thecauseofactionbeing
different,somepointorissueoffacthasalreadybeendecided(Imaycallit
“issueestoppel”).”LordGuestinCarlZeissStiftungv.Rayner&KeelerLtd.(No.
2),[1967]1A.C.853atp.935,definedtherequirementsofissueestoppelas:
“…(1)thatthesamequestionhasbeendecided;(2)thatthejudicialdecision
whichissaidtocreatetheestoppelwasfinal;and,(3)thatthepartiestothe
judicialdecisionortheirprivieswerethesamepersonsasthepartiestothe
proceedingsinwhichtheestoppelisraisedortheirprivies…”.”

ApplyingtheprinciplesoutlinedinAngle,theCourtconcludedthatconfusion
(asdefinedunderCanada’sTrade-marksAct(R.S.C.1985c.T-13)wasan
essentialelementforboththecommonlawactionofpassing-offandthe
statutoryoppositionproceeding.Additionally,theCourtfound”thatthe”test”
forconfusioninoppositionproceedingsandinapassing-offactionis
substantiallysimilarsuchthatitcanbesaidthatthe”samequestion”isput
forthinbothcases”.TheCourtwentontostatethatthereisthereforenothing
whichprecludestheapplicationofthedoctrineofissueestoppelinacase
involvingapassing-offactionandasubsequentoppositionproceeding.Of


course,itcanbeappliedonlyifthe”samequestionhasbeendecided”(to
quoteAngle)i.e.ifthegoodsandservicesatissueinthepassing-offaction
arethesameasthoseatissueintheoppositionproceeding.

TheCourtconsideredthattheonlywayinwhichthedoctrineofissue
estoppelcouldhaveanyeffectinthecasebeforeitwasiftheAlbertaCourts’
findingsofconfusionrelatingtoamusementparkswerealsoapplicabletothe
registrationofFANTASYLANDHOTELinassociationwiththewaresandservices
listedinFantasylandHoldingsInc.’sapplication.However,theapplicationdid
notcovertheoperationofanamusementpark.Accordingly,theCourtfound
thatthedoctrineofissueestoppelhadnoeffectinthecase,asthesame
questionwasnottobedecidedintheoppositionproceedingsashadbeen
inthepassing-offaction.

Finally,theCourtconcludedthatthedoctrineofissueestoppeldoesindeed
applytooppositionproceedings(afindinginlawdifferentfromthatofthe
Registrar);however,inthiscase,thedoctrinecouldnotbeappliedsincethe
questiontobedecidedwasdifferent.TheCourtexpresseditsagreementwith
theOppositionBoarddecisiononitsmeritsanddismissedtheappeal.This
decisionremindspractitionersthatpassing-offproceedingsandopposition
proceedingscanleadtodifferentresultsifthequestiontobedecidedinboth
instancesisnotthesame(forexample,ifthe”services”atissueinbothcases
aredifferent).Foraplaintifforopponent,thismeansthatitcannotsimplyrely
onpreviousfavorabledecisionsinsubsequentlitigationwheretheissuetobe
decidedisnotentirelythesame.
Publishedat(1999),13WorldIntellectualPropertyReport43-44.

LEGERROBICRICHARD,1999.



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