1
DOESMENSREAMATTERINDETERMININGTRADE-MARKCONFUSION?QUEBEC
COURTOFAPPEALSAYSYESINMONTRÉALAUTOCREDITCASE
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
TheProvinceofQuebec’sCourtofAppealrecentlyruledthatadefendant’s
stateofmindregardingthechoiceofitstrade-markwasrelevantin
establishingthelikelihoodofconfusionbetweencompetingtrade-marks
(MontréalAutoPrixInc.v.9078-7995QuébecInc.,500-09-012358-024
(September3,2004,RobertC.J.,MailhotandMorinJJ.A.)).
AppellantMontréalAutoPrixInc.operatesunderthetrade-markMONTRÉAL
AUTOPRIX(“prix”istheFrenchwordfor”price”)abusinessspecializedinthe
saleofmotorvehiclesatreducedprices;itcanalsoordermotorvehicles
correspondingtoclients’specifications.Thisbusinesshasoperatedinthe
MontrealareasinceJune1997.
Respondent9078-7995QuébecInc.wasestablishedinJanuary2000andis
alsoinvolvedinthesaleofmotorvehicles.InFebruary2001,itadoptedthe
nameMONTRÉALAUTOCREDIT.BothMontréalAutoPrixInc.and9078-7995
QuébecInc.aresituatedinaMontrealboroughwhichishometomanyother
establishmentsspecializedinthesaleofmotorvehicles.
InDecember2001,MontréalAutoPrixInc.requestedfromQuebec’sSuperior
Courtapermanentinjunctionforcing9078-7995QuébecInc.tostopusingits
MONTRÉALAUTOCREDITtrade-mark:ItarguedthatthenamesMONTRÉAL
AUTOPRIXandMONTRÉALAUTOCREDITwereconfusinglysimilar.Itsrequest
forapermanentinjunctionwashoweverrejectedbytheCourtonMay7,
2002.
OneofthefindingsoffactmadebytheSuperiorCourtTrialJudgewasthat
9078-7995QuébecInc.chosethenameMONTRÉALAUTOCREDITbecause