Does Mens Rea Matter in Determining Trade-Mark Confusion? Quebec Court of Appeal Says Yes in Montréal Auto Credit Case

2004-01-01

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

LEGERROBICRICHARD,2004*Publishedat(2004),18-11WorldIntellectualPropertyReport5-6underthetitleQuebec
CourtSaysIntentmattersinDeterminingTrademarkConfusion.Publication142.168.

2
theadmittedlysimilarMONTRÉALAUTOPRIXwasawell-knownnameinthe
Montrealarea.Moreover,9078-7995QuébecInc.hadissuedadvertising
whichresembledthatofMontréalAutoPrixInc.Despitethisfinding,theTrial
Judgementionedthatthisfactpersewasnotrelevantwhendeciding
whethertherewaslikelihoodofconfusionbetweentheparties’trade-marks;
shealsowrotethattherewasnoproofofconfusionandthattherewere
enoughdifferencesbetweentheparties’trade-marksfromaphoneticpoint
ofviewtoeliminateanylikelihoodofconfusion.
Onappeal,MontréalAutoPrixInc.arguedthatthetrialjudgemisappliedthe
law.TheQuebecCourtofAppealagreedandstatedthattheTrialJudgedid
notappeartoobservetherealtesttoestablishifalikelihoodofconfusion
betweentrade-marksexists,namelythetestdescribedbytheFederalCourt
ofAppealinMissUniverseInc.v.Bohna[1995]1F.C.614:Todecidewhether
theuseofatrade-markcausesconfusionwithanothertrade-mark,theCourt
mustaskitselfwhether,asamatteroffirstimpressiononthemindsofan
ordinarypersonhavingavaguerecollectionofthatothermark,theuseof
bothmarksinthesameareainthesamemannerislikelytoleadtothe
inferencethattheservicesassociatedwiththosemarksareperformedbythe
sameperson,whetherornottheservicesareofthesamegeneralclass.
Onappeal,theCourtemphasizedtheTrialJudge’sfindingthatthe
MONTRÉALAUTOCREDITtrade-markwaschosenbecauseofitssimilaritywith
theMONTRÉALAUTOPRIXtrade-mark:FortheCourtofAppealthisfinding
madeitclearthat9078-7995QuébecInc.wishedtoprofitfromconfusion
betweenbothnames.Underthecircumstances,intheCourt’sview,likelihood
ofconfusionwasclearlyestablished.Thus,theappealwasallowedanda
permanentinjunctionwasissued.
ThisdecisionbytheQuebecCourtofAppealistobecontrastedwiththe
FederalCourtofAppealdecisioninLexusFoodsInc.v.ToyotaMotor
Corporation[2001]2F.C.15wheretheCourt,inthelattercase,specifically
excludedthedoctrineofmensreatodeterminethelikelihoodofconfusion
betweentrade-marks,inthefollowingterms:”Supposesomeone
manufacturedanautomobileandcalledittheLexus,withoutknowledgethat
atrade-markcontainingthesamewordhadalreadybeenregistered.Could
thatbeadefencetoaninfringementactionorareasonforholdingthat
thereisnoconfusion?Idonotthinkso.Thereisconfusionorthereisno
confusion.Thedecisioncannotbebasedonwhethersomeoneknewabout
theexistenceofthetrade-markornot.Thereisnodoctrineofmensreainthe
fieldoftrade-marks”.
Foritspart,theQuebecCourtofAppealhasspecificallyoverruledaTrial
Judge’sdecisiononthebasisofadefendant’sstateofmindinchoosinga

3
name.TheCourtapparentlyfollowedthedissentingopinionofMcDonaldJ.A.
inthe1998FederalCourtofAppealdecisioninPinkPantherBeauty
Corporationv.UnitedArtistsCorporation[1998]3F.C.534wheretheAppeal
Judgewrotethatitwasnaivetobelievethatadefendant’schoiceofthe
trade-markPINKPANTHERforbeautyproductswasnotdeliberateor
unrelatedtothemark’sfameinassociationwithmotionpictures;inthe
Judge’sview,thedefendantbelievedthattheaverageconsumerwould,at
theveryleast,uponseeingthenamePINKPANTHERonitsbeautyproductsbe
remindedofandassociateitsproductswiththefamoustrade-mark
associatedwithvariousmotionpictures.
Thus,asmattersnowstandinCanadianTrade-markLaw(atleastinthe
ProvinceofQuebec),theissueoftherelevancyofmensreawhen
appreciatingtrade-markconfusionhasnotbeensettledinadefinitive
fashion.Thismatterwillthereforemeritcontinuedattentioninupcoming
cases.

4

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