Famousness Alone Does Not Protect a Trade-Mark Absolutely, Federal Court of Appeal Rules in ‘Lexus’ Case


FAMOUSNESSALONEDOESNOTPROTECTATRADE-MARKABSOLUTELY,FEDERAL
COURTOFAPPEALRULESIN’LEXUS’CASE

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
ArecentdecisionofCanada’sFederalCourtofAppealhasindicatedthat
notorietyofamarkissimplyonefactor-possiblydecisivebutnotnecessarily-
thatmustbeweighedinconnectionwithalltherestwhenassessingtheriskof
confusionbetweentrade-marks(LexusFoodsInc.v.ToyotaMotor
Corporation,A-622-99,November20,2000,Strayer,LindenandMalone,JJ.A)
OnApril27,1992,LexusFoodsInc.(“LexusFoods”)filedanapplicationwiththe
RegistrarofTrade-marksinordertosecureregistrationofthetrade-markLEXUS
inassociationwith”cannedfruits,cannedvegetables,fruitjuicesand
vegetablejuices”onthebasisofproposeduseofthetrade-markinCanada.
ToyotaMotorCorporation(“Toyota”)filedastatementofoppositionagainst
thisapplicationallegingconfusionwiththreetrade-markregistrationsit
ownedforthetrade-markLEXUScovering,amongotherthings,”motorcars
andpartsandaccessoriesthereof,repairservices”.
TheTrade-marksOppositionBoarddismissedToyota’soppositioninJuly1997.
ToyotaappealedthatdecisionbeforetheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtof
Canada.There,Toyota’sappealwasallowed;theTrialDivisionfoundthe
trade-mark”LEXUS”tobeafamoustrade-markandconsideredthatToyota
hadmadeitscasethattherewasindeedconfusionbetweenthetrade-mark
LEXUSforcarsandthesametrade-markasappliedtocannedfoodproducts.
TheCourtdirectedtheRegistrartorefuseLexusFoods’applicationforthe
trade-markLEXUS(seecasecommentatWorldIntellectualPropertyReport,
(1999)Volume13,number11,page360).
LexusFoodsappealedtheTrialJudge’sdecisionbeforetheFederalCourtof
Appeal.Inreviewingthecase,theCourtnotedthatsubsection6(5)of
Canada’sTrade-marksActgovernstheissueofconfusionbetweentrade-
marks.Subsection6(5)statesthatindeterminingwhethertrade-marksor


trade-namesareconfusing,theCourtortheRegistrar,asthecasemaybe,
shallhaveregardtoallthesurroundingcircumstancesincluding(a)the
inherentdistinctivenessofthetrade-marksortrade-namesandtheextentto
whichtheyhavebecomeknown;(b)thelengthoftimethetrade-marksor
trade-nameshavebeeninuse;(c)thenatureofthewares,servicesor
business;(d)thenatureofthetrade;and(e)thedegreeofresemblance
betweenthetrade-marksandtrade-namesinappearanceorsoundorinthe
ideasuggestedbythem.
TheFederalCourtofAppealindicatedthatoneofthekeyfactorsthatwasat
playinthiscasewasthestrikingdifferencesinthewaresoftheparties,afact
whichwasgivenconsiderableweightbytheRegistrar.TheCourtnotedthe
TrialJudge’scommentsthatlessweightshouldbeaccordedtothedifference
inthenatureofthewaresinlightofthebeginningof”famousness”whichhe
recognizedinToyota’strade-mark.
TheFederalCourtofAppealconsideredhoweverthatthetypeofgoods
beingcomparedinordertodeterminewhetherornotthereisconfusion
betweentrade-marksisrelevantand,wheretheyareasdramatically
differentascarsandcannedfoodthatfactorspecificallyenumeratedat
subsection6(5)mustbegivenconsiderableweight,somethingwhich,inthe
Court’sview,theTrialJudgefailedtodo.TheCourtreferredtoitsdecisionin
UnitedArtistsv.PinkPantherBeautyCorp.[1998]3F.C.534(F.C.A.)whereit
wrote:”whereonemarkreferstohouseholdproductsandtheotherto
automotiveproducts,andtheyaredistributedindifferenttypesofshops,
thereislesslikelihoodthatconsumerswillmistakeonemarkfortheother”.
TheCourtfurthernotedthatitwouldbehardtoseethatanyoneaboutto
purchaseLEXUScannedfruitjuicewouldevenentertainthethoughtthatthe
JapaneseautomobilemanufacturerwhereLEXUScarsoriginatewouldbethe
sourceofthisproduct.
IntheCourt’sview,theevidenceofasurveyrecognizingadegreeoffame
fortheLEXUStrade-mark(asurveywhichwasbeforetheTrialJudgebutnot
beforetheRegistrar)mustnotbegivenundueweightinlightofother
significantfactorstoconsider.”Famousness”ismerelyafactorthatmustbe
consideredlikealltheotherfactorsinanytrade-markdispute.Again,the
CourtreferredtothePinkPanthercasewhereithadpreviouslywrote:”Tofind
thatsuchaconnection[betweenbeautyproductsandmovies]wassufficient
inthiscasewouldeffectivelyextendprotectiontoeveryfieldofendeavour
imaginable.TherewouldbenoareathatHollywood’smarketingmachine
wouldnotcontrol.Justbecausetheyarewell-known,thewholeworldisnot
barredforeverfromusingwordsfoundinthetitleofaHollywoodfilmto


marketunrelatedgoods.(…)Nomatterhowfamousamarkisitcannotbe
usedtocreateaconnectionthatdoesnotexist.”
TheTrialJudgehadnotedthatLexusFoods’vice-presidentadmittedthatthe
LEXUSnamewaschosenbecauseitrepresented”aqualityname”.The
FederalCourtofAppealindicatedthatsuchknowledgewasirrelevantunder
thecircumstancesasthereisnodoctrineofmensreainthefieldoftrade-
mark.Inotherwords,thedecisionastowhetherconfusionexistsbetween
trade-markscannotbebasedonwhethersomeoneknewaboutthe
existenceofanothertrade-mark(however,thisissueofpriorknowledgemight
beafactortoconsiderinaninfringementaction,ontheissueofdamages).
Inlightofthecleardifferencesbetweentheparties’wares,afactorwhichin
theCourt’sviewhadbeengivennoweightatallbytheTrialJudge,the
FederalCourtofAppealallowedLexusFoods’appealandrestoredthe
Registrar’sdecision,allowingtheregistrationofthetrade-markLEXUSin
connectionwithappellant’scannedfoods.
TheFederalCourtofAppeal’sdecisionisareminderthatwhenconsidering
theissueofconfusionbetweentrade-marksonefactorcannotbecontrolling
ofallothers;thefamepossiblyassociatedwithatrade-markisonefactor
amongotherstoconsiderwhendecidingtheissueofconfusionbetween
trade-marks.WhatwouldthenbethefateofMICROSOFTbubblegum,for
example?InlightoftheCourt’sopinion,fameisonecircumstanceamong
others;itdoesnotnecessarilytrumpallothers.
Publishedat(2001),15-2W.I.P.R.6-7underthetitleFamousnessAlonedoes
notProtectaTrade-markAbsolutely,CourtRules7
LEGERROBICRICHARD,2001.



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