Federal Court Confirms Registrar’s Decision to Permit and Registration of the Trade-mark Marché Express for Fast-Food Services

2012-02-27

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC
2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006

FEDERALCOURTCONFIRMSREGISTRAR’SDECISIONTOPERMIT
REGISTRATIONOFTHETRADE-MARKMARCHÉEXPRESSFORFAST-FOOD
SERVICES

BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

ArecentdecisionbytheFederalCourthasconfirmedanearlierdecisionrenderedby
theRegistrarofTrade-marksrejectinganoppositionbyMövenpickHoldingAG
againstanapplicationfiledbyExxonMobilCorporationtoregisterthetrade-mark
MARCHÉEXPRESSinassociationwithconveniencestoreandfast-foodservices
offeredatgasolinestations(MövenpickHoldingAGv.ExxonMobilCorporation,2011
FC1397(F.C.),HarringtonJ.,December1,2011).

MövenpickHoldingAG(hereafter“Mövenpick”)istheownersince1996ofa
registrationforthetrade-markMARCHÉinassociationwithrestaurantservices.Ona
somewhatlimitedscale,ithasalsouseditsMARCHÉtrade-markinassociationwith
restaurantservicesinCanada.

InJuly2001,ExxonMobilCorporation(hereafter“Exxon”)openeditsfirstMARCHÉ
EXPRESSconveniencestoreintheMontrealareaand,afewmonthslater,on
December4,2001,itfiledanapplicationtoregisterthistrade-mark,basedonitsuse
inCanadasinceJuly19,2001i.e.theopeningdateofitsstoreafewmonthsearlier
inMontreal.

InNovember2004,MövenpickopposedtheMARCHÉEXPRESSapplication.It
allegedthatExxon’strade-markcouldnotberegisteredbecauseofconfusioncreated
withitsownMARCHÉtrade-markforrestaurantservices.Italsoallegedthatthe
MARCHÉEXPRESStrade-markwasclearlydescriptiveoftheservicesassociated
therewith.

Ontheissueofdescriptiveness,theRegistrarconcludedthattheMARCHÉ
EXPRESStrade-markcouldnotbesaidtobeclearlydescriptiveofconvenience
stores.TheevidencebeforetheRegistrarestablishedthattheword“MARCHÉ”was
usedbymanyothertraderstodescribe“conveniencestores”butthatthecombined
words(MARCHÉandEXPRESS)didnothaveaprecisemeaningwhenconsidering
thecharacterofconveniencestoreservices.

©CIPS,2011.*BarryGamacheisamemberofROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,patentandtrademark
agents.PublishedintheFebruary2012issueofWorldIntellectualPropertyReport.Publication
142.259.

Onappeal,theCourtreviewedtheevidencebeforet
heRegistrarandconcludedthat
itsdecisionwasreasonable.Thiswasnothowevertheendofthematter.Asnew
evidencewasfiledonappealregardingtheissueofdescriptiveness,theCourt
consideredtheimpactofthisadditionalevidenceontheRegistrar’sdecision.Before
theCourt,bothsidesfiledaffidavitsfromlinguistswhowereeachcross-examined.
CouldthisevidencechangethefactualcircumstancesconsideredbytheRegistrar?
Sincethedecisionastowhetherornotatrade-markisclearlydescriptivemustbe
examinedonfirstimpressionbythereasonableeverydayconsumer,expertevidence
relatingto“grammar,semanticsandlinguisticconstructions”wasnotconsidered
particularlyhelpfulbytheCourt.Intheend,theCourtexpresseditsagreementwith
theRegistrar’sfindingthattheexpressionMARCHÉEXPRESSisnotalinguistic
constructionwhichflowsnaturallyintheFrenchlanguageanddidnothaveaprecise
meaningwithrespecttothecharacteroftheappliedforconveniencestoreservices.
Initsreasons,theRegistrarhadconcludedthattheappliedformarkwasmerely
suggestive,afindingthattheCourtessentiallyagreedwith.

Ontheotherissuei.e.allegedconfusionbetweentheparties’respectivetrade-marks,
Mövenpickarguedthatthetrade-markMARCHÉEXPRESS,whenusedin
associationwithfast-foodservicesofferedatgasolinestations,isconfusingwithits
registeredtrade-markMARCHÉinassociationwiththeoperationofrestaurants.

Again,theCourtconsideredtheRegistrar’sdecisionandtheevidencethatwasfiled
bythepartiesbeforeit.TheRegistrarconcludedthattheterm“MARCHÉ”was
commonlyusedinthefoodtradeindustrysothatconsumerswouldbeaccustomedto
encounteringthewordintheirshoppingexperiences.Whenawordisincommon
use,theRegistrarwrotethatsmalldifferencesbetweenthemarkswillsufficeto
distinguishthemandrejectedMövenpick’sgroundofopposition.TheCourtagreed
withthisconclusion.
TheCourtalsoexaminedthenewevidencefiledontheissueofconfusionand
concludedthatnothinginthenewevidencewouldhaveaffectedtheRegistrar’s
decision;theCourtdescribedthisevidenceas“moreofthesame”i.e.telephone
directories,trade-markregistrations,etc.,inotherwords,evidencesimilartotheone
alreadybeforetheRegistrar.TheCourtalsoconsideredMövenpick’sargument
regardingtheparties’respectiveareasoftradeasspecifiedintheiractualapplication
orregistration,asthecasemaybe.Whiletheevidenceappearedtoshowthat
Exxon’sMARCHÉEXPRESSstoreswereconveniencestores,notfast-foodoutlets,
Mövenpicksubmittedthatitwasthepresenceoffast-foodservicesinthestatement
ofservicesofExxon’sapplicationthatwouldcauseconfusion.Onthisissue,the
CourtdeferredtotheRegistrarwhodidnotfindthepresenceoffast-foodservicesin
Exxon’sapplicationtobeproblematic.Becausebothparties’marksweretwoamong
manyotherMARCHÉ-typetrade-marks,consumerswouldnotbeconfusedbythe
sightoftheparties’respectivetrade-marks.
Intheend,theCourtagreedwiththevariousfindingsmadebytheRegistrarand
confirmedtheRegistrar’searlierdecision,despitetheadditionalevidencesubmitted

bytheparties.TheCourtstated:“Althoughthefirstwordinatrade-markmaywellbe
moreimportantthanothers,inthiscase“Marché”isaweakmarkbecauseofits
broad-baseduse,andthereforeconsumersaremorelikelytopickuponslight
differences”.

Thisdecisionisareminderfortraders:whenchoosingatrade-mark,itisimportant
nottolosesightofwhatothersaredoingwithpreciselythesameword.Ifaword
adoptedasatrade-markisalreadyusedbymanyothersforsimilarwaresor
services,theambitofprotectionforatrade-markwhoseessentialfeatureisthatword
willbequitenarrow.

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,DESAFFAIRESÀLA
GRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEAS
TOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)