Honey Puffs Registration Expunged Because of Confusion with Multigrain Honey Puffs, Federal Court Rules
HONEYPUFFSREGISTRATIONEXPUNGEDBECAUSEOFCONFUSIONWITH
MULTIGRAINHONEYPUFFS,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
ArecentdecisionoftheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadaordered
theexpungementoftheregisteredtrade-markHONEYPUFFSpursuantto
subsection57(1)ofCanada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13aftera
findingofconfusionwiththepreviouslyusedMULTIGRAINHONEYPUFFStrade-
mark(Nature’sPathFoodsInc.v.QuakerOatsCo.ofCanada,T-690-00,April
20,2001,Tremblay-Lamer,J.).
RespondentQuakerOatsCo.ofCanada(“QuakerOats”)wastheregistered
ownerofthetrade-markHONEYPUFFSforbreakfastcereals;thisregistration
wassecuredonSeptember15,1998followinganapplicationfiledonAugust
18,1997onthebasisofproposeduseofthetrade-markinCanada.
ApplicantNature’sPathFoodsInc.(“Nature’sPath”),aBritishColumbia
company,isamanufactureroffoodproductsincludingbreakfastcereals.By
itselfandthroughpredecessors,itbeganusingthetrade-markMULTIGRAIN
HONEYPUFFSinassociationwithbreakfastandsnackfoodsderivedfrom
cerealsstartingin1992.Despitehavingbeeninusesince1992,the
MULTIGRAINHONEYPUFFStrade-markwasneverregisteredeitherbyNature’s
Pathoritspredecessors.Uponrealizingthatitsrightsmightberestrictedbythe
1998HONEYPUFFSregistrationinthenameofQuakerOats,Nature’sPath
appliedtoCanada’sFederalCourtin2000tohavesuchregistration
expungedinaccordancewithsubsection57(1)oftheTrade-marksAct.
Nature’sPath’sactionraisedthefollowingissues:DidNature’sPathorits
predecessorsusethetrade-markMULTIGRAINHONEYPUFFSorsimplyHONEY
PUFFS?WasQuakerOatsentitledtoregisteritstrade-markHONEYPUFFSin
lightofNature’sPath’sprioruseofanallegedlyconfusingtrade-mark?
InordertodefeatthechallengebroughtforthbyNature’sPath,QuakerOats
arguedthatanyprioruseofatrade-markcarriedoutbyNature’sPathwasof
thetrade-markMUTLIGRAINHONEYPUFFSandnotthetrade-markHONEY
PUFFS.Moreover,itsubmittedthatMULTIGRAINHONEYPUFFSwasnot
confusingwithHONEYPUFFS.TheevidenceontheissueoftheApplicant’s
markactuallyusedrevealedthatNature’sPathanditspredecessorshad
neverusedanytrade-markotherthanMULTIGRAINHONEYPUFFSpriorto
1997.Innocasedidthewords”HONEYPUFFS”appeardisassociatedfromthe
word”MULTIGRAIN”before1997.In1997thewords”HONEYPUFFS”didappear
forthefirsttimealoneinthetextofthepackagingalthoughitwasnotclear
whetherornotthischangetookplacepriortoAugust18,1997,thedate
whereQuakerOatsfileditsapplicationandtherelevantdatefordetermining
whetherornotconfusionexistedbetweenthetrade-marks.Thisbeingsaid,
theCourtfoundthatwhathadconstantlybeenusedandadvertisedtothe
publicbyNature’sPathanditspredecessorswasthetrade-markMULTIGRAIN
HONEYPUFFS.Thisfindingwasconfirmedbytheassignmentdocument
betweenNature’sPathanditspredecessorswherethemarkassignedwas
MULTIGRAINHONEYPUFFS,notHONEYPUFFSalone.
HavingconcludedthatNature’sPathanditspredecessorshadbeenusing
thetrade-markMULTIGRAINHONEYPUFFSsince1992,didsuchuseaffect
QuakerOats’entitlementtoregisterthetrade-markHONEYPUFFSin
associationwithbreakfastcereal?
Indecidingwhethertherewasconfusionbetweenthetrade-marksHONEY
PUFFSandMULTIGRAINHONEYPUFFS,bothforbreakfastcereals,theCourt
wrotethatsuchexaminationmustbecarriedoutasamatteroffirst
impression,fromtheperspectiveoftheaverageconsumerlikelytopurchase
thewaresinquestion,havingavagueorimperfectrecollectionofthefirst
trade-mark:MissUniverse,Inc.v.Bohna,[1995]1F.C.614at621-22.
Insupportofitsargumentagainstconfusionbetweenthetrade-marks,
QuakerOatsarguedthatinconsideringwhethertwotrade-marksare
confusing,thecorrectapproachistoconsiderthemarksintheirentirety.Itis
inappropriatetodissectthetrade-marksintotheircomponents:ParkAvenue
FurnitureCorp.v.Wickes/SimmonsBeddingLtd.(1991),37C.P.R.(3d)413at
426(F.C.A.).Ascaselawstatesthatthefirstwordorsyllableinatrade-markis
generallythemostimportantforthepurposeofdistinction,QuakerOats
arguedthatthefirstcomponentinNature’sPath’strade-markwas
MULTIGRAIN,whichservedtodistinguishtheparties’trade-marks.
Inassessingthelikelihoodofconfusionbetweentheparties’trade-marksas
appliedtoidenticalwares,theCourtagreedthatneitheroftheparties’marks
possessedsignificantinherentdistinctiveness;ontheissueofthedegreeof
resemblancebetweentheparties’trade-markstheCourtmadeafindingthat
theMULTIGRAINcomponentinNature’sPath’strade-markwasactuallya
factorwhichwouldcompoundratherthaneliminateconfusion:”Whilemarks
mustbeassessedintheirentirety,itisstillpossibletofocusonparticular
featuresofthemarkthatmayhaveadeterminativeinfluenceonthepublic’s
perceptionofit:PinkPantherBeautyCorp.v.UnitedArtistsCorp.,[1998]3F.C.
534(C.A.)atpara.34.Wheretheparties’markssharefeaturesbutthe
differencesservetodominatethosecommonfeatures,therewillbelittle
likelihoodofconfusion:FoodcorpLtd.v.ChaletBarBQ(Canada)Inc.(1982),
66C.P.R.(2d)56at73(F.C.A.).However,theoppositeresultflowshere.Inthe
applicant’smark,theword”MULTIGRAIN”modifies”HONEYPUFFS”.Whilethe
applicant’smarkbearslittleinherentdistinctiveness,whatdistinctivenessit
doesboastoriginateswiththelattercomponent,nottheformer.Indeed,
consumersmaywellregardthedifferencesbetweenthemarksas
compoundingratherthaneliminatingconfusion:see,e.g.,CartierMen’s
ShopsLtd.v.CartierInc.(1981),58C.P.R.(2d)68at73(F.C.T.D.).Consumers
maywellregardtheparties’productsasrelated”multi-grain”and”plain”
varietiesofthesamecereal.Inthesecircumstances,thedegreeof
resemblancebetweenthemarksissignificant.”
Inlightofthesefindings,theCourtfoundthattherewasindeedconfusion
betweenbothtrade-marks.QuakerOats’markwasalsofoundtolack
distinctiveness.Basedonthesefindings,theCourtorderedtheexpungement
oftheHONEYPUFFSregistration.
TheCourt’sdecisionisareminderthataddingordeletingaqualifieratthe
beginningofatrade-markwillnotnecessarilybeperceivedasanelement
whichwilllessentheriskofconfusionbetweentrade-marks.Onthecontrary,
suchqualifier(orlackthereof)maybeperceivedasreferringtoanewlineof
product,thuscontributingtothelikelihoodofconfusion.Greatcareshould
thereforealwaysbeexercisedwhenaddingordeletinganyqualifierassuch
elementisusuallynotconsideredtobedistinctiveperse.
Publishedat(2001),15-8W.I.P.R.5-6underthetitleHoneyPuffsMark
ExpungedDuetoConfusionwithMultigrainHoneyPuffs.
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