Hurray for “Harleywood”: Harley-Davidson Successful in Preventing Registration in Canada

1
HURRAYFOR“HARLEYWOOD”:HARLEY-DAVIDSONSUCCESSFULINPREVENTING
REGISTRATIONINCANADA

By
StellaSyrianos*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.
Lawyers,PatentandTrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca–info@robic.com
TheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadagrantedtheApplicant’s
appealpursuanttosubsection56(1)ofCanada©sTrade-marksAct,(R.S.C.
1985,c.T-13)(“Act”)fromadecisionoftheRegistrardismissingitsopposition
totheregistrationofthetrade-markHARLEYWOOD(H-DMichigan,Inc.v.The
MPHGroupInc,T-1617-04,April28,2006,O’Keefe,J.).
Thefacts
OnOctober15
th,1997,theRespondent,TheMPHGroupInc.(“MPH”)filedan
application,basedonproposeduse,toregisterthetrade-mark
HARLEYWOODinassociationwithservicesofoperatinganightcluband
waressuchascaps,sportshirts,sweatshirts,jackets,t-shirtsandmugs.
OnApril6
th,1999,theApplicant,H-DMichigan,Inc.(“HD”)filedaStatement
ofOppositiontoMPH’sapplication.OnJune1
st,2004,theRegistrarrejected
HD’soppositiontotheregistrationofthetrade-markHARLEYWOOD.
Issuestobedetermined
(i)Standardofreview
BothHDandMPHfiledadditionalevidenceonappeal.TheCourtheldthat
bothparties’newevidencewouldhavemateriallyaffectedtheRegistrar’s
decision.Assuch,thestandardofreviewappliedbytheCourtwasthe
standardofcorrectness.
HD’snewevidencerelatedtotheHARLEYandHARLEY-DAVIDSONtrade-



















































CIPS,2006*Lawyer,StellaSyrianosisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmof
lawyers,andpatentandtrade-markagents.Publication142.192.

2
markshavingbeenlicensedandusedinconnectionwithadinerinCalgary,
AlbertanamedKane©sHarley-Diner,inoperationsincesometimein1999.It
tenderedfurtherevidenceconcerninganotherdinerinDelta,British
ColumbianamedJim©sHarley-Diner.AlthoughHDdidnotprovideevidence
thattheserestaurantswereinoperationatthedateoffilingofthe
HARLEYWOODapplication(relevantdateforassessingnon-entitlement)orat
thedateoftheopposition(relevantdateforassessingdistinctiveness),the
Courtheldthatthisnewevidenceconcerningtherestaurantswouldnothave
materiallyaffectedtheRegistrar©sfindingsoffactwithrespecttothegrounds
ofoppositionbasedonnon-entitlementandnon-distinctiveness.However,
theCourtwentontostatethatthisnewevidencewasrelevantasconcerned
theissueofconfusionunderparagraph12(1)(d)oftheAct,whichisassessed
atthedateoftheRegistrar©sdecision(June1,2004).TheCourtconsideredthis
newinformationwouldhavehadamaterialeffectontheRegistrar©sfindings
offact.
TheCourtalsostatedthatHDhadsubmittedevidencewhichaddressedthe
inadequaciesintheoriginalevidenceregardinguseofitstrade-marks
HARLEYandHARLEY-DAVIDSONwithrestaurantservicesinrespectofaHarley
DavidsonCaféinNewYorkandLasVegasthroughwebsitearticles
referencingtheHarley-DavidsonCaféandthemarkHARLEYWOODaswellas
viasalesfiguresinCanadaforthewaresassociatedtoitstrade-marks.
AsforthesignificantnewevidencetenderedbyMPH,itestablishedthaton
October22,2004,HD’strade-markregistrationno.TMA456,051forthemark
HARLEYforuseinassociationwithrestaurantandbarserviceswasexpunged
forfailuretoshowuse.TheCourtheldthatthisevidencewouldhave
materiallyaffected,theRegistrar©sassessmentofconfusionunderparagraph
12(1)(d)oftheAct.
(i)confusionundersection12oftheAct
Asidefromthestandardofreview,theCourtaddressedthefollowing
question:DidtheRegistrarerrinrejectingHD’soppositiontotheregistrationof
theproposedmarkbyMPH?
ExpungementoftheHARLEYtrade-mark
InlightoftheRegistrar’sdecisionofOctober22,2004toexpungeHD’s
registrationforthemarkHARLEY(TMA456,051)forrestaurantandbarservices,
theCourtheldthatthistrade-markcouldnolongerbeconsideredtobe
confusingwithMPH’sproposedmarkinrespectoftheservicesofanightclub,
underparagraph12(1)(d)oftheAct.Assuch,theCourtproceededtoassess

3
theriskofconfusionbetweentheproposedmarkandHD’sotherregistered
trade-marks:HARLEYformotorcycles(TMA294,796),HARLEY-DAVIDSONfor
motorcycles,motorcycleclothingandaccessories(TMA28,944)andHARLEY-
DAVIDSONforrestaurantandbarservices(TMA455,834)forwhichtheCourt
wassatisfiedHDhadestablishedthatithasusedthesetrade-marks.
Factorsrelatingtoconfusion
AsfortheinherentdistinctivenessofHD’smarks,theCourtheldthatMPHdid
nottenderanyevidencethatleadtotheconclusionthatthemarksHARLEY
andHARLEYDAVIDSONwerebeingcommonlyusedineitherthe
restaurant/bartradeorthemerchandisetrade.TheCourtalsohighlighted
thatHD’smarkshadasignificantamountofacquireddistinctiveness,asthey
arewellknownbecauseoftheirextensiveandlengthyuseinthemarket
place.
Asforthelengthoftimethetrade-marksortradenameshavebeeninuse,
theevidencedemonstratedthatthefirstauthorizedHARLEY-DAVIDSON
dealershipopenedinCanadain1914,asopposedtotherespondent’s
proposedmarkwhichhadnotbeenusedinCanada.
Asforthenatureofthewaresandservicestheywerequitesimilartoone
another,namelyclothingandrestaurantandbarservicestocustomers.
Asconcernsthedegreeofresemblancebetweenthetrade-marksortrade
namesinappearanceorsoundorintheideassuggestedbythem,theCourt
decideditwasnoticeable:
(i)bothmarksstartwiththeword“HARLEY”
(ii)MPHhadtakenHD’sHARLEYmarkinitsentiretyandappendedthe
term“WOOD”
(iii)theterm“HARLEY”hasadeterminativeinfluenceonthepublic©s
perceptionofit
Inlightoftheabove,theCourtheldthattheadditionoftheword“WOOD”to
“HARLEY”didnotdispeltheriskofconfusion.
Surroundingcircumstances
OneofthekeyelementsinthisdecisionappearedtobetheCourt’s
considerationofHD’suse,sincebeforethefilingofMPH’sapplication,ofthe
trade-markHARLEYWOODinconnectionwiththeoperationofthewell-known
HarleyDavidsonCaféinNewYorkCity.Indeed,theevidenceshowedthat
thereisasectionoftheHarleyDavidsonCafécalled”Harleywood”where

4
peoplecanseeandhavetheirpicturetakenonaHarleyDavidson
motorcycle.
ItisworthnotingthattheOppositionBoarddisregardedthisevidence
becauseprioruseoftheHARLEYWOODmarkhadnotbeenraisedbyHDasa
groundofopposition.However,theCourtheldtheBoarderredasthis
evidencecouldbefactoredintotheconfusionanalysisasa“surrounding
circumstance”.
Ingrantingtheappeal,theCourtresolvedthatthefactorsofconfusion
favouredHDandthatMPHhadnotmetitsonusofestablishing,onthe
balanceofprobabilitiesthattherewasnolikelihoodofconfusionbetweenits
markandHD’smarks.

Conclusion
Itistritelawthatindeterminingthelikelihoodofconfusion,thecriteria
specificallyenumeratedinsubsection6(5)oftheTrade-marksActarenon-
exhaustiveandtheRegistrarmustconsiderallthesurroundingcircumstances.
Whiletheseusuallyrelatetostateofregisterevidenceoractualinstancesof
confusion,thisdecisionseeminglyopensthedoortotakingintoconsideration
evidenceofapreviouslyusedtrade-marknotallegedasagroundof
oppositionundertheumbrellaofa“surroundingcircumstance”.

5
ROBIC,ungrouped©avocatsetd©agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsd©origine;droitsd©auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel©artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademark
agentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofall
fieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;
trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplant
breeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,
franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusiness
law;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,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD