Media Company’s “Ser Padres” Trade-Mark Found Confusing in part with San Diego Baseball Club’s Marks, Rules Opposition Board

2013-10-28

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.ca
info@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925
Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9
Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006

MEDIACOMPANY’SSERPADRESTRADE-MARKFOUNDCONFUSINGINPART
WITHSANDIEGOBASEBALLCLUB’SMARKS,RULESOPPOSITIONBOARD

BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

ArecentdecisionbyCanada’sTrade-marksOppositionBoardhasallowedinpartthe
oppositionbyPadresL.P.,theownerofthetrade-markrightsintheSanDiego
baseballclub’sPADRESmarks,againstanapplicationfiledbyMeredithCorporation
forthetrade-markSERPADRESinassociationwithcalendarsandvariousarticlesof
clothingforchildren(PadresL.P.v.MeredithCorporation,2013TMOB142
(T.M.O.B.),A.Flewelling,August29,2013).
OnOctober14,2005,MeredithCorporation(hereafterthe“applicant”or“Meredith”),
aU.S.mediacompany,filedanapplicationtoregisterthetrade-markSERPADRES
inassociationwithvariouswaresandservices,namely:Magazinedirectedto
parents.ComputersoftwareandmultimediasoftwarerecordedonCD-ROM,namely,
educationalsoftwarefeaturinginformationinthefieldofpregnancy,childbirth,child
rearing,childdevelopment,child-proofing,childsafetyandparenting;seriesofnon-
fictionbooksinthefieldofpregnancy,childbirth,childrearing,childdevelopmentand
parenting;calendars;homesafetyproducts,namelynon-metallocksandlatchesfor
doors,cabinets,drawers,furniturecornercushions,fingerpinchguards,cordwind-
ups,doorknobcovers,andsafetykitscomprisedofcornercushionsfortablesand
chairs,smallobjecttester,outletplugsandhomesafetyguide,allsoldasaunit;
homesafetyproducts,namely,coversandplugsforelectricoutlets,motionsensitive
securitylightsandsafetyharnessotherthanforvehiclesorsportspurposes;musical
soundrecordings,namely,audiocompactdiscsandcassettetapesforchildren;
infantdevelopmenttoys;children’smultipleactivitytoys;footwearforchildren,
namely,shoes,boots,sandals;layettes,namelysetsofclothingandbeddingfora
newbornchild;headwear,namely,hats,toques,caps;clothingforinfantsand
children,namely,infantwear,shirts,t-shirts,sweatshirts,sweatpants,overalls,
dresses,playsuits,rompers,singlets,shorts,pants,jumpers,jackets,coats,gloves,
scarves,underwear,pajamas,robes,sleepwear,rainwear,socks,tights,bathing
suits,babybunting,clothbibsandclothdiapers;bedding,namely,bedlinen,bed
sheets,quilts,bedblankets,comforters,duvetcovers,mattresscovers,mattress
pads,pillowshams,pillowcases,bedskirtsandcribbumpers.Computerservices,
namely,providingon-linemagazinesinthefieldsofchilddevelopmentandparenting.

©CIPS,2013.*BarryGamacheisamemberofROBIC,LLP,afirmoflawyers,patentandtrademarkagents.
PublishedintheOctober2013issueoftheWorldIntellectualPropertyReport.Publication142.281.

2
Thisapplicationforthetrade-markSERPADRESwaspublishedforopposition
purposesonMay30,2007.OnJanuary25,2008,PadresL.P.(hereafterthe
“opponent”or“PadresL.P.”)filedastatementofoppositionagainstMeredith
Corporation’sapplication.
Initsstatementofopposition,PadresL.P.allegedthattheappliedfortrade-markwas
notregistrableasitwasconfusingwiththeopponent’sfourregisteredtrade-marks.
EachregistrationprotectedavariantofthePADRESmarkinassociationwithvarious
waresandservices.
Forexample,onetrade-markwasregisteredwiththeperformance,presentationand
promotionofbaseballgamesrenderedliveandthroughthemediaofradioand
televisionandforthefollowingwares:“Boys’andmen’stanktops,sweatshirts,hats,
caps;helmets;girls’shirts,nightshirts;infants’shirts;jewelry,namelypins;photo
tradingcards,collectoralbums;buttons,feltpennants.”.

Anotheronewasregisteredinassociationwithalonglistofwares,including:
“clothing,namelyjackets,coats,ponchos,raincoats,pants,overalls,jeans,coveralls,
shorts,sweatpants,t-shirts,shirts,tops,jerseys,turtlenecks,pullovers,sweaters,
vests,tanktops,sweatshirts,joggingsuits,warm-upsuits,skirts,shortsets,diaper
sets,dressandpantsets,pantsets,sweatersets,sunsuits,swimsuits,sleepers,
snowsuits,underwear,housecoats,bathrobes,bathwraps,undershirts,bibs,
pyjamas,nightgowns,nightshirts,boxershorts,layettesets,socks,hosiery,hats,
caps,visors,headbands,wristbands,mitts,gloves,scarves,handkerchiefs,belts,
suspenders,ties,buckles,footwearandaccessories,namelyshoelaces,shoebags,
shoes,boots,slippers,sneakers,runningshoes,babybooties,…games,toysand
playthings,namelyinflatabletoys,balls,bats,gloves,…calendars,…bed,bath,
kitchenandtablelinen,namelysheets,pillowcases,pillows,blankets,quilts,
comforters,duvets,bedspreads,curtains,bumperpads,sleepingbagsandsacks,
cushions,showercurtains,towels,tablecloths,placemats,napkins,ovenmitts,
potholders,aprons,chefhats,carpets,rugs,mats,…”.

TheRegistrarthereforehadtoevaluatethisgroundofoppositionanddecidewhether
theuseoftheappliedfortrade-markandtheuseoftheopponent’strade-marksin
thesameareawouldbelikelytoleadtotheinferencethatthewaresorservices
associatedwiththosetrade-marksweremanufactured,sold,leased,hiredor
performedbythesameperson,whetherornotthewaresorserviceswereofthe
samegeneralclass.
Insupportofitsapplication,theapplicantarguedthatitstrade-markSERPADRES
translatesintoEnglishas“tobeparents”.Foritspart,theopponentindicatedinits
writtensubmissionsthatthewordmeans“father”inSpanish.However,sincethere
wasnoevidenceastotheaverageCanadianconsumer’sunderstandingofSpanish,
theRegistrarconcludedthattheaverageCanadianwouldbemorelikelytoinferthat
theparties’respectivemarksarecoinedwords.

3
Noevidenceofsignificantuseofeitherparty’strade-marksinCanadawasfiledinto
evidence.
Asforthenatureofthewares,servicesorbusinessofeachparty,theRegistrar
concludedthattherewassomedegreeofsimilaritybetweentheapplicant’swares
andtheopponent’swaresprotectedinitsregistrations.Forexample,theapplicant’s
applicationincludedthefollowingwaresthattheRegistrardescribedasoverlapping
withthoseoftheopponent:calendars;…musicalsoundrecordings,namely,audio
compactdiscsandcassettetapesforchildren;infantdevelopmenttoys;children’s
multipleactivitytoys;footwearforchildren,namely,shoes,boots,sandals;layettes,
namelysetsofclothingandbeddingforanewbornchild;headwear,namely,hats,
toques,caps;clothingforinfantsandchildren,namely,infantwear,shirts,t-shirts,
sweatshirts,sweatpants,overalls,dresses,playsuits,rompers,singlets,shorts,
pants,jumpers,jackets,coats,gloves,scarves,underwear,pajamas,robes,
sleepwear,rainwear,socks,tights,bathingsuits,babybunting,clothbibsandcloth
diapers;bedding,namely,bedlinen,bedsheets,quilts,bedblankets,comforters,
duvetcovers,mattresscovers,mattresspads,pillowshams,pillowcases,bedskirts
andcribbumpers.(hereafterthe“overlappingwares”).However,theotherwaresand
servicesmentionedintheapplicationdidnotresembletheopponent’swaresand
services.
TheRegistraralsonotedthatthemarkssharedsomedegreeofsimilaritysincethey
bothincludedtheidenticalwordPADRES.Theparties’respectivemarksalso
suggestedthesameidea,evenifitwasnotclearwhatthatideawas.

TheRegistrarremindedthepartiesthattheSupremeCourtofCanadainMasterpiece
Inc.v.AlavidaLifestylesInc.,[2011]2S.C.R.387,atparagraph49,highlightedthe
importanceoftheissueofresemblancebetweentrade-marksintheanalysis
concerningthelikelihoodofconfusion.Inthepresentcase,therewascertainlysome
similaritybetweentheparties’respectivetrade-marks.Moreover,theoverlapping
waresintheapplicant’sapplicationdidnothelptheapplicantinovercomingor
minimizinginanywaythesimilaritybetweenthemarks.Consequently,theRegistrar
wasnotsatisfiedthattheapplicanthaddischargeditsonusofestablishing,ona
balanceofprobabilities,thatthereisnoreasonablelikelihoodofconfusionbetween
theparties’respectivemarkswithrespecttotheoverlappingwares.Ontheother
hand,theotherwaresandservicesmentionedintheapplicant’sapplicationwerenot
sufficientlysimilartothoseoftheopponentandthiswasenoughtoenablethe
applicanttosatisfyitsonusinsupportofitsclaimtoregistrationofitsmarkforthose
waresandservices.Theopponent’soppositionwasallowedagainsttheapplicant’s
trade-mark,butonlyfortheoverlappingwares.
Whilebothpartieswereapparentlyinvolvedindifferentbusinesses,someofthe
waresassociatedwiththeirrespectivetrade-markswerefoundtooverlap.Canadian
caselawallowstheRegistrartocarveoutfromanapplicationthosewaresthatcreate
confusionwithanopponent’strade-marks,allowingthosethatdonottosurvivethe
oppositionprocess(ProduitsMenagersCoronetIncv.Coronet-WerkeHeinrich

4
SchlerfGmbh(1986),10C.P.R.(3d)492(F.C.T.D.).Itisalsoworthmentioningthat
theopponentwaspartiallysuccessfulbecauseofitsregistrations,evenifno
evidenceofuseofitsmarksinCanadawaspresentedtotheRegistrar.Thisis
importantsinceitallowsanopponenttosuccessfullychallenge(atleastinpartinthis
case)anyapplicationonthebasisofaregistrationingoodstanding,evenifno
evidenceofuseisavailableToresolveanoppositioninsuchacase,theRegistrar
willcomparetheparties’respectivestatementsofwaresandservicestodetermine
whetherconfusionislikelyornot.Registrationalonecanthereforeallowanopponent
tosuccessfullyopposeanapplication,incaseswherenoevidenceofuseisreadily
available.

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

5
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)