No Confusion Between “Arrow” and “Aeropeak by de Ungava” Trademarks, Federal Court Rules in Trade-Mark Opposition Case

1
NOCONFUSIONBETWEEN”ARROW”AND”AEROPEAKBYDEUNGAVA”TRADE-
MARKS,FEDERALCOURTRULESINTRADE-MARKOPPOSITIONCASE

BarryGamache*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,LLP
Lawyers,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
info@robic.com-www.robic.ca

ArecentdecisionofCanada’sFederalCourtconfirmedanearlierOpposition
Boarddecisionthattherewasnolikelihoodofconfusionbetweenanew,
proposedtrade-mark,AEROPEAKBYDEUNGAVA,forclothingandthelong-
standingARROWtrade-markforshirts.(Cluett,PeabodyCanadaInc.v.Effigi
Inc.,2005FC400(March23,2005,deMontignyJ.)).
OnDecember4,1998,EffigiInc.(“Effigi”)filedatrade-markapplicationto
registertheproposedusedtrade-markAEROPEAKBYDEUNGAVAin
associationwithclothing.InJanuary2001,Cluett,PeabodyCanadaInc.
(“Cluett,Peabody”)opposedtheapplication,allegingconfusionbetween
Effigi’sappliedfortrade-markanditsownfamilyoftrade-markswhich
incorporatetheword”Arrow”,usedandregisteredforshirtsandotherarticles
ofclothing.
BeforetheOppositionBoard,CluettPeabodyfiledevidenceofitsvarious
registrationsforARROW-typetrade-marksforclothingwithout,however,
submittinganyevidenceofuseofthosetrade-marks.Thislackofevidence
regardingCluettPeabody’sactivitiesinassociationwithitstrade-marksdid
notstoptheBoardfromconsideringthelengthoftimeCluettPeabody’s
trade-markshadbeeninuse:Oneoftheregistrationsforthetrade-mark
ARROWmentionedthatithadbeenusedinCanadasinceatleastasearlyas
1902.TheBoardacceptedthisstatementintheregistrationasevidenceof
useofthetrade-mark,sincesection54oftheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.
T-13providesthatacopyofanyentryintheregisterpurportingtobecertified
tobetruebytheRegistrar(whichwasthecasehere)isevidenceofthefacts
setouttherein.TheBoardalsonotedthattheparties’waresandrespective

CIPS,2005.*BarryGamache,lawyer,isamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmof
lawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.PublishedintheApril2005issueoftheWIPR.
Publication142.174.

2
tradeweresimilar.However,theBoardmadeacrucialfindingconcerning
thedegreeofresemblancebetweenthetrade-marks:IntheBoard’sview,the
parties’trade-markscouldbedistinguishedvisually;furthermore,theyboth
suggesteddifferentideaswhiletheword”arrow”andthe”aero”componentin
Effigi’smarkcouldbepronounceddifferently.Underthecircumstances,the
BoardconcludedthatEffigihaddischargeditsonusofestablishingthatthere
wouldbenolikelihoodofconfusionbetweentheparties’marksandrejected
theopposition.
Cluett,PeabodyappealedtheBoard’sdecisionbeforetheFederalCourt.As
permittedbySection56oftheTrade-marksAct,itsubmittedfreshevidence
beforetheCourt:Evidenceofusewaspresenteddetailingtheextensiveuse
oftheARROWtrade-marksinCanadagoingasfarbackas1902;the
evidencealsorevealedthatCluett,Peabodydisplayedprominentlyitstrade-
marksonthewaresitsells.Additionally,evidencewasfiledpurportingtoshow
thatboththewords”arrow”and”aero”havethesamepronunciation,
accordingtovariousdictionariesavailableinCanada.
TheCourtreviewedCluettPeabody’snewevidencebutconcludedthatit
wouldnothaveleadtoconclusionsoffactdifferentfromthoseofthe
OppositionBoard:DespiteclearevidenceofuseoftheARROWtrade-marks,
whichwaslackingbeforetheBoard,theCourtconcludedthatthelatterwas
readytoacknowledgesuchusegoingbackto1902inlightofSection54of
theTrade-marksAct.Moreover,theevidenceregardingthepronunciationof
thewords”arrow”and”aero”alsorevealedthatwhen”aero”isusedasa
prefix,atthebeginningofaword(suchasisthecase,forexample,in
“aerobalistics”,”aerobatics”and”aerobic”),itcanbepronouncedindifferent
ways,whichwasessentiallytheBoard’sconclusion.
WhatwascrucialforboththeCourtandtheBoardwasthattheparties’
trade-marksdidnotresembleeachotherinanyway,whentakenasawhole.
TheCourtreferredtotheguidingprincipleenunciatedbytheFederalCourt
ofAppealinChristianDior,S.A.v.DionNeckwareLtd.,[2002]3F.C.405where
theCourtindicatedthatconfusionbetweentrade-marksmustbeassessedby
consideringthemarksintheirtotality:”WhileIappreciatethatthefirstportion
ofatrade-markisthemostrelevantforpurposesofdistinction(seePernod
Ricardv.MolsonBreweries(1992),44C.P.R.(3d)359(F.C.T.D.),perDenaultJ.,
atpage370),marksareneverthelesstobeconsideredintheirtotalityandthe
effectorideaofthewholeistobecomparedevenwhenwordsinthemarks
aredisclaimed.(SeeStandardCoilProductsCan.Ltd.v.StandardRadio
Corp.,[1971]F.C.106;affd[1976]2F.C.iv(C.A.);SealySleepProductsLtd.v.
Simpson’s-SearsLtd.,[1956-60]Ex.C.R.441,approvedbytheSupremeCourtof
CanadainUltraviteLaboratoriesLtd.v.WhitehallLaboratoriesLtd.,[1965]
S.C.R.734.)”

3
Underthecircumstances,theCourtconcludedthattheBoard’sdecisionwas
bothreasonableandcorrectinlaw.TheCourt’sdecisionisareminderthat
trade-marksmustneverbedissectedwhenanalyzingtheissueofconfusion;
theymustbeanalyzedintheirtotality.

4

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;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectual
property:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,
certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,
artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;
tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingand
technologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,
publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence;in
Canadaandthroughouttheworld.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,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTO
THEWORLD

5