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