No Risk of Confusion Between Barbie Dolls and Barbie’s Restaurants, Federal Court Rules

2004-01-01

1
NORISKOFCONFUSIONBETWEENBARBIEDOLLSANDBARBIE’SRESTAURANTS,
FEDERALCOURTRULES

By
StellaSyrianos*
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
TheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadaupheldtheRegistrar’s
decisionindismissingtheOpponent’soppositiontothemarkBARBIE’S&
design,furthertoanappeallaunchedpursuanttosubsection56(1)of
Canada©sTrade-marksAct,(R.S.C.1985,c.T-13)afterafindingoflackof
confusionwithitsregisteredBARBIEtrade-marks(Mattel,Inc.v.3894207
CanadaInc.andtheRegistrarofTrade-marksofCanada,T-717-02,March11,
2001,Rouleau,J.).
Thefacts
OnSeptember14
th,1993,2858029CanadaInc.(thecorporaterespondent©s
predecessorintitle)filedanapplicationforthetrade-markBARBIE©S&design
(TMO736,898)inassociationwith”restaurantservices,take-outrestaurant
services,cateringandbanquetservices”,asreproducedbelow:

LEGERROBICRICHARD,2004.*OfthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andofthepatentandtrademarkagencyfirm
ROBIC,g.p.Publishedat[2004]WorldIntellectualPropertyReport.Ref.142.163.

2
ThisapplicationwhichwasbasedonuseinCanadasinceOctober1992,was
assignedto3894207CanadaInc.(“Respondent”)onOctober18,2001.
TheRespondentownsseveralrestaurantslocatedwithintheprovinceofQuebec
andcaterstoanadultclientele.Theserestaurantsofferavarietyofdifferent
mealsaswellasalcoholicbeverages,thebaroccupyingasignificantpartof
theirsquarefootage.
ApplicantMattel,Inc.(“Mattel”)istheregisteredownerofseveralBARBIEtrade-
marksinassociationwithdolls,dollaccessoriesandotherrelatedproducts.On
June23,1995,MattelUSA,Inc.opposedtheBARBIE’S&designtrade-markinpart
onthegroundthatitcausedconfusionwithseveralBARBIEtrade-marks
registeredbyMattelinassociationwithdolls,dollaccessoriesandotherrelated
products.
OnMarch5,2002,theRegistrardismissedtheoppositiononthegroundthat
Respondent©sBARBIE©S&designmarkdidnotcauseconfusionwithMattel’s
BARBIEtrade-marks.TheRegistrarfocusedontheenormousdifferencethat
existedbetweenthenatureofMattel’swaresandthenatureofthe
Respondent©sbusiness.
AppealtotheFederalCourt
MattelappealedtheRegistrar’sdecisiononthegroundthatheerredinfinding
thattherewasnoconnectionbetweenitswaresandtherestaurantservices
offeredbytheRespondent.AdditionalevidencewasfiledMattelintheformof
surveyevidenceinanattempttoconvincetheCourtofthelikelihoodof
confusionbetweenthemarksatissue.
Mattelalsofiledanapplicationforjudicialreviewsinceitwasonlydiscoveredin
thecontextoftheappealproceedingbeforetheFederalCourtthatMattelUSA,
Inc.didnothaveanylegalexistenceandthatthestatementofoppositionhad
beenmistakenlyfiledinthenameofMattelUSA,Inc.ratherthaninthenameof
Mattel,Inc.Thejudicialreviewrequestsoughttoretroactivelycorrectthis
situation
.
TheRespondentalsofiledadditionalevidencebutthedecisionfocusesonlyon
Mattel’sadditionalsurveyevidence.
Applicationforjudicialreview
SincetherewasnocompanybythenameofMattelU.S.A.,Inc.andatno
relevanttimedidsuchacompanyexist,includingatthetimeofthefilingofthe
statementofopposition,theCourtheldthatMattelU.S.A.,Inc.clearlydidnot
haveanylegalexistenceatanyrelevanttime,includingatthetimeofthefiling
oftheopposition,andthereforecouldnothavehadtherequisiteinterestto
opposeRespondent’strade-mark.

3
However,theCourtneverthelessconcludedthatitwouldhavebeenunfairto
dismissMattel’sapplicationforjudicialreviewonsuchatechnicalgroundsince
thesituationwasbroughtaboutbytheinadvertenceofalloftheparties
involved.Therefore,theapplicationforjudicialreviewwasallowed.
Theissueofconfusion–surveyevidence
MattelreliedheavilyonthesurveyevidenceandarguedthattheCourtshould
consideritassubstantialadditionalevidencepertainingtothequestionof
confusion.Thesignificantstatisticsfromthissurvey,asoutlinedbytheCourtwere
thefollowing:
·For57%oftheparticipants,Barbiedollscametomindwhenthey
sawtheBarbie©srestaurantlogo.
·36%oftheparticipantsbelievedthatthecompanythat
manufacturedBarbiedollshadsomethingtodowiththelogoof
Barbie©srestaurant.
·99.3%oftheparticipantswerefamiliarwiththeBarbiedolls.
TheRespondentsubmittedthattheRegistrarwouldhavecometothesame
conclusiondespitethefindingsoftheMattelsurvey.
TheCourtopinedthatMattel’ssurveydidnotaddanythingnewthatwarranted
areviewoftheRegistrar’sdecisionsincenosignificantconclusionscouldbe
drawnfromthesurveyontheissueofconfusion.Quitetothecontrary,theCourt
consideredthatthesurveyhadblatantshortcomingswhichunderminedits
relevanceconsiderably:
·thosewhorespondedtothesurveywereprovidedwithno
informationinanyformwhatsoeverofthenatureofRespondent’s
businessandtherestaurantservicesinassociationwiththeBARBIE’S
&designtrade-mark,i.eadultdécor,latebusinesshours,saleof
alcoholicbeverages,barsection;
·individualswhowerefamiliarwithanyoftheRespondent’strade-
markswereexcludedfromparticipatinginthesurvey;
·manyquestionsweresuggestive;
·thepoolofpeoplesurveyedwaslimitedtoadults,excludingthe
grouptargetedbyMattel’sproducts,i.e.3-11yearoldgirls;
·thesurveytookplaceinavacuumsinceseveralquestionswere
abstractwithoutrevealingtheconcretecontextunderlyingthe
survey.

4
Inlightoftheabove,theCourtheldthatthesurveywasinconclusiveandcould
thereforenotsupportMattel’sallegationofconfusion,althoughtheinference
thatcouldbedrawnfromitwasthatMattel’sBARBIEmarkisfamous.
ThenotorietyoftheBARBIEmark
TheCourtacknowledgedthatMattel’sBARBIEmarkwasverywell-known.
Regardless,theCourtaddedthatthereisnoautomaticpresumptionof
confusionwhenanapplicant’smarkisfamousandthatthenotorietyofamarkis
onlyonefactortobeconsideredwhendeterminingthelikelihoodofconfusion.
TheCourtheldthatthefamousnessofamarkcannotbeafactorsoimportant
astoovershadowthestrikingdifferencesbetweenthenatureoftheparties’
wares/services,aswasthecasebeforeit.
MattelarguedthatnothingpreventedtheRespondentfromdecoratingthe
wallsofitsrestaurantsinpinkandpossiblysellingdollsthere.Indecidingthere
wasnoriskofconfusion,theCourtcommentedsuchspeculativearguments
couldnotbefollowedwithoutcrossingthelineintotheabsurd,aswasdifficultto
imagineindividualsintendingtobuydollsatoneoftheRespondent’s
restaurants.
Conclusion
Ownersoffamousmarksseemtohavebeenrepeatedlythwartedintheir
attemptstoextendtrade-markrightsbeyondthewares/servicesin
associationwiththeirmarks.Thiscaseisnoexceptionasitlendssupporttothe
waveofjurisprudencewhichhasestablishedthatfamousnessalonedoesnot
protectatrade-markabsolutelyandisonlyonefactortobeweighedin
connectionwiththerestofthefactorsregardingconfusion.
TheBARBIEtrade-marksharedthesamefateinthiscaseasdidthemarks
PLAYBOY,PINKPANTHERandLEXUSinpreviousdecisions.TheCourtsappear
tooftensendasimilarmessageontheissueoffamousmarks,bestsummed
upasfollows:“nomatterhowfamousamarkis,itcannotbeusedtocreatea
connectionthatdoesnotexist.”

5

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