Opposition Board Hands Down Split Decision in Dispute over Winnie the Pooh Trade-mark

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.cainfo@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloorMontreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874
QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
OPPOSITIONBOARDHANDSDOWNSPLITDECISIONINDISPUTE
OVERWINNIETHEPOOHTRADE-MARK
BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,LLP
LAWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS
ArecentdecisionbytheOppositionBoardofCanada’sTrade-marksOfficehas
dismissedpartofatrade-markapplicationfiledbyDisneyEnterprises,Inc.forthe
trade-markWINNIETHEPOOHfurthertotheoppositionbroughtbyStephen
Slesinger,Inc.onthebasisofallegednoncompliancewithsection30ofCanada’s
Trade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13(hereafterthe“Act”).Section30oftheAct
describessometechnicalgroundsofopposition:forexample,inacasewherea
trade-markhasbeenfiledona“proposeduse”basis,itshouldnotalreadybeinuse
withanyofthewaresmentionedintheapplication;ifithasalreadybeenusedwith
somewares,thetrade-markcanberefusedforthosewares.Thisoppositionwas
decidedonsuchagroundofopposition.(StephenSlesinger,Inc.v.Disney
Enterprises,Inc.,2012TMOB89(T.M.O.B.),JillW.Bradbury,May2,2012;decision
releasedMay24,2012).
OnJanuary4,2007,DisneyEnterprises,Inc.(hereafter“Disney”)filedanapplication
toregisterinCanadathetrade-markWINNIETHEPOOHinassociationwithalong
listofwares(fromsleepingbagstospaghettisauceandotherwaressuchas
staplers,stickersandstatuettes)onthebasisofproposeduseofthetrade-markwith
thosewaresinCanada.Disney’sWINNIETHEPOOHapplicationwaspublishedfor
oppositionpurposesonNovember21,2007andonApril21,2008,Stephen
Slesinger,Inc.(hereafter“Slesinger”)filedastatementofoppositionraisingvarious
groundsofopposition.
Initsstatementofopposition,Slesingeralleged,interalia,thattheapplicationdidnot
conformtotherequirementsofsection30(i)oftheActbecauseDisneycouldnot
havebeensatisfiedthatitwasentitledtousethemarkinCanadainassociationwith
thewaresdescribedintheapplicationinviewofthefactthatthemarkisownedby
Slesinger.Additionally,Slesingerfurtherallegedthattheapplicationdidnotconform
totherequirementsofsection30(e)oftheActbecauseDisney“neverintendedto
usethetrade-markinCanadainassociationwiththewaressetforthinthe
application”.
©CIPS,2012.*BarryGamacheisamemberofROBIC,LLP,afirmoflawyers,patentandtrademarkagents.
OppositionBoardSplitsDecisioninDisputeOverWinniethePoohTrade-mark(August2012),26:8
WorldIntellectualPropertyReport43-44.Publication142.266.

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.cainfo@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloorMontreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874
QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
2
Insupportofitsgroundsofopposition,SlesingerfiledtheaffidavitofPatricia
Slesinger,itsPresident,whointroducedinevidenceaseriesofdocumentsdating
backtothe1920’spurportingtoshowSlesinger’srightsoverthetrade-markWINNIE
THEPOOH.
Accordingtotheevidenceandtherecord,BritishauthorA.A.Milnecreatedseveral
charactersforhischildren’sbooksthatincludethecharacterknownasWINNIETHE
POOH(thePoohWorks).Around1929-1930,Mr.MilnegrantedrightstoStephen
Slesinger,anAmerican,tocommercializethesecharactersintheUnitedStatesand
Canada.TheagreementprovidedthatMr.Slesinger“shallorganizeacorporation
underthelawsoftheStateofNewYorkwhichshallhavetherighttograntlicenses
fortheuseofthetrade-marks”.
FurthertotheagreementbetweenA.A.MilneandStephenSlesinger,theopponent
wasincorporatedtocarryoutthecommercializationofthesecharactersintheUnited
StatesandCanada.PartofSlesinger’sevidencerevealedtheexistenceofa1961
agreementbetweenitandWaltDisneyProductions(oneofDisney’spredecessors).
Theagreementstated,interalia,thatSlesinger“assigns,grants,andsetsoverunto
thepurchaser”thesoleandexclusiverightintheU.S.andCanadaregarding“various
Winnie-the-PoohworksofMr.Milne”,subjecttoexistinglicensesandpaymentstobe
madetotheseller.Inturn,Disney’spredecessorthereafterlicensedmarks
associatedwiththePoohWorkstothirdparties;italsoproceededtoregistersome
trade-marks,includingWINNIETHEPOOH,initsownname.Theparties’
relationshipwasapparentlywithoutproblemsuntilapproximatelytheearly1980’s
whennewagreementswereputintoplacebetweenthepartiestoresolve
disagreementsbetweenthem.
Upuntil2008,Disney(oritspredecessor)continuedtoregistertrade-marks
associatedwiththePoohWorks.However,in2008,Slesingerchallengedthemore
recenttrade-markapplicationsfiledbyDisney(suchastheoneinthepresentcase).
Insupportofitsopposition,throughPatriciaSlesinger’stestimony,itfiledaseriesof
agreements,letters,releasesandreportsspanningseveraldecadesandalsomore
recentdocumentssuchaspagesfromdepositiontranscriptsandvariouscourt
documentsrelatingtolitigationbetweenthepartiesintheUnitedStates.
Aspartofitsevidence,Disneyfiledcertifiedcopiesforvariousregistrationsforthe
trade-markWINNIETHEPOOH,obtainedinCanadabyitoritspredecessor,asfar
backas1965andasrecentlyas2008.Alltheseregistrationscurrentlystandinthe
nameofDisneyandcoverawidevarietyofwares.
WhilethedocumentsfiledbySlesingerapparentlypurportedtoestablishthatDisney
didnotownrightstothetrade-markWINNIETHEPOOH,HearingOfficerBradbury
concludedotherwiseandwroteinherreasons:“…Iacceptthatthebest
interpretationofthevariousagreementsbetweenthepartiesisthat,priortothedates
thatarematerialinthepresentproceeding,theOpponentassignedwhateverrightsit

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.cainfo@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloorMontreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874
QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
3
ownedinthePoohWorks,includingthetrade-marks,totheApplicant’spredecessor
inexchangeforconsiderationthatincludedthepaymentof“royalties”.Inother
words,IfindthattheOpponentdoesnotownthemarkthatisthesubjectofthis
applicationanddidnotownitatthetimethattheapplicationwasfiled.”
Thisfindinghadanimportantimpactonthesection30(i)groundofopposition.On
behalfofSlesinger,itwasarguedthatDisneycouldnothavebeensatisfiedthatit
wasentitledtousethemarksinceSlesingerallegeditownedthemark.However,
HearingOfficerBradburyconcludedthatSlesinger’sevidencedidnotsupportthis
conclusion.Accordingly,thisgroundofoppositionwasdismissed.
HearingOfficerBradburythenanalyzedthesection30(e)groundofopposition.In
thiscase,wasDisney’sstatementthatitintendedtousetheappliedformarkin
associationwithitslonglistofwaresaccurate?
SlesingercomparedthestatementofwaresinDisney’sexistingregistrationsforthe
trade-markWINNIETHEPOOH(thatwerefiledbyDisneyaspartofitsevidencein
supportofitsrighttothemark)againstthewaresintheopposedapplication.Some
waresfoundinthepreviousWINNIETHEPOOHregistrationswereclaimedasbeing
alreadyinusewhilesomeofthesamewaresweresubsequentlypresentedasbeing
“proposeduse”waresintheopposedapplication.
AccordingtoSlesinger,thismeantthatDisneydidnotintendtouseitsWINNIETHE
POOHtrade-markforthosewareswhenitfileditsapplication“because,asindicated
intheexistingregistrations,WINNIETHEPOOHhadalreadybeenusedasatrade-
markinassociationwithsuchwares”.ByreferringtoDisney’sownevidence,
Slesingerarguedthatithadsatisfieditsevidentialburdenforitssection30(e)ground
ofopposition.
Suchburdenisusuallydescribedas“light”sincethefactsinsupportthereofare
usuallybetterknownbytheapplicantwhohasfiledtheapplicationratherthanbythe
opponentwhoraisestheissue.
HearingOfficerBradburyagreedwithSlesinger’sargument:“TheOpponentis
entitledtorelyupontheApplicant’sevidencetomeetitslightevidentialburdenand
theclaimsofusesetoutinthecertifiedcopiesoftheApplicant’sexisting
registrationsmeetthisinitialburden.TheApplicantthereforemustmeetthelegal
burdenthatliesonittoshowthattheproposeduseclaiminthependingapplication
wasappropriatebecauseithadabandonedtheusereferredtointheearlier
registrationsforthesamemark.
TheApplicanthasnotfiledanyevidencetomeetthislegalburden.Accordingly,
basedonthelineofdecisionswhereintheRegistrarofTrade-marksrefused
proposeduseapplicationswhereactualuseofthetrade-markwasevidencedpriorto
thefilingdate[seeNabiscoBrandsLtdvCudaConsolidatedInc,(1997),81CPR
(3d)537(TMOB)at540andSystèmesdeFormation&deGestionPerformIncv

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.cainfo@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloorMontreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874
QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
4
Scissons,2004CarswellNat1758(TMOB)],thesection30(e)groundsucceedswith
respecttothespecificwaresthatoverlap,namely:clocks;jewelry;watches;address
books;babybooks;books;calendars;children’sactivitybooks;colouringbooks;
diaries;greetingcards;photographalbums;postcards;posters;stickers;backpacks;
diaperbags;overnightbags;totebags;umbrellas;figurines;pictureframes;toy
chests;tumblers;bowls;cookiecutters;cups;dishes;lunchboxes;napkinholders;
paperplates;soapdishes;wastebaskets;biscuits;breakfastcereal;candies;
chocolate;honey(collectivelytheWINNIETHEPOOHOverlappingWares)”.
TheoppositionwasthereforeallowedwithrespecttotheWINNIETHEPOOH
OverlappingWares.
Asimilarfindingwasmaderegardingthetrade-marksTIGGERandROOthatwere
alsofiledbyDisney.
TheinterestingaspectofthisdecisionisthattheHearingOfficerdecidedseveralkey
pointsagainsteachpartyonthebasisoftheevidencefiledbythatparty.Forthose
interestedinvariousaspectsoftrade-marklaw,thisdecisioncouldbeseenasa
reminderthat“lessissometimesbetter”whenitcomestoaparty’sownevidencein
oppositioncases.Onthispoint,wheneverapartyfilesevidenceinsupportofa
particularissue,itshouldalwaysbemindfulthattheevidencecouldbedeemed
relevantforacompletelydifferentissueandrelieduponaccordinglytodecidethat
issue.
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marques
decommerce,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-

ROBIC,LLPwww.robic.cainfo@robic.com
MONTREAL1001Square-Victoria-BlocE-8thFloorMontreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7Tel.:+1514987-6242Fax:+1514845-7874
QUEBEC2828LaurierBoulevard,Tower1,Suite925Quebec,Quebec,CanadaG1V0B9Tel.:+1418653-1888Fax.:+1418653-0006
5
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;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,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,LLP(“ROBIC”)