Owner of L’OREAL PARIS trade-mark succeeds in opposing attempt to register L’OREAL PARIS for vitamin supplements by questioning applicant’s good faith

2010-01-01

OWNEROF
L’OREALPARISTRADE-MARKSUCCEEDSINOPPOSING
ATTEMPTTOREGISTERL’OREALPARISFORVITAMINSUPPLEMENTSBY
QUESTIONINGAPPLICANT’SGOODFAITH

BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

Inarecentcasethatexaminedtheserialfilingbyanapplicantofothers’well-known
trade-marks,L’Oréal,therenownedcosmeticscompany,succeededinopposingan
attemptbyanindividualtoregisterthetrade-markL’OREALPARISinassociation
withvitamin,mineralandherbalsupplementsandcombinationsthereofalongwith
aloeveradrinks(L’Oréalv.Marcon,2010TMOB66,D.H.Carreau,Chairperson,May
17,2010;issuedJune7,2010).
OnDecember11,2003,RobertV.Marcon(hereafter:“Marcon”orthe“Applicant”)
filedanapplicationtoregisterthetrade-markL’OREALPARIS(hereafter:the“Trade-
mark”)onthebasisofproposeduseofsuchTrade-markinCanadainassociation
withtheabove-mentionedproducts.Thisapplicationwasadvertisedforopposition
purposesonJanuary3,2007andonMay31,2007,L’Oréal(hereafter:“L’Oréal”or
the“Opponent”)opposedtheL’OREALPARISmarkfiledbyMarcon.

Initsstatementofopposition,L’OréalallegedthatMarcon’sapplicationdidnot
conformtotherequirementsofsection30(i)oftheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.
T-13(hereafter:the“Act”)onthebasisthattheApplicantcouldnothavebeen
satisfiedthathewasentitledtousethemarkL’OREALPARISinCanadabecause
theApplicanthadadopteda“modusoperandi”offilingapplicationsforwell-known
trade-marksinidenticalorrelatedfieldsinCanada.

Additionally,thestatementofoppositionallegedthattheTrade-markL’OREAL
PARISfiledbyMarconwasnotregistrablebecauseofconfusionwithanumberofthe
Opponent’sregisteredtrade-markscontrarytosection12(1)(d)oftheAct,including
mostnotably,thetrade-markL’OREALPARISregisteredunderregistrationnumber
TMA655,217andthetrade-markL’OREALregisteredunderregistrationnumber
TMDA29020.
Inherreasons,ChairpersonCarreaudealtfirstwiththeissueofconfusionraisedby
theOpponent’sstatementofopposition.Onthistopic,Marconarguedthatthe

©CIPS,2010.*BarryGamacheisamemberofROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,patentandtrademark
agents.PublishedintheJuly2010issueofWorldIntellectualPropertyReport.Publication142.240.

2
Opponent’strade-markL’OREALPARISwasaweakmark.ChairpersonCarreau
disagreednotingthatthestrengthoftheOpponent’sL’OREALPARIStrade-markhad
increasedthroughsignificantuseinCanadaovertheyears.Theevidencerevealed
thatthenetsalesofproductsinCanadainassociationwiththeOpponent’sL’OREAL
PARIStrade-markfrom1997to2007werequiteimportant.InviewoftheOpponent’s
evidence,ChairpersonCarreauwassatisfiedthattheOpponent’sL’OREALPARIS
trade-markhadbecomeverywell-knowninCanada.
Asfortheparties’respectivefieldsoftrade,ChairpersonCarreaunotedthatthe
Opponent’sperfumeryproducts,cosmetics,make-up,skinandbodycareproducts,
beautyproductsaswellashaircare,colorationandhairproductsdifferedfromthe
Applicant’swaresmentionedinhisapplication.
Whilethiswastrue,theOpponentarguedthattheevidencepointedtoaconnection
betweentheparties’respectivewares.Indeed,asitsevidencedemonstrated,the
OpponenthadmorethanahundredcosmeticrelatedpatentsinCanada,including
thoseinthefieldofnutricosmetics,describedasanalternativetypeofcosmetics
whichactivatethebiologicalresourcesoftheskinfromwithin.Additionally,the
Opponentalsofurnishedevidencedemonstratingthataloeverawasacommon
componentinskincare,beautyandhaircareproducts.

Ontheissueofthewaresoftheparties,ChairpersonCarreauagreedwiththe
Opponent’ssubmissionthatitwasnotnecessaryforthepartiestooperateinthe
samegeneralfieldorindustryfortheretobelikelihoodofconfusion(sincethewares
ortheservicesneednotbeofthesamegeneralclassfortheuseofatrade-markto
causeconfusionwithanother).
ChairpersonCarreaunotedtheextensivereputationanduseoftheOpponent’s
registeredtrade-markL’OREALPARISinCanada,theoverlapbetweenthechannels
oftradeandthefactthatthemarkswereidenticalandconcludedthatMarconhadnot
dischargedhisburdenofshowing,onabalanceofprobabilities,thattherewasnota
reasonablelikelihoodofconfusionbetweenhisTrade-mark,L’OREALPARIS,and
theOpponent’sregisteredtrade-mark,L’OREALPARIS.Thegroundofopposition
basedonconfusionwasthereforesuccessful.
ChairpersonCarreauthereafterturnedtothegroundofoppositionbasedonSection
30(i)oftheActthatrequiresthatanapplicantincludeinhisapplicationforregistration
ofatrade-markastatementthatheissatisfiedthatheisentitledtousethetrade-
markinCanadainassociationwiththelistedwaresorservicesdescribedinthe
application.
ChairpersonCarreauremindedthepartiesthatthepresenceofsuchstatementinan
applicationismorethanaformalrequirement,itisconfirmationoftheapplicant’s
goodfaithinsubmittingitsapplicationforregistrationofthetrade-markinCanada.
Accordingly,whenanapplicanthasprovidedthestatementrequiredbysection30(i)
oftheAct,thisgroundofoppositionwillonlysucceedinexceptionalcases,suchas

3
theoneswherethereisbadfaithonthepartoftheapplicant.Whatwastheevidence
submittedbytheOpponentinthepresentcase?
Here,theOpponentfurnishedevidencedemonstratingthatin2003,whenthe
L’OREALPARISapplicationwasfiled,theApplicantalsofiledinhisnameseveral
otherapplicationstoregisterthefollowingtrade-marksinCanada:BAYER;
BEEFEATER;BUDWEISER,COORS;CORONA;DOMPERIGNON;EVIAN;
FINLANDIA;HEINEKEN;JACKDANIEL’S;NESCAFÉ;NESTLÉ;SENSODYNE;TIM
HORTONS;ABSOLUT;CANADIANCLUB;SOUTHERNCOMFORTandCHANEL.

TheOpponentalsofiledcertifiedcopiesofseveralCanadiantrade-markregistrations,
evidencingthatthetrade-marksfiledbyMarconin2003hadalreadybeenregistered
inCanada,someseveraldecadesearlier,inthenameofthirdparties.Thus,itwas
establishedthatthetrade-markBAYERstandsregisteredinthenameofBayer
Aktiengesellschaft,BEEFEATERinthenameofAlliedDomecqSpirits&Wine
Limited,CHANELinthenameofChanelS.deR.L.,COORSinthenameofCoors
GlobalProperties,Inc.,CORONAinthenameofCerveceriaModelo,S.A.deC.V.,
DOMPERIGNONinthenameofChampagneMoet&Chandon,FINLANDIA&
DESIGNinthenameofFinlandiaVodkaWorldwideLtd.,HEINEKENinthenameof
HeinekenBrouwerijenB.V.,L’OREALPARISinthenameofL’Oréal,NESTLEinthe
nameofSociétédesProduitsNestleS.A.,SENSODYNEinthenameof
GlaxoSmithKlineConsumerHealthcareInc.,TIMHORTONS&DESIGNinthename
ofTheTDLMarksCorporationandEVIANinthenameofSociétéanonymedeseaux
minéralesd’Evian.
TheOpponentalsoestablishedthattheabovepartiesalsoownedmanyrelatedor
associatedtrade-marksinCanada.
Foritspart,theApplicantdidnotfileanyevidencewithrespecttohiscompliancewith
section30(i)oftheAct.Thisgroundofoppositionwasalsoallowedforthefollowing
reasons:[32]Theevidencedemonstratesthattheparticularfactsofthiscase
areexceptional.Specifically,inviewoftheevidencefiledbythe
OpponentandintheabsenceofanyevidencefiledbytheApplicant,
IamnotsatisfiedthattheApplicant’sstatementrequiredbys.30(i)
oftheActwasmadeingoodfaith.Ialsoreachthisconclusionon
thebasisofhavingalreadyfoundthatthereisalikelihoodof
confusionbetweentheApplicant’sMarkandtheOpponent’s
registeredtrade-markL’OREALPARIS.Accordingly,thes.30(i)
groundofoppositionalsosucceeds.

Thisdecisionisworthnotingsincesection30(i)oftheActisrarelyasuccessful
groundofopposition.Thecircumstancesoftheseproceedingsseemtohave
providedthe“perfectstorm”ofeventsinordertoenabletheRegistrartoconclude
thatgoodfaithappearednottobepresentinthiscase.However,thisconclusion
wouldnothavebeenreachedwithouttheevidenceofthirdpartyregistrationsfiledby

4
theOpponent;thisdecisionhighlightstheimportanceofcarefullyconsideringthe
contentofanopponent’sevidenceinsupportofasection30(i)groundofopposition.

L’OréalwasrepresentedbyROBIC,
LLPinthiscase.

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
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER

5
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)