Paxil and Ixel Trade-Marks: No Risk of Confusion for the Anglophone Consumer, Federal Court Rules

1
PAXILANDIXELTRADE-MARKS:NORISKOFCONFUSIONFORTHE
ANGLOPHONECONSUMER,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
FurthertoanappeallaunchedbytheAppellantpursuanttosubsection56(1)
ofCanada’sTrade-marksAct,(R.S.C.1985,c.T-13),theTrialDivisionofthe
FederalCourtofCanadaoverturnedtheRegistrar’sdecisionmaintainingthe
Respondent’soppositiontotheapplicationforthetrade-markIXELbasedon
itsfindingthattherewasnoriskofconfusionbetweenthetrade-marksPAXIL
andIXEL(PierreFabreMédicament.v.SmithklineBeechamCorporation,T-
2093-98,June7
th,2004).
Thefacts
OnDecember9
th,1993,theAppellantfiledanapplicationforthetrade-mark
IXELunderapplicationnumber743,101inassociationwithantidepressants
.
ThisapplicationwasbasedonproposeduseinCanada.
OnNovember22
nd,1994,Respondentfiledastatementofopposition.On
September11
th,1998,theRegistrarofTrade-MarksrejectedAppellant’s
applicationafterafindingofconfusionwithRespondent’sregisteredtrade-
markPAXILinassociationwithidenticalproducts.TheAppellantfiledan
appealbeforetheFederalCourtofCanadaandonMarch30
th,2000,the
FederalCourtgrantedtheappealandheldthattherewasnoriskof
confusionbetweenIXELandPAXIL.
TheRespondentappealedtheFederalCourt’sdecisionofMarch30
th,2000
andonFebruary13
th,2001,theFederalCourtofAppealgrantedtheappeal
claimingthatthefirstinstancejudgeaswellastheRegistrarhaderredasto



















































LEGERROBICRICHARD,2004*Publishedat(September2004),18-9WorldIntellectualPropertyReport4-5,underthetitle
“PaxilandIxel:NoRiskofConfusionForAnglophoneConsumer,CourtRules”.Publication
142.166.

2
theapplicabletestforconfusionandproceededtoremitthemattertothe
TrialDivisionfordeterminationonthemerits.
FederalCourtTrialDivisionDecision(denovo)
TheTrialDivisiondeterminedthattheissueatbarwasthefollowing:onthe
balanceofprobabilities,wouldtheaverageanglophoneconsumerwith
imperfectrecollectionandbasedonfirstimpressions,beconfusedbetween
themarksIXELandPAXIL?
Inassessingtheriskofconfusioninaccordancewiththecriteriaenumerated
insection6oftheTrade-marksAct,theCourtmadethefollowingfindings:
(i)theinherentdistinctivecharacterofthemarks
BoththemarksIXELandPAXILareuniqueandinventedwordsthatare
uncommonandassuchthiselementfavoredneitherparty.
(ii)lengthoftimemarksusedandextenttowhichtheyhavebecome
known
DespiteRespondent’sevidencethatsince1997thePAXILproductwasthe
bestsellingantidepressantinCanada,theCourtheldthattherewasno
evidenceofuseofthePAXILtrade-markwhichaccruedtoRespondent(no
proofofRespondent’sdirectorindirectcontrolofthequalityorcharacteristic
oftheproductwasfurnished).Consequently,thiselementcouldnotfavorthe
Respondent.
(iii)natureoftheproducts
Themarkswereassociatedtoidenticalproducts,i.e.antidepressantsand
thereforethelikelihoodofconfusionincreased;afactorthatclearlyfavored
theRespondent.
(iv)natureofthetrades
Bothoftheparties’antidepressantsweresoldinthesamemanner,i.e.under
prescriptionfromadoctorandsubsequentlypurchasedfromapharmacist.
TheCourtopinedthateventhoughthenatureoftheparties’tradewas
identical,theriskofconfusionwasreducedsincetheseproductsare
providedbyprofessionalswhoareaccustomedtometiculouslyexercising
careindistinguishingbetweenthenamesofdifferentproducts.Assuch,this
elementfavoredtheAppellant.
(v)degreeofresemblancebetweenthemarks
Withregardstotheideassuggestedbythetrade-marks,theCourtheldthat
noconfusionensuedsincebothmarksweredistinctiveandwerenot

3
suggestiveofanyparticularmeaningineithertheFrenchorEnglish
languages.
Asfortheappearanceofthemarksatissue,thepartieshadagreedthatfor
theaveragefrancophoneconsumer,therewasnolikelihoodofconfusion.
TheCourtthenturnedtotheissueofdeterminingthelikelihoodofconfusion
basedonthephoneticsimilarityofthetrade-marks(fortheaverage
anglophoneconsumer)forwhichlinguisticexpertevidencewasadduced.
Expertevidence
BoththeAppellantandRespondentreliedonthetestimonyoftheir
respectivelinguisticexperts.TheRespondent’sexpertopinedthatthe
majorityofanglophoneswouldpronouncethesecondsyllablesofthemarks
inanidenticalmanner,thusresultinginconfusion.TheAppellant’sexpert
arguedthatthefirstsyllablesofthemarkswereofgreaterimportanceand
thattheletter“P”inRespondent’sPAXILmarkprovidedforauniqueand
entirelydifferentpronunciationfromtheletter“I”inAppellant’sIXELmark.
TheCourtheldthattheRespondent’sexpertwitness’testimonylacked
objectivityinthatnoanalysiswasmadeastotheimpactregardingthe
differencesinthefirstsyllablesofthemarks.Ontheotherhand,theCourt
accordedgreaterprobativevaluetotheAppellant’sexpertevidenceand
agreedthatthefirstsyllablewasmoreimportantthanthesecondsyllable.
Consequently,theCourtdecidedthatonaphoneticleveltherewasnoriskof
confusionbetweenthemarksatissuefortheaverageanglophoneconsumer.
ItisinterestingtonotetheCourtmentionedthatlinguisticexpertevidenceis
oflimitedvalueinthatitdoesnottakeintoconsiderationotherfactors
requiredinassessingtheriskofconfusion.Forinstance,theCourtstatedthat
psychologicalfactors(ratherthanlinguisticones)suchasfirstimpressionsand
imperfectrecollectionwerenotelementsconsideredbythelinguisticexperts.
Conclusion
Basedontheaboveelements,theCourtconcludedthatthenatureofthe
parties’trade,thatis,prescriptiondrugs,coupledwiththesmalldegreeof
resemblancebetweenthemarks,lentsupporttotheAppellant’sargument
ofnon-confusion.Assuch,theCourtrejectedRespondent’soppositionand
orderedtheRegistrartoallowtheAppellant’smarktoregistration.

Thiscaseservesasaremindertotrade-markpractitionersthatwhilethe
assessmentregardingtheriskofconfusionbetweenmarkscanbemadein
thecontextoftheaveragebilingualconsumer,considerationmustbegiven
totheunilingalconsumerbeitintheEnglishorFrenchlanguages.

4

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-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
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.Ideaslive
here.
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