Similarities in menu items insufficient for a finding of passing off, rules Federal Court in litigation opposing competing restaurants

SIMILARITIESINMENUITEMSINSUFFICIENTFORAFINDI
NGOFPASSING
OFF,RULESFEDERALCOURTINLITIGATIONOPPOSINGCOMPETINGRESTAURANTS

B
ARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

ArecentdecisionbytheFederalCourtofCanadaexaminedwhethertheownerofa
restaurantwasentitledtoaninjunctionagainstacompetitoronthebasisof
allegationsoftrade-markinfringementandpassingoff(TheRudeNativeInc.etal.v.
TyroneT.RestoLoungeetal.,2010FC1278(F.C.),RussellJ.,December13,2010)).

Initsclaim,PlaintiffTheRudeNativeInc.allegedthatitwastheownerofthetrade-
markTHERUDENATIVEalongwithitsdesignversion,bothregisteredinassociation
withrestaurantservicesandwithfoodproductsincludingspices,dressings,sauces
andmarinades.ItwasalsoallegedthatanotherPlaintiff,RNWaterlooInc.,actually
operatedtheestablishmentknownasTheRudeNativeBistro&LoungeinWaterloo,
Ontario,wherethetrade-markTHERUDENATIVEwasused.

AccordingtothePlaintiffs,towardstheendof2009,theDefendantTyroneT.Resto
Loungeopenedarestaurantthatinfringedupontheregisteredtrade-marksofThe
RudeNativeInc.ItwasfurtherallegedthattheDefendant“mimicked”and“copied”
thedining“concept”foundinTheRudeNativeBistro&Lounge.Bothestablishments
werelocatedapproximatelyahundredmetresapart,inthesamepartofWaterloo.

InresponsetotheperceivedinfringementbytheDefendantoftheirtrade-marksand
theirdining“concept”,thePlaintiffsrequestedtheissuanceofaninterlocutory
injunctionagainsttheDefendant.Foritspart,theDefendantbroughtagainstthe
PlaintiffsamotionforsummaryjudgmentwherebyitaskedtheCourttodismissall
claimsbroughtbythePlaintiffs.
AtthetimeofhearingofthePlaintiffs’motionforaninterlocutoryinjunctioninOctober
2010,theCourtwasadvisedthattheDefendant’sestablishmentwasnolongerin
operation.TheCourtthereforedismissedthePlaintiffs’requestforinjunctivereliefas
moot.Inanyevent,theCourtfoundthatwhateveractivitytheDefendanthadcarried
out,itwasinfactlegitimatecompetitionandnot,asthePlaintiffshadalleged,trade-

©CIPS,2010.*LawyerwithROBIC,LLPamultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,patentandtrademarkagents.Publishedin
theJanuary2011issueoftheWorldIntellectualPropertyReport.Publication142.244.

2
markinfringementorpassingoffunderCanada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-
13.Moreover,evidencewaspresentedshowingthatthetrade-markTHERUDE
NATIVEanditscorrespondingdesignversionwerebothregisteredinthenameofa
thirdparty,notoneofthePlaintiffs.
TheCourtthenturnedtotheDefendant’smotionrequestingasummaryjudgment
dismissingeachandeveryoneofthePlaintiffs’claims.ReferringtoGranville
ShippingCo.v.PegasusLinesLtd.S.A.(1996),111F.T.R.189(F.C.T.D.),theCourt
outlinedtherulesrelevanttosummaryjudgments:Thepurposeofasummary
judgmentistoallowtheCourttosummarilydispensewithcaseswhichoughtnotto
proceedtotrialbecausethereisnogenuineissuetobetried.Thetestisnotwhether
apartycannotpossiblysucceedattrialbutratheristhecasesodoubtfulthatitdoes
notdeserveconsiderationbythetrieroffactatafuturetrial.Asasafeguard,a
summaryjudgmentshouldnotbegrantedifthenecessaryfactscannotbefoundorif
itwouldbeunjusttodoso.Likewise,ifthereisanyseriousissuewithrespectto
credibility,thecaseshouldproceedtotrial.Thatbeingsaid,anyapparentconflictin
theevidencedoesnotnecessarilyprecludethegrantingofasummaryjudgment.
Finally,itisassumedthatthepartiestoamotionforsummaryjudgmentwouldput
“theirbestfootforward”andthat,ifthecaseweretogototrial,noadditionalevidence
wouldbepresented.
TheDefendantpresentedthefollowingfactsinevidencebeforetheCourt:
1)Asmentionedabove,thePlaintiffTheRudeNativeInc.didnotappearto
bethecurrentownerofthetrade-marksallegedinthestatementofclaim.
Rather,anothercompanycalledRudeFoodInc.wasnamedasthe
registeredownerofthetrade-marks.

2)TheevidencedidnotrevealthattheDefendanthadusedanyoneofthe
registeredtrade-marksatissueoradoptedanyconfusinglysimilartrade-
marks.

3)Infact,inpromotingitsservices,theDefendantadoptedmarks,logos,
advertising,indiciaandcoloursthatwereclearlydistinctfromthose
adoptedbythePlaintiffs.

4)Theexteriorofbothparties’respectiverestaurantsdidnotresembleeach
other.

5)ThePlaintiffs’restaurantapparentlyadoptedan“Africanstyle”whilethe
Defendant’sestablishmentpresentedaverydifferentand“distinctlyAsian
style”.

6)Atleastsevenotherrestaurantswerelocatedbetweentheparties.

7)Noevidenceofactualconfusionwaspresented.

3

8)Therewerehoweversomesimilaritiesinthedescriptionofcertainitems
foundontheparties’respectivemenus,suchas“spicymussels”;however,
thesenameswerenotconsideredbytheCourtinanywaydistinctiveofa
singleparty.

9)Finally,althoughthepartiesbothfeaturedidenticalentertainersintheir
respectiveestablishments,therewasnothingdistinctiveinthewaythe
Plaintiffshadpresentedtheentertainerstotheirpatrons.

BeforetheCourt,thePlaintiffsconcededthattheirclaimoftrade-markinfringement
couldnotbesupportedbuthighlightedratheritsconcernsregardingtheDefendant’s
allegedpassingoffbecauseofthecontentofitsmenus.Onthisissue,theCourt
disagreedwiththePlaintiffsandindicatedthatthedescriptionofitsmenuitemscould
notformthebasisofasuccessfulclaimforpassingoff;itaccordinglyconcludedthat
therewasnogenuineissuefortrialregardingthecontentoftheDefendant’smenus.
IntheCourt’sview,thePlaintiffs’actionappearedtobeanattempttostiflelegitimate
competitionbyraisingpassingoffallegations,aconductthatwasdeemedvexatious.
Asaconsequence,costswereawardedtotheDefendantonafullindemnitybasis.

TheCourt’sdecisionisareminderthatjudicialresourcesshouldnotbetakenupby
claimsthatappeartenuousatmost.Partiesshouldthereforeexercisecarewhen
examiningperceivedunfaircompetitionfromothertradersandpursuethoseclaims
thathaveatleastanappearanceofmerittothem.

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;vérificationdiligenteet
audit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,

4
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
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)