Supreme Court’s Latest Trademark Decision: Use and File Promptly

DECISION:USEANDFILEPROMPTLY

BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADE-MARKAGENTS

InMasterpieceInc.v.AlavidaLifestylesInc.,2011SCC27,theSupremeCourtof
Canadaexaminedimportantprinciplesinthefieldoftrademarklaw.Thiscasegives
importantlessonsontheuseandfilingoftrademarksinCanada.

Inthecasebeforeit,theCourthadtodecidewhetherAlberta-basedMasterpieceInc.,
whohadusedthetrademarkMASTERPIECETHEARTOFLIVINGinassociation
withretirementresidenceservicessincetheearly2000s,couldobtainthe
expungement,onthebasisofconfusionwithitsownmark,ofthetrademark
MASTERPIECELIVINGregisteredforvariousrealestatedevelopmentservicesand
ownedbyAlavidaLifestylesInc.,anOntario-basedcompany.Thetrademark
MASTERPIECELIVINGwasregisteredin2007followinganapplicationsubmittedon
December1,2005onthebasisofproposeduseofthetrademarkinCanada.Inother
words,thisiswhattheCourthadtodecide:wastherealikelihoodofconfusion
betweenthetrademarksMASTERPIECETHEARTOFLIVINGandMASTERPIECE
LIVINGonDecember1,2005?Thelowercourtsanswered“no”;foritspart,the
SupremeCourtofCanadaanswered“yes”.
FourimportantissueswereexaminedbytheSupremeCourtinitsreasonsdraftedby
Mr.JusticeRothstein.
GeographicalLocationandLikelihoodofConfusion
Firstly,isthegeographicallocationwherethetrademarksareusedbytheir
respectiveownersarelevantcircumstancewhenconsideringthelikelihoodof
confusionbetweenthosetrademarks?TheSupremeCourtindicatedthatthisfactoris
notrelevantsincethetestofconfusiondescribedinsection6(2)oftheTrade-marks
Actisbaseduponthehypotheticalassumptionthatthetrademarksareused“inthe
samearea”,whetherthisisactuallythecaseornot.Moreover,sincethemonopoly
grantedbyaregistrationextendsthroughoutCanada,noconfusionshouldoccur
betweenaregisteredmarkandanypriorunregisteredmarkanywhereinCanada.
ThefactthatMasterpieceInc.andAlavidaLifestylesInc.carriedouttheiractivitiesin

©CIPS,2011.
*FromROBIC,LLP,multidisciplinaryfirmofLawyers,andPatentandTrade-markAgents.Published
intheSpring2011(Vol.15,no.2)Newsletterofthefirm.Publication068.137E.

2
differentgeographicalareasonDecember1,2005wasthereforenotarelevantfactor
inassessinglikelihoodofconfusion.
RelevantFactorswhenConsideringResemblance
Secondly,whataretherelevantfactorswhenconsideringtheresemblancebetween
aproposedusedtrademarkandanexistingandunregisteredtrademark?AsMr.
JusticeRothsteinindicated,aconsiderationofresemblancebetweenthetrademarks
iswheremostconfusionanalysesshouldstart.InthecasebeforetheCourt,since
thecontestedmarkMASTERPIECELIVINGwasonlycomposedofthosetwowords
(i.e.nodesigncomponents),thedifferencebetweenorsimilaritywiththetrademark
MASTERPIECETHEARTOFLIVINGshouldbeassessedonlyonthebasisofthese
wordsalone.Itwasthereforenotrelevanttoexaminetheimpressioncreatedby
designsoranyotherfancifulelementsthataccompaniedthewords(asthelower
courtsappearedtohavedone).Obviously,ifatrademarkincludesdesign
components,theywillhavetobeconsideredwhenexaminingthelikelihoodof
confusion.Ontheotherhand,inthecasebeforetheCourt,asthemarksonboth
sideswerecomposedonlyofwords,Mr.JusticeRothsteinindicatedthattherewasa
strongresemblanceasawholebetweentheparties’marks.

EffectofNatureandCostofWaresorServicesonConfusion
Thirdly,whateffectdoesthenatureandcostofthewaresorserviceshaveonthe
confusionanalysis?Whenatrademarkisassociatedwithanexpensiveitemor
service(suchasretirementresidenceservices),isitreasonabletoassumethat
consumersareunlikelytomakechoicesbasedonfirstimpressionsandtheywill
generallytaketimetoinformthemselvesaboutthesourceofexpensivegoodsand
services?Whilethatmaybetrue,islikelihoodofconfusionlessimportantinsuch
cases?AccordingtoMr.JusticeRothstein,likelihoodofconfusionmustbeexamined
onthebasisoftheattitudeoftheconsumerapproachinganimportantorcostly
purchasewhenheorsheencountersthetrademark,nottotheresearchorinquiries
orcarethatmaysubsequentlybetaken.Itisthefirstimpressionthatcounts,evenfor
expensiveservicessuchasthoseofferedbyMasterpieceInc.andAlavidaLifestyles
Inc.
ImportanceofExpertEvidence
Fourthly,whatistheimportanceofexpertevidenceinalikelihoodofconfusion
analysis?Forexample,canasurvey(filedbyapartyinthiscase)helpthejudgein
hisorherassessmentoflikelihoodofconfusionbetweentrademarks?Onthisissue,
Mr.JusticeRothsteinindicatedthatanexpertmaybeallowedtotestifyifhisorher
testimonycontainsinformationwhichislikelytobeoutsidetheexperienceand
knowledgeofthejudge.Ontheotherhand,asurveywhichattemptstoartificially
measuretheimpressionofconsumerswithan“imperfect”recollectionofatrademark
whensuchtrademarkisnotinusewillnotbeveryuseful.Judgesshouldbevery
cautiouswiththistypeofevidence.

3

Foralltheabovereasons,thetrademarkMASTERPIECELIVINGwasfound
confusingwithMASTERPIECETHEARTOFLIVINGandwasexpunged.

Whatisimportant
MasterpieceInc.,theownerofMASTERPIECETHEARTOFLIVING,was
successfulsinceitwasthefirsttohaveuseditstrademarkinCanada,eveniftheuse
carriedoutwasinadifferentgeographicalareathantheonebythepartywhohad
firstregistereditstrademark.Hereistheimportantlesson:rightsbelongtotheone
whohasusedthetrademarkfirstinCanada(inanyregionofthecountry,not
necessarilyinalltheregionsofthecountry).
However,inordertoavoidtheproblemsassociatedwithsomeoneelseregistering
thetrademark,youshouldapplytoregisteryourtrademarkassoonaspossible.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevouédepuis1892à
laprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessins
industrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellations
d’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;
informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;
secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;
commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,
litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentand
trademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectual
property:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindications
oforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,
distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++

4
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHE
WORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)