Term “Bagagerie” Is Not an Accurate Description of Business Specializing in Selling and Repairing Luggage

1992-01-01

COURTFINDSTERM”BAGAGERIE”NOTTOBEANACCURATEDESCRIPTIONOF
RESPONDENT’SBUSINESS

by
BarryGamache
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
ArecentdecisionofCanada’sFederalCourtofAppealrelatingtoconfusion
betweentrade-markshasanalyzedwhatconstitutedan”accurate
descriptionofthecharacterorqualityofwaresorservices”.TheCourt
concludedthattheuseoftheterm”BAGAGERIE”wasnotanaccurate
descriptionofthecharacterorqualityofabusinessspecializedinsellingand
repairingsuitcases,travelbagsandthelike.(LaBagagerieS.A.v.La
BagagerieWillyLimitée,No.A-301-87,October15,1992).
AppellantLaBagagerieS.A.(“LaBagagerie”)appliedfordamagesanda
permanentinjunctionagainstRespondentLaBagagerieWillyLimitée(“Willy”)
tostoptheuseofthewords”LABAGAGERIE”inthelatter’scommercialname.
ThetrialjudgewhoheardLaBagagerie’sapplicationdismissedthesuit,
holdingthattherewasnoconfusionpossibleformembersofthepublic
betweentheAppellant’strade-marksandtheRespondent’scommercial
name(reportedat(1987)17C.P.R.(3d)209).
Onappeal,theCourtreviewedthefactsandissuesraisedbythecase:
AppellantLaBagagerie,aFrenchcorporation,istheownerofthree
registeredtrade-marksincorporatingtheterms”LABAGAGERIE”;thesethree
trade-markswereregisteredrespectivelyin1967,1971and1984in
associationwithinteralia,suitcases,travelbags,trunksandothertravel
accessories,onthebasisofuseofthetrade-markinCanada(fortheoldest
registration)sinceSeptember1964.
RespondentWillywasincorporatedunderitscommercialnamein1979and,
asaretailer,soldvarioustypesofsuitcases(thoughnotAppellant’ssuitcases)
underdifferenttrade-marks;italsoprovidedasuitcaserepairservice.
Appellant’sinstituteditsactiononAugust31,1984.
TheFederalCourtofAppealreviewedthetwomeansofdefenceput
forwardbyRespondentWilly.

Willypleadedthattherewasnoconfusionpossiblebetweenthetrade-mark
LABAGAGERIEandthecommercialnameLABAGAGERIEWILLYLIMITÉE,in
lightofthedifferenceinbothmarks.However,reversingthetrialjudge,the
Courtheldthattherewasindeedconfusion(orlikelihoodofconfusion)
betweenthetrade-marksandcommercialnameatissueandconcluded
thatthetrialjudgehaderroneouslyconductedthetestofconfusion:instead
oflookingfordifferencesbetweenthetrade-marksandcommercialname
atissue,heshouldhaveexaminedthemfromthepointofviewofthe
averageconsumerhavinganimperfectrecollectionofthem.TheCourtalso
decidedthattheparties’waresdidnotrequireasubstantialinvestmenton
thepartofconsumers,(asopposedto,say,arefrigeratororacar)thus
enhancingtheriskofconfusionbetweentheparties’trade-marksand
commercialname.
TheseconddefencerelieduponbyRespondentWillyrestedonSection20of
theTrade-marksAct
R.S.C.1985c.T-13whichreads,interalia:”…No
registrationofatrade-markpreventsapersonfrommakinganybonafide
use,otherthanasatrade-mark,ofanyaccuratedescriptionofthe
characterorqualityofhiswaresorservices…”Thus,inordertosucceed
againstAppellant’saction,RespondentWillyhadtoestablishthattheword
“BAGAGERIE”initscommercialnameconstitutedan”accuratedescription”
ofthewaresheofferedforsale,thatis,suitcases,travelbags,etc.
TheFederalCourtofAppealproceededtoreviewtheexpertlinguistic
evidencewhichhadbeentenderedbeforethetrialjudge,andmore
particularly,theevidencerelatingtothemannerofcreationofwordsin
Frenchbytheadditionofthesuffix”erie”(toindicateaplacewhereatype
ofactivityiscarriedon).TheCourtconcludedthattheFrenchword
“bagages”meantanitemorvariousitemsthatonebringsonatrip;italso
meantthesumofsuitcasesortravelbagswhichcontaintheseitemsandnot
anemptysuitcase(assoldbyRespondent).TheCourtconcludedthatthe
variousdefinitionssubmittedallindicatedthattheFrenchword”bagages”
representednotasuitcasebutitscontent.Thus,theCourtstatedthat
“bagages”wassynonymouswith”suitcasescontainingvariousitems”and
notedthattheword”bagagerie”wasformedwiththeword”bagages”and
thesuffix”erie”(suffixwhichsuggestedtheideaofabusiness).TheCourt
indicateditwasplainlyclearthatbothpartieswereinvolvedinthesaleof
suitcaseswhichwereevidentlyempty;thus,itconcludedthatRespondent
Willywasnotactuallyinvolvedina”bagagerie”business,thatisthesaleof
fullypackedsuitcases.
HavingconcludedthatthenameLABAGAGERIEdidnotofferanaccurate
descriptionofthecharacterorqualityofRespondentWilly’swaresor
services,theCourtrejecteditssecondgroundofdefence.TheFederal

CourtofAppealoverturnedthetrialjudge’sdecisionandallowed
Appellant’saction.
ThoughtheCourtrestatedthatajudgeisnotboundbydefinitionsfoundin
dictionaries,theseandexpertlinguisticevidence,asthiscaseillustrates,are
nearlyalwaysconsideredtohelpajudgeascertainthetruemeaningofa
word.AsthePIZZAPIZZAcaseillustratedpreviously(trade-markheld
registrableinPizzaPizzaLtd.v.RegistrarofTrade-Marks(1989),26C.P.R.(3d)
355(F.C.A.)),thisisanotherillustrationoftheclashbetweenlawand
linguisticsandtheproperuseofexpertevidence.
Publishedat(1992),6W.I.P.R.323-324underthetitleTerm”bagagerie”IsNot
AnAccurateDescriptionofBusinessSpecializinginSellingandRepairing
Luggage.
LEGERROBICRICHARD,1992.

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