The “Golden” Battle for Beer Before the Federal Court of Canada

1
THE“GOLDEN”BATTLEFORBEERBEFORETHEFEDERALCOURTOFCANADA

By
StellaSyrianos
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
55St-Jacques,Montréal(Québec)CanadaH2Y3X2
Tel.(514)987-6242-Fax(514)845-7874
E-mail:marion@robic.com-WebSite:www.robic.ca

TheFederalCourtofCanadarenderedthreedecisionsregardingthe
registrabilityofthewordanddesignmarksMICHELOBGOLDENDRAFT,by
Anheuser,inassociationwithbeerandvariousotherproducts.Initsdecisions,
theCourtupheldtheRegistrar’sdecisionsrejectingMolson’soppositionsto
Anheuser’sregistrationsprimarilyonthegroundoflackofconfusionbetween
theparties’trade-marks.(MolsonCanadavs.AnheuserBuschInc.,T-926-01,
November5
th,2003;MolsonCanadavs.AnheuserBuschInc.,T-632-01,
November5
th,2003;MolsonCanadavs.AnheuserBuschInc.,T-633-01,
November5
th,2003,O’Keefe,J.)

Thefacts

TheRespondent,AnheuserBusch(“Anheuser”)hadappliedtoregisterthe
trade-marksMICHELOBGOLDENDRAFTunderserialnumber693,432in
associationwithawidevarietyofproductsincludingclothing,gifts,novelty
items,games,beerbreadmixandchocolates,MICHELOBGOLDENDRAFT&
designunderserialnumber686,179inassociationwithbeerandMICHELOB
GOLDENDRAFTunderserialnumber686,180alsoinassociationwithbeer.The
Applicant,MolsonCanada(“Molson”)opposedAnheuser’sregistrationson
numerousgroundsbutprimarilybasedonconfusionwithitsregistered
trade-markGOLDENanditsfamilyofregisteredtrade-markswhichincludethe
wordGOLDENinassociationwithbeer.

TheCourtheardMolson’sappealsinrelationtothemarksMICHELOBGOLDEN
DRAFT&design(no.686,179)andMICHELOBGOLDENDRAFT(no.686,180)on
thesameday(docketsnumberT-632-01andT-633-01respectively)and
adoptedandincorporatedinitsdecisionregardingtheMICHELOBGOLDEN
DRAFTmark,itsanalysispertainingtothetrade-markMICHELOBGOLDENDRAFT
&design(withthenecessarytrade-marknamechanges).TheCourtheardthe
appealinrelationtothemarkMICHELOBGOLDENDRAFT(no.693,432)
separatelybutrenderedallthreeofitsdecisionsonthesameday.

2

AdditionalevidencewasadducedbybothpartiesbeforetheFederalCourt.

TheRegistrar’sdecisions

Themaingroundsofoppositionturnedontheissueofconfusionbetween
Anheuser’strade-marksandMolson’sregisteredtrade-markGOLDEN(TMA
498,157)anditsregisteredcertificationmarkMOLSONGOLDEN&design(TMA
471,067).

Inassessingthelikelihoodofconfusion,theRegisterreviewedthecriteria
enumeratedunderSection6(5)(a)oftheTrade-marksActandfoundthat
notwithstandingtheidenticalorsimilarnatureofthewaresandtrades,
Molson’strade-markGOLDENhadonlybeenshowntohavebecomewell
knowninCanadaincombinationwithitshousemarkMOLSONorMOLSON’S
forbrewedalcoholicbeveragesandthattherewasnolikelihoodofconfusion.

Inanutshell,theRegistrarheldthatAnheuser’smarkswereinherently
distinctivewhereasMolson’strade-markGOLDENwasclearlydescriptiveof
beer[basedonpreviousFederalCourtofCanadadecisionswhichheldthat
theterm“GOLDEN”isclearlydescriptive.]thewordMOLSONhadsurname
significanceandthereforeitsmarkspossessedlittleinherentdistinctiveness,
therewaslittlesimilarityinappearance,soundorintheideassuggestedby
Anheuser’smarkandMolson’smarks,thestateoftheregisterevidence
showedthatwasarelativelycommonadoptionofthemarkGOLDENin
relationtovariouswaressuchasthosecoveredintheMICHELOBGOLDEN
DRAFTapplication(no.693,432)andthattwootherbrewersinCanadaother
thanMolsonhasthewordGOLDENontheirlabelsforbeer.

TheAppealstotheFederalCourtofCanada

Standardofreview

Havingreviewedtheadditionalaffidavitevidencefiledbeforeit,theCourt
opinedthatthisnewevidencewouldhavemateriallyaffectedtheRegistrar’s
findingoffactandconcludedthattheapplicablestandardofreviewwas
thatofcorrectness.

IssuesaddressedbytheCourt

TheCourtdismissedMolson’sappealsbasedontheprimarygroundtherewas
noconfusionbetweenthemarksatissue.Initsruling,itaddressedthreemain

3
questionsraisedMolson:(1)didtheRegistrarerrinitsfindingofnoconfusion
betweenAnheuser’strade-marksMICHELOBGOLDENDRAFTandMICHELOB
GOLDENDRAFT&designandMolson’strade-marks,(ii)didtheRegistrarerrin
lawandexceedhisjurisdictionbyattackingthevalidityofMolson’sregistered
trade-markGOLDENwithinthescopeoftheoppositionproceedingand(iii)
didtheRegistrardisposeofthedistinctivenessgroundcorrectly.

1.Findingofnoconfusion

Initsanalysis,afterreviewingtheapplicablecriteriafordeterminingconfusion,
theCourtheldthattheRegistrarwascorrectinhisfindingofnoreasonable
likelihoodofconfusionbetweenthemarksatissuebasedonthefollowing
elements:

•themarksMICHELOBGOLDENDRAFTandMICHELOBGOLDENDRAFT
&designareinherentlydistinctivewhilethewordGOLDEN,whichis
descriptive,hasalwaysbeenprominentlyassociatedwithword
MOLSONorMOLSON’S;

•bothparties’marksincludetheirhousemarksMOLSONorMICHELOB
withthetermGOLDEN;

•thereislittlesimilarityinappearance,soundingandintheideas
suggestedbythemarksatissuedespitethecommonelement
“GOLDEN”;

•asasurroundingcircumstance,theCourtwasnotsatisfiedthat
Molson’strade-markscontainingtheword“GOLDEN”constituteda
familyoftrade-marksinlightoftedescriptivenessoftheword
“GOLDEN”;

•thirdpartyuseoftrade-marksincludingtheword“GOLDEN”as
appliedtobeerinthemarketplaceinCanada

2.AttackingthevalidityofMolson’sregisteredtrade-markGOLDEN

TheCourtdecidedthattheRegistrardidnoterrinlawnorexceedhis
jurisdictionsincehedidnotattackthevalidityperseofMolson’strade-mark
GOLDEN.InrulingthatGOLDENwasdescriptive,theCourtheldthatthe
Registrarwasobligedtotakeitintoconsiderationasitrelatestotheinherent
andacquireddistinctivenessandstrengthofMolson’smarks.

4

3.Non-distinctivenessasaseparategroundofopposition

MolsonarguedthattheRegistrarerredatlawbynotconsideringand
disposingofthedistinctivenessgroundofoppositioncorrectly.Inresponseto
thisargument,theCourtheldthatMolsononlyadducedevidenceregarding
thenon-distinctivenessgroundbyshowinguseofitsowntrade-markswith
whichitstatedthatAnheuser’smarkswereconfusing.Molsondidnotallege
thatAnheuser’smarksdidnotdistinguishitswaresfromthoseofothersas
distinctfromMolson’sandassuch,thenon-distinctivenessgroundof
oppositionwastobedeterminedaspartofthedeterminationprocessforthe
issueofconfusion.

SinceconfusionwastheonlybasisputforwardbyMolsonforitsclaimthat
Anheuser’smarkswerenotdistinctive,theCourtdecidedthattheRegistrar
properlydisposedofthisgroundofopposition.

Conclusion

TheCourt’sdecisionsseemedtobeinfluencedbytwokeyfactors:the
descriptivenessoftheterm“GOLDEN”asitrelatestobeerandthatithadonly
becomewellknowninCanadaincombinationwithMolson’shousemark
MOLSONorMOLSON’s.Thesecasesmayserveasremindersthatwhereweak
marksareconcerned,theambitofprotectionislessenedandtrade-mark
ownerssometimesfaceanuphillbattleinprovingconfusionwiththeir
inherentlyweakmarks.

©LEGERROBICRICHARD,2004.

Publishedat(2004),18-3WorldIntellectualPropertyReport3-4underthetitleMolsonLoses
BattleOverWord’Golden’ForBeer.
ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionet
àlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;
marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireet
artistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéet
étiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdansle
monde.Lamaîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthe
valorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certification
marksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,
competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;
marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughoutthe
world.Ideaslivehere.

5

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionet
àlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;
marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireet
artistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéet
étiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdansle
monde.Lamaîtrisedesintangibles.

ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthe
valorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certification
marksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,
competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;
marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughoutthe
world.Ideaslivehere.