The Issue of Confusion Reviewed by the Federal Court of Appeal
1
THEISSUEOFCONFUSIONREVIEWEDBYTHEFEDERALCOURTOFAPPEAL
By
CatherineBergeron*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.
Lawyers,PatentandTrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
info@robic.com-www.robic.ca
AlticorInc.andQuixtarCanadaCorporationv.NutravitePharmaceuticals
Inc.2005FCA269(FederalCourtofAppeal,LindenJ.A.)
1.FactualBackground
InanappealfromthedecisionoftheTrialDivisiondismissingtheplaintiffs’
infringementactionagainstNutravitePharmaceuticalsInc.(“Nutravite”)
pursuanttosubsection20(1)oftheTrade-marksAct(“theAct”),theFederal
CourtofAppeal(the“FCA”)hadtodecidewhethertheTrialJudgeerredin
findingthatthereisnoreasonablelikelihoodofconfusionbetweenthe
registeredtrade-markNUTRILITE,ownedbytheplaintiffAlticorInc.andused
inassociationwithvitaminsandmineralfoodsupplements,andthe
unregisteredtrade-markNUTRAVITE,ownedbyNutraviteandusedin
associationwithvitamins,mineralandherbalproducts.
TheplaintiffQuixtarCanadaCorporationistheexclusivedistributorofthe
NUTRILITEproductswhicharesoldtoCanadianconsumersdirectly(notin
stores)throughIndependentBusinessOwners.Ontheotherhand,the
NUTRAVITEproductsaresoldexclusivelyinretailoutletsacrossCanada.
2.Issues
ThetwomainissuesbeforetheFCAare:
©CIPS,2005.*Lawyer,CatherineBergeronisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinary
firmoflawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.Publication293.025
2
a)DidtheTrialJudgeerrinlawinfindingthatthematerialdatefor
consideringinfringementoftheNUTRILITEtrade-markwasthedateof
thetrial?
b)DidtheTrialJudgeerrinfactandlawinholdingthat,inallthe
circumstancesofthecase,therewasnolikelihoodofconfusion
betweenthetrade-marksatissue?
3.AnalysisandConclusion
a)materialdateforconsideringinfringementofaregisteredtrade-mark
Basedonastandardofcorrectness,consideringthatthisfirstissueisa
questionoflaw,theFCAagreeswiththeTrialJudge’sfindingthatthe
relevantmaterialdateforconsideringinfringementofaregisteredtrade-
markisthedateoftheoralhearing.IntheFCA’sview,“onereasonwhythe
relevantdatemustnormallybethehearingdateisthatthiswouldensure
thattheCourtwouldhaveavailabletoitallrelevantevidenceofsurrounding
circumstancesthatmightbecomeavailablebetweenthetimeoffirstuse
andthehearingdate.”
However,theFCAalsorecognisesthattherearecaseswhereanotherdate
maybemoreappropriate,dependingonthespecificfactsandpleadingsof
eachcase.
b)likelihoodofconfusionbetweenNUTRILITEandNUTRAVITE
TheFCAconfirmsthat,asfortheevaluationofthelikelihoodofconfusion
betweenthemarksNUTRILITEandNUTRAVITE,theTrialJudgedidnotcommit
alegalerrorandusedtheproperlegaltest“whether,asamatteroffirst
impressioninthemindofanaverageconsumerhavingavagueorimperfect
recollectionofanothermark,theuseofbothtrade-marksinthesamearea
andinthesamemannerislikelytoleadtotheinferencethatwares
associatedwiththosemarksareproducedormarketedbythesame
company.”TheTrialJudgealsorightfullyunderstoodthatitisnotany
memberofthepublicwhomustbeconfusedaboutthesourceofthe
competingproducts,butdealersorusersofthetypeofproductsinquestion.
EventhoughtheTrialJudgefocusedonaparticularfactorinitsevaluationof
confusion,namelythatthenatureofthetradeoftheNUTRILITEproductsis
materiallydifferentfromthatoftheNUTRAVITEproducts,theFCAisofthe
viewthattheTrialJudge’sfindingthat“thepossibilityofconfusionisremote”
3
doesnotamounttoanyerrorwhichwouldjustifyinterferenceinthis
conclusionbasedonallthesurroundingcircumstancesandallofthe
evidence.
TheFCAalsorulesthattheTrialJudgewasnotboundbytheOpposition
Boarddecision,refusingtoregisterthedefendant’smarkNUTRAVITEfurtherto
asuccessfuloppositionbyAlticorInc.Infact,saiddecision,whichistobe
consideredasasurroundingcircumstanceintheoverallevaluationof
confusion,shouldbeaccordedlittleweight.
InconcludingthatitdidnotfindanyerrorintheTrialJudge’sanalysisthat
wouldrequireitsintervention,theFCAconfirmsthatthedeterminationof
confusionisessentiallyaquestionoffactandconsiderabledeferencemust
beaccordedtotrialjudgesintheirevaluationofconfusion.
4
ROBIC,ungrouped avocatsetd agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines: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;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagents
dedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectual
property:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certification
marksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsand
performers,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++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHE
WORLD