The protection of famous trade-marks in Canada following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Mattel and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin
1
THEPROTECTIONOFFAMOUSTRADE-MARKSINCANADAFOLLOWINGTHE
SUPREMECOURTOFCANADA’SDECISIONSINMATTELANDVEUVECLICQUOT
PONSARDIN
BarryGamache*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.
Lawyers,PatentandTrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca–info@robic.com
OnJune2,2006,Canada’sSupremeCourthandeddowntwoimportant
decisionsforthoseinterestedintheprotectionoffamoustrade-marks.Bothin
Mattel,Inc.v.3894207CanadaInc.,2006SCC22andinVeuveClicquot
Ponsardinv.BoutiquesCliquotLtée,2006SCC23,theSupremeCourt
reviewedthelikelihoodofconfusiontestinvolvingfamoustrade-marks.
OneprobablereasonfortheSupremeCourt’sinterestintheprotectionof
famoustrade-markscanbetracedbacktothecontroversysurroundingwhat
hasbeenknownasthePinkPanthertest,followingtheFederalCourtof
Appeal’sdecisioninPinkPantherBeautyCorp.v.UnitedArtistsCorp.,[1998]3
F.C.534.Thelatterdecisionwasseenasrequiringevidenceofalinkora
connectionbetweentheparties’areasoftradebeforeacourtorthe
Registrarcouldconcludethatthereislikelihoodofconfusionbetweena
famoustrade-markandanewcomer’ssimilarmark.Thesearchforalink
betweentheparties’areasoftradewasunderstoodbymanyinthefollowing
excerptofthePinkPantherBeautyCorp.decision:
[46]Anumberofothercaseshavecometomyattentioninvolving
famoustrade-markssuchas”Coca-Cola”,”Cartier”and”Wedgwood”.
Ineachofthesecasesthefamousmarkprevailed,butineachcasea
connectionorsimilarityintheproductsorserviceswasfound.Where
nosuchconnectionisestablished,itisverydifficulttojustifythe
extensionofpropertyrightsintoareasofcommercethatdonot
remotelyaffectthetrade-markholder.Onlyinexceptional
circumstances,ifever,shouldthisbethecase.
©CIPS,2006.
*OfLEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,andpatentand
trademarkagents.PublishedintheSummer2006issue(Vol.10,No.3)issueofourNewsletter.
Publication068.075E.
2
InMattelandinVeuveClicquotPonsardin,theSupremeCourtofCanada
reviewedthePinkPanthertestfortheprotectionoffamoustrade-marks:
a)Famoustrade-markstranscendatleasttosomeextentthewaresand/or
servicestowhichtheyarenormallyassociatedandareconsequently
notlimitedthereto:
-VeuveClicquotPonsardinv.BoutiquesCliquotLtée,2006SCC23:
[26]ThefindingthatVEUVECLICQUOTisa“famous”markisof
importanceinconsidering“all
thesurroundingcircumstances”
becausefamepresupposesthatthemarktranscendsatleasttosome
extentthewareswithwhichitisnormallyassociated…
b)Thesearchforalinkoraconnection–thatwasseenaspartofthePink
Panthertest–isnotasinequanonrequirementwhenconductingthe
likelihoodofconfusiontest:
-Mattel,Inc.v.3894207CanadaInc.,2006SCC22:
[63]Afterreferringtoanumberofcaseswherethefamoustrade-mark
prevailed,LindenJ.A.statedthat
…ineachcaseaconnectionorsimilarityintheproductsorservices
wasfound.Wherenosuchconnectionisestablished,itisverydifficult
tojustifytheextensionofpropertyrightsintoareasofcommercethat
donotremotelyaffectthetrade-markholder.Onlyinexceptional
circumstances,ifever,shouldthisbethecase.[para.46]
Iagreewiththeappellantthatthe“exceptionalcircumstances…ifever”
testputsthebartoohighandmaybeseenasanattempttoimpose
rigiditywherenoneexists.Iftheresultoftheuseofthenewmarkwould
betointroduceconfusionintothemarketplace,itshouldnotbe
acceptedforregistration“whetherornotthewaresorservicesareofthe
samegeneralclass”(s.6(2)).Therelevantpointaboutfamousmarksis
thatfameiscapableofcarryingthemarkacrossproductlineswhere
lessermarkswouldbecircumscribedtotheirtraditionalwaresor
services.ThecorrecttestisthatwhichLindenJ.A.earlierstatedatpara.
33:
Thetotalityofthecircumstanceswilldictatehoweachconsideration
shouldbetreated.
…
[71]TotheextentLindenJ.A.heldthatthedifferenceinwaresor
serviceswillalwaysbeadominantconsideration,Idisagreewithhim,but
giventheroleandfunctionoftrade-marks,itwillgenerallybean
importantconsideration.TheappellantcontendsthatsomeofLinden
J.A.’sobiterstatementscanbereadvirtuallytorequirea“resemblance”
betweentherespectivewaresandservices.Inthatrespect,theobiter
shouldnotbefollowed.
3
c)Inthelikelihoodofconfusiontest,onemustconsideralltherelevant
circumstances;however,insomeinstances,somecircumstanceswillcarry
moreweightthanothers:
-VeuveClicquotPonsardinv.BoutiquesCliquotLtée,2006SCC23:
[33]WhilethehaloeffectorauraoftheVEUVECLICQUOTmarkisnot
necessarilyrestrictedtochampagneandrelatedpromotionalitems
andcouldexpandmorebroadlyintotheluxurygoodsmarket,no
witnesssuggestedthemarkwouldbeassociatedbyordinary
consumerswithmid-pricedwomen’sclothing.Thus,inconsideringall
oftherelevantcircumstances,thetrialjudgewasoftheopinion
“…thatthekeyfactoristhesignificantdifferencebetweenthe
plaintiff’swaresandthoseofthedefendants”andthat“[t]heplaintiff’s
activitiesandthoseofthedefendantsaresodifferentthatthereisno
riskofconfusioninconsumers’minds”(para.76).Inweighingupthes.
6(5)factors,thiswasanemphasisshewasentitledtoplaceinthis
particularcase.Section6(2)recognizesthattheordinarysomewhat-
hurriedconsumermaybemisledintodrawingthemistakeninference
“whetherornotthewaresorservicesareofthesamegeneralclass”,
butitisstillaquestionforthecourtastowhetherinallthe
circumstancessuchconsumersarelikelytodosoinaparticularcase.
d)Whenconsideringlikelihoodofconfusion,attentionmustbegiventothe
famoustrade-marksincefamoustrade-marksdonotallcomeinone
size:
-VeuveClicquotPonsardinv.BoutiquesCliquotLtée,2006SCC23:
[32]…Famousmarksdonotcomeinonesize.Sometrade-marksmay
bewellknownbuthaveveryspecificassociations(Buckley’scough
mixtureisadvertisedaseffectivedespiteitsterribletaste,not,one
wouldthink,abrandimagedesirableforrestaurants).Otherfamous
marks,likeWaltDisney,mayindeedhavelargelytranscended
productlinedifferences.
InMattelandinVeuveClicquotPonsardin,theSupremeCourtdecidedthat
likelihoodofconfusioncanoccurevenincircumstanceswheretheparties’
waresand/orservicesarenotofthesamegeneralclass.Althoughthecourt
ortheRegistrar,asthecasemaybe,maygivemoreweighttothe
circumstanceoftheparties’areasoftrade,thereisnorequirementtosearch
foralinkorconnectionbetweenthoseareasinordertoconcludethat
likelihoodofconfusionexistsinaparticularsetofcircumstances.
4
5
ROBIC,ungrouped avocatsetd agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesde
commercevouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdela
propriétéintellectuelledanstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielset
modèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marquesdecertificationet
appellationsd origine;droitsd auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsde
commerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademark
agentsdedicatedsince1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofall
fieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;
trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,
softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsand
plantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;
licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationand
arbitration;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;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD