Undue Weight Should Not Be Given to Descriptive Matter in Trade-Mark, Federal Court Rules in Magic Whip Case

1999-01-01

UNDUEWEIGHTSHOULDNOTBEGIVENTODESCRIPTIVEMATTERINTRADE-MARK,
FEDERALCOURTRULESINMAGICWHIPCASE

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

ArecentdecisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadareviewedtowhatextentan
ownercanclaimexclusiverightsoveradescriptivewordusedasacommon
elementinitsfamilyoftrade-marks(TritapFoodBroker,adivisionof676166
OntarioLimitedvs.KraftCanadaInc.,T-527-97January19,1999,Richard
A.C.J.).
OnJune17,1991,TritapFoodBroker,adivisionof676166OntarioLimited
(“Tritap”)filedanapplicationtoregisterthetrade-markMAGICWHIPbasedon
proposeduseofthetrade-markinCanadainassociationwith”dessert
topping”,thewholeinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofCanada’sTrade-
marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13.Initsapplication,Tritapdisclaimedanyrightto
theexclusiveuseoftheword”WHIP”apartfromthetrade-mark.
Tritap’sMAGICWHIPapplicationwasadvertisedforoppositionpurposesand
KraftCanadaInc.(“Kraft”)filedastatementofoppositionallegingconfusion
withitsfamilyoftrade-marksincludingCOOLWHIPfordesserttoppings,
DREAMWHIPforpowderedpreparationsformakingdesserttoppings,
puddingsandpiefillingsandMIRACLEWHIPforasaladdressing.
OnJanuary22,1997,theTrade-marksOppositionBoardallowedthe
oppositionandrefusedregistrationofTritap’strade-markMAGICWHIP.Inits
decisiontheBoardconcludedthatTritaphadfailedtoestablishthatthere
wouldbenoreasonablelikelihoodofconfusionbetweenthetrade-mark
MAGICWHIPfordesserttoppingsandKraft’sDREAMWHIPforadessert
toppingmix.Inmakingitsfinding,theBoardtooknoteofthefactthatKraft’s
COOLWHIPandDREAMWHIPtrade-markshadbecomewell-knownin
CanadaandthatitsMIRACLEWHIPtrade-markhadbecomeverywell-known
inCanada.Additionally,theBoardfoundthattheextentandlengthoftime
towhichthetrade-marksMIRACLEWHIP,COOLWHIPandDREAMWHIPhad
beenusedbyKraftweighedinitsfavourtoasignificantextent.Also,the
waresassociatedwithTritap’sMAGICWHIPwereidenticaltothosecovered

byKraft’sregistrationforCOOLWHIPandwerecloselyrelatedtothewares
associatedwithKraft’sregisteredtrade-markDREAMWHIP.Finally,no
evidenceofanyinstancesofactualconfusionbetweentheparties’trade-
markswasputinevidence.
Inreviewingalltherelevantfacts,theCourtexamineditsroleonappealfrom
aregistrar’sdecision;itreferredtoMr.JusticeStrayer’scommentsin
McDonald’sCorp.vs.Silcorp.Ltd.(1989),24C.P.R.(3d)207(F.C.T.D.):”While
differentpanelsoftheFederalCourtofAppealhavevariouslyexpressedthe
dutyofthiscourtonappealtobetodeterminewhethertheregistrarhas
“clearlyerred”,orwhetherhehassimply”gonewrong”,itappearsthatitisthe
dutyofajudgesittingonanappealsuchasthistocometohisown
conclusionastothecorrectnessofthefindingoftheregistrar.Indoingthathe
must,however,takeintoaccountthespecialexperienceandknowledgeof
theregistrarortheBoard,andmoreimportantlyhaveregardtowhethernew
evidencehasbeenputbeforehimthatwasnotbeforetheBoard.”.Inthis
case,nonewevidencewasfiledonappeal.
Inreviewingtheregistrar’sdecision,theCourtreliedonsubsection6(2)ofthe
Trade-marksActwhichprovidesthatatrade-markisconfusingwithanother
trade-mark,iftheuseofboth,inthesamearea,wouldbelikelytoleadtothe
inferencethatthewaresassociatedwiththemaresoldbythesameperson,
whetherornotsuchwaresareofthesamegeneralclass.
TheCourttooknotethattheword”WHIP”inKraft’svariousregistrationswas
descriptiveofitswares:SuchwordwasalsodisclaimedineachofKraft’s
trade-markregistrationsforDREAMWHIPandCOOLWHIP(thesame
disclaimerwasenteredregardingTritap’sapplicationforMAGICWHIP).
TheCourtalsofoundthatTritap’sMAGICWHIPdessertproductwassimilarto
Kraft’sDREAMWHIPandCOOLWHIPdessertproducts;however,Tritap’s
MAGICWHIPproductwasnotsimilartoKraft’sMIRACLEWHIPsaladdressing
product.
Kraftreliedonevidenceofmagazineadvertisementswhichincludeddessert
relatedrecipesusingtheMIRACLEWHIPsaladdressingasaningredient.
However,theCourtwasnotpersuadedbythisevidencesincethose
advertisementsincludedsloganslike”getyourimaginationcooking”showing
inessencethattheaverageCanadianconsumerwouldnotreadilyassociate
theMIRACLEWHIPsaladdressingwithadessert.
Inreviewingthedegreeofresemblancebetweenthetrade-marks,theCourt
concludedthatthedominantfeatureoftheMAGICWHIPtrade-markwasthe
word”MAGIC”astheremainderofthemark(WHIP)wasdescriptiveand

thereforedidnotservetodistinguish.Forthesamereason,itwasjudgedthat
thedominantfeatureinKraft’strade-markswerethewords”COOL”and
“DREAM”.
IntheCourt’sopinion,undueweightshouldnotbegiventodescriptive,and
thereforenon-distinctive,matterinatrade-markasdescriptivemattercannot
servetodistinguishonetrader’swaresoveranother’s.
Asafinalcircumstance,theCourtreviewedthestateoftheregisterevidence
whichhadbeensuppliedbyTritap.Itnotedthattheword”WHIP”hadbeen
adoptedbyatleasttwenty-ninetradersasacomponentoftheirtrade-marks
forfoodproductswhilethirteenofthosetrade-marksrelateddirectlyto
dessertfoodproducts.Thisfacttendedtonegateanyproprietorial
significanceofthecommonelement”WHIP”.TotheextentthatKraft’sDREAM
WHIP,COOLWHIPandMIRACLEWHIPtrade-markshadindeedacquired
distinctiveness,thissituationcouldnotbeattributedtotheword”WHIP”alone.
Allthingsconsidered,theCourtconcludedthatTritaphadmetitslegal
burdenofestablishingthattherewouldbenoreasonablelikelihoodof
confusionbetweenitstrade-markMAGICWHIPfordesserttoppingandKraft’s
trade-markDREAMWHIPasappliedtoadesserttoppingmix.
Thisdecisionisareminderofthedifficultyfortradersofprotectingthatpartof
theirtrade-markwhichisdescriptiveornon-distinctive.Thoughadescriptive
wordmaybechosenaspartofatrade-markforobviousmarketingreasons,
tradersshouldalsobepreparedtoacceptthelegaldisadvantagesofsuch
choicenamelythatitwillbeverydifficultinstoppingothersfromadopting
suchdescriptivewordaspartoftheirowntrade-marks.
Publishedat(1999),13WorldIntellectualPropertyReport111-112.
LEGERROBICRICHARD,1999.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;
licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroit
desaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérification
diligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.Lamaîtrisedes
intangibles.
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.Ideaslivehere.
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