When the trade-marks opposition board exceeds its jurisdiction

WHENTHETRADE-MARKSOPPOSITIONBOARDEXCEEDSITS
JURISDICTION
CATHERINEBERGERON*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENTANDTRADEMARKAGENTS

InanappealfromadecisionoftheTrade-marksOppositionBoard(T.M.O.B.),in
MolsonCanada2005v.Anheuser-Busch,Incorporated[2010FC283],theFederal
CourtruledthattheT.M.O.B.exceededitsjurisdictionbylimitingthescopeof
protectionaccordedtotheApplicant’s(Molson)trade-markregistrationinits
oppositionagainsttheregistrationofthetrade-markBudweiser&Design(the
BudweiserApplication)filedbytheRespondent(Anheuser)foruseinassociation
withbeerandvariousmerchandisingproducts.
1.TheFactualBackgroundandtheLitigationHistory

MolsonistheowneroftheStandardLager&LabelDesigntrade-markregisteredin
1926inassociationwithstandardlager.Saidregistrationalsoconstitutesoneof
Molson’sgroundsofoppositionbeforetheT.M.O.B.AnheuserownstwoBudweiser
&LabelDesigntrade-marksregisteredin1970inassociationwithbeeronthebasis
ofuseinCanadasinceatleastasearlyas1957and1903respectively.

Thepresentcaseisnottheparties’firstbattleregardingtheseregisteredmarks.
OneofthemostimportantdecisionsintheirhistoryoflitigationistheCourtof
Appeal’sdecisionin1986[CarlingO’KeefeBreweriesofCanadaLtd.v.Anheuser-
BuschInc.(1986),10C.P.R.(3d)433]rulingthatthetrade-marksatissuewere
confusinglysimilarbutadmittingCarlingO’Keefe’s(thethenowneroftheStandard
Lager&LabelDesigntrade-markregistration)equitabledefenceoflachesand
acquiescence.Itisworthnotingthatsuchadefencewassuccessfulnotwithstanding
acertain“cloud”onCarlingO’Keefe’sregistrationconsideringthefactthatsaid
trade-mark,ifnotanactualcopy,wasinspiredbyanddesignedwiththeknowledge
oftheBudweiser&LabelDesigntrade-mark.Consequently,bothparties’
registrations,althoughadmittedlyconfusing,remainedvalid.

©CIPS,2010.*LawyerandtrademarkagentwithROBIC,LLP,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyersandpatentand
trademarkagents.PublishedintheWorldTrademarkReport.Publication293.065.

2
2.TheT.M.O.B.DecisionUnderAppeal
TheT.M.O.B.,rejectingMolson’sopposition,divideditsreasonsintotwopartsbased
ontheproductsinvolved:beerandmerchandisingproducts.Inrejectingthe
oppositionregardingthefirstcategoryofproductsonthebasisofacloudon
Molson’sinitialregistration,andhenceindecidingthatithadjurisdictionto
determinewhetherMolsonshouldbeallowedtorelyonitsStandardLager&Label
Designtrade-mark,theT.M.O.B.reliedheavilyontheCourtofAppeal’sdecision.
Regardingthesecondcategoryofproducts,theT.M.O.B.foundthattherewasno
reasonablelikelihoodofconfusionbetweenbothparties’marksandrejectedeachof
thegroundsofopposition.
3.TheFederalCourt’sAnalysis
TheCourtisoftheviewthatthe1986CourtofAppeal’sdecisiondoesnotapplyto
theoppositionmatter.TheBudweiserApplicationisanewapplicationforaunique
trade-mark,althoughconsideredasanupdatedversion.Theissuespreviously
addressedbytheCourtofAppealaredifferentfromtheissuestandingbeforethe
T.M.O.B.,namelytheregistrabilityoftheBudweiserApplication,basedonproposed
use,inlightoftheStandardLagerregisteredmark.

Inaddition,theT.M.O.B.committedanerrorbydeterminingthatithadjurisdictionto
limitthescopeofprotectionaccordedtoMolson’sregisteredmark.Inanopposition
proceeding,theT.M.O.Bislimitedtodeterminingifaproposedtrade-markisoris
notregistrableandtheopponent’sregisteredtrade-markisnotanissue.Inits
analysis,theCourtalsoremindsthattheRegistrarisacreatureofstatutewithno
inherentjurisdiction,itdoesnothavethejurisdictiontomaketacitamendmentsto
theregisteranditspowersonopposition,providedbySection38oftheTrade-marks
Act(theAct),donotincludeanyreferencetoequityoradutytoreachafairorjust
result.
Thissaid,theCourtundertookaconfusionanalysisbasedonsection6oftheAct
andconcludedthat,asfaras“beer”isconcerned,theBudweiserApplicationwas
confusingwithMolson’sStandardLagerregisteredmark.Inadditiontothefactors
listedinsubsection6(5)oftheAct,theCourtalsoconsidered“twoheavilyweighted
surroundingcircumstances:(1)thefactthattheFederalCourtofAppealfoundtwo
similarmarksconfusingand(2)thatintheirMemorandumofFactandLawboththe
ApplicantandRespondentstatedthattheStandardLagermarkandthe[Budweiser
Application]wereconfusing.”(par.86ofthedecision).TheappealoftheT.M.O.B.
decisioninrelationto“beer”wasthereforeallowed.

Withrespecttotheremainingproducts,namelythemerchandisingitems,theCourt
determinedonabalanceofprobabilitiesthattherewasnotareasonablelikelihood
ofconfusionbetweentheStandardLagertrade-markandtheBudweiserApplication,
andhencedismissedthissecondpartoftheappeal.

3

Althoughtheissueofjurisdictionisoftenagreyzone,thiscaseclearlyremindsthat
onlytheFederalCourthasthejurisdictiontoaltertheregisterinthemanner
advocatedbytheRespondent,andthattheT.M.O.B.andthepartiesinvolvedshould
alwaysbecarefulwhenrelyingonlitigationhistory.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelle
danstouslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marques
decommerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;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

4
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDE
LAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD
Trade-marksofROBIC,
LLP(“ROBIC”)