Wise GOURMET AND GOURMET Trade-marks confusing, Federal Court Rules in culinary dispute

ROBIC,LLP
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:5149876242-Fax:5148457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
WISEGOURMET
ANDGOURMETTRADE-MARKSCONFUSING,
FEDERALCOURTRULESINCULINARYDISPUTE

BARRYGAMACHE*
ROBIC,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS

Forthosebothinterestedintrade-markissuesandtheartoffinecooking,arecent
decisionofCanada’sFederalCourtconsideredtheambitofprotectionclaimedbya
trade-markcomposedofthesinglewordGOURMET(AdvanceMagazinePublishers,
Inc.v.WiseGourmetInc.,2009FC1208(F.C.,MainvilleJ.,November24,2009)).

AMay20,2008decisionbytheRegistrarofTrade-marksprobablyleftabittertaste
forAdvanceMagazinePublishers,Inc.(“AMP”),theownerofthetrade-mark
GOURMETregisteredformagazines.AMPunsuccessfullyopposedtheDecember
31,2003applicationbyWiseGourmetInc.(“WG”)toregisterthetrade-markWISE
GOURMETinassociationwithvariousfoodproductsandfoodsupplementsaswell
aswithprintedpublicationssuchascookbooksandperiodicalsrelatingtonutrition
andfood.AccordingtotheRegistrar,therewasnoconfusionbetweenWISE
GOURMET-thatWGsoughttoregister-andtheopponent’sGOURMETtrade-mark.

Inreachinghisdecision,theRegistrarwrotethatthemarksWISEGOURMETand
GOURMETwerebothnotinherentlydistinctive,sincetheybothsuggestedmattersof
interestforfoodlovers.TheevidencefiledbeforetheRegistrardidnotrevealthat
eithermarkhadbeenusedtoanysignificantextentinCanada.However,the
Registrardidconcludethattheparties’wareswererelatedandoverlapping.

Afterconsideringthetotalityoftheevidencefiledbybothparties,theRegistrar
determinedthattheaverageCanadianwouldnot,asamatteroffirstimpression,
concludethatGOURMETmagazinesandWISEGOURMETcookbooksand
periodicalsrelatingtonutritionandfoodwouldshareacommonsource.Indeed,the
commonword‘gourmet’wasconsideredjustthat,averycommonwordforwhichthe
owneroftheGOURMETtrade-markcouldnotclaimawideambitofprotection.

Aspermittedbysection56ofCanada’sTrade-markAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13(the
“Act”),AMPappealedtheRegistrar’sdecisionbeforeCanada’sFederalCourt.Italso
tooktheopportunitytofileadditionalevidenceinordertoattempttooverturnthe

©CIPS,2010.*BarryGamacheisamemberofROBIC,LLP.,amultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,patentandtrademark
agents.PublishedintheFebruaryissueoftheWorldIntellectualPropertyReport(Vol.24,no.2.)
Publication142.233

2
Registrar’sfindingontheissueofconfusionbetweentheparties’respectivetrade-
marks.ThisadditionalevidencewasconsideredcrucialtoAMP’sappealsincethe
Courtconcludedthatthelatterpresentedconvincingnewevidencethatithadbeen
usingitsGOURMETtrade-markformanydecadesinCanadaandthatthisusehad
beenextensivethroughoutthecountry(seeparagraph28ofMainvilleJ.’sreasons).

AccordingtotheCourt,theadditionaldocumentationfiledbyAMPmeantthatthe
Registrar’sfindingregardingtheextenttowhichtheGOURMETtrade-markhadbeen
knowncouldnolongerbesupportedbecauseofchangesintheevidentialrecord.
TheCourtthereforegavethematterafreshlook.
WhiletheCourtagreedwiththeRegistrarthatneithertheGOURMET,northeWISE
GOURMETtrade-markswereinherentlydistinctive,itwrotethatthenewevidence
showedconclusivelythatAMP’sGOURMETtrade-markhadbeenusedthroughout
CanadaformanydecadesandhadacquiredacertainreputationinCanada.
Moreover,AMP’strade-markhadbeenwidelyusedinCanadaformanydecadesin
relationtowaressimilartothoseofWG,i.e.magazines.

Atparagraph76ofitsreasons,theCourtwrotethattheGOURMETtrade-markwas
notinherentlydistinctive;however,itsuseovertimehadallowedittogainacertain
reputationinCanadaastomagazines.WhiletheCourtconcededthattheword
“gourmet”isincommonusageinregardtofoodandrelatedproductsandservices,it
concludedthatAMPdemonstratedthatitstrade-markhadbecomewell-knownin
CanadawhileWG’smarkwasanewentrantinthemarket.

Afteritsreviewoftheevidence,theCourtconcludedthatonabalanceor
probabilities,therewaslikelihoodofconfusionbetweentheappliedfortrade-mark
WISEGOURMETandtheregisteredtrade-markGOURMET.

Onappeal,WGchosenottobeheard–insteadrelyingonfactualstatementsina
letterthatwaseventuallydismissedbytheCourt.Whateverthemeritsofthischoice,
theevidenceofusefiledbyAMPcertainlydidnothelpWG’scaseinestablishingits
righttoregistration.Thiscaseillustratesthatevenasomewhatinherentlyweakmark
cancomeoutontopifitsownercanestablishareputationforitsmarkthrough
importantuseinCanada.

3

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
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.Ideaslive
here.

COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTERR
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD