Mattel Inc. v. 3894207 Can. (2006), 348 N.R. 340 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. JN.003
Mattel, Inc. (appellant) v. 3894207 Canada Inc. (respondent)
(30839; 2006 SCC 22; 2006 CSC 22)
Indexed As: Mattel Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., Major*, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
June 2, 2006.
Summary:
3894207 Canada Inc. owned a small chain of “Barbie’s” restaurants in Montreal. 3894207 applied for registration of the trademark BARBIE’S & DESIGN in association with restaurant services, take-out services, catering and banquet services. Mattel Inc. opposed the application on the ground that the BARBIE’S & DESIGN mark would cause confusion with its BARBIE trademarks. The Trademarks Opposition Board dismissed Mattel’s opposition and allowed the registration of the BARBIES & DESIGN mark. The Board held that 3894207’s BARBIE’S & DESIGN mark was not likely to be confusing with Mattel’s BARBIE trademarks. Mattel appealed under s. 56(1) of the Trade-marks Act.
The Federal Court, in a decision reported at 248 F.T.R. 228, dismissed the appeal. Mattel appealed.
The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 329 N.R. 259, dismissed the appeal. Mattel appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal. The court held that the decision of the Trademarks Opposition Board was reasonable.
Trademarks, Names and Designs – Topic 706
Trademarks – Registration – General – Conditions precedent – Lack of confusion with other marks – Section 6(5) of the Trade-marks Act provided that in determining whether trademarks were confusing, the court or the Registrar “shall have regard to all the surrounding circumstances” – It then listed five factors to be considered when determining whether a trademark was confusing, including the “nature of the wares, services or business” – The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the list of circumstances in s. 6(5) was not exhaustive and that different circumstances would be given different weight in a context specific assessment – The general class of wares and services, while relevant was not controlling – Evidence of actual confusion would be a relevant “surrounding circumstance” but it was not necessary – However, an adverse inference could be drawn from the lack of such evidence in circumstances where it would readily be available if the allegation of likely confusion was justified – See paragraphs 51 to 55.
Trademarks, Names and Designs – Topic 706
Trademarks – Registration – General – Conditions precedent – Lack of confusion with other marks – Section 6(2) of the Trade-marks Act stated that “The use of a trade-mark causes confusion with another trade-mark if the use of both trade-marks in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference that the wares or services associated with those trade-marks are manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by the same person, whether or not the wares or services are of the same general class” -The Supreme Court of Canada considered the issue of the perspective from which the likelihood of a “mistaken inference” was to be measured – The court stated that if ordinary casual consumers somewhat in a hurry were likely to be deceived about the origin of the wares or services, then the statutory test was met – See paragraphs 56 to 58.
Trademarks, Names and Designs – Topic 706
Trademarks – Registration – General – Conditions precedent – Lack of confusion with other marks – At issue was whether the respondent’s trademark BARBIE’S & DESIGN, which it sought to register in association with restaurant, take-out, catering and banquet services, was likely to cause confusion with Mattel Inc.’s BARBIE trademarks – Mattel argued that the decisions in Pink Panther and Lexus Foods (F.C.A.) wrongly limited the scope of protection available to a famous mark to cases where there was a “connection” or “similarity” between the wares or services associated with the famous mark and the wares or services of the newcomer – The Supreme Court of Canada did not agree that the Pink Panther or Lexus Foods decisions departed from the totality of the circumstances test in their dispositive passages (as opposed to stray dicta) – The court stated that to the extent that those cases held that the difference in wares or services would always be a dominant consideration, I disagreed with them – Further, to the extent that the obiter in those decisions could be read to require a resemblance between the respective wares and services, it should not be followed – The correct view was that all of the surrounding circumstances had to be considered but that, in some cases, some circumstances (such as the difference in wares) would carry greater weight than others – See paragraphs 59 to 73.
Trademarks, Names and Designs – Topic 706
Trademarks – Registration – General – Conditions precedent – Lack of confusion with other marks – 3894207 Canada Inc. applied for registration of the trademark BARBIE’S & DESIGN in association with restaurant services, take-out services, catering and banquet services – Mattel Inc. opposed the application on the ground that the BARBIE’S & DESIGN mark would cause confusion with its BARBIE trademarks – Mattel argued that the BARBIE trademarks were famous worldwide and that having acquired such fame, marks such as BARBIE could not now be used in Canada on most consumer wares and services without the average consumer being led to infer the existence of a trade connection with Mattel – The Trademarks Opposition Board dismissed Mattel’s opposition and allowed the registration of the BARBIES & DESIGN mark – The Board held that BARBIE’s fame was tied to dolls and doll accessories and that the BARBIE’S & DESIGN mark was not likely to be confusing with Mattel’s BARBIE trademarks – The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Board’s decision was reasonable – See paragraphs 74 to 93.
Trademarks, Names and Designs – Topic 710
Trademarks – Registration – General – Evidence – [See
Trademarks, Names and Designs – Topic 985
].
Trademarks, Names and Designs – Topic 985
Trademarks – Registration – Appeals or judicial review – Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal – 3894207 Canada Inc. applied for registration of the trademark BARBIE’S & DESIGN in association with restaurant services, take-out services, catering and banquet services – Mattel Inc. opposed the application on the ground that the BARBIE’S & DESIGN mark would cause confusion with its BARBIE trademarks – The Trademarks Opposition Board allowed the registration of the BARBIE’S & DESIGN mark, finding that it was not likely to create confusion with Mattel’s BARBIE trademarks – Mattel appealed under s. 56(1) of the Trade-marks Act and sought to introduce fresh evidence in the form of a survey to show the likelihood of confusion between the marks – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the survey evidence should be excluded for lack of relevance – The issue in the opposition proceedings was the likelihood of confusion – The survey question (“Do you believe that the company that makes Barbie dolls
might
have
anything
to do with the restaurant identified in this sign or logo?”) was directed to a possibility of confusion, rather than a probability of confusion, and was not responsive to the point at issue – See paragraphs 42 to 50.
Trademarks, Names and Designs – Topic 988
Trademarks – Registration – Appeals or judicial review – Scope of review of decision of registrar – 3894207 Canada Inc. applied for registration of the trademark BARBIE’S & DESIGN in association with restaurant services, take-out services, catering and banquet services – Mattel Inc. opposed the application on the ground that the BARBIE’S & DESIGN mark would cause confusion with its BARBIE trademarks – The Trademarks Opposition Board allowed the registration of the BARBIE’S & DESIGN mark, finding that it was not likely to create confusion with Mattel’s BARBIE trademarks – The Supreme Court of Canada considered the standard of review applicable to the Board’s decision – The court stated that “given, in particular, the expertise of the Board, and the ‘weighing up’ nature of the mandate imposed by s. 6 of the [Trade-marks] Act, I am of the view that despite the grant of a full right of appeal the appropriate standard of review is reasonableness” – See paragraphs 32 to 41.
Cases Noticed:
Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 302; 341 N.R. 234; 2005 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 24].
Aladdin Industries Incorporated v. Canadian Thermos Products Limited and Ano., [1974] S.C.R. 845, refd to. [para. 26].
Breck’s Sporting Goods Co. v. Sportcam Co. and Magder, [1976] 1 S.C.R. 527; 3 N.R. 601, refd to. [para. 26].
Seiko Time Canada Ltd. v. Consumer’s Distributing Co., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 583; 54 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 27].
United Artists Corp. v. Pink Panther Beauty Corp., [1998] 3 F.C. 534; 225 N.R. 82 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].
Toyota Motor Corp. v. Lexus Foods Inc., [2001] 2 F.C. 15; 264 N.R. 158 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 32].
Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 33].
Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 33].
Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 33].
U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault – see Union des employés de service.
Union des employés de service, local 298 v. Bibeault – see Syndicat national des employés de la Commission scolaire régionale de l’Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).
Morris (Philip) Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. et al. (1987), 81 N.R. 28; 17 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].
Molson Breweries, A Partnership v. Labatt (John) Ltd. et al., [2000] 3 F.C. 145; 252 N.R. 91 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].
Novopharm Ltd. v. Bayer Inc. et al. (2000), 264 N.R. 384; 9 C.P.R.(4th) 304 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].
Garbo Group Inc. v. Brown (Harriet) & Co. et al. (1999), 176 F.T.R. 80; 3 C.P.R.(4th) 224 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 35].
Benson & Hedges (Canada) Ltd. v. St. Regis Tobacco Corp., [1969] S.C.R. 192, refd to. [para. 36].
MacDonald’s Corp. v. Silcorp Ltd. (1989), 25 F.T.R. 151; 24 C.P.R.(3d) 207 (T.D.), affd. (1992), 139 N.R. 319; 41 C.P.R.(3d) 67 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].
Lamb v. Canadian Reserve Oil & Gas Ltd., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 517; 8 N.R. 613, refd to. [para. 37].
Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 39].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada Labour Relations Board et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 157; 177 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 39].
Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 39].
Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 39].
Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 40].
Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268; 2002 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 40].
United States Polo Association v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. et al. (2000), 286 N.R. 282; 9 C.P.R.(4th) 51 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].
Dion Neckwear Ltd. v. Christian Dior, S.A. et al., [2002] 3 F.C. 405; 286 N.R. 336; 2002 FCA 29, refd to. [para. 41].
Purafil Inc. v. Purafil Canada Ltd., [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 308; 31 C.P.R.(4th) 345; 2004 FC 522, refd to. [para. 41].
Building Products Ltd. v. B.P. Canada Ltd. (1961), 36 C.P.R. 121 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].
Paulin Chambers Co. v. Rowntree Co. (1966), 51 C.P.R. 153 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].
Canadian Schenley Distilleries Ltd. v. Canada’s Manitoba Distillery Ltd. (1975), 25 C.P.R.(2d) 1 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 45].
Seagram (Joseph E.) & Sons Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks and Seagram Real Estate Ltd. (1990), 38 F.T.R. 96; 33 C.P.R.(3d) 454 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 45].
Walt Disney Productions v. Fantasyland Hotels Inc., [1994] 9 W.W.R. 45; 154 A.R. 161; 20 Alta. L.R.(3d) 146 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 45].
Cartier Inc. v. Cartier Optical Ltd. (1988), 17 F.T.R. 106; 20 C.P.R.(3d) 68 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 45].
Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Sunlife Juice Ltd. (1988), 22 C.P.R.(3d) 244 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 45].
New Balance Athletic Shoes Inc. v. Matthews (1992), 45 C.P.R.(3d) 140 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 46].
National Hockey League v. Pepsi Cola Canada Ltd. (No. 2) (1992), 70 B.C.L.R.(2d) 27 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 46].
McDonald’s Corp. et al. v. Coffee Hut Stores Ltd. (1994), 76 F.T.R. 281; 55 C.P.R.(3d) 463 (T.D.), affd. (1996), 199 N.R. 106; 68 C.P.R.(3d) 168 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].
Unitel Communications Inc. v. Bell Canada (1995), 92 F.T.R. 161; 61 C.P.R.(3d) 12 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 46].
Canada Post Corp. v. Mail Boxes Etc. U.S.A., Inc. (1996), 77 C.P.R.(3d) 93 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 46].
Coca-Cola Ltd. v. Southland Corp. (2001), 20 C.P.R.(4th) 537 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 46].
Molson Cos. v. S.P.A. Birra Peroni Industriale (1992), 45 C.P.R.(3d) 28 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 46].
Molson Breweries v. The Swan Brewery Co., [1994] T.M.O.B. No. 253, refd to. [para. 46].
Toys “R” Us (Canada) Ltd. et al. v. Manjel Inc. (2003), 229 F.T.R. 71; 2003 FCT 283, refd to. [para. 46].
Safeway Stores Inc. v. Safeway Insurance Co. (1985), 657 F. Supp. 1307 (M.D. La.), refd to. [para. 48].
Gainers Inc. v. Marchildon (1996), 66 C.P.R.(3d) 308 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 54].
Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Amandista Investments Ltd. (1987), 81 N.R. 257; 19 C.P.R.(3d) 3 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].
Morning Star Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Express Newspapers Ltd., [1979] F.S.R. 113 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 56].
Klotz v. Corson (1927), 33 O.W.N. 12 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 56].
Barsalou v. Darling (1882), 9 S.C.R. 677, refd to. [para. 56].
Delisle Foods Ltd. v. Anna Beth Holdings Ltd. (1992), 45 C.P.R.(3d) 535 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 56].
American Cyanamid Co. v. Record Chemical Co., [1972] F.C. 1271 (T.D.), affd. (1973), 14 C.P.R.(2d) 127 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].
Michelin and Cie v. Astro Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd. (1982), 69 C.P.R.(2d) 260 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 57].
General Motors Corp. v. Bellows, [1947] Ex. C.R. 568, affd. [1949] S.C.R. 678; 10 C.P.R. 101, refd to. [para. 58].
Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. v. Four Seasons Television Networks Inc. (1992), 43 C.P.R.(3d) 139 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 58].
Coca-Cola of Canada Ltd. v. Pepsi-Cola Co. of Canada Ltd., [1942] 2 D.L.R. 657 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 58].
Coombe v. Mendit Ld. (1913), 30 R.P.C. 709 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 58].
Carson v. Reynolds, [1980] 2 F.C. 685 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 60].
John Walker & Sons Ltd. v. Steinman (1965), 44 C.P.R. 58 (Reg. T.M.), refd to. [para. 60].
James Burrough Ltd. v. Reckitt & Colman (Canada) Ltd. (1967), 53 C.P.R. 276 (Reg. T.M.), refd to. [para. 60].
Leaf Confections Ltd. v. Maple Leaf Gardens Ltd. (1986), 7 F.T.R. 72; 12 C.P.R.(3d) 511 (T.D.), affd. (1988), 87 N.R. 385; 19 C.P.R.(3d) 331 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].
Danjaq Inc. v. Zervas & Zervas (1997), 135 F.T.R. 136; 75 C.P.R.(3d) 295 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 60].
Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot ltée et al. (2006), 349 N.R. 111; 2006 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 66].
Mead Data Central Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc. (1989), 875 F.2d 1026 (2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 69].
Western Clock Co. v. Oris Watch Co., [1931] Ex. C.R. 64, refd to. [para. 75].
Wampole (Henry K.) & Co. v. Hervay Chemical Co. of Canada, [1930] S.C.R. 336, refd to. [para. 76].
British Drug Houses Ltd. v. Battle Pharmaceutical, [1944] Ex. C.R. 239, refd to. [para. 76].
Ainsworth v. Walmsley (1866), 1 L.R.-Eq. 518 (V.C.), refd to. [para. 78].
ConAgra Inc. v. McCain Foods Ltd. (2001), 210 F.T.R. 227; 14 C.P.R.(4th) 288; 2001 FCT 963, refd to. [para. 89].
Panavision Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. (1992), 40 C.P.R.(3d) 486 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 89].
Pepsi-Cola of Canada Ltd. v. Coca-Cola Co. of Canada Ltd., [1940] S.C.R. 17, refd to. [para. 89].
Freed & Freed Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, [1950] Ex. Cr. 431, refd to. [para. 89].
Monsport Inc. v. Vêtements de Sport Bonnie (1978) Ltée (1988), 23 F.T.R. 222; 22 C.P.R.(3d) 356 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 89].
Multiplicant Inc. v. Petit Bateau Valton S.A. (1994), 79 F.T.R. 241; 55 C.P.R.(3d) 372 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 89].
Edelsten v. Edelsten (1863), 1 De G. J. & S. 185, refd to. [para. 90].
Statutes Noticed:
Trade-Marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 6(2), sect. 6(5) [para. 51].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Canada, Report of the Trade-mark Law Revision Committee to the Secretary of State of Canada (Fox Report) (1953), pp. 34 [para. 28]; 38 [para. 79]; 40 [para. 29]; 60 [para. 80].
Fox, Harold George, The Canadian Law of Trademarks and Unfair Competition (3rd Ed. 1972), pp. 133 [para. 77]; 403 [para. 90].
Fox, Harold George, The Canadian Law of Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th Ed. 2002), pp. 8-38 to 8-40 [para. 86]; 8-56 [para. 75].
Fox Report – see Canada, Report of the Trade-mark Law Revision Committee to the Secretary of State of Canada.
Gervais, Daniel, and Judge, Elizabeth F., Intellectual Property: The Law in Canada (2005), p. 212 [para. 73].
McCarthy, J. Thomas, Trade Marks and Unfair Competition (4th Ed. 1996) (2005 Looseleaf Update, Release 36), p. 11-150.1 [paras. 8, 78].
Mostert, Frederick W., Famous and Well-Known Marks: An International Analysis (1997), p. 26 [para. 70].
Vaver, David, Unconventional and Well-known Trade Marks, [2005] Sing. J.L.S. 1, p. 16 [para. 22].
Counsel:
Paul D. Blanchard, Henry S. Brown, Q.C., and Lisa R.W. Vatch, for the appellant;
Sophie Picard, for the respondent.
Solicitors of Record:
Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;
Desjardins, Ducharme, Montréal, Quebec, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on October 18, 2005, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Major*, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered in both official languages on June 2, 2006, including the following opinions:
Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ., concurring) – see paragraphs 1 to 92;
LeBel, J. – see paragraph 93.
(* Major, J., took no part in the judgment).
