Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc

Last updated
Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: October 18, 2005
Judgment: June 2, 2006
Full case nameMattel, Incorporated v. 3894207 Canada Incorporated
Citations 2006 SCC 22, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 772
Docket No.30839 [1]
Prior historyAppealed from the Federal Court of Appeal
RulingMattel appeal dismissed
Court membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: John C. Major, Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron
Reasons given
MajorityBinnie J., joined by McLachlin CJ., Bastarache, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron JJ.
ConcurrenceLeBel J.
Major J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc [2006] 1 S.C.R. 772 , 2006 SCC 22 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the infringement of famous trade-mark names. The Court found that Mattel Inc. could not enforce the use of their trade-marked name "BARBIE" against a restaurant named "Barbie's".

Contents

Background

Barbie's restaurant, a Montreal chain of "bar-and-grill" type restaurants catering primarily to adults, applied to register the trade-mark "Barbie’s" and an associated design with respect to "restaurant services, take-out services, catering and banquet services." [2] Mattel Inc. owns the "Barbie" trade-mark, and has a worldwide reputation for Barbie dolls and accessories targeted primarily at girls aged 3 to 11 years old. [3] Mattel Inc. opposed the application to register "Barbie’s" restaurant on the basis that it would cause confusion in the marketplace. The applicant had the burden of satisfying the Trade-marks Opposition Board of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office that if "Barbie’s" restaurant and Mattel's "Barbie" were used in the same geographic area there would be no confusion in the marketplace. The Trade-marks Opposition Board rejected Mattel's opposition and allowed the registration, finding that the applicant's trade-mark, "Barbie’s", was not likely to be confused with Mattel's Barbie trade-mark. [4] The Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal both upheld the Trade-marks Opposition Board's decision. Mattel Inc. appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Lower Court Rulings

Trade-Marks Opposition Board

The Board found that there was not a strong likelihood of consumer confusion. The Board based its decision on the fact that Mattel presented no evidence of actual confusion (although it was not required to), the mark had a low degree of inherent distinctiveness (as it is a short form of the name "Barbara"), and the nature of the uses by the two parties were very different.

Federal Court

Mattel appealed the Board's ruling to the Federal Court. The Federal Court decided that the trade-mark, "Barbie" by Mattel is not iconic enough to cause consumer confusion. Instead, it found that all factors must be considered, including that of the nature of the wares. The judge found the wares to be quite different, and as a result dismissed the appeal.

Federal Court of Appeal

Mattel appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found no error by the Federal Court, and dismissed the appeal. Specifically, it found that the Federal Court judge was correct to reject a survey that showed merely a possibility of confusion and not the likelihood of confusion.

Supreme Court Ruling

Binnie, J. wrote the opinion to which seven other justices joined. LeBel, J. wrote a concurring opinion.

Issue

The issue addressed was whether Mattel Inc., owner of the Barbie trade-mark, could prevent a small chain of Montreal-based restaurants from registering the name "Barbie’s" with the Trademark Office, based on the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace between the two names.

Holding

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the decision of the Trade-marks Opposition Board, that the use of the "Barbie" name for the Montreal-based restaurant would not likely create confusion in the marketplace with Mattel Inc.’s Barbie trade-mark, and allowed its registration.

Reasons of the Court

Binnie held that the standard of review applicable to the Trade-marks Opposition Board’s decision was reasonableness, based on the test set out in Dr. Q v College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia [2003] 1 SCR 226.

Section 6(2) of the Trade-marks Act states that trade-mark confusion occurs if using two trade-marks in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference that the goods 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. [5]

To determine whether "Barbie’s" restaurant led to confusion in the marketplace with Mattel's "Barbie" trade-mark, Binnie considered the five factors set out in Section 6(5) of the Trade-marks Act. Depending on the surrounding circumstances of each case, the different factors may be weighted differently. [6] Binnie clarified that the appropriate perspective in which to weigh these five factors is that of an "ordinary casual consumer somewhat in a hurry." [7] Binnie held that the applicant had shown on a balance of probabilities that confusion was not likely to occur in the marketplace between "Barbie’s" restaurant and Mattel's "Barbie" dolls.

Determining trademark confusion

Binnie held that the word "Barbie", while an everyday expression commonly used as the short-form of the name "Barbara", had acquired a strong secondary meaning associated with Mattel's Barbie dolls, and was therefore considerably distinct. [8] In contrast, the mark applied for by "Barbie's" restaurant was only somewhat known in the surrounding area of Montreal.

Since Mattel's trade-mark has been widely publicized since the early 1960s, while "Barbie's" restaurant has only existed since 1992, Binnie determined that Mattel's trade-mark had deeper roots. [9]

Binnie found that the doll business attracts different clientele with different tastes than the restaurant business. Binnie determined that it was difficult to see the basis on which consumers would arrive at the mistaken inference that Barbie's restaurants were associated with Mattel's Barbie dolls and accessories. [10]

Binnie held that "the parties operate in different and distinct channels of trade within which their respective wares and services do not intermingle." [11]

Binnie found that although both marks use the name "Barbie", "Barbie's" restaurant uses the name alongside a design. Binnie determined that when Mattel's packaging and advertising of Barbie is considered, there is considerable resemblance to the mark for "Barbie's" restaurant. [12]

Other Surrounding Circumstances

Binnie stated that lack of any evidence of actual confusion is another circumstance that can be taken into account, while the intention, or mens rea, of the creators of "Barbie’s" restaurant is irrelevant. [13]

Famous brands

Though Binnie recognized that some marks become so famous that their use with any wares or services may be infringement, he found that "Barbie" did not hold such a strong mark. [14] However, in determining how broad the scope of the trade-mark protection should be, Binnie stressed the importance of courts considering the totality of the circumstances. [15]

Resemblance

Resemblance between trade-marks is not required to prove trade-mark confusion in the marketplace. [16] Confusion may arise even when trade-marks are related to products or services in different classes of the marketplace. [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Canada</span> Highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions and bilingual, hearing cases in both official languages of Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barbie</span> Fashion doll brand by Mattel

Barbie is a fashion doll created by American businesswoman Ruth Handler, manufactured by American toy company Mattel and launched in 1959. Barbie is the figurehead of a brand of Mattel dolls and accessories, including other family members and collectible dolls. Barbie has been an important part of the toy fashion doll market for over six decades and has been the subject of numerous controversies and lawsuits, often involving parodies of the doll and her lifestyle. Mattel has sold over a billion Barbie dolls, making it the company's largest and most profitable line.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bratz</span> American fashion doll and media franchise

Bratz is an American fashion doll and media franchise created by former Mattel employee Carter Bryant for MGA Entertainment, which debuted in 2001.

Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Ass'n of Internet Providers 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 45 - also known as the Tariff 22 case - is a leading decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on Internet service provider (ISP) liability for copyright infringement. The Court found that there is no liability for information found in web caches. An ISP's liability depends on whether it limits itself to "a conduit" or a content-neutral function and is not dependent on where the ISP is located.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ian Binnie</span> Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada from 1998 to 2011

William Ian Corneil Binnie is a former puisne justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, serving from January 8, 1998 to October 27, 2011. Of the justices appointed to the Supreme Court in recent years, he is one of the few appointed directly from private practice. On his retirement from the Court, he was described by The Globe and Mail as "arguably the country's premier judge", by La Presse as "probably the most influential judge in Canada of the last decade" and by the Toronto Star as “one of the strongest hands on the court.”

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian trademark law</span>

Canadian trademark law provides protection to marks by statute under the Trademarks Act and also at common law. Trademark law provides protection for distinctive marks, certification marks, distinguishing guises, and proposed marks against those who appropriate the goodwill of the mark or create confusion between different vendors' goods or services. A mark can be protected either as a registered trademark under the Act or can alternately be protected by a common law action in passing off.

<i>Kirkbi AG v Ritvik Holdings Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., popularly known as the Lego Case, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court upheld the constitutionality of section 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act which prohibits the use of confusing marks, as well, on a second issue it was held that the doctrine of functionality applied to unregistered trade-marks.

In Canadian constitutional law, the doctrine of paramountcy establishes that where there is a conflict between valid provincial and federal laws, the federal law will prevail and the provincial law will be inoperative to the extent that it conflicts with the federal law. Unlike interjurisdictional immunity, which is concerned with the scope of the federal power, paramountcy deals with the way in which that power is exercised.

<i>Hodge v Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Hodge v Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 357 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada regarding section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that in considering equality rights, comparator groups are needed to demonstrate that one has suffered differential treatment. Courts may reject the rights claimant's view as to what an appropriate comparator group would be.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mega Brands</span> Canadian toy company

Mega Brands Inc. is a Canadian children's toy company that is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of Mattel. Mega Bloks, a line of construction set toys, is its most popular product. Its other brands include Mega Construx, Mega Puzzles, Board Dudes and Rose Art. The company distributes a wide range of construction toys, puzzles, and craft-based products.

<i>Unifund Assurance Co v Insurance Corp of British Columbia</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Unifund Assurance Co v Insurance Corp of British Columbia, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 63, 2003 SCC 40 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on extraterritorial application of provincial legislation.

<i>Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.</i> Series of lawsuits between Mattel and MCA Records

Mattel v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894, was a series of lawsuits between Mattel and MCA Records that resulted from the 1997 hit single "Barbie Girl" by Danish-Norwegian group Aqua. The case was ultimately dismissed.

<i>Dunsmuir v New Brunswick</i> Canadian Supreme Court case

Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190 was, prior to Canada v Vavilov, the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of substantive review and standards of review. Dunsmuir is notable for combining the reasonableness (simpliciter) and the patent unreasonableness standards of review into a single reasonableness standard.

<i>Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canadian administrative law.

In Canada, passing off is both a common law tort and a statutory cause of action under the Canadian Trade-marks Act referring to the deceptive representation or marketing of goods or services by competitors in a manner that confuses consumers. The law of passing off protects the goodwill of businesses by preventing competitors from passing off their goods as those of another.

Under Canadian trade-mark law, "confusion" is where a trade-mark is similar enough to another trade-mark to cause consumers to equate them. Likelihood of confusion plays a central role in trade-mark registration, infringement and passing-off. Whether a trade-mark or trade-name is confusing is a question of fact. The role of confusion in trade-mark law is analogous to the role of substantial infringement in patent law.

<i>Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc, 2007 SCC 37, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 20, is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on Canadian copyright law, specifically on the issue of indirect infringement and its application to parallel importation. Kraft Canada sued Euro-Excellence Inc. for copyright infringement due to their importation of Côte d’Or and Toblerone chocolate bars from Europe into Canada. A majority of the court found that the copyright claim could not succeed, although they split on whether the claim failed due to the rights of an exclusive licensee or due to the scope of copyright law.

<i>Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd v Apotex Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., [1992] 3 SCR 120, is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on trademark law and more specifically the issue of passing off. Ciba-Geigy brought an action against Apotex and Novopharm, alleging that their versions of the prescription drug metoprolol were causing confusion to the public due to their similar appearance to Ciba-Geigy's version of the drug Lopresor. On appeal to the SCC, the issue was whether a plaintiff is required to establish that the public affected by the risk of confusion includes not only health care professionals but also the patients who consume the drugs in a passing off action involving prescription drugs of a similar appearance. The Supreme Court held affirmatively on this question.

Tom Forsythe is an American artist and Tai Chi instructor who lives and works in Utah. He is known for his photographic work of Barbie dolls, which caused some controversy resulting from a lawsuit brought against him by Mattel. The company lost the case, Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Prods., when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the images were original artwork in 2004.

<i>Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc.</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc. [2011] 2 S.C.R. 387, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning the relevant criteria and basic approach to be undertaken by the Court in analyzing the likelihood of confusion in Canadian trademark law under the Trade-marks Act, 1985 The test adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada is whether, as a matter of first impression, the "casual consumer somewhat in a hurry" who encounters the Alavida trade-mark, with no more than an imperfect recollection of any one of the Masterpiece Inc. trade-marks or trade-name, would be likely to think that Alavida was the same source of retirement residence services as Masterpiece Inc. Furthermore, Rothstein J. affirmed a consumer protection principle of trade-marks as an indication of provenance, "providing consumers with a reliable indication of the expected source of wares or services." Rothstein J. delivering the majority judgment of the Court held that Alavida's proposed trade-mark "Masterpiece Living" was confusing with at least one of Masterpiece Inc.'s trade-marks when the registration application was filed on December 1, 2005. Alavida was therefore deemed to be not entitled to registration of its proposed marks, allowing then for the Registrar of Trade-marks to expunge Alavida's registration from the registrar.

References

  1. ↑ SCC Case Information - Docket 30839 Supreme Court of Canada
  2. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 11.
  3. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 13.
  4. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 17.
  5. ↑ RSC 1985, c T-13.
  6. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 70
  7. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 58.
  8. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 75.
  9. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 77.
  10. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 83.
  11. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 86.
  12. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 88.
  13. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 90.
  14. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 63.
  15. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 64.
  16. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 at para 65.
  17. ↑ Mattel, Inc. v 3894207 Canada Inc., 2006 SCC 22 .
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.