Source: http://worldcopyrightlaw.com/doc/Mattel_Inc_v_3894207_Canada_Inc-SCC2006
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:52:27+00:00

Document:
Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc.
McLachlin C.J. and Major, * Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
* Major J. took no part in the judgment.
Intellectual property – Trade-marks – Confusion – Restauranteur applying to register “Barbie’s” trade-mark in connection with its small chain of restaurants – Manufacturer of BARBIE dolls opposing registration – Whether use of “Barbie’s” name in relation to restaurants likely to create confusion in market place with BARBIE trade-mark – Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, s. 6.
Administrative law – Judicial review – Standard of review – Trade-marks Opposition Board of Canadian Intellectual Property Office – Board rejecting opposition to registration of trade-mark – Standard applicable to Board’s decision.
The BARBIE doll is said by the appellant toy manufacturer to be an iconic figure of pop culture. The appellant opposes the respondent’sapplication to register its “Barbie’s” trade-mark and a related design in association with “restaurant services, take-out services, catering and banquet services” on the basis that some marks are so famous that “marks such a…. BARBIE may 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 the owners of these famous brands”. The Trade-marks Opposition Board of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“Board”) accepted the respondent’s argument that its use of the “Barbie” name (since 1992) for its small chain of Montreal area restaurants would not likely create confusion in the marketplace with the appellant’s BARBIE trade-markand allowed the registration. The Board found BARBIE’s fame to be tied to dolls and doll accessories and that the respondent’s applied-for mark, used in connection with very different products and services, was not likely to be confusing with any of the appellant’s BARBIE marks. Both the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Board’s decision. They also rejected the appellant’s application to introduce fresh evidence in the form of a survey proffered to show the likelihood of confusion between the marks.
Explained: Pink Panther Beauty Corp. v. United Artists Corp.,  3 F.C. 534; Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Lexus Foods Inc.,  2 F.C. 15; referred to: Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc.,  3 S.C.R. 302, 2005 SCC 65; Aladdin Industries, Inc. v. Canadian Thermos Products Ltd.,  S.C.R. 845; Breck’s Sporting Goods Co. v. Magder,  1 S.C.R. 527; Consumers Distributing Co. v. Seiko Time Canada Ltd.,  1 S.C.R. 583; Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia,  1 S.C.R. 226, 2003 SCC 19; Law Society of New Brunswick v. Ryan,  1 S.C.R. 247, 2003 SCC 20; U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault,  2 S.C.R. 1048; Philip Morris Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (No. 1) (1987), 17 C.P.R. (3d) 289; Molson Breweries v. John Labatt Ltd.,  3 F.C. 145; Novopharm Ltd. v. Bayer Inc. (2000), 9 C.P.R. (4th) 304; Garbo Creations Inc. v. Harriet Brown & Co. (1999), 3 C.P.R. (4th) 224; Benson & Hedges (Canada) Ltd. v. St. Regis Tobacco Corp.,  S.C.R. 192; McDonald’s Corp. v. Silcorp Ltd. (1989), 24 C.P.R. (3d) 207, aff’d (1992), 41 C.P.R. (3d) 67; Lamb v. Canadian Reserve Oil & Gas Ltd.,  1 S.C.R. 517; Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers),  2 S.C.R. 557; Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Labour Relations Board),  1 S.C.R. 157; Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc.,  1 S.C.R. 748; Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council),  1 S.C.R. 249, 2002 SCC 11; C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour),  1 S.C.R. 539, 2003 SCC 29; Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  1 S.C.R. 84, 2002 SCC 3; Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. v. United States Polo Assn. (2000), 9 C.P.R. (4th) 51; Christian Dior, S.A. v. Dion Neckwear Ltd.,  3 F.C. 405, 2002 FCA 29; Purafil, Inc. v. Purafil Canada Ltd. (2004), 31 C.P.R. (4th) 345, 2004 FC 522; Building Products Ltd. v. BP Canada Ltd. (1961), 36 C.P.R. 121; Paulin Chambers Co. v. Rowntree Co. (1966), 51 C.P.R. 153; Canadian Schenley Distilleries Ltd. v. Canada’s Manitoba Distillery Ltd. (1975), 25 C.P.R. (2d) 1; Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Ltd. v. Seagram Real Estate Ltd. (1990), 33 C.P.R. (3d) 454; Walt Disney Productions v. Fantasyland Hotel Inc. (1994), 20 Alta. L.R. (3d) 146; Cartier Inc. v. Cartier Optical Ltd. (1988), 20 C.P.R. (3d) 68; Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Sunlife Juice Ltd. (1988), 22 C.P.R. (3d) 244; New Balance Athletic Shoes, Inc. v. Matthews (1992), 45 C.P.R. (3d) 140; National Hockey League v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd. (1992), 70 B.C.L.R. (2d) 27; McDonald’s Corp. v. Coffee Hut Stores Ltd. (1994), 55 C.P.R. (3d) 463, aff’d (1996), 68 C.P.R. (3d) 168; Unitel Communications Inc. v. Bell Canada (1995), 92 F.T.R. 161; Canada Post Corp. v. Mail Boxes Etc. USA, Inc. (1996), 77 C.P.R. (3d) 93; Coca-Cola Ltd. v. Southland Corp. (2001), 20 C.P.R. (4th) 537; Molson Companies Ltd. v. S.P.A. Birra Peroni Industriale (1992), 45 C.P.R. (3d) 28; Molson Breweries v. Swan Brewery Co.,  T.M.O.B. No. 253 (QL); Toys “R” Us (Canada) Ltd. v. Manjel Inc. (2003), 229 F.T.R. 71, 2003 FCT 283; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Safeway Insurance Co., 657 F. Supp. 1307 (1985); Gainers Inc. v. Marchildon (1996), 66 C.P.R. (3d) 308; Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Amandista Investments Ltd. (1987), 19 C.P.R. (3d) 3; Morning Star Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. Express Newspapers Ltd.,  F.S.R. 113; Klotz v. Corson (1927), 33 O.W.N. 12; Barsalou v. Darling (1882), 9 S.C.R. 677; Delisle Foods Ltd. v. Anna Beth Holdings Ltd. (1992), 45 C.P.R. (3d) 535; American Cyanamid Co. v. Record Chemical Co.,  F.C. 1271, aff’d (1973), 14 C.P.R. (2d) 127; Michelin & Cie v. Astro Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd. (1982), 69 C.P.R. (2d) 260; General Motors Corp. v. Bellows,  S.C.R. 678, aff’g  Ex. C.R. 568; Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. v. Four Seasons Television Network Inc. (1992), 43 C.P.R. (3d) 139; Coca-Cola Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Pepsi-Cola Co. of Canada Ltd.,  2 D.L.R. 657, aff’g  S.C.R. 17; Coombe v. Mendit Ld. (1913), 30 R.P.C. 709; Carson v. Reynolds,  2 F.C. 685; John Walker & Sons Ltd. v. Steinman (1965), 44 C.P.R. 58; James Burrough Ltd. v. Reckitt & Colman (Canada) Ltd. (1967), 53 C.P.R. 276; Leaf Confections Ltd. v. Maple Leaf Gardens Ltd. (1986), 12 C.P.R. (3d) 511, aff’d (1988), 19 C.P.R. (3d) 331; Danjaq, S.A. v. Zervas (1997), 75 C.P.R. (3d) 295; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltée,  1 S.C.R. 824, 2006 SCC 23; Mead Data Central, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 875 F.2d 1026 (1989); Western Clock Co. v. Oris Watch Co.,  Ex. C.R. 64; Henry K. Wampole & Co. v. Hervay Chemical Co. of Canada,  S.C.R. 336; British Drug Houses, Ltd. v. Battle Pharmaceuticals,  Ex. C.R. 239; Ainsworth v. Walmsley (1866), L.R. 1 Eq. 518; ConAgra, Inc. v. McCain Foods Ltd. (2001), 14 C.P.R. (4th) 288, 2001 FCT 963; Panavision, Inc. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. (1992), 40 C.P.R. (3d) 486; Freed & Freed Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks,  Ex. C.R. 431; Monsport Inc. v. Vêtements de Sport Bonnie (1978) Ltée (1988), 22 C.P.R. 356; Multiplicant Inc. v. Petit Bateau Valton S.A. (1994), 55 C.P.R. (3d) 372; Edelsten v. Edelsten (1863), 1 De G. J. & S. 185, 46 E.R. 72.
Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, ss. 2 “confusing”, “trade-mark”, 6, 7, 20, 22, 45(3), 50, 56(1), (5).
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299 (being Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, 1867 U.N.T.S. 3), signed April 15, 1994, art. 15.
Canada. Report of the Trade Mark Law Revision Committee, by Harold G. Fox, Chairman. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1953.
Fox, Harold George. The Canadian Law of Trade Marks and Unfair Competition, 3rd ed. Toronto: Carswell, 1972.
Gervais, Daniel, and Elizabeth F. Judge. Intellectual Property: The Law in Canada. Toronto: Thomson/Carswell, 2005.
Gill, Kelly, and R. Scott Jolliffe. Fox on Canadian Law of Trade-marks and Unfair Competition, 4th ed. Toronto: Carswell, 2002 (loose-leaf updated 2005, release 2).
Macquarie Dictionary, rev. 3rd ed. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie Library, 2002, “Barbie doll”.
McCarthy, J. Thomas. McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, vol. 4, 4th ed. Deerfield, Ill.: Thomson/West, 1996 (loose-leaf updated December 2005, release 36).
Mostert, Frederick W. Famous and Well-Known Marks:An International Analysis. London: Butterworths, 1997.
Vaver, David. “Unconventional and Well-known Trade Marks”,  Sing. J.L.S. 1.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (Létourneau, Noël and Pelletier JJ.A.) (2005), 329 N.R. 259, 38 C.P.R. (4th) 214,  F.C.J. No. 64 (QL), 2005 FCA 13, affirming a decision of Rouleau J. (2004), 248 F.T.R. 228, 30 C.P.R. (4th) 456,  F.C.J. No. 436 (QL), 2004 FC 361, affirming a decision of the Trade-marks Opposition Board (2002), 23 C.P.R. (4th) 395,  T.M.O.B. No. 35 (QL). Appeal dismissed.
Paul D. Blanchard, Henry S. Brown, Q.C., and Lisa R. W. Vatch, for the appellant.
Sophie Picard, for the respondent.
2 Merchandising has come a long way from the days when “marks” were carved on silver goblets or earthenware jugs to identify the wares produced by a certain silversmith or potter. Their traditional role was to create a link in the prospective buyer’s mind between the product and the producer. The power of attraction of trade-marks and other “famous brand names” is now recognized as among the most valuable of business assets. However, whatever their commercial evolution, the legal purpose of trade-marks continues (in terms of s. 2 of the Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13) to be their use by the owner “to distinguish wares or services manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by him from those manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by others”. It is a guarantee of origin and inferentially, an assurance to the consumer that the quality will be what he or she has come to associate with a particular trade-mark (as in the case of the mythical “Maytag” repairman). It is, in that sense, consumer protection legislation.
3 The appellant advises that the name BARBIE and that of her “soul mate”, Ken, were borrowed by their original designer from the names of her own children. The name, as such, is not inherently distinctive of the appellant’s wares. Indeed, Barbie is a common contraction of Barbara. It is also a surname. Over the last four decades or so, however, massive marketing of the doll and accessories has created a strong secondary meaning which, in appropriate circumstances, associates BARBIE in the public mind with the appellant’s doll products.
4 The appellant’s argument is that the trade-mark BARBIE now transcends the products which originally it served to distinguish. Moreover, the appellant says, its fame goes beyond wares and services aimed at girls in the 3- to 11-year-old age group (its primary market) to the diverse products set out in various of its registrations (“[c]ologne, hand lotion and body lotion”), food products (“[s]pices, breads, cakes, cereal, coffee, crackers, flour, herbs, pies, ice cream, pizza”), as well as bicycles, backpacks, books and construction pads. Of course, nothing prevents the appellant from using its BARBIE trade-mark to boost (if it can) sales of everything from bicycles to cologne, or for that matter lawn mowers and funeral services, but the question is whether the appellant can call in aid trade-mark law to prevent other people from using a name as common as Barbie in relation to services (such as restaurants) remote to that extent from the products that gave rise to BARBIE’s fame.
5 Unlike other forms of intellectual property, the gravaman of trade-mark entitlement is actual use. By contrast, a Canadian inventor is entitled to his or her patent even if no commercial use of it is made. A playwright retains copyright even if the play remains unperformed. But in trade-marks the watchword is “use it or lose it”. In the absence of use, a registered mark can be expunged (s. 45(3)). There was no credible evidence that BARBIE has been used in Canada either by the appellant or by one of its licensees in connection with the services for which the respondent made trade-mark application, namely “restaurant services, take-out services, catering and banquet services”.
6 In opposition proceedings, trade-mark law will afford protection that transcends the traditional product lines unless the applicant shows the likelihood that registration of its mark will not create confusion in the marketplace within the meaning of s. 6 of the Trade-marks Act. Confusion is a defined term, and s. 6(2) requires the Trade-marks Opposition Board (and ultimately the court) to address the likelihood that in areas where both trade-marks are used, prospective purchasers will infer (incorrectly) that the wares and services – though not being of the same general class – are nevertheless supplied by the same person. Such a mistaken inference can only be drawn here, of course, if a link or association is likely to arise in the consumer’s mind between the source of the well-known BARBIE products and the source of the respondent’s less well-known restaurants. If there is no likelihood of a link, there can be no likelihood of a mistaken inference, and thus no confusion within the meaning of the Act.
7 The substance of the appellant’s argument (set out at para. 48 of its factum) is that “Mattel’s BARBIE trade-marks are famous in Canada and worldwide, instantly evoking the image of the brand in the minds of consumers. Having acquired such fame, marks such a…. BARBIE may 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 the owners of these famous brands” (emphasis added). Some trade-marks may have that effect, but the Board found BARBIE’s fame to be tied to dolls and doll accessories. At this stage, its fame is not enough to bootstrap a broad zone of exclusivity covering “most consumer wares and services”. The Board was not required to speculate about what might happen to the BARBIE trade-mark in the future. It was required to deal with the respondent’s application on the facts established in the evidence.
8 The appellant relies on Professor J. T. McCarthy’s dictum, discussed below, that “a relatively strong mark can leap vast product line differences at a single bound” (McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th ed. (loose-leaf)), at § 11:74). However, the evidence before the Board was that, for BARBIE, the present case was a leap too far, and that on the evidence prospective consumers will likely not infer that whoever owns the BARBIE doll trade-mark is associated in some way with the restaurants identified by the applied-for mark. This is a conclusion that was open to the Board.
9 As is permitted under s. 56(5) of the Act, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence before the applications judge about the likelihood of confusion but the proffered evidence was found to be unresponsive to the statutory test and on that account it was rightly rejected.
10 On this appeal, the Board’s decision should be upheld unless it is shown to be unreasonable. On the admissible evidence, the Board was not shown to be clearly wrong in its decision that the respondent restauranteur has established that it is not likely that prospective consumers will draw the mistaken inference. I would therefore affirm the reasonableness of the decision of the Board to accept registration of the respondent’s trade-mark and dismiss the appeal.
13 The appellant’s trade-marks enjoy an extensive worldwide reputation for dolls and accessories primarily targeted at the market of 3- to 11-year-old girls. There are some adult collectors of BARBIE doll products. By 2001, sales, promotion, and advertising of BARBIE products across Canada generated annual sales revenues of approximately $75 million, annual licensing revenues of approximately $5 million, and annual advertising expenses of approximately $5 million. The appellant describes itself in these proceedings as being “in the business of building brand equity”. Licensing of the BARBIE trade-mark is commonplace and the wares or goods to which the trade-mark is attached are growing. The appellant sees licencing of the BARBIE trade-marks as an expanding and lucrative commercial opportunity. To date, BARBIE has not been used in Canada by the appellant or any of its licensees for restaurant services, take-out services, catering and banquet services. I generally will refer to the appellant’s trade-marks collectively as the BARBIE mark.
15 The Board found that both marks possessed a relatively low degree of inherent distinctiveness as they would be perceived as a nickname for or truncation of the name Barbara. Mattel’s mark was very well known in Canada when used in association with dolls and doll accessories. The trade-mark sought to be registered by the applicant restauranteur had established some reputation in the vicinity of Montreal but the length of time of use of the marks favoured Mattel. The nature of the opponent’s wares and the applicant’s services were “quite different”. Mattel’s target market is children and, to some extent, adult collectors, whereas the applicant is in the restaurant business and its primary target market is adults. The marks were essentially the same aurally and in the ideas they suggested, and the overall visual impressions of the marks were essentially the same after the fairly non-distinctive design feature of the applicant’s mark was discounted.
16 Though the opponent (now the appellant) in this case had attempted to demonstrate a connection between food and food-related products sold under its own BARBIE trade-marks and the applicant’s restaurant services, the Board did not accept the submission that there was any real connection between the two. Although the opponent was not required to show any instances of actual confusion, and it had not done so, the absence of such evidence was only one circumstance among many to be considered.
17 In the circumstances, the Board found that the respondent’s mark was not likely to be confusing with any of Mattel’s BARBIE marks at the relevant times. The Board rejected the opposition and allowed the registration.
18 The applications judge observed that “[i]t cannot be automatically presumed that there will be confusion just because [Mattel’s BARBIE] mark is famous” (para. 40). The test was that of reasonable likelihood of confusion and the fame of a mark “could not act as a marketing trump card such that the other factors are thereby obliterated” (para. 40). All of the relevant factors listed in s. 6(5) of the Trade-marks Act had to be evaluated, and “[o]ne of the key factors in this case is the striking difference between the wares” (para. 17). He stated that “confusion is less likely when the wares are significantly different, even when the mark is well known” and that “when the wares are significantly different, this factor must be given considerable weight” (paras. 17-18). In this case, he stated “the nature of the wares, as well as the nature of the business of both parties, could not be more different” (para. 21) and “there is nothing about these restaurants that is suggestive of toys, dolls or childhood” (para. 20).
19 The applications judge rejected Mattel’s application to introduce fresh evidence in the form of a survey proffered to show the likelihood of confusion between the marks because in his view the survey “ha[d] some blatant and determinative shortcomings that undermine[d] its relevance considerably” (para. 27). The result was that the survey could not be used to establish the existence of a real likelihood of confusion. It only served to show that Mattel’s BARBIE trade-marks were indeed famous. There was no evidence of any concrete case of confusion despite the co-existence of the marks in the Montreal area for 10 years. In the result, the applications judge dismissed the appeal.
20 The appellate court concluded that no error had been committed by the applications judge in rejecting the survey evidence because of the way the survey firm had framed its questions. At best, the survey results might be probative of a possibility of confusion, which falls short of the threshold of a reasonable likelihood of confusion. In the result, the conclusion of the applications judge was agreed with. The appeal was dismissed.
21 Trade-marks are something of an anomaly in intellectual property law. Unlike the patent owner or the copyright owner, the owner of a trade-mark is not required to provide the public with some novel benefit in exchange for the monopoly. Here, the trade-mark is not even an invented word like “Kodak” or “Kleenex”. The appellant has merely appropriated a common child’s diminutive for Barbara. By contrast, a patentee must invent something new and useful. To obtain copyright, a person must add some expressive work to the human repertoire. In each case, the public through Parliament has decided it is worth encouraging such inventions and fostering new expression in exchange for a statutory monopoly (i.e. preventing anyone else from practising the invention or exploiting the copyrighted expression without permission). The trade-mark owner, by contrast, may simply have used a common name as its “mark” to differentiate its wares from those of its competitors. Its claim to monopoly rests not on conferring a benefit on the public in the sense of patents or copyrights but on serving an important public interest in assuring consumers that they are buying from the source from whom they think they are buying and receiving the quality which they associate with that particular trade-mark. Trade-marks thus operate as a kind of shortcut to get consumers to where they want to go, and in that way perform a key function in a market economy. Trade-mark law rests on principles of fair dealing. It is sometimes said to hold the balance between free competition and fair competition.
On the one hand, well-known mark owners say that people should not reap where they have not sown, that bad faith should be punished, that people who sidle up to their well-known marks are guilty of dishonest commercial practice. These vituperations lead nowhere. One might as well say that the well-known mark owner is reaping where it has not sown when it stops a trader in a geographic ormarket field remote from the owner’s fields from using the same or a similar mark uncompetitively.
(a) a mark that is used by a person for the purpose of distinguishing or so as to distinguish wares or services manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by him from those manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by other…. .
[a]ny sign, or any combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertaking…. .
24 As the Court put it in Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc.,  3 S.C.R. 302, 2005 SCC 65, a trade-mark is “a symbol of a connection between a source of a product and the product itself” (per LeBel J., at para. 39). If, as the Board found, it is not likely that even casual consumers will make a connection between the source of BARBIE dolls and the respondent’s restaurants, then the appellant’s marks have received the protection to which the law entitles them.
25 The onus remained throughout on the respondent to establish the absence of likelihood, but the Board was only required to deal with potential sources of confusion that, in the Board’s view, have about them an air of reality.
26 The appellant’s aggressive defence of trade-mark protection is, of course, understandable. It not only seeks to exploit the BARBIE “brand equity” it has worked to establish but, like all trade-mark owners, is required by law to protect its trade-marks from piracy or risk having such marks lose their distinctiveness, and, potentially their legal protection:Aladdin Industries, Inc. v. Canadian Thermos Products Ltd.,  S.C.R. 845; Breck’s Sporting Goods Co. v. Magder,  1 S.C.R. 527.
27 At common law, the appellant’s recourse would have been to commence an action for “passing off” with its roots in the law of deceit. There is a good deal of that flavour about the appellant’s complaint. In its factum, it says the respondent offered “no credible explanation” for choosing the Barbie name for its restaurants which “arouses suspicion” and should be seen as “an attempt to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the famous trade-mark”. In an action for passing off, it would have been necessary for the appellant to show that the respondent restauranteur intentionally or negligently misled consumers into believing its restaurant services originated with the appellant and that the appellant thereby suffered damage (Consumers Distributing Co. v. Seiko Time Canada Ltd.,  1 S.C.R. 583, at p. 601; Kirkbi, at para. 68). Quite apart from the issue of damages, the disparity between dolls and restaurant services would have posed, in the context of a passing-off action, an uphill battle and the appellant has not even tried to climb it.
Parliament recognized the truth of that statement in 1953 and the subsequent experience of more than 50 years has borne out its wisdom. The problem is to apply the broad principle to particular situations in a way that is fair to all concerned.
30 No doubt some famous brands possess protean power (it was submitted, for example, the distinctive red and white “Virgin” trade-mark has now been used in connection with such a diversity of wares and services that it knows virtually no bounds), but other famous marks are clearly product specific. “Apple” is said to be a well-known trade-mark associated in separate markets simultaneously with computers, a record label and automobile glass. The Board’s conclusion that BARBIE’s fame is limited to dolls and dolls’ accessories does not at all mean that BARBIE’s aura cannot transcend those products, but whether it is likely to do so or not in the context of opposition proceedings in relation to restaurant, catering and banquet services is a question of fact that depends on “all the surrounding circumstances” (s. 6(5)). Neither the “Virgin” nor “Apple” situations are before us and I make no pronouncement on either except to note them as illustrations that surfaced in the course of argument.
31 The respondent is not entitled to registration of its trade-mark unless it can demonstrate that use of both trade-marks in the same geographic area will not create the likelihood of confusion, i.e. mistaken inferencesin the marketplace. If, on a balance of probabilities, the Board is left in doubt, the application must be rejected.
32 The Board found the respondent had demonstrated that if granted, its trade-mark would be unlikely to create confusion with that of the appellant. While this is essentially a question of mixed fact and law, the appellant says the Board’s consideration was fundamentally flawed by the erroneous interpretation given to s. 6 of the Act by the Federal Court of Appeal in Pink Panther Beauty Corp. v. United Artists Corp.,  3 F.C. 534, and Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Lexus Foods Inc.,  2 F.C. 15 (“Lexus”).
…the Court examines not only the wording of the enactment conferring jurisdiction on the administrative tribunal, but the purpose of the statute creating the tribunal, the reason for its existence, the area of expertise of its members and the nature of the problem before the tribunal.
34 I turn then to the elements of the Dr. Q test.
35 The Act provides for a full right of appeal to a Federal Court judge who is authorized to receive and consider fresh evidence (ss. 56(1) and 56(5)). There is no privative clause. Where fresh evidence is admitted, it may, depending on its nature, put quite a different light on the record that was before the Board, and thus require the applications judge to proceed more by way of a fresh hearing on an extended record than a simple appeal (Philip Morris Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (No. 1) (1987), 17 C.P.R. (3d) 289 (F.C.A.)). Section 56 suggests a legislative intent that there be a full reconsideration not only of legal points but also of issues of fact and mixed fact and law, including the likelihood of confusion. See generally Molson Breweries v. John Labatt Ltd.,  3 F.C. 145 (C.A.), at paras. 46-51; Novopharm Ltd. v. Bayer Inc. (2000), 9 C.P.R. (4th) 304 (F.C.A.), at para. 4, and Garbo Creations Inc. v. Harriet Brown & Co. (1999), 3 C.P.R. (4th) 224 (F.C.T.D.).
…reliance on the Registrar’s decision that two marks are confusingly similar must not go to the extent of relieving the judge hearing an appeal from the Registrar’s decision of the responsibility of determining the issue with due regard to the circumstances of the case.
37 What this means in practice is that the decision of the registrar or Board “should not be set aside lightly considering the expertise of those who regularly make such determinations”:McDonald’s Corp. v. Silcorp Ltd. (1989), 24 C.P.R. (3d) 207 (F.C.T.D.), at p. 210, aff’d (1992), 41 C.P.R. (3d) 67 (F.C.A.). Reception of new evidence, of course, might (depending on its content) undermine the factual substratum of the Board’s decision and thus rob the decision of the value of the Board’s expertise. However, the power of the applications judge to receive and consider fresh evidence does not, in and of itself, eliminate the Board’s expertise as a relevant consideration:Lamb v. Canadian Reserve Oil & Gas Ltd.,  1 S.C.R. 517, at pp. 527-28.
38 In Dr. Q, the Chief Justice pointed out that “[a] statutory purpose that requires a tribunal to select from a range of remedial choices or administrative responses, is concerned with the protection of the public, engages policy issues, or involves the balancing of multiple sets of interests or considerations will demand greater deference from a reviewing court” (para. 31). An inquiry into the likelihood of the “mistaken inference” does not call for the exercise of discretion. Nor is the Board in this respect making public policy decisions or allocating scarce resources. Essentially, the Board is deciding a lis between the parties in a procedure that looks like an informal version of an everyday court case.
39 While the appellant frames its argument as a challenge to the correctness of the interpretation given to s. 6 by the Federal Court of Appeal in Pink Panther and Lexus, I think that in reality, for reasons which I will develop, its challenge is directed to the relative weight to be given to the s. 6(5) enumerated and unenumerated factors. The legal issue is not neatly extricable from its factual context, but calls for an interpretation within the expertise of the Board. In answer to the Bibeault question (“Did the legislator intend the question to be within the jurisdiction conferred on the tribunal?” (p. 1087)), I think the answer is yes, within reasonable limits. See also Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers),  2 S.C.R. 557, at p. 595; Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Labour Relations Board),  1 S.C.R. 157, at para. 43; Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc.,  1 S.C.R. 748, at para. 43; Moreau-Bérubé v. New Brunswick (Judicial Council),  1 S.C.R. 249, 2002 SCC 11, at para. 61.
40 Given, in particular, the expertise of the Board, and the “weighing up” nature of the mandate imposed by s. 6 of the Act, I am of the view that despite the grant of a full right of appeal the appropriate standard of review is reasonableness. The Board’s discretion does not command the high deference due, for example, to the exercise by a Minister of a discretion, where the standard typically is patent unreasonableness (e.g. C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour),  1 S.C.R. 539, 2003 SCC 29, at para. 157), nor should the Board be held to a standard of correctness, as it would be on the determination of an extricable question of law of general importance (Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),  1 S.C.R. 84, 2002 SCC 3, at para. 26). The intermediate standard (reasonableness) means, as Iacobucci J. pointed out in Ryan, at para. 46, that “[a] court will often be forced to accept that a decision is reasonable even if it is unlikely that the court would have reasoned or decided as the tribunal did.”The question is whether the Board’s decision is supported by reasons that can withstand “a somewhat probing” examination and is not “clearly wrong”:Southam, at paras. 56 and 60.
41 The foregoing analysis of the proper standard of review is consistent with the jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Appeal:see in particular Molson v. Labatt, per Rothstein J.A., at para. 51; Novopharm, per Strayer J.A., at para. 4; Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. v. United States Polo Assn. (2000), 9 C.P.R. (4th) 51, per Malone J.A., at para. 13, and Isaac J.A., at para. 10; Christian Dior, S.A. v. Dion Neckwear Ltd.,  3 F.C. 405, 2002 FCA 29, per Décary J.A., at para. 8, and Purafil, Inc. v. Purafil Canada Ltd. (2004), 31 C.P.R. (4th) 345, 2004 FC 522, per MacKay D.J., at para. 5.
– For 57 percent of the participants, BARBIE dolls came to mind when they saw the Barbie’s restaurant logo.
– 36 percent of the participants believed that the company that manufactured BARBIE dolls might have something to do with the logo of Barbie’s restaurant.
43 Until comparatively recently, evidence of public opinion polls was routinely held to be inadmissible because it purports to answer the factual component of the very issue before the Board or court (i.e. the likelihood of confusion), and in its nature it consists of an aggregate of the hearsay opinions of the people surveyed who are not made available for cross-examination, see, e.g., Building Products Ltd. v. BP Canada Ltd. (1961), 36 C.P.R. 121 (Ex. Ct.); Paulin Chambers Co. v. Rowntree Co. (1966), 51 C.P.R. 153 (Ex. Ct.). The more recent practice is to admit evidence of a survey of public opinion, presented through a qualified expert, provided its findings are relevant to the issues and the survey was properly designed and conducted in an impartial manner.
44 The principal attack on the survey evidence in this case rests on relevance. The issue in these opposition proceedings is 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 by this sign or logo?” (emphasis added)) addresses the wholly different issue of possibilities. If the survey is not responsive to the point at issue, it is irrelevant and should (as the Federal Court of Appeal held) be excluded on that ground alone.
45 As to the usefulness of the results, assuming they are elicited by a relevant question, courts have more recently been receptive to such evidence, provided the survey is both reliable (in the sense that if the survey were repeated it would likely produce the same results) and valid (in the sense that the right questions have been put to the right pool of respondents in the right way, in the right circumstances to provide the information sought). See Canadian Schenley Distilleries Ltd. v. Canada’s Manitoba Distillery Ltd. (1975), 25 C.P.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.T.D.), at p. 9; Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Ltd. v. Seagram Real Estate Ltd. (1990), 33 C.P.R. (3d) 454 (F.C.T.D.); Walt Disney Productions v. Fantasyland Hotel Inc. (1994), 20 Alta. L.R. (3d) 146 (Q.B.). Thus, in Cartier Inc. v. Cartier Optical Ltd. (1988), 20 C.P.R. (3d) 68 (F.C.T.D.), the court accepted as helpful a survey found to be properly designed and impartially administered and whose findings were directly relevant to the likelihood of confusion. This was also the case in Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Sunlife Juice Ltd. (1988), 22 C.P.R. (3d) 244 (Ont. H.C.J.).
(iv) where the survey had not been carried out in an impartial and independent manner:Unitel Communications, per Gibson J., at para. 120.
(iii) the survey methodology included questions suggestive of the answers the appellant apparently wanted to hear.
(5) On an appeal under subsection (1), evidence in addition to that adduced before the Registrar may be adduced and the Federal Court may exercise any discretion vested in the Registrar.
The use of the word “might” (or “pourrait”) in the survey question was directed to a mere possibility, rather than a probability, of confusion. The respondents who answered “yes” to this question may merely have believed that it was within the realm of possibility that the appellant had something to do with the restaurant, rather than actually inferring from the trade-marks that it was likely that the two trade-marks represented wares or services emanating from the same source. It is relevant if even a limited percentage of the population surveyed is confused, but evidence that a lot of people might or could possibly make the mistaken inference is not. The other grounds of objection go to the weight rather than to admissibility of the survey evidence and, subject to assessing that weight (or the lack of it), the survey evidence could have been admitted over the respondent’s other objections. Lack of relevance, however, was fatal.
50 At most, the proferred survey indicated that the BARBIE trade-mark is well known. Even without the survey however, the courts below were content to proceed on the basis that BARBIE is a “well known” if not “famous” mark, and I do so as well.
This is not to say the nature of the wares or services is irrelevant. Section 6(5)(c) specifically identifies “the nature of the wares, services or business” as a relevant consideration. The point of the underlined words in s. 6(2) is simply to lay it down in clear terms that the general class of wares and services, while relevant, is not controlling.
52 It is also relevant that the appellant’s mark is symbolic of wares while the respondent’s applied-for mark identifies services. It is possible to have confusion between the source of wares and services (Building Products) but that distinction, as well, is but one of the surrounding circumstances that may be taken into consideration.
53 The appellant argued that the courts below erred in looking at the respondent’s actual operations rather than at the terms set out in its application for the proposed trade-mark. It is quite true that the proper focus is the terms of the application, because what is at issue is what the registration would authorize the respondent to do, not what the respondent happens to be doing at the moment. Still, the appellant itself led a great deal of evidence (as is the practice) about the actual operation of the respondent’s restaurants, including many photographs, numerous sample menus and clippings of various advertisements. In these circumstances, it is not surprising that the Board and the applications judge felt it appropriate to comment on the respondent’s operation, based largely on the evidence the appellant itself had adduced. That said, I do not think the Board or the courts below were under misapprehension about the nature of the dispute. The terms of the respondent’s application (“restaurant services, take-out services, catering and banquet services”) were referred to by both the Board and the applications judge, and reading their respective reasons as a whole, I do not think they misapprehended the question before them.
54 Within the “all the surrounding circumstances” test, s. 6(5) of the Act lists five factors to be considered when making a determination as to whether or not a trade-mark is confusing. These are: “(a) the inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks or trade-names and the extent to which they have become known; (b) the length of time the trade-marks or trade-names have been in use; (c) the nature of the wares, services or business; (d) the nature of the trade; and (e) the degree of resemblance between the trade-marks or trade-names in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them”. The list of circumstances is not exhaustive and different circumstances will be given different weight in a context-specific assessment. See Gainers Inc. v. Marchildon (1996), 66 C.P.R. (3d) 308 (F.C.T.D.).In opposition proceedings, as stated, the onus is on the applicant (here the respondent) to show on a balance of probabilities that there is no likelihood of confusion.
55 Evidence of actual confusion would be a relevant “surrounding circumstance” but is not necessary (Christian Dior, at para. 19) even where trade-marks are shown to have operated in the same market area for ten years:Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Amandista Investments Ltd. (1987), 19 C.P.R. (3d) 3 (F.C.A.). Nevertheless, as discussed below, an adverse inference may be drawn from the lack of such evidence in circumstances where it would readily be available if the allegation of likely confusion was justified.
When assessing the issue of confusion, the trade marks at issue must be considered from the point of view of the average hurried consumer having an imperfectrecollection of the opponent’s mark who might encounter the trade mark of the applicant in association with the applicant’s wares in the market-place.
That does not mean a rash, careless or unobservant purchaser on the one hand, nor on the other does it mean a person of higher education, one possessed of expert qualifications. It is the probability of the average person endowed with average intelligence acting with ordinary caution being deceived that is the criterion and to measure that probability of confusionthe Registrar of Trade Marks or the Judge must assess the normal attitudes and reactions of such persons.
…one must not proceed on the assumption that the prospective customers or members of the public generally are completely devoid of intelligence or of normal powers of recollection or are totally unaware or uninformed as to what goes on around them.
58 A consumer does not of course approach every purchasing decision with the same attention, or lack of it. When buying a car or a refrigerator, more care will naturally be taken than when buying a doll or a mid-priced meal:General Motors Corp. v. Bellows,  S.C.R. 678. In the case of buying ordinary run-of-the-mill consumer wares and services, this mythical consumer, though of average intelligence, is generally running behind schedule and has more money to spend than time to pay a lot of attention to details. In appropriate markets, such a person is assumed to be functionally bilingual: Four Seasons Hotels Ltd. v. Four Seasons Television Network Inc. (1992), 43 C.P.R. (3d) 139 (T.M.O.B.). To those mythical consumers, the existence of trade-marks or brands make shopping decisions faster and easier. The law recognizes that at the time the new trade-mark catches their eye, they will have only a general and not very precise recollection of the earlier trade-mark, famous though it may be or, as stated in Coca-Cola Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Pepsi-Cola Co. of Canada Ltd.,  2 D.L.R. 657 (P.C.), “as it would be remembered by persons possessed of an average memory with its usual imperfections” (p. 661). The standard is not that of people “who never notice anything” but of persons who take no more than “ordinary care to observe that which is staring them in the face”: Coombe v. Mendit Ld. (1913), 30 R.P.C. 709 (Ch. D.), at p. 717. However, if ordinary casual consumers somewhat in a hurry are likely to be deceived about the origin of the wares or services, then the statutory test is met.
(2) Did Pink Panther Skew the Test?
59 The argument for the appellant is that in the case of a famous mark like BARBIE the words in s. 6(2) “whether or not the wares or services are of the same general class” take on added significance. Pink Panther, it is said, laid undue weight on the similarity or dissimilarity of the wares and services. Modern commerce is driven to a significant extent by famous brands. The Virgin conglomerate, appellant’s counsel argues, has diversified from records to airlines to insurance to superstores. The marketing strategy predicts that very different services will benefit from cross-selling. The message is that the people who can fly you cheaply across the Atlantic can probably get you a good deal on your house insurance. The same, he suggests, is true of BARBIE.
60 The appellant is correct that, following introduction of the 1953 amendment, “famous brands” received a significantly broader ambit of protection. In some cases, the courts emphasized that a significant dissimilarity in wares or services was no longer fatal. Thus, in Carson v. Reynolds,  2 F.C. 685 (T.D.), it was held that the use of the mark “Here’s Johnny” for portable trailers, outhouses and lavatory facilities would likely suggest to a “significant number of people in Canada” (p. 690), a connection with Johnny Carson and the Tonight Show. In John Walker & Sons Ltd. v. Steinman (1965), 44 C.P.R. 58, the Registrar of the Trade Marks refused an application for the mark “Johnny Walker” for sporting equipment over a prior registration of the mark “Johnnie Walker” for whisky. In James Burrough Ltd. v. Reckitt & Colman (Canada) Ltd. (1967), 53 C.P.R. 276 (Reg. T.M.), the owner of the mark “Beefeaters” for gin defeated an application to trade-mark “Beefeater” for sauce mixes, Yorkshire pudding mixes, spices and condiments. In Leaf Confections Ltd. v. Maple Leaf Gardens Ltd.(1986), 12 C.P.R. (3d) 511 (F.C.T.D.), aff’d (1988), 19 C.P.R. (3d) 331 (F.C.A.), the Federal Court, Trial Division rejected an application to register a mark consisting of the word “leaf” in a maple leaf for bubble gum because of the likelihood of confusion with the Toronto Maple Leafs, the judge holding that “I am convinced that a young person seeing bubble gum packaged in a wrapper which bore as its principal identifying mark the appellant’s LEAF & Design would be misled into thinking that the product was associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey club and would confuse the appellant’s mark and design with those of the respondent” (p. 521). In Danjaq, S.A. v. Zervas (1997), 75 C.P.R. (3d) 295 (F.C.T.D.), the court refused to allow a pizza shop to register the trade-marks “007”, “007 Pizza & Subs and Design” and “007 Submarine and Design” because of the likelihood it would lead to confusion with the respondent’s trade-mark related to the famous and irresistible James Bond.
The wide scope of protection afforded by the fame of the appellant’s mark only becomes relevant when applying it to a connection between the applicant’s and the opponent’s trade and services. No matter how famous a mark is, it cannot be used to create a connection that does not exist.
…in each case a connection or similarity in the products or services was found. Where no such connection is established, it is very difficult to justify the extension of property rights into areas of commerce that do not remotely affect the trade-mark holder. Only in exceptional circumstances, if ever, should this be the case.
…the issue to be decided is not how famous the mark is, but whether there is a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the average consumer between United Artists’ mark and the one proposed by the appellant with respect to the goods and services specified. That question must be answered in the negative. There is no likelihood of confusion as to the source of the products. The key factor here is the gaping divergence in the nature of the wares and in the nature of the trade. It is not a fissure but a chasm.
The totality of the circumstances will dictate how each consideration should be treated.
The use of the phrase “whether or not the wares or services are of the same general class” as used in subsections 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4) does not mean that the nature of the wares is irrelevant in determining confusion; they suggest only that confusion may be generated with goods that are not in the “same general class”, but still have some resemblance or linkage to the wares in question.
65 I believe Linden J.A. misspoke to the extent he suggested that, for confusion to occur, there must be “some resemblance or linkage to the wares in question”, i.e. to the wares for which registration of a trade-mark is sought. Resemblance is clearly not a requirement under s. 6. On the contrary, the point of the legislative addition of the words “whether or not the wares or services are of the same general class” conveyed Parliament’s intent that not only need there be no “resemblance” to the specific wares or services, but the wares or services marketed by the opponent under its mark and the wares or services marketed by the applicant under its applied-for mark need not even be of the same general class.
66 The International Trademark Association, which intervened in the Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltée,  1 S.C.R. 824, 2006 SCC 23 appeal, heard concurrently, said with respect to the Pink Panther and Lexus decisions that the Court of Appeal “made the same error in both cases of requiring a connection between the wares and services when the real issue in a s. 6 analysis is consumer confusion” (factum, at para. 30).
[t]he fact that the opponent’s mark was world-renowned could not be a factor so important as to make the differences in wares and services irrelevant.
[c]ollectors of engraved, high quality shotguns may, for instance, be few and far between in any given country but the PURDEY mark is undoubtedly exceptionally well-known among the circle of such shotgun cognoscenti.
Even so, I doubt that even the cognoscenti would think the world famous shotgun specialist is likely associated with the well-known Vancouver purveyor of chocolates, such is the divergence in the type of wares and channels of trade.
71 To the extent Linden J.A. held that the difference in wares or services will always be a dominant consideration, I disagree with him, but given the role and function of trade-marks, it will generally be an important consideration. The appellant contends that some of Linden J.A.’s obiter statements can be read virtually to require a “resemblance” between the respective wares and services. In that respect, the obiter should not be followed.
72 On a more general level, however, it seems to me that it is the appellant, not the Federal Court of Appeal, which seeks to sidestep the “all the surrounding circumstances” test in the case of a famous trade-mark and place fame in the ascendent. I agree with theappellant that a difference in wares or services does not deliver the knockout blow, but nor does the fame of the trade-mark. Each situation must be judged in its full factual context.
[g]iven current marketing practices, such as the increasing use of character merchandising on a broader range of goods outside the typical entertainment field, consumers may come to expect (or at least not be surprised) that a single company will be selling disparate products (like shampoo and movies) and the likelihood of confusion when similar marks are used on different products may increase.
Be that as it may, the view is correct that “all of the surrounding circumstances” must be taken into consideration but that, in some cases, some circumstances (such as the difference in wares) will carry greater weight than others.
74 It follows from the foregoing discussion that, while the fame of the BARBIE brand is a “surrounding circumstance” of importance, the scope of its protection requires consideration of all the circumstances, including the enumerated s. 6(5) factors. The Board found that while the BARBIE trade-mark is indeed famous, its fame in Canada is “in association with dolls and doll accessories”, not the other items listed in the appellant’s registrations, including coffee, pizza and other food products. Nor, in particular, is its fame likely to generate any confusion in relation to the mark applied for by the respondent as a symbol of “restaurant services, take-out services, catering and banquet services”. It is important to keep in mind, as the appellant says, that the issue is not the scope of the respondent’s existing business but the scope of protection it seeks by its trade-mark application.
75 “Distinctiveness is of the very essence and is the cardinal requirement of a trade-mark”: Western Clock Co. v. Oris Watch Co.,  Ex. C.R. 64, per Audette J., at p. 67. The word “Barbie” is an everyday expression not originated by the appellant, and on that account would normally receive less protection “than in the case of an invented or unique or non-descriptive word” (like Kleenex), per Rand J. in General Motors, at p. 691, to which one might add:“No person is entitled to fence in the common of the English or French languages and words of a general nature cannot be appropriated over a wide area”:K. Gill and R. S. Jolliffe, Fox on Canadian Law of Trade-marks and Unfair Competition (4th ed. (loose-leaf)), at p. 8-56. I accept, as discussed earlier, that BARBIE has now acquired a strong secondary meaning associated with the appellant’s doll products, and on that account has achieved considerable distinctiveness. While the mark as registered is just the plain word BARBIE, its use in advertising and packaging is accompanied with distinctive designs and graphics.
76 The mark applied for by the respondent has become somewhat known within the area where both parties’ marks are used. Its applied-for trade-mark is not only the word “Barbie’s” but the totality of the effect, including the script in which it is written, and the surrounding design:Henry K. Wampole & Co. v. Hervay Chemical Co. of Canada,  S.C.R. 336, and British Drug Houses, Ltd. v. Battle Pharmaceuticals,  Ex. C.R. 239. In assessing the issue of confusion, attention should be paid to the differences as well as the similarities in the marks said to be confusing. However, as none of the s. 6(5) circumstances “trump” the others, this is but one consideration to be weighed in the balance of “all the surrounding circumstances”.
77 Dr. Fox noted that “[l]ength of user is only important in considering the question of fact, whether the trade mark has really and truly become distinctive”: H. G. Fox, The Canadian Law of Trade Marks and Unfair Competition (3rd ed. 1972), at p. 133. The appellant’s marks have been widely publicized since the early 1960s, the respondent’s only since 1992. The appellant’s mark has deeper roots, and has been much more highly publicized over a much larger geographic area.
Barbie doll /…/ noun Colloquial a female who is superficially attractive in a conventional way, especially with blue eyes and blonde hair, but who lacks personality.
In that regard the association of the BARBIE doll with food might be taken as a warning of blandness.
81 The appellant relies on s. 50(1) of the Act which states that provided the trade-mark owner retains direct or indirect control of the character or quality of the wares or services use by the licensee is deemed to have the same effect as use by the owner. Acknowledging this to be so, it is also true that profligate use by the owner alone can destroy the distinctiveness of the mark, and licences granted too widely and unwisely may aggravate its problem. Nevertheless, the recognition in our society that “famous brands” are widely licenced for wares and services not traditionally associated with the mark must be kept in mind as another “surrounding circumstance”.
I do not agree with this proposition. In my view, consideration of future events and possibilities of diversification is properly restricted to the potential expansion of existing operations. It should not include speculation as to diversification into entirely new ventures, involving new kinds of wares, services or businesse…. .
83 The point, I think, is that the law of trade-marks is based on use. In an earlier era it was not possible to register a “proposed” use. Here, expansion of the BARBIE mark is more than just speculation, but if the BARBIE mark is not famous for anything but dolls and doll accessories in the area where both marks are used and there is no evidence that BARBIE’s licensees, whoever they may be, are in the marketplace using the BARBIE mark for “restaurant services, take-out services, catering and banquet services”, it is difficult to see the basis on which the mistaken inference is likely to be drawn.
85 This assessment is supported by the evidence. The appellant’s real complaint is that the Board’s negative view on this point was given too much weight in the Board’s “weighing up” of “all the surrounding circumstances”.
86 The parties operate in different and distinct channels of trade within which theirrespective wares and services do not intermingle. In McDonald’s Corp. v. Coffee Hut Stores Ltd., at p. 474, McKeown J. pointed out that even though both parties sold coffee, a specialty coffee store occupies a different market niche than a fast food outlet (aff’d (1996), 68 C.P.R. (3d) 168 (F.C.A.)). The nature and kind of customer who would be likely to buy the respective wares and services has long been considered a relevant circumstance: General Motors, at p. 692; Gill and Jolliffe, at pp. 8-38 to 8-40.
87 In the present case, quite apart from the great difference between the appellant’s wares and the respondent’s services, they occupy different channels of trade and the increased potential for confusion that might arise through intermingling in a single channel of trade does not present a serious problem.
88 Both marks use the name “Barbie” but the respondent’s applied-for mark wraps the name in a design, whereas the appellant’s mark as registered does not. On the other hand, if the appellant’s mark as used in packaging and advertising is taken into account, there is a considerable resemblance.
While the relevant issue is “likelihood of confusion” and not “actual confusion”, the lack of “actual confusion” is a factor which the courts have found of significance when determining the “likelihood of confusion”. An adverse inference may be drawn when concurrent use on the evidence is extensive, yet no evidence of confusion has been given by the opponent.
I agree. The lack of any evidence of actual confusion (i.e. that prospective consumers are drawing the mistaken inference) is another of the “surrounding circumstances” to be thrown into the hopper:Pepsi-Cola Co. of Canada, Ltd. v. Coca-Cola Co. of Canada, Ltd.,  S.C.R. 17, at p. 30; General Motors Corp. v. Bellows,  Ex. C.R. 568, at p. 577, aff’d  S.C.R. 678; Freed & Freed Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks,  Ex. C.R. 431; Monsport Inc. v. Vêtements de Sport Bonnie (1978) Ltée (1988), 22 C.P.R. (3d) 356 (F.C.T.D.), at p. 360; Multiplicant Inc. v. Petit Bateau Valton S.A. (1994), 55 C.P.R. (3d) 372 (F.C.T.D.), at p. 379.
90 The appellant contended in effect that the respondent was a deliberate free rider who had no reasonable explanation for adopting its trade-mark. The obvious conclusion, argues the appellant, is that the respondent seeks to register a mark which is designed to pirate whatever goodwill it can from the mark of the appellant. It points to a subsequent trade-mark application by the respondent (now abandoned) that included in its design the head and shoulders of a female waitress with a “B” monogram on her blouse. It seems to me there is some justice to this complaint, but the relevant perspective of s. 6(2) of the Trade-marks Act is not that of the respondent but rather the perception of the relevant mythical consumer. Mens rea is of little relevance to the issue of confusion: Lexus. It has been established since Edelsten v. Edelsten (1863), 1 De G. J. & S. 185, 46 E.R. 72, at pp. 78-79, that a trade-mark is a proprietary right. If, as the appellant says, the respondent’s activities have trespassed on the marketing territory fenced off by its BARBIE trade-marks, it would be no defence for the respondent that it did not intend to trespass. Equally, however, if the respondent’s activities did not in fact trespass, evidence that it may have wished to do so does not constitute confusion: Fox, at p. 403. Historically, courts have been slow to conclude that a demonstrated piratical intent has failed to achieve its purpose, but in this case no such intent was found as a fact by the Board.
91 The Board held that, notwithstanding the fame of the appellant’s trade-mark, it was satisfied by the respondent that there was no likelihood of confusion in the marketplace having regard to all the surrounding circumstances. In the absence of fresh evidence to shed further light on the correctness of this conclusion, I would not be prepared to say that in reaching its conclusion the Board was unreasonable.
92 The appeal will therefore be dismissed with costs.
93 LeBel J. – I agree that Mattel’s appeal should be dismissed. The Trade-marks Opposition Board at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office had to weigh a number of factors in its assessment of the distinctiveness of the two marks. Its decision was entitled to deference, but had to be reasonable. On the facts of this case, as demonstrated by the analysis of the legal and factual issues in the reasons of Binnie J., I agree that the decision of the Board was indeed reasonable ((2002), 23 C.P.R. (4th) 395).
For the purposes of this Act, a trade-mark or trade-name is confusing with another trade-mark or trade-name if the use of the first mentioned trade-mark or trade-name would cause confusion with the last mentioned trade-mark or trade-name in the manner and circumstances described in this section.
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.
No person shall use a trade-mark registered by another person in a manner that is likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching thereto.
In any action in respect of a use of a trade-mark contrary to subsection (1), the court may decline to order the recovery of damages or profits and may permit the defendant to continue to sell wares marked with the trade-mark that were in his possession or under his control at the time notice was given to him that the owner of the registered trade-mark complained of the use of the trade-mark.
Solicitors for the appellant: Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa.
Solicitors for the respondent: Desjardins Ducharme, Montréal.
*Major J. took no part in the judgment.
This page has been generated using Mincov Legal Markup Language (“MLML”). While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and currency of this document, Mincov Law Corporation makes no warranty, representation or undertaking, expressed or implied, nor does it assume any liability, direct or indirect, or responsibility for the accuracy, currency, usefulness or continued availability of this document.The official version of this document is located at http://scc.lexum.org/en/2006/2006scc22/2006scc22.html.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 15
 § 11
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.