Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Farleyco Marketing Inc., 2009 FC 153

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 03, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2009 FC 153;(2009), 342 F.T.R. 224 (FC)

Advance Magazine v. Farleyco Marketing (2009), 342 F.T.R. 224 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.043

Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. (applicant) v. Farleyco Marketing Inc. (respondent)

(T-1490-07; 2009 FC 153)

Indexed As: Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Farleyco Marketing Inc.

Federal Court

Russell, J.

February 12, 2009.

Summary:

Farleyco Marketing Inc. applied to register the trademark "GHOULISH GLAMOUR" to be used in association with "Halloween cosmetics and eyelash accessories". Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. opposed registration based on its longstanding trademarks for "GLAMOUR" which was registered for use in association with a periodical magazine and a variety of related print and electronic wares and services. The Registrar of Trademarks found that Advance had not met the onus required by s. 16(3) of the Trade-marks Act for its opposition to Farleyco's trademark application for "GHOULISH GLAMOUR". Advance appealed.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 706

Trademarks - Registration - General - Conditions precedent - Lack of confusion with other marks - Farleyco Marketing Inc. applied to register the trademark "GHOULISH GLAMOUR" to be used in association with "Halloween cosmetics and eyelash accessories" - Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. opposed registration based on its longstanding trademarks for "GLAMOUR" which was registered for use in association with a periodical magazine and a variety of related print and electronic wares and services - The Registrar of Trademarks found that Advance had not met the onus required by s. 16(3) of the Trade-marks Act for its opposition to Farleyco's trademark application - The Registrar found that Farleyco had satisfied its onus to show that, on a balance of probabilities, confusion was unlikely - That was primarily because of the inherent weakness of Advance's mark and the difference between the parties' marks, wares and channels of trade - Advance's evidence fell far short of demonstrating that its "GLAMOUR" mark was entitled to a scope of protection that was broad enough to render Farleyco's mark unregistrable - Advance appealed - The Federal Court, considering the matter anew on the basis of new evidence, agreed that Farleyco had discharged its burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that confusion between the marks was unlikely - The court, therefore, dismissed the appeal.

Cases Noticed:

Morris (Philip) Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (1987), 81 N.R. 28; 17 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Mattel Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 772; 348 N.R. 340, refd to. [para. 12].

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. 12].

Maison Cousin (1980) Inc. v. Cousins Submarines Inc. (2006), 366 N.R. 153; 60 C.P.R.(4th) 369; 2006 FCA 409, refd to. [para. 12].

Miss Universe Inc. v. Bohna, [1995] 1 F.C. 614; 176 N.R. 35; 58 C.P.R.(3d) 381 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Molson Breweries v. Schenley Canada Inc. (1991), 36 C.P.R.(3d) 543 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 31].

Maximum Nutrition Ltd. v. Kellogg Salada Canada Inc. (1985), 7 C.P.R.(3d) 520 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 42].

Perks Coffee Ltd. v. Blue Tree Hotels Investment (Canada) Ltd. (2006), 51 C.P.R.(4th) 462 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 42].

UFO Contemporary Inc. v. Polo/Lauren Co., L.P. (2007), 60 C.P.R.(4th) 262 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 42].

Del Monte Corp. v. Welch Foods Inc. (1992), 56 F.T.R. 249; 44 C.P.R.(3d) 205 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

Conde Nast Publications Inc. v. Hanz Schwarzkopf GmbH (1988), 20 C.P.R.(3d) 176 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 43].

Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Masco Building Products Corp. (1999), 162 F.T.R. 232; 86 C.P.R.(3d) 207 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 43].

Ross (Frank T.) & Sons (1962) Ltd. v. de Leeuw (1997), 77 C.P.R.(3d) 51 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 48].

Kellogg Salada Canada Inc. v. Registrar of Trade-marks and Maximum Nutrition Ltd. (1992), 145 N.R. 131; 43 C.P.R.(3d) 349 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Monsport Inc. v. Vêtements de Sport Bonnie (1978) Ltée. (1988), 22 C.P.R.(3d) 356 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 62].

Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot ltée et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 824; 349 N.R. 111; 2006 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 66].

Conde Nest Publications Inc. v. Union des éditions modernes (1979), 46 C.P.R.(2d) 183 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 74].

Pepsi-Cola Co. of Canada v. Coca-Cola of Canada, [1940] S.C.R. 17, refd to. [para. 76].

Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. 412233 Ontario Ltd. (2002), 24 C.P.R.(4th) 96 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 76].

Telus Corp. et al. v. Orange Personal Communications Services Ltd. (2005), 273 F.T.R. 228; 39 C.P.R.(4th) 389 (F.C.), affd. (2006), 346 N.R. 81; 47 C.P.R.(4th) 249 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 76].

MEXX International B.V. v. NBC Fourth Realty Corp. (2003), 33 C.P.R.(4th) 567 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 76].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 16(3) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fox, Harold George, The Canadian Law of Trademarks and Unfair Competition (4th Ed. 2002) (2007 Looseleaf Update), pp. 8-30, 8-31 [para. 29]; 8-76.11 [para. 43].

Counsel:

Kenneth McKay, for the applicant;

Brian W. Gray and Cynthia D. Mason, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Sim, Lowman, Ashton & MacKay LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Ogilvy Renault LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on December 3, 2008, before Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 12, 2009, in Ottawa, Ontario.