Alticor Inc. v. Nutravite Pharmaceuticals Inc., (2003) 235 F.T.R. 53 (TD)

• Judge: Kelen, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 26, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 235 F.T.R. 53 (TD)

Alticor Inc. v. Nutravite Pharmaceuticals (2003), 235 F.T.R. 53 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.047

Alticor Inc. (applicant) v. Nutravite Pharmaceuticals Inc. (respondent)

(T-653-01; 2003 FCT 718)

Indexed As: Alticor Inc. v. Nutravite Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Kelen, J.

June 9, 2003.

Summary:

The Registrar of Trademarks refused the applicant's opposition to the respondent's application for the trademark "Nutravita" for use in association with vitamins, minerals and herbs for retail sale through drug stores, pharmacies and health food stores. The applicant appealed.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the appeal.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Distinctive marks - General - The Registrar of Trademarks refused the applicant's opposition to the respondent's application for the trademark "Nutravita" for use in association with vitamins, minerals and herbs for retail sale based upon a negative decision of the Trademarks Opposition Board - The applicant argued that "Nutravita" was confusing with its trademark "Nutrilite" and lacked distinctiveness - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the applicant's appeal - The determining factor was the lack of distinctiveness of "Nutrilite" and the high number of marks with the prefix "Nutr-" that were registered respecting the same wares - Customers of vitamins, minerals and herbal products were accustomed to making minor distinctions between wares bearing the prefix "Nutr-" and would not be confused between wares bearing the parties' trademarks.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 706

Trademarks - Registration - General - Conditions precedent - Lack of confusion with other marks - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. 17].

Dion Neckwear Ltd. v. Christian Dior, S.A. et al., [2002] 3 F.C. 405; 286 N.R. 336 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Sunbeam Products Inc. v. Mister Coffee & Services Inc., [2001] F.T.R. Uned. 781; 16 C.P.R.(4th) 53 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Rowntree Co. v. Paulin Chambers Co., [1968] S.C.R. 134; 54 C.P.R. 43, refd to. [para. 19].

Battle Pharmaceuticals v. British Drug Houses Ltd., [1946] S.C.R. 50; 5 C.P.R. 71, refd to. [para. 19].

Polysar v. Gesco Distributing Ltd. (1985), 6 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

United Artists Corp. v. Pink Panther Beauty Corp. et al., [1998] 3 F.C. 534; 225 N.R. 82 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Molson Breweries, A Partnership v. Labatt Brewing Co. (1996), 115 F.T.R. 33; 68 C.P.R.(3d) 202 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Culinar v. Mountain Cholcates Ltd. (1998), 86 C.P.R.(3d) 251 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

Compulife Software Inc. v. Compuoffice Software Inc. (2001), 205 F.T.R. 283 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Amandista Investments Ltd., [1988] 3 F.C. 91; 81 N.R. 257; 19 C.P.R.(3d) 3 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Harrod's Ltd. Application, Re (1934), 52 R.P.C. 65, refd to. [para. 25].

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. 25].

Haskett v. Queenswear International Ltd. (1997), 137 F.T.R. 241; 74 C.P.R.(3d) 472 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28].

Kellogg Salada Canada Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Maximum Nutrition Ltd., [1992] 3 F.C. 442; 145 N.R. 131; 43 C.P.R.(3d) 349 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Amway Corp. v. Nutravite Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1997), 84 C.P.R.(3d) 276 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

Boston Pizza International Inc. v. Boston Chicken Inc. (2003), 301 N.R. 190 (F.C.A.), reving. in part (2001), 211 F.T.R. 106; 15 C.P.R.(4th) 345 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 33].

Standard Coil Products (Canada) Ltd. v. Standard Radio Corp., [1971] 1 F.C. 106 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 35].

Prince Edward Island Mutual Insurance Co. v. Insurance Co. of Prince Edward Island (1999), 159 F.T.R. 112; 86 C.P.R.(3d) 342 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36].

Counsel:

Diane E. Cornish, for the applicant;

Marcus Gallie and Lisa Reynolds, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Ridout & Maybee, LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 26, 2003, by Kelen, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who released the following decision on June 9, 2003.