Ayotte et al. v. Aliments Trans Gras Inc., (1990) 40 F.T.R. 280 (TD)

• Judge: Pinard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 09, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 40 F.T.R. 280 (TD)

Ayotte v. Aliments Trans Gras Inc. (1990), 40 F.T.R. 280 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Jean-Guy Ayotte, Viandes Transit International Ltée and Les Viandes Transbec Inc. (plaintiffs) v. Les Aliments Trans Gras Inc. (defendant)

(T-686-88)

Indexed As: Ayotte et al. v. Aliments Trans Gras Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Pinard, J.

April 9, 1990.

Summary:

The plaintiffs alleged that the use of a trade name by the defendants caused confusion with the plaintiffs' registered trademarks. The plaintiffs sued for trademark infringement and sought an injunction restraining the defendant from using its trade name.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the plaintiffs' action.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1806

Trademarks - Infringement - Test - Confusion with other mark or name - The plaintiffs owned the registered trademarks "Transit" and "Transbec" to be used in association with pickled meats - The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's use of the trade name "Les Aliments Trans Gras Inc.", in a similar business, caused confusion with the plaintiffs' trademarks (Trade Marks Act, s. 6) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed the concept of confusion and held that the plaintiffs could not establish actual confusion, nor a likelihood of confusion, between their trademarks and the defendant's trade name.

Cases Noticed:

Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Amandista Investments Ltd. (1986), 9 C.I.P.R. 164, refd to. [para. 10].

102558 Canada Limitée v. 114524 Canada Inc., [1983] C.S. 1180, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 1].

Pepsi-Cola Co. Canada Ltd. v. Coca-Cola Co. of Canada Ltd., [1939] S.C.R. 17, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 2].

Polysar Ltd. v. Gesco Distributing Ltd., 6 C.P.R.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade Marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 4(3) [para. 11]; sect. 6 [para. 9]; sect. 6(5) [para. 15]; sect. 15(2) [para. 4]; sect. 19, sect. 20 [paras. 6, 10]; sect. 50 [para. 4]; sect. 53 [para. 6].

Counsel:

Georges T. Robic and Bob H. Sotiriadis, for the plaintiffs;

Normand Jutras, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Léger, Robic & Richard, Montréal, Québec, for the plaintiffs;

Normand, Jutras et Associés, Drummondville, Québec, for the defendant.

This case was heard in Montreal, Quebec, on April 3 and 4, 1990, before Pinard, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on April 9, 1990: