Boston Pizza International Inc. v. Boston Chicken Inc., (2001) 211 F.T.R. 106 (TD)

• Judge: Nadon, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 06, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 211 F.T.R. 106 (TD)

Boston Pizza Intl. v. Boston Chicken (2001), 211 F.T.R. 106 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.003

Boston Pizza International Inc. (applicant) v. Boston Chicken Inc. (respondent)

(T-677-95; 2001 FCT 1024)

Indexed As: Boston Pizza International Inc. v. Boston Chicken Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Nadon, J.

September 17, 2001.

Summary:

Boston Pizza International Inc. applied to expunge the trademarks "Boston Chicken" and the "Boston Chicken" design.

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

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.5

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Confusion - A trademark owner applied to expunge the respondent's trademark on the basis of confusion - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "[t]he use of a trade-mark will cause confusion with another trade-mark if the use of both trade-marks, in the same area, would likely 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. In determining whether confusion is likely, this Court is to have regard to all of the surrounding circumstances, including the criteria set out at subsection 6(5) of the [Trade-marks] Act." - See paragraph 62.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.5

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Confusion - Boston Pizza, owner of the trademark "Boston Pizza" applied to expunge the trademark "Boston Chicken" - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, considered that (1) although neither mark was inherently distinctive, "Boston Pizza" had acquired distinctiveness through long use; (2) length of use favoured Boston Pizza; (3) the parties' services overlapped; (4) the marks related to different food styles; and (5) significant use of "Boston" by third parties - The court dismissed the application where consumers had been conditioned not to look at "Boston", but to "Pizza" and "Chicken" to distinguish the marks - Accordingly, at the time of "Boston Chicken's" registration there was no likelihood of confusion - See paragraphs 61 to 77.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1719

Trademarks - Licensing - Effect of use of trademark by licensee - Boston Pizza, owner of the trademark "Boston Pizza" applied to expunge the trademark "Boston Chicken" - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that Boston Pizza met the requirement of s. 50(1) of the Trade-marks Act, in that it exercised control, through its licensing agreement, of the character or quality of the wares and services associated with the use of "Boston Pizza" by franchisees and the franchisees' use was deemed to have been Boston Pizza's use - See paragraphs 51 to 60.

Cases Noticed:

We Care Health Services Inc., Re, [1995] T.M.O.B. No. 39 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 17].

Boston Pizza International v. Boston Seafood House Ltd. (1988), 23 C.P.R.(3d) 564 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 23].

Foodcorp. Ltd. v. Hardee's Food Systems Inc. (1981), 66 C.P.R.(2d) 217 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 23].

Restaurant Au Chalet Suisse Inc. v. Cara Operations Ltd. (1988), 20 C.P.R.(3d) 331 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 23].

Old Spaghetti Factory Canada Ltd. v. Spaghetti House Restaurants Ltd. (1999), 2 C.P.R.(4th) 398 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 23].

Conde Nast Publications Inc. v. Union des éditions modernes (1980), 46 C.P.R.(2d) 183 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Everex Systems Inc. v. Everdata Computer Inc. (1992), 56 F.T.R. 132; 44 C.P.R.(3d) 175 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Petro-Canada v. UPI Inc., [2000] T.M.O.B. No. 32 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 28].

Williams Companies Inc. v. Willam Tel. Ltd., [1999] T.M.O.B. No. 240 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 29].

Cheung Kong (Holdings) Ltd. v. Living Realty Inc. (1999), 179 F.T.R. 161; 4 C.P.R.(4th) 71 (T.D.), dist. [para. 31].

MCI Communications Corp. v. MCI Multinet Communications Inc. (1995), 61 C.P.R.(3d) 245 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), dist. [para. 31].

Foodcorp v. Chalet Bar B Q (Canada) Inc. et al. (1982), 47 N.R. 172; 66 C.P.R.(2d) 56 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

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

United Artists Corp. v. Pink Panther Beauty Corp. et al. (1998), 225 N.R. 82; 80 C.P.R.(3d) 247 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

California Fashion Industries Inc. v. Reitmans (Canada) Ltd. (1991), 48 F.T.R. 251; 38 C.P.R.(3d) 439 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36].

Lassonde (A.) Inc. v. v. Registraire des marques de commerce (2000), 180 F.T.R. 177; 5 C.P.R.(4th) 517 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 36].

General Motors v. Bellow (1949), 10 C.P.R. 101 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 36].

Walt Disney Productions v. Fantasyland (1994), 154 A.R. 161; 56 C.P.R.(3d) 129 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37].

Ikea Ltd. v. Idea Design Ltd. and Mortimore (No. 1) (1987), 8 F.T.R. 215; 13 C.P.R.(3d) 476 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 42].

Sunshine Village Corp. v. Sun Peaks Resort Corp., [2000] T.M.O.B. No. 102 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 42].

Phantom Industries Inc. v. Sara Lee Corp., [2000] T.M.O.B. No. 112 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 42].

United States Polo Association v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., [2000] F.C.J. No. 1472 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Baylor University v. Hudson's Bay Co. (2000), 257 N.R. 231 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Techniquip Ltd. v. Canadian Olympic Association (1999), 250 N.R. 302; 3 C.P.R.(3d) 298 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Canadian Olympic Association v. Olymel, Société en commandité, [2000] F.C.J. No. 842 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 47].

Morris (Philip) Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (1987), 81 N.R. 28; 17 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Counsel:

Gregory Harney and Andrew Morrison, for the applicant;

Glen Bloom, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Shields Harney, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the applicant;

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

Nadon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, heard this application at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 6, 2001, and delivered the following reasons for order on September 17, 2001.