Bousquet et al. v. Barmish Inc., (1991) 48 F.T.R. 122 (TD)

• Judge: Cullen, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 26, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 48 F.T.R. 122 (TD)

Bousquet v. Barmish Inc. (1991), 48 F.T.R. 122 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Jean Bousquet also known as Jean Cacharel and Jean Cacharel S.A. (applicants) v. Barmish Inc. (respondent)

(T-207-83)

Indexed As: Bousquet et al. v. Barmish Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Cullen, J.

August 26, 1991.

Summary:

The defendant obtained registration for the trademark "Cacharel", for use in association with men's pants. The plaintiff applied under s. 57 of the Trade Marks Act to expunge the defendant's trademark.

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

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 264.3

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Prohibition - Marks falsely suggesting connection with living individ­ual - The defendant, a manufacturer and seller of men's pants, obtained registration for the trademark "Cacharel", for use in association with men's pants - The plain­tiff, Jean Cacharel, was a prominent fashion designer living in France, who sold clothing, including sales in Canada, under the "Cacharel" trademark - The plaintiff, sought to expunge the defendant's trade­mark, arguing that the trademark was not registrable because it was invalid since it falsely suggested a connection with a living individual (Trade Marks Act, s. 9(1)(k)) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the plaintiff's argu­ment where the plaintiff failed to establish a significant public reputation for Jean Cacharel in Canada.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 264.3

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Prohibition - Marks falsely suggesting connection with living individ­ual - Section 9(1)(k) of the Trade Marks Act prohibited adoption of marks consist­ing of "any matter that may falsely suggest a connection with any living individual" - The plaintiff Jean Bousquet, who was widely known in the fashion world as Jean Cacharel, sought to expunge the defen­dant's trademark "Cacharel" under s. 9(1)(k) - The defendant argued that the plaintiff could not rely on s. 9(1)(k) because Jean Cacharel was not his legal name - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected this argument, stating that the plaintiff would succeed under s. 9(1)(k) if a significant number of people in Canada associated the name Jean Cacharel with a particular living individ­ual - See paragraph 13.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 264.3

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Prohibition - Marks falsely suggesting connection with living individ­ual - Section 9(1)(k) of the Trade Marks Act prohibited adoption of marks consist­ing of "any matter that may falsely suggest a connection with any living individual" - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, held that to succeed in establishing that a trademark is prohibited under s. 9(1)(k), it must be shown that a significant number of people in Canada associate the proposed trademark with a particular living individual - The court stated that the relevant time at which this significant public reputation must be established is the date of the adoption of the trademark - See paragraph 14.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Distinctive marks - Gen­eral - The defendant obtained registration for the trademark "Cacharel", for use in association with men's pants - The plain­tiff, Jean Cacharel, was a prominent fashion designer living in France, who sold clothing, including sales in Canada, under the "Cacharel" trademark - The plaintiff sought to expunge the defendant's trade­mark, arguing that the trademark was not distinctive of the defendant's wares, because, inter alia, the trademark was adopted by the defendant with knowledge of the foreign use and registration of the plaintiff's trademark - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the plaintiff's argument - The court held that prior knowledge alone of use of a trade­mark in a foreign market is insufficient to invalidate a registration - See paragraphs 25 to 29.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Distinctive marks - Gen­eral - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the relevant time for determining distinctiveness for purposes of expungement proceedings is the time the expungement proceeding was com­menced - See paragraph 20.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.1

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement - Grounds - Loss of dis­tinctiveness - [See both Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 265 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.4

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement - Grounds - Prohibited mark - [See first Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 264.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

Cacharel (Jean) S.A. v. Reitman's (Canada) Ltd. (1984), 3 C.P.R.(3d) 459 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

Carling Breweries Ltd. v. Molson Co. Ltd. et al. (1984), 1 C.P.R.(3d) 191 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Canadian Olympic Association v. Mufty Bears Ltd. (1986), 9 C.P.R.(3d) 65 (T.M.O.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

Canadian Olympic Association v. Allied Corp. et al. (1982), 16 C.P.R.(3d) 80, not folld. [para. 15].

Carson v. Reynolds, [1980] 2 F.C. 685 (F.C.T.D.), dist. [paras. 16-19].

Andres Wines Ltd. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery (1975), 11 N.R. 560; 25 C.P.R.(2d) 126 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 20, 26].

Fibergrid Inc. v. Precisioneering Ltd. (1991), 42 F.T.R. 114 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Royal Doulton Tableware Ltd. v. Cassidy's Ltd. (1984), 1 C.P.R.(3d) 214 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Philip Morris Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (1987), 17 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Dubiner v. Cheerio Toys and Games, [1965] 1 Ex. C.R. 524, refd to. [para. 22].

Motel 6 Inc. v. No. 6 Motel Ltd. (1981), 56 C.P.R.(2d) 44 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Williamson Candy Co. v. W.J. Crothers Co., [1924] Ex. C.R. 183, refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade Marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 2 [para. 20]; sect. 3 [paras. 14, 32]; sect. 9(1)(k) [para. 6 et seq.]; sect. 10 [para. 14]; sect. 12(1)(e) [para. 6 et seq.]; sect. 16, sect. 17 [para. 30]; sect. 17(2) [paras. 8, 31, 32]; sect. 18 [para. 11]; sect. 18(1)(a) [para. 12 et seq.]; sect. 18(1)(b) [paras. 6, 9, 20 et seq.]; sect. 18(1)(c) [para. 30]; sect. 57 [para. 1 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fox, Canadian Law of Trade Marks and Unfair Competition (3rd Ed. 1972), p. 317 [para. 30].

Counsel:

Gregory A. Piasetzki and Nancy A. Miller, for the applicants;

Nicholas H. Fyfe, Q.C., and Robert D. Gould, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Rogers, Bereskin & Parr, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants;

Smart & Biggar, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.