Prologic Systems Ltd. v. Prologic Corp., (1998) 141 F.T.R. 72 (TD)

• Judge: Lutfy, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 06, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 141 F.T.R. 72 (TD)

Prologic Systems Ltd. v. Prologic Corp. (1998), 141 F.T.R. 72 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.023

In The Matter Of the Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, s. 57;

In The Matter Of Canadian Trade-mark Registration No. 366, 164, Prologic & Design, dated March 2, 1990.

Prologic Systems Limited (applicant) v. Prologic Corporation (respondent)

(T-2765-93)

Indexed As: Prologic Systems Ltd. v. Prologic Corp.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Lutfy, J.

January 26, 1998.

Summary:

Prologic Systems Ltd. sought to expunge Prologic Corporation's registered trademark "Prologic" and design on the basis, inter alia, that it was confusing with the trademark "Prologic" and the trade name "Prologic Systems Limited".

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application and ordered that the trademark be struck from the register.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.5

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Confusion - Prologic Systems Ltd. (applicant) sought to expunge Prologic Corporation's (respondent's) registered trademark "Prologic" and design on the basis, inter alia, that it was confusing with the trademark "Prologic" and the trade name "Prologic Systems Limited" - The applicant provided software and hardware computing services - It operated from Ottawa and its principal customers were departments of the federal government - The respondent licenced its software in the financial services sectors - Its principal place of business was British Columbia - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, expunged the trademark - The services were not sufficiently different to avoid the likelihood of confusion - Furthermore, the respondent's globe design depicted next to the trademark "Prologic" did not diminish the degree of resemblance with the applicant's trade name.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.5

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Confusion - Prologic Systems Ltd. (applicant) sought to expunge Prologic Corporation's (respondent's) registered trademark "Prologic" and design on the basis, inter alia, that it was confusing with the trademark "Prologic" and the trade name "Prologic Systems Limited" - The applicant argued both actual confusion and likelihood of confusion - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, expunged the trademark based on the likelihood of confusion - There had been, however, no actual confusion within the meaning of s. 6 of the Trade-marks Act where the incidents related by the applicant did not relate to the market place or to its customers - See paragraph 10.

Cases Noticed:

Unitel Communications Inc. v. Bell Canada (1995), 92 F.T.R. 161; 61 C.P.R.(3d) 12 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 2].

Mr. P's Mastertune Ignition Services Ltd. v. Tune Masters (1984), 82 C.P.R.(2d) 128 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 3].

Everex Systems Inc. v. Everdata Computer Inc. (1992), 56 F.T.R. 132; 44 C.P.R.(3d) 175 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 3].

British American Bank Note Co. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association (1983), 71 C.P.R.(2d) 26 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 4].

Oshawa Holdings Ltd. v. Fjord Pacific Marine Industries Ltd. (1981), 36 N.R. 71; 55 C.P.R.(2d) 39 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 6].

Gigi Inc. v. Bigi (Canada) Ltd. (1988), 20 F.T.R. 197; 21 C.P.R.(3d) 439 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 7].

Ayotte et al. v. Aliments Trans Gras Inc. (1990), 40 F.T.R. 280; 34 C.P.R.(3d) 17 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 7].

Freed & Freed Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1950), 14 C.P.R. 19 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 7].

Canadian Schenley Distilleries Ltd. v. Canada's Manitoba Distillery Ltd. (1975), 25 C.P.R.(2d) 1 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 10].

Cartier Men's Shop Ltd. v. Cartier Inc. (1981), 58 C.P.R.(2d) 68 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 11].

British Drug Houses Ltd. v. Battle Pharmaceuticals (1944), 4 C.P.R. 48 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 12].

Hartco Enterprises Inc. v. Becterm Inc. (1989), 24 F.T.R. 69; 24 C.P.R.(3d) 223 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 13].

Wellington County Brewery Ltd. v. Corby Distilleries Ltd. (1995), 92 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 6(3), sect. 6(5) [Schedule A].

Counsel:

Kenneth Sharpe, for the applicant;

J. Christopher Robinson, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Scott & Aylen, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Smart & Biggar, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 6, 1998, before Lutfy, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on January 26, 1998.