Remo Imports Ltd. v. Jaguar Cars Ltd. et al., 2006 FC 21

• Judge: Shore, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 04, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2006 FC 21;(2006), 285 F.T.R. 168 (FC)

Remo Imports Ltd. v. Jaguar Cars Ltd. (2006), 285 F.T.R. 168 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.032

Remo Imports Ltd. (plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim) v. Jaguar Cars Limited and Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited/Ford du Canada limitée carrying on business as Jaguar Canada (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim)

(T-1473-91; 2006 FC 21)

Indexed As: Remo Imports Ltd. v. Jaguar Cars Ltd. et al.

Federal Court

Shore, J.

January 16, 2006.

Summary:

In the early 1980s, Remo Imports adopted and registered the trademark "Jaguar" respecting suitcases, knapsacks, key chains, credit card holders, address books, etc., to be sold through low end and medium chain stores. Jaguar Cars, which also used the registered trademark "Jaguar" in relation to its cars, sold accessories using the same trademark either through its automobile dealerships or directly to its customers. Remo, which claimed to have had no knowledge of the Jaguar Cars' trademark when it adopted the "Jaguar" trademark, sued Jaguar Cars in 1991 for trademark infringement and passing off and sought to expunge its trademark. Jaguar Cars counterclaimed, seeking to expunge the Remo trademark.

The Federal Court dismissed Remo's action and allowed the counterclaim. The court held that Remo's trademark was invalid and would be struck from the register because the use of the trademark was likely to depreciate the value of the goodwill attached to Jaguar Cars' registered trademark for "Jaguar" cars. Further, Remo's trademark was confusing with the Jaguar Cars' trademark, deceived the public and was not distinctive. Remo had also infringed Jaguar Cars' registered trademarks and passed off its wares contrary to the Trade-marks Act. As a remedy, the court granted a declaration of invalidity and issued an injunction against Remo. No monetary damages were awarded.

Courts - Topic 7.3

Stare decisis - Authority of judicial decisions - Authority and use of precedents - Trademarks cases - The Federal Court, quoting the Federal Court of Appeal in Pink Panther Beauty Corp. v. United Artists (1998), stated that "in cases involving similar, famous trademarks much of the jurisprudence has little precedential value. The cases turn on the particular and often unique facts. Two marks are seldom similar or dissimilar in the same way. Two cases do not often involve the same types of businesses or the same types of customers. As a result cases decided in the past may be interesting, but not generally helpful with regard to a decision of this kind ..." - See paragraph 2.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 709

Trademarks - Registration - General - Effect of registration - Section 22(1) of the Trade-marks Act provided that "no person shall use a trademark registered by another person in a manner that is likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching thereto" - The Federal Court discussed the application and scope of s. 22 - See paragraphs 241 to 297 - The court stated, inter alia, that "section 22 applies when a newcomer uses a well-known trademark in a non-competing field of trade or in association with wares in respect of which the well known mark is not registered. Under s. 22, confusion is not required, but there must be a connection between the wares or services associated with the parties' marks either in the consumer's minds or from a business perspective, provided the extension is not speculative ..." - See paragraph 252.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 709

Trademarks - Registration - General - Effect of registration - In the early 1980s, Remo Imports adopted and registered the trademark "Jaguar" respecting suitcases, knapsacks, key chains, credit card holders, etc. for chain store sale - Jaguar Cars, which also used the registered trademark "Jaguar" respecting cars, sold accessories using the same trademark either through its automobile dealerships or directly to its customers - Remo, which claimed to have had no knowledge of the Jaguar Cars' trademark when it adopted the "Jaguar" trademark, sued Jaguar Cars in 1991 for infringement and passing off and sought to expunge its trademark - Jaguar Cars counterclaimed, seeking to expunge the Remo trademark - The Federal Court dismissed Remo's action and allowed the counterclaim - Remo's trademark was invalid and would be struck from the register - The Jaguar Cars' trademark was already famous when Remo adopted the "Jaguar" trademark and as a famous mark was worthy of a wide breadth of protection, including the right to natural brand extensions such as personal accessories - Remo's use of the "Jaguar" trademark was likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the good will attaching to the famous Jaguar Cars' registered trademark, first registered in association with cars in 1945 and registered in association with accessories in the 1980s (Trade-marks Act, s. 22) - Further at all material dates, the Remo trademark "Jaguar" was confusing with Jaguar Cars' prior registration of the trademark "Jaguar" for automobiles - Use of the Remo trademark had the potential to deceive and mislead the public - Remo's trademark had never been distinctive - Jaguar Cars' trademarks remained valid - Remo infringed Jaguar Cars' registered trademark and passed off its wares contrary to the Trade-marks Act - See paragraphs 1 to 353.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.1

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Loss of distinctiveness (incl. non-distinctiveness) - The Federal Court stated that the three elements to distinctiveness were: "(1) the mark and the goods or services must be associated, (2) the owner of the mark uses this association and is selling the goods or services, and (3) this association enables the owner to distinguish its goods or services from those of others" - See paragraph 322 - The court discussed the issue of distinctiveness where a junior user adopts a senior user's well known mark - See paragraphs 323 to 327.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.1

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Loss of distinctiveness (incl. non-distinctiveness) - [See second Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 709 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.5

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Confusion - The Federal Court discussed the law relating to confusion in the trademarks context - See paragraphs 298 to 319.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.5

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Confusion - [See second Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 709 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 890

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Evidence and proof - Surveys - The Federal Court considered the reliability and validity of surveys conducted by parties in a case where each side sought expungement of the other's trademark - See paragraphs 75 to 181.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1803

Trademarks - Infringement - What constitutes - [See second Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 709 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1808

Trademarks - Infringement - Use - Depreciation of goodwill - The Federal Court stated that "where senior user's mark is so well known that the public associates senior user with activities outside its regular business (for example, new types of wares within senior user's zone of expansion), the goodwill in the mark includes the opportunity to use the mark in senior user's zone of expansion" - See paragraph 250 - The court discussed further the concept of natural brand extension in relation to s. 22 of the Trade-marks Act which prohibited the use of a trademark registered by another person in a manner that is likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching thereto - See paragraphs 251 to 260.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1808

Trademarks - Infringement - Use - Depreciation of goodwill - [See both Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 709 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 3068

Trademarks - Unfair competition - Passing off - The Federal Court stated that "to establish passing off , the senior user must establish that: (a) the senior user's trademark has a reputation (goodwill) in the marketplace; (b) the junior user has misrepresented its wares as those of the senior user (whether knowingly or unknowingly); (c) such misrepresentation was calculated or likely to deceive the consuming public into thinking the junior user's wares emanate from the senior user, and (d) such conduct is likely to injure the senior user's goodwill ... The law assumes, or presumes, that if the goodwill of a man's business has been interfered with by the passing off of goods, damage results therefrom. He need not wait to show that damage has resulted ..." - See paragraphs 346 and 347.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 3068

Trademarks - Unfair competition - Passing off - [See second Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 709 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 4408

Trademarks - Practice - Evidence - Public opinion surveys - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 890 ].

Cases Noticed:

United Artists Corp. v. Pink Panther Beauty Corp. et al., [1998] 3 F.C. 534; 225 N.R. 82; 80 C.P.R.(3d) 247 (F.C.A.), reving. (1996), 111 F.T.R. 241; 67 C.P.R.(3d) 216 (T.D.), affing. (1990), 34 C.P.R.(3d) 135 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 2].

Walt Disney Productions v. Triple Five Corp. et al. (1992), 130 A.R. 321; 43 C.P.R.(3d) 321 (Q.B.), affd. (1994), 149 A.R. 112; 63 W.A.C. 112; 53 C.P.R.(3d) 129 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1994), 178 N.R. 160; 162 A.R. 319; 83 W.A.C. 319; 55 C.P.R.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 3].

McDonald's Corp. et al. v. Coffee Hut Stores Ltd. (1994), 76 F.T.R. 281; 55 C.P.R.(3d) 463 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 4].

Seagram (Joseph E.) & Sons Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks and Seagram Real Estate Ltd. (1990), 38 F.T.R. 96; 33 C.P.R.(3d) 454 (T.D.), affing. (1984), 3 C.P.R.(3d) 325 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 5].

Salada Foods Ltd. v. Buckley (W.K.) Ltd. (1973), 9 C.P.R.(2d) 3 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 6].

Mattel Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. et al. (2004), 248 F.T.R. 228; 30 C.P.R.(4th) 456 (F.C.), affing. (2002), 23 C.P.R.(4th) 395 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 130, footnote 7].

Barbie Doll Case - see Mattel Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. et al.

Labatt (John) Ltd. v. Miller Brewing Co. (1996), 70 C.P.R.(3d) 351 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 130].

Haig (John) & Co. v. Haig Beverages Ltd. (1975), 24 C.P.R.(2d) 66 (F.C.T.D.), reving. (1974), 21 C.P.R.(2d) 271 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 244, footnote 120].

Leaf Confections Ltd. v. Maple Leaf Gardens Ltd. (1984), 3 C.P.R.(3d) 93 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), affd. (1986), 7 F.T.R. 72; 12 C.P.R.(3d) 511 (T.D.), affd. (1988), 87 N.R. 385; 19 C.P.R.(3d) 331 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 244, footnote 120].

Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Masco Building Products Corp. (1999), 162 F.T.R. 232; 86 C.P.R.(3d) 207 (T.D.), reving. (1996), 73 C.P.R.(3d) 311 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 244, footnote 120].

Danjaq Inc. v. Zervas & Zervas (1997), 135 F.T.R. 136; 75 C.P.R.(3d) 295 (T.D.), reving. (1996), 67 C.P.R.(3d) 247 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 244, footnote 120].

Cartier Inc. v. Cartier Optical Ltd. (1988), 17 F.T.R. 106; 20 C.P.R.(3d) 68 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 245, footnote 121].

Miss Universe Inc. v. Bonha (1994), 176 N.R. 35; 58 C.P.R.(3d) 381 (F.C.A.), reving. (1992), 43 C.P.R.(3d) 462 (F.C.T.D.), affing. (1991), 36 C.P.R.(3d) 76 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 245, footnote 122].

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada v. Sunlife Juice Ltd. (1988), 22 C.P.R.(3d) 244 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 245, footnote 123].

Berry Brothers & Rudd Ltd. v. Planta Tabak Manufactur Dr. Manfred Oberman (1980), 53 C.P.R.(2d) 130 (F.C.T.D.), reving. (1979), 47 C.P.R.(2d) 205 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 245, footnote 124].

Walker (John) & Sons Ltd. v. Steinman (1965), 44 C.P.R. 58, refd to. [para. 245, footnote 125].

Glen-Warren Productions Ltd. v. Gertex Hosiery Ltd. (1990), 32 F.T.R. 274; 29 C.P.R.(3d) 7 (T.D.), reving. (1989), 25 C.P.R.(3d) 309 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 245, footnote 126].

Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot ltée et al. (2003), 232 F.T.R. 11; 28 C.P.R.(4th) 520 (T.D.), affd. (2004), 349 N.R. 106; 35 C.P.R.(4th) 1 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal granted (2004), 337 N.R. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 245, footnote 127].

Clairol International Corp. and Clairol Inc. of Canada. v. Thomas Supply & Equipment Co. et al. (1968), 55 C.P.R. 176 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 249, footnote 128].

Johnson (S.C.) and Son Ltd. and Johnson (S.C.) & Son Inc. v. Marketing International Ltd. (1977), 32 C.P.R.(2d) 15 (F.C.T.D.), revd. (1978), 41 C.P.R.(2d) 35 (F.C.A.), affd. (1979), 29 N.R. 515; 44 C.P.R.(2d) 16 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 249, footnote 129].

Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Pestco Co. of Canada Ltd. and Valder (1985), 10 O.A.C. 14; 5 C.P.R.(3d) 433 (C.A.), affing. (1984), 80 C.P.R.(2d) 153 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 250, footnote 130].

Dunhill (Alfred) Ltd. v. Sunoptic S.A., [1979] F.S.R. 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 250, footnote 130].

ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd. (2003), 239 F.T.R. 203; 29 C.P.R.(4th) 182 (T.D.), affd. (2005), 332 N.R. 1; 38 C.P.R.(4th) 481 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 252, footnote 134].

Conde Nast Publications Inc. v. Gozlan Brothers Ltd. (1980), 49 C.P.R.(2d) 250 (F.C.T.D.), reving. (1978), 43 C.P.R.(2d) 234 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 255, footnote 142].

Coca-Cola Ltd. v. Fisher Trading Co. (1988), 25 C.P.R.(3d) 200 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 255, footnote 144].

Toyota Motor Corp. v. Lexus Foods Inc. (2000), 264 N.R. 158; 9 C.P.R.(4th) 297 (F.C.A.), reving. (1999), 174 F.T.R. 277; 2 C.P.R.(4th) 62 (T.D.), reving. (1997), 79 C.P.R.(3d) 131 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 257, footnote 147].

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Lexus Foods Inc. - see Toyota Motor Corp. v. Lexus Foods Inc.

Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Astro Tire & Rubber Co. of Canada Ltd. (1978), 46 C.P.R.(2d) 87 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 257, footnote 150].

826129 Ontario Inc. v. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha et al. (1995), 105 F.T.R. 99; 65 C.P.R.(3d) 171 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 262, footnote 158].

Source Perrier (Société Anonyme) v. Fira-less Marketing Co. (1983), 70 C.P.R.(2d) 61 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 264, footnote 161].

Gucci Gucci S.p.A. v. Meubles Renel Inc. et al. (1992), 160 N.R. 304; 43 C.P.R.(3d) 372 (F.C.A.), affing. (1991), 50 F.T.R. 220; 39 C.P.R.(3d) 119 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 264, footnote 162].

Meubles Domani's v. Gucci Gucci S.p.A. - see Gucci Gucci S.p.A. v. Meubles Renel Inc. et al.

Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin - Michelin & Cie v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) (1996), 124 F.T.R. 192; 71 C.P.R.(3d) 348 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 264, footnote 162].

Hilton Hotels Corp. et al. v. Belkin and Kalensky (1955), 24 C.P.R. 100 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 266, footnote 164].

Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson (1928), 26 F.2d 972 (C.A., 2nd Cir.), refd to. [para. 275, footnote 169].

Sheraton Corp. of America v. Sheraton Motels Ltd., [1964] R.P.C. 202 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 280, footnote 174].

Lego System Aktieselskab v. Lego M. Lemelstrich Ltd., [1983] F.S.R. 155 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 283, footnote 177].

Walker (John) & Sons Ltd. v. Rothmans International et al., [1978] F.S.R. 357 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 284, footnote 178].

Williamson Candy Co. v. Crothers (W.J.) Co., [1924] Ex. C.R. 183, affd. [1925] S.C.R. 377, refd to. [para. 285, footnote 179].

Andres Wines Ltd. v. Gallo (E. & J.) Winery (1975), 11 N.R. 560; 25 C.P.R.(2d) 126 (F.C.A.), reving. (1974), 14 C.P.R.(2d) 204 (F.C.T.D.), affing. (1973), 9 C.P.R.(2d) 154 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 285, footnote 179].

Wilhelm Layher GmbH v. Anthes Industries Inc. (1986), 1 F.T.R. 82; 8 C.P.R.(3d) 187 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 295, footnote 186].

Carling O'Keefe Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Anheuser-Busch Inc. (1986), 68 N.R. 226; 10 C.P.R.(3d) 433 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 295, footnote 186].

Moore Dry Kiln Co. of Canada Ltd. v. U.S. National Resources Inc. (1976), 12 N.R. 361; 30 C.P.R.(2d) 40 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 295, footnote 186].

Valle's Steak House v. Tessier et al. (1980), 49 C.P.R.(2d) 218 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 295, footnote 186].

Dion Neckwear Ltd. v. Christian Dior, S.A. et al. (2002), 286 N.R. 336; 20 C.P.R.(4th) 155 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 303, footnote 188].

Cartier Men's Shops Ltd. v. Cartier Inc. (1981), 58 C.P.R.(2d) 68 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 310, footnote 203].

Jaguar Cars Ltd. v. Manufacture des Montres Jaguar S.A. (1997), 78 C.P.R.(3d) 548 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 315, footnote 211].

Humpty Dumpty Foods Ltd. v. Weston (George) Ltd. (1989), 27 F.T.R. 219; 24 C.P.R.(3d) 454 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 316, footnote 212].

Alibi Roadhouse Inc. v. Grandma Lee's International Holdings Ltd. (1997), 136 F.T.R. 66; 76 C.P.R.(3d) 327 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 322, footnote 213].

Molson Breweries, A Partnership v. Labatt Brewing Co. (1992), 55 F.T.R. 266; 42 C.P.R.(3d) 481 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 322, footnote 213].

Steinberg Inc. v. Duval (J.L.) ltée (1992), 58 F.T.R. 156; 44 C.P.R.(3d) 417 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 323, footnote 214].

White Consolidated Industries Inc. v. Beam of Canada Inc. (1991), 47 F.T.R. 172; 39 C.P.R.(3d) 94 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 323, footnote 214].

Motel 6 Inc. v. No. 6 Motel Ltd. (1981), 56 C.P.R.(2d) 44 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 324, footnote 215].

Molnlycke Aktiebolag v. Kimberly-Clark of Canada Ltd. (1982), 61 C.P.R.(2d) 42 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 327, footnote 219].

Institut national des appellations d'origine des vins et eaux-de-vie et al. v. Andres Wines Ltd. et al., [1987] O.J. No. 644 (H.C.), affd. [1990] O.J. No. 1005 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 346, footnote 223].

Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595; 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 349, footnote 225].

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. et al. (2003), 307 N.R. 364 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 349, footnote 225].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 6 [para. 302]; sect. 6(2) [para. 247]; sect. 7(b), sect. 7(c) [para. 344]; sect. 12(1)(d) [para. 300]; sect. 19, sect. 20 [para. 344]; sect. 22 [para. 242]; sect. 57(1) [para. 332].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fox, Harold George, The Canadian Law of Trade Marks and Unfair Competition (4th Ed. 2002), p. 11-24 [para. 285, footnote 179].

Counsel:

Arthur Garvis and Richard Uditsky, for the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim;

Douglas Wilson and Pauline Bosman, for the defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim.

Solicitors of Record:

McMillan Binch Mendelsohn, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff/defendant by counterclaim; Ridout & Maybee, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim.

This case was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on October 18-27, 2004 and June 20 to July 21 and October 31 to November 4, 2005, by Shore, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 16, 2006.