Walt Disney Productions v. Fantasyland Hotel Inc., (1994) 154 A.R. 161 (QB)

• Judge: Rooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 17, 1994
• Citations: (1994), 154 A.R. 161 (QB)

Walt Disney v. Fantasyland Hotel Inc. (1994), 154 A.R. 161 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Walt Disney Productions (plaintiff) v. Fantasyland Hotel Inc. (defendant)

(Action No. 8603-04249)

Indexed As: Walt Disney Productions v. Fantasyland Hotel Inc.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Rooke, J.

June 17, 1994.

Summary:

Walt Disney Productions commenced a passing off action against Fantasyland Hotel Inc., which owned a hotel in the West Ed­monton Mall. Disney sought a permanent injunction and damages of $1.00. In a previ­ous related action (130 A.R. 321), the court allowed Disney's action for passing off in relation to the "Fantasyland" amusement park area of the same mall. Disney claimed that the previous action constituted issue estoppel as against Fantasyland Hotel Inc. in this action.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dis­missed the action. The court stated that issue estoppel did not resolve the action.

Estoppel - Topic 386

By record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - Disney commenced a passing off action against Fantasyland Hotel Inc., which owned a hotel in the West Edmonton Mall - In a previous related action (130 A.R. 321), the court allowed Disney's action for passing off in relation to the "Fantasyland" amuse­ment park area of the same mall - The defendant in the present action was a privy of the defendants in the previous action - Disney claimed that the previous action constituted issue estoppel as against Fan­tasyland Hotel Inc. in this action - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that while some fact findings in the previous action were binding on the parties in the present action, issue estoppel did not resolve the present action - Different issues and evidence were involved - The judge in the first action purposely restricted his findings to amusement parks - The court stated that there was no issue estoppel where "similar collateral matters are being 're-litigated for a different sub­stantive purpose'" - See paragraphs 21 to 41.

Estoppel - Topic 386

By record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that a plaintiff claiming issue estoppel must establish "(1) that the same question has been decided; (2) that the judicial decision which is said to create the estoppel was final; and (3) that the parties to the judicial decision or their privies were the same persons as the parties to the proceedings in which the estoppel is raised or their privies" - The court stated that "in deter­mining whether the 'same question' has been decided as in the earlier action, it is not sufficient that the question arose collaterally or incidentally in the earlier proceeding. Rather, the question must be 'fundamental to the decision arrived at in the earlier proceeding'" - See paragraphs 27 to 28.

Estoppel - Topic 389

By record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Collat­eral issues decided in prior proceedings - [See both Estoppel - Topic 386 ].

Torts - Topic 5146

Interference with economic relations - Unfair competition - Passing off - Similar firm or product names - Disneyland opened in 1955 - "Fantasyland" was the theme of one of its amusement parks - The West Edmonton Mall named its amusement park "Fantasyland" - Disney's passing off action for injunctive relief respecting the mall amusement park was successful - Disney also brought a passing off action to enjoin continued use of "Fan­tasyland Hotel" for the hotel adjacent to the mall - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the action - The court held that although Disney had a reputation and goodwill in "Fantasyland" respecting amusement parks, it did not have a reputa­tion and goodwill in the name in respect of hotels or "at large" - There was no mis­representation that the Fantasyland Hotel was connected or associated with Disney and there was insufficient evidence to show that a substantial proportion of the public was likely to be confused as to whether there was any association or con­nection - "Fantasyland" was not distinctive in the context of hotels or "at large".

Torts - Topic 5153

Interference with economic relations - Unfair competition - Passing off - Dam­age - Requirement of - The plaintiff in a passing off action claimed that once it established goodwill or reputation and a misrepresentation by the defendant mis­leading the public, then the third element (damage) was presumed - The defendant claimed damage had to be specifically proved - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that it was unnecessary to resolve the issue - However, the court noted that the Court of Appeal had upheld a previous related Queen's Bench decision where damage was presumed and that it was bound by that decision - See para­graph 45.

Torts - Topic 5155

Interference with economic relations - Unfair competition - Passing off - Evi­dence and proof - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "the elements of the tort of passing-off which the plaintiff must show are: (1) A goodwill or reputa­tion attached to his goods or services in the mind of the public with the name in question such that the name is identified with the plaintiff's goods or services. (2) A misrepresentation by the defendant (whether or not intentional) leading or likely to lead the public to believe that the goods or services are those authorized by the plaintiff. (3) That the plaintiff has or is likely to have suffered damage." - See paragraph 42.

Torts - Topic 5155

Interference with economic relations - Unfair competition - Passing off - Evi­dence and proof - Surveys - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the use of survey evidence to determine confusion in a passing off action - The court stated, inter alia, that "open-ended word associ­ation questionnaires cannot be used as a basis for trying to prove confusion" - See paragraphs 187 to 244.

Cases Noticed:

Imperial Square Edmonton Phase II Ltd. v. Erickson (1990), 110 A.R. 348 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 23].

Layden and Layden (J.B.) Oilfield Con­tractors Ltd. v. Cope et al. (1984), 52 A.R. 70 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

Northwestern Utilities Ltd. v. Peyto Oils (1983), 49 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

Solomon v. Grandview Co-operative Oil & Supplies Ltd. (1952), 6 W.W.R.(N.S.) 116 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Carl-Zeiss-Siftung v. Rayner and Keeler Ltd., [1966] 2 All E.R. 536 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 26].

Angle v. Minister of National Revenue, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; 2 N.R. 397, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Duhamel (1981), 33 A.R. 271 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Lapointe v. Rowand and Fowler (1985), 65 A.R. 62 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Abacus Cities Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re (1984), 55 A.R. 258 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Abacus Cities Ltd. (Bankrupt) v. Bank of Montreal et al. (1986), 70 A.R. 55 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Ringrose v. College of Physicians and Surgeons and Employees, Council of et al. (1984), 53 A.R. 372 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

J.L.O. Ranch Ltd. v. Logan Estate and Logan (1987), 81 A.R. 261 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Gleeson v. Whippell (J.) & Co., [1977] 3 All E.R. 54 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Hutchison (1985), 61 A.R. 81 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 27].

Royal Bank of Canada v. Elpat Holdings Ltd. (1990), 108 A.R. 59 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Safeway Stores Inc. v. Safeway Insurance Co. (1985), 657 F.Supp. 1307 (M.D. La.), refd to. [para. 38].

Seiko Time Canada Ltd. v. Consumer's Distributing Co., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 583; 54 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 47].

Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd. v. Borden Inc. et al., [1990] R.P.C. 341; 107 N.R. 161; [1990] 1 All E.R. 873 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 50].

Lego System Aktieselskab v. Lego M. Lemelstrich Ltd., [1983] F.S.R. 155 (H.C. Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 51].

Office Cleaning Services Ltd. v. West­minster Window and General Cleaners Ltd. (1946), 63 R.P.C. 39 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 53].

Erven Warnink Besloten Vennootschap v. Townsend (J.) and Sons (Hull) Ltd., [1980] R.P.C. 31; [1979] 2 All E.R. 927 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 55].

Advocaat Case - see Erven Warnink B.V. v. Townsend (J.) and Sons (Hull) Ltd.

Spalding (A.G.) & Brothers v. Gamage (A.W.) Ltd. (1915), 32 R.P.C. 273 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 55].

Montgomery v. Thompson (1891), 8 R.P.C. 361 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 57].

Reddaway v. Banham (1896), 13 R.P.C. 218 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 57].

Bollinger (J.) et al. v. Costa Brava Wine Co. (No. 3), [1960] R.P.C. 16; [1959] 3 All E.R. 800 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 57].

Bollinger (J.) et al. v. Costa Brava Wine Co. (No. 4), [1961] R.P.C. 116; [1961] 1 All E.R. 561 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 57].

Vine Products Ltd. et al. v. MacKenzie & Co. (No. 2), [1969] R.P.C. 1 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 57].

Walker (John) & Sons Ltd. et al. v. Ost (Henry) & Co., [1970] R.P.C. 489; [1970] 2 All E.R. 106 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 57].

Bulmer (H.P.) Ltd. v. Bollinger S.A., [1978] R.P.C. 79 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Chelsea Man Menswear Ltd. v. Chelsea Girl Ltd., [1987] R.P.C. 189 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Paramount Pictures v. Howley (1991), 5 O.R.(3d) 573 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 58].

Institut national des appellations d'origine des vins et eaux-de-vie et al. v. Andres Wines Ltd. et al. (1987), 60 O.R.(2d) 316 (H.C.), affd. (1990), 74 O.R.(2d) 203 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Pestco of Canada Ltd. and Valder (1985), 10 O.A.C. 14; 19 D.L.R.(4th) 90; 50 O.R.(2d) 726 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

HQ Network Systems Inc. v. HQ Office Supplies Warehouse Inc. et al. (1990), 34 F.T.R. 219; 30 C.P.R.(3d) 558 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 58].

Nature Co. v. Sci-Tech Educational Inc. (1991), 51 F.T.R. 70 (T.D.), revd. (1992) 141 N.R. 363 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Price v. Fernie (1985), 8 C.P.R.(3d) 360 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Canwest Telephone Co. v. Canwest Com­mercial Phone Centre Ltd. et al. - see Price v. Fernie.

Maritime Steel and Foundries Ltd. v. Toombs and CMP Ltd. (1991), 94 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 311; 298 A.P.R. 311; 39 C.P.R.(3d) 22 (P.E.I.T.D.), refd to. [para. 58].

Adidas (Canada) Ltd. v. Colins Inc. (1978), 38 C.P.R.(2d) 145 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 58].

Mr. Submarine Ltd. v. Emma Foods Ltd. (1976), 34 C.P.R.(2d) 177 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

Aladdin Industries Inc. v. Canadian Ther­mos Products Ltd. (1969), 57 C.P.R. 230 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

CIBA-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 120; 143 N.R. 241; 58 O.A.C. 321; 44 C.P.R.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 58].

Brewster Transport Co. v. Rocky Mountain Tours and Transport Co., [1931] S.C.R. 336, refd to. [para. 59].

Paris Investments Ltd. v. Davies Taxi Ltd. et al. (1969), 61 C.P.R. 178; 70 W.W.R. 674 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Bow City Delivery v. Independent Cab Co., [1973] 2 W.W.R. 469 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 59].

Mark's Work Warehouse Ltd. v. Hudson's Bay Co. (1980), 15 C.P.R.(3d) 376 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 59].

Hunters Sport Shop Ltd. v. Hunter's R.V. Sales Ltd. (1986), 74 A.R. 389; 13 C.P.R.(3d) 444 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 59].

Midas Equipment Ltd. v. Zellers Inc. and 627318 Ontario Ltd. (1991), 114 A.R. 58; 35 C.P.R.(3d) 543 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 59].

TGI Friday's Inc. v. Maxwell Taylor's Restaurants, [1990] A.J. No. 1193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Oxford Pendaflex Canada Ltd. v. Korr Marketing Ltd. et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 494; 41 N.R. 553, refd to. [para. 60].

Westfair Foods Ltd. v. Pattison (Jim) Industries Ltd., [1990] 5 W.W.R. 481 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

Canadian Shredded Wheat Co. v. Kellogg Co. of Canada, [1938] 2 D.L.R. 145; [1938] 1 All E.R. 618 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Burberrys v. Cording (J.C.) & Co. (1909), 26 R.P.C. 693 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 60].

Sund v. Beachcombers Restaurant Ltd. (1961), 25 D.L.R.(2d) 54 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Belkin (1955), 17 W.W.R. 86 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Parker-Knoll Ltd. v. Knoll International Ltd., [1962] R.P.C. 265 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 60].

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.), refd to. [para. 60].

General Motors Corp. v. Bellows, [1949] S.C.R. 678, refd to. [para. 60].

Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. James (1916), 10 W.W.R. 1081 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

National Hockey League v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Ltd., [1992] 6 W.W.R. 216 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Williams (J.B.) Co. v. Bronnley (H.) & Co. (1909), 26 R.P.C. 765 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

Sales Affiliates Ltd. v. Le Jean Ltd., [1947] 1 Ch. 295; [1947] 1 All E.R. 287; 64 R.P.C. 103, refd to. [para. 81].

Mountain Shadows Resort Ltd. v. Pemsall Enterprises Ltd. (1973), 9 C.P.R.(2d) 172 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 82].

Visa International Service Association v. Visa Motel Corp. (1984), 1 C.P.R.(3d) 109 (B.C.C.A.), affing. (1984), 1 C.P.R.(3d) 112 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 82].

Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Sunlife Juice Ltd. (1988), 22 C.P.R.(3d) 244 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1990), 31 C.P.R.(3d) 475 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Annabel's (Berkeley Square) Ltd. v. Schock (G.), [1972] R.P.C. 838 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

Via Rail Canada Inc. v. Location Via-Route Inc. et autres (1992), 50 Q.A.C. 101; 45 C.P.R.(3d) 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85].

Henderson v. Radio Corp. Pty. Ltd., [1969] P.R.C. 218 (H.C.N.S.W.A.D.), refd to. [para. 88].

Star Industrial Co. v. Yap Kwee Kor, [1976] F.S.R. 256 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 116].

Sheraton Corp. of America v. Sheraton Motels Ltd., [1964] R.P.C. 202 (Eng. H.C.), refd to. [para. 130].

Cartier Inc. v. Cartier Optical Ltd./Lunettes Cartier Ltée (1988), 17 F.T.R. 106; 20 C.P.R.(3d) 68 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 195].

R. v. Pipeline News (1971), 5 C.C.C.(2d) 71 (Alta. D.C.), refd to. [para. 195].

Ritz Hotel Ltd. v. Charles of the Ritz Ltd., [1989] R.P.C. 333 (S.C.N.S.W.), refd to. [para. 195].

Imperial Group plc v. Philip Morris Ltd., [1984] R.P.C. 293 (Ch.D.), refd to. [para. 195].

United Biscuits (U.K.) Ltd. v. Burtons Bisquits Ltd., [1992] F.S.R. 14 (C.D.), refd to. [para. 195].

Mothercare U.K. Ltd. v. Penquin Books Ltd., [1988] R.P.C. 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 195].

Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.), refd to. [para. 197].

Holiday Inns Inc. v. Holiday Out in America (1973), 481 F.2d 445, refd to. [para. 197].

R. v. Prairie Schooner News Ltd. (1970), 75 W.W.R. 585 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 197].

Salada Foods Ltd. v. Buckley (W.K.) Ltd., [1973] F.C. 120 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 197].

R. v. Times Square Cinema Ltd., [1971] 3 O.R. 688 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 214].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Blanco-White and Jacob, Kerly's Law of Trademarks and Tradenames (12th Ed. 1986), para. 16.02 [para. 55].

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (6th Ed. 1983), pp. 598 to 609 [para. 55].

Fox, H.G., The Canadian Law of Trade Marks and Unfair Competition (3rd Ed. 1972), p. 500 [para. 55].

Kerly's Law of Trademarks and Trade­names (12th Ed. 1986), para. 16.02 [para. 55].

Sopinka, Lederman and Bryant, The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), p. 558 [para. 196].

Sorenson, R.C., Survey Research Execu­tion in Trademark Litigation; Does Prac­tice Make Perfect?, 73 T.M.R. 349, p. 361 [para. 197].

Spencer-Bower and Turner, Doctrine of Res Judicata (2nd Ed.), generally [para. 29].

Wadlow, The Law of Passing-off (1990), pp. vii [para. 55]; 2 [para. 148]; 233 [para. 182].

Williston, W.B., and Rolls, R.J., The Law of Civil Procedure (1970), vol. 2, p. 703 [para. 23].

Young, Passing Off (2nd Ed. 1989), pp. 1 [para. 55]; 9 [para. 123]; 37 [paras. 144, 145]; 41 [paras. 146, 158]; 43 [paras. 168, 243].

Counsel:

R.T. Hughes, Q.C., and D.J. Wilson, for Walt Disney Productions;

R.A. McLennan, Q.C., and R.G. McLen­nan, for Fantasyland Hotel Inc.

This action was heard before Rooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judi­cial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on June 17, 1994.