Visit IAM
Enforcement and litigation
In-house operations
IP offices and government
Internet and Online
Report Centre
GTDT
WTR 1000
All firms
All individuals
WTR 300
Law firm leaders
EUIPO Filing Elite
The Global IP Awards
WTR Global Leaders
Global Guides
Region/Industry Guides
WTR Events
Opponents should put best evidence forward before Opposition Board
Sim & McBurney - Sim Ashton and McKay LLP
Legal updates: case law analysis and intelligence
In International Clothiers Inc v Dorna Sports SL (2013 FC 285), the Federal Court has set aside a decision of the Opposition Board in which the latter had found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the figurative trademark MOTOGP and earlier MOTO marks.
This case stems primarily from an allegation of confusion with respect to overlapping goods. The marks of the respective parties are noted below:
Applicant Dorna Sports SL's mark
Opponent International Clothiers Inc's marks
Application No 13286961
Proposed use
Goods: protective helmets for cyclists and motorcyclists, sunglasses and cases for glasses, frames for glasses; electronic and microprocessor programmers for games;… printed matter namely, brochures, newsletters, pamphlets, leaflets;… calendars, almanacs, maps, pamphlets, diaries, sheet music,… t-shirts, sweatshirts, polo shirts, caps, gloves, pants and balaclavas for motorcyclists, jackets, trousers and overalls of leather and imitation leather; games and playthings, namely action-type target, arcade, board, card, computer action, computer simulation, paddle ball, word games…
Registration No TMA502767
Trademark: MOTO SPORT
DU filed October 5 1998
Goods: clothing, excluding motorcycle clothing, namely, suits, jackets, pants, coats, vests, shirts, sweaters, t-shirts and shorts.
Trademark: MOTO GEAR
Use 2001
Goods: men's, women's, teen's and children's wearing apparel, namely, jackets, coats, sweaters, vests, sweatshirts, pants, jeans, shorts, skirts, t-shirts, shirts, blouses, dresses, belts, socks, scarves, hats and gloves.
Application No 1538031
Trademark: MOTO
Goods: clothing, namely, casual clothing, athletic clothing, dress clothing and children's clothing.
Trademark: MOTO JEANS
Some use in 2004
Goods:
(1) Jeans.
(2) Clothing and apparel, namely shirts, embroidered shirts, t-shirts, shorts, sport shirts, sweatshirts, sweatpants, socks, vests,… beach cover-ups, warm-up suits, jackets, jerseys, tank tops, sweaters, pants, vests, suits, sport coats, coats, head bands, overcoats, rain coats, top coats, jackets, parkas, ties, bow ties, vests, scarves, bandannas, pajamas, night shirts,… gloves; headwear,… blouses, dresses, skirts, tops, scarves, sarongs, halter tops, hosiery, jumpers, shawls, stoles, scarves, shrugs, boleros and wraps.
Trademark: MOTO TECH GEAR
(1) Sweaters.
(2) Clothing and apparel, namely shirts, embroidered shirts, t-shirts, shorts, sport shirts, sweatshirts, sweatpants, socks, vests, belts,… jumpers, shawls, stoles, scarves, shrugs, boleros and wraps.
The Opposition Board favoured the applicant and found that, when comparing the marks, the design elements and the suffix 'GP' in the applicant's mark were the most striking and unique aspects of the mark – taking guidance from a Supreme Court of Canada decision that "the preferable approach when comparing marks is to begin by determining whether there is an aspect of the trademark that is particularly striking or unique".
Based on the evidence tendered by the applicant, the board also inferred that the 'moto' element is commonly used in association with clothing in Canada.
Lastly, the board found that there was insufficient evidence filed by the opponent to negate the distinctiveness of the applicant's mark.
On appeal to the Federal Court, the board was reversed. The opponent filed better evidence of use, causing the judge to conclude that its marks had become well known.
While cautiously acknowledging that the suffix might add distinctiveness, as a matter of first impression to a casual consumer in a hurry, the court was not convinced that confusion would not occur.
The applicant's mark was also held not to be distinctive. Thus, in the absence of representation by the applicant, the board's decision was set aside.
This case serves as a reminder that it is better to put one's best evidence forward before the Opposition Board. Had the opponent filed all of its evidence at first instance, one may query whether an appeal would have been necessary.
Toni Polson Ashton, Sim & McBurney / Sim Lowman Ashton & McKay LLP, Toronto
Perception is powerful but authenticity is paramount when it comes to brand sustainability
Five minutes with… INTA's Annual Meeting Co-Chairs 2023
ChatGPT fraud warning; UKIPO introduces new service rules; Hershey settles TOUGH COOKIE dispute – news digest
Caution use of Urban Dictionary: LES BOYS trademark invalidated
Register for limited access to subscriber only content and to receive our weekly newsletter.
Access more of WTR
Non-infringement action against EUTM based on prior use defence: Circuit Court issues landmark decision
WELL AND WELL v WELLBE: assessment of the likelihood of confusion based on the relevant public's understanding of the marks
Indonesia's new Criminal Code and intellectual property
View more Legal updates
Unlock unlimited access to all WTR content
WTR Industry Awards