Assessing Likelihood Of Confusion Between Trademarks: State Of The Trademark Register Must Be Combined With Evidence Of Actual Use Of Third Party Marks

OW
Oyen Wiggs Green & Mutala LLP

Contributor

Oyen Wiggs LLP is a Vancouver-based independent intellectual property boutique law firm in Canada. We are experienced patent lawyers with a variety of technical backgrounds that provide us with the insight to help our clients define and protect their innovations. Through our wide-reaching network of foreign associates, we advance our clients’ interests around the world.
In November 2017, Performance Mechanics Panthera Motorsports Inc. filed a Canadian trademark application for the PANTHERA logo...
Canada Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In November 2017, Performance Mechanics Panthera Motorsports Inc. filed a Canadian trademark application for the PANTHERA logo ( 1477248a.jpg ) covering motorcycle and off-road vehicle engines and sporting clothing. The application was opposed by Jaguar Land Rover Limited on several grounds, including a likelihood of confusion between the applied-for mark and Jaguar's registered marks for the Leaper logo (1477248c.jpg ).

Both parties filed evidence before the Trademarks Opposition Board. Notably, Panthera filed an affidavit introducing evidence of the state of the Trademark Register.

In a decision issued on May 29, 2023, the Trademarks Opposition Board found that there was a likelihood of confusion between Panthera's logo and Jaguar's Leaper logo and refused registration of Panthera's trademark. In reaching this decision, the Trademarks Opposition Board noted that in considering the circumstances of the case, with respect to the state of the Trademark Register, the affidavit filed by Panthera was insufficient, as it did not provide any information regarding the marketplace use of the trademarks identified in the affidavit.

Panthera appealed the decision to the Federal Court and filed a new affidavit introducing evidence regarding the commercial use of images of felines in the vehicle industry. The Court accepted the new evidence, considering it as "being important and having sufficient probative value relevant to the case" and that it would have had an impact on the Trademarks Opposition Board's decision in relation to the likelihood of confusion ground of opposition.

In light of the new evidence filed, in a decision issued on May 27, 2024, the Court found that Panthera's mark was not likely to cause confusion with Jaguar's brands and rejected the opposition. Among other things, the Court noted that the evidence demonstrated that the use of images of felines was widespread in the vehicle industry, and Panthera's evidence of actual use of these trademarks favoured Panthera's argument that there was no likelihood of confusion between 1477248a.jpg and 1477248c.jpg.

To view the full article click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More