Frank registered the trademark on his business name and on the style of writing his sign and letterhead to avoid infringement by other competitors. Frank has protection over the name of the bar such that the goodwill value is protected and prevents other parties from misleading the public by using the trademark words or symbols for their own purposes. If frank sues in court, he must show not only that he is the owner of the trademark, but also that the public would likely be confused by the wrong use of the trademark by the offending party, causing damage to his business……………………..
The court will use previous case files “Don’t Put Barbie on the Barb-B: Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc.102” where the company 3894207 Canada Inc., having used “Barbie’s” to identify its barbecue restaurant and catering business since 1992, applied to register the Barbie’s trademark. Mattel opposed the application, claiming that it will create confusion to the public. The opposition was overruled; it was held that there was no likelihood of …………………..
Mattel’s wares were dolls and doll accessories, marketed towards pre-teen girls; the 3894207 company on the other hand, was in the restaurant business, serving an adult market. In determining whether trademarks are confusing, the trade-marks Act directs the court to have regard to all surrounding circumstances including nature of the wares, services, or business. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the mere possibility of confusion was…………….
On 18 October 2005, the Supreme Court heard both trademark appeals- it decided in favor of the BBQ restaurant and the Canadian clothing retailer. The court’s decision will be the mere possibility of confusion is significant to mislead the public……………………
This is because the relationship between the services provided by the “Best Coast Pub” is the same as the service provided by “West Coast Bar and Grill”, thus……….