Molson Canada v. Anheuser Busch Inc.

Molson Canada v. Anheuser Busch Inc.

The appeal is dismissed because the Registrar reasonably concluded there was no reasonable likelihood of confusion: MICHELOB GOLDEN DRAFT, considered in its entirety, differs sufficiently from Molson's GOLDEN marks given MICHELOB as the dominant element, GOLDEN is descriptively weak for beer and primarily known in combination with MOLSON, and evidence of some third-party use of 'golden' further reduced the risk of confusion; therefore registration by Anheuser was allowed and Molson's grounds failed.

Citation
2003 FC 1286
Parties
Applicant: Molson Canada; Respondent: Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Trade Marks Appeal (section 56 of the Trade Marks Act) / Appeal to Federal Court From Decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Registrability, Confusion, Distinctiveness, Entitlement to Registration, Section 30 Compliance, Paragraph 12(1)(d)
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Law Administrative Law Registrability Confusion Distinctiveness Entitlement to Registration Section 30 Compliance +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molson Canada

Applicant

Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trade Marks Appeal (section 56 of the Trade Marks Act) / Appeal to Federal Court From Decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether MICHELOB GOLDEN DRAFT is confusing with Molson's GOLDEN family of trade-marks
  2. 2 Whether the Registrar correctly assessed inherent distinctiveness of the word GOLDEN
  3. 3 Whether the Registrar exceeded jurisdiction by effectively challenging validity of Molson's registration during opposition proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Registrar reasonably concluded there was no reasonable likelihood of confusion: MICHELOB GOLDEN DRAFT, considered in its entirety, differs sufficiently from Molson's GOLDEN marks given MICHELOB as the dominant element, GOLDEN is descriptively weak for beer and primarily known in combination with MOLSON, and evidence of some third-party use of 'golden' further reduced the risk of confusion; therefore registration by Anheuser was allowed and Molson's grounds failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal of Molson is dismissed.
  • Anheuser shall have its costs of the appeal.