Monster Cable Products, Inc. v. Monster Daddy, LLC

Monster Cable Products, Inc. v. Monster Daddy, LLC

The appeal is allowed in part: the additional evidence under s.56(5) established a likelihood of confusion between Monster Daddy's MONSTER mark and Monster Cable's MONSTER when used with 'all purpose disinfecting and sanitizing preparations', but expansion to other excluded wares was rejected because they were not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 FC 1260
Parties
Applicant: Monster Cable Products, Inc.; Respondent: Monster Daddy, LLC
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S.56(1) of the Trade Marks Act to Federal Court / Appeal (fresh Evidence Considered Under S.56(5))
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Registrar's decision varied to find likelihood of confusion for 'all purpose disinfecting and sanitizing preparations' only; remainder of Registrar's decision upheld; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Distinctiveness, Likelihood of Confusion, Procedural Expansion of Opposition, Fresh Evidence on Appeal (s.56(5))
Source Language
english
Trade Marks Intellectual Property Federal Court Practice Distinctiveness Likelihood of Confusion Procedural Expansion of Opposition Fresh Evidence on Appeal (s.56(5))

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monster Cable Products, Inc.

Applicant

Monster Daddy, LLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under S.56(1) of the Trade Marks Act to Federal Court / Appeal (fresh Evidence Considered Under S.56(5))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether additional evidence under s.56(5) entitled the appellant to a de novo hearing and expansion of the fourth ground of opposition to additional wares
  2. 2 Whether the contested mark is non-distinctive under s.38(2)(d) across the appellant's product lines
  3. 3 Whether confusion can be found across dissimilar wares absent fame/reputation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed in part: the additional evidence under s.56(5) established a likelihood of confusion between Monster Daddy's MONSTER mark and Monster Cable's MONSTER when used with 'all purpose disinfecting and sanitizing preparations', but expansion to other excluded wares was rejected because they were not pleaded before the Registrar and were not cleaning products; the Registrar's distinctiveness findings were reasonable and are otherwise upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Registrar's decision varied to find likelihood of confusion for 'all purpose disinfecting and sanitizing preparations' only; remainder of Registrar's decision upheld; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part to the extent that a likelihood of confusion is found for 'all purpose disinfecting and sanitizing preparations'.
  • Remaining aspects of the Registrar's decision are upheld.