Nature's Source Inc. v. Natursource Inc.

Nature's Source Inc. v. Natursource Inc.

The Court upheld the Board's reasonable finding of a likelihood of confusion for the retail, franchising and e‑commerce services because, taken together, the s.6(5) factors support confusion: although both marks are weak, the respondent's mark had acquired greater distinctiveness through long and extensive use; there is a commercial connection/overlap between the parties' natural‑product markets and channels of trade; the marks are highly similar in appearance, sound and idea; the additional evidence on appeal was not material and did not undermine the Board's factual findings; therefore the Board's decision falls within a range of defensible outcomes under the reasonableness standard of...

Citation
2012 FC 917
Parties
Applicant: Nature's Source Inc.; Respondent: Natursource Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Trade Marks Act (s.56) / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From Trade Marks Opposition Board
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs in favour of the respondent
Legal Topics
Likelihood of Confusion, Distinctiveness and Acquired Distinctiveness, Entitlement to Registration, State of the Register, Standard of Review
Source Language
English
Trade Mark Law Intellectual Property Administrative Law Likelihood of Confusion Distinctiveness and Acquired Distinctiveness Entitlement to Registration State of the Register Standard of Review

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nature's Source Inc.

Applicant

Natursource Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under the Trade Marks Act (s.56) / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From Trade Marks Opposition Board

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trade-marks Opposition Board erred in finding a likelihood of confusion between Nature's Source and Natursource in relation to retail, franchising and e-commerce services
  2. 2 Whether the additional evidence filed on appeal required the Court to apply correctness rather than reasonableness standard of review
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's exclusion of certain wares and absence of actual confusion defeated likelihood of confusion

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the Board's reasonable finding of a likelihood of confusion for the retail, franchising and e‑commerce services because, taken together, the s.6(5) factors support confusion: although both marks are weak, the respondent's mark had acquired greater distinctiveness through long and extensive use; there is a commercial connection/overlap between the parties' natural‑product markets and channels of trade; the marks are highly similar in appearance, sound and idea; the additional evidence on appeal was not material and did not undermine the Board's factual findings; therefore the Board's decision falls within a range of defensible outcomes under the reasonableness standard of...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs in favour of the respondent

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs in favour of the respondent