Pugsley, Dingman & Co. Ltd. v. The Proctor & Gamble Co.

Pugsley, Dingman & Co. Ltd. v. The Proctor & Gamble Co.

Given the nature, uses and trade in soaps, the trade distinction between 'laundry' and 'toilet' soap does not constitute separate 'particular descriptions' under s.4 such that a registration for soap generally could be restricted to laundry soap without leaving a risk of deception; the departmental tribunal's refusal to register 'Camay' was not demonstrably wrong because registration risked confusion (including phonetic similarity to French 'camée'); assignee retained right to use predecessor's name. Therefore the Exchequer Court's orders restricting 'Cameo Soap' and directing registration of 'Camay' were set aside.

Citation
[1929] SCR 442
Parties
Appellant / Objecting Party / Defendant: Pugsley, Dingman & Company, Limited; Respondent / Petitioner / Plaintiff: The Proctor & Gamble Company
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 April 1929
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Registration Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court Decision
Outcome
Appeals allowed. Judgment of the Exchequer Court reversed; orders of the trial judge set aside.
Legal Topics
Specific Trade Mark, Registration, Restriction of Registration, Deception/confusion, Assignment and Goodwill
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Law Specific Trade Mark Registration Restriction of Registration Deception/confusion Assignment and Goodwill

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

Parties

Pugsley, Dingman & Company, Limited

Appellant / Objecting Party / Defendant

The Proctor & Gamble Company

Respondent / Petitioner / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Registration Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 'laundry soap' and 'toilet and bath soap' are distinct 'particular descriptions' of goods under s.4 of the Trade-Mark and Design Act such that a registered specific trade-mark can be restricted to one description only
  2. 2 Whether the departmental tribunal erred in refusing registration of the word 'Camay' as a specific trade-mark for toilet soap
  3. 3 Onus of proof when attacking a departmental tribunal decision on trade-mark registration

Ratio Decidendi

Given the nature, uses and trade in soaps, the trade distinction between 'laundry' and 'toilet' soap does not constitute separate 'particular descriptions' under s.4 such that a registration for soap generally could be restricted to laundry soap without leaving a risk of deception; the departmental tribunal's refusal to register 'Camay' was not demonstrably wrong because registration risked confusion (including phonetic similarity to French 'camée'); assignee retained right to use predecessor's name. Therefore the Exchequer Court's orders restricting 'Cameo Soap' and directing registration of 'Camay' were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed. Judgment of the Exchequer Court reversed; orders of the trial judge set aside.

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Orders of the President of the Exchequer Court set aside