| dbo:abstract
|
- Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc. [2011] 2 S.C.R. 387, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning the relevant criteria and basic approach to be undertaken by the Court in analyzing the likelihood of confusion in Canadian trademark law under the Trade-marks Act, 1985 The test adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada is whether, as a matter of first impression, the "casual consumer somewhat in a hurry" who encounters the Alavida trade-mark, with no more than an imperfect recollection of any one of the Masterpiece Inc. trade-marks or trade-name, would be likely to think that Alavida was the same source of retirement residence services as Masterpiece Inc. Furthermore, Rothstein J. affirmed a consumer protection principle of trade-marks as an indication of provenance, "providing consumers with a reliable indication of the expected source of wares or services."Rothstein J. delivering the majority judgment of the Court held that Alavida's proposed trade-mark "Masterpiece Living" was confusing with at least one of Masterpiece Inc.’s trade-marks when the registration application was filed on December 1, 2005. Alavida was therefore deemed to be not entitled to registration of its proposed marks, allowing then for the to expunge Alavida’s registration from the registrar. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 10664 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:caseName
|
- Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc. (en)
|
| dbp:citations
| |
| dbp:course
|
- Education Program:University of Toronto/Intellectual Property: Copyright, Patent, and Trademark Law (en)
|
| dbp:decidedDate
| |
| dbp:docket
| |
| dbp:fullCaseName
|
- Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc. (en)
|
| dbp:heardDate
| |
| dbp:history
|
- Masterpiece Inc. denied appeal at the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. (en)
|
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- McLachlin C.J., Binnie, LeBel, Fish, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ (en)
|
| dbp:lawsapplied
|
- Trade-marks Act, R.S.C., 1985, s.6, s.16 (en)
|
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:ratio
|
- The trade-mark was deemed confusing from the perspective of the casual consumer upon first encountering the trade-mark. (en)
|
| dbp:ruling
|
- The appeal should be allowed and Alavida's registration should be expunged. (en)
|
| dbp:scc
| |
| dbp:term
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc. [2011] 2 S.C.R. 387, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision concerning the relevant criteria and basic approach to be undertaken by the Court in analyzing the likelihood of confusion in Canadian trademark law under the Trade-marks Act, 1985 The test adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada is whether, as a matter of first impression, the "casual consumer somewhat in a hurry" who encounters the Alavida trade-mark, with no more than an imperfect recollection of any one of the Masterpiece Inc. trade-marks or trade-name, would be likely to think that Alavida was the same source of retirement residence services as Masterpiece Inc. Furthermore, Rothstein J. affirmed a consumer protection principle of trade-marks as an indication of provenance, "providing (en)
|
| rdfs:label
|
- Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc. (en)
|
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
