Canadian Supreme Court holds ‘Cliquot’ for women’s clothing not likely to cause confusion with ‘Veuve Clicquot’ for luxury Champagne

On the same day as the 'Barbie’ Decision (2 June 2006), the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltée, 2006 SCC 23.

The Veuve Clicquot decision also deals with famous marks and has similar facts as those in the Barbie decision (click here for a link to that article). This time, the dispute was in relation to the well known 'Veuve Clicquot’for luxury champagne and ‘Cliquot’ for mid-priced women’s clothing.

In the Veuve Clicquot case, the Supreme Court also dismissed an allegation made by Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin (pursuant to section 22 of the Canadian Trade Marks Act) that the fame of the Veuve Clicquot mark for up-market luxury goods is such that associating the name Clicquot with a mid-range women’s clothing store depreciates the value of the mark.

In essence, the Court held that the Appellant had failed to establish that the respondents had made use of marks which were sufficiently similar to evoke in a relevant universe of consumers a mental association of the two marks that is likely to depreciate the value of the goodwill attaching to the appellant’s mark.

This was essentially because the respondents never used the appellant’s registered trade-mark as such and if the casual consumer does not associate the marks displayed in the respondents’ store with the mark of the venerable champagne maker, there can be no impact on the goodwill attached to the mark.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.