Trademark Dispute between BARBIE's Business and Barbie's Restaurant

The article discusses the trademark dispute between BARBIE's business and Barbie's restaurant. It explains the basis of the complaint, court's decision, and business perspective to protect the business.

BUSINESS LAW
STUDENT NAME
PROFESSOR NAME
AFFILIATION
DATE

The basis of the complaint is that, the appellant who is the owner of the BARBIE dolls
and doll accessories business appeals that the trademark registration board should reject the
registration of the “Barbie`s” business that deals with the operation of the restaurant, provides
carry out services, food and other related services with the reason that customers will be
confused and therefore, the business fame be reduced, (Gold, 2009).
The BARBIE`s business that deals with dolls and doll accessories urges that, the coming
up of the Barbie`s business will reduce the fame of the BARBIE just because it was registered
with the same name. On the other hand, the correspondent claims that, the utilization of Barbie`s
reputation for its young chain of Montreal restaurant will not likely bring up disarray in the
marketplace because the fame of BARBIE`s is linked to dolls and doll accessories and not the
BARBIE`s name.
According to the case of Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc, The two courts, that is, the
court of appeal and the federal court decided that, the Board`s registration of the Barbie`s
trademark was right and the two courts also did not accept the application that was made by the
appellant which was aimed at introducing new observations in support of that assertion in the
form of a review that intended to display the likelihood of confusion between the two marks,
(Beatty, Samuelson & Abril, 2018).
The concept of disarray is addressed under s.6 (2) of the Trademark act which specifies
that, lack of clarity emerges if its most likely that, the actual buyer-incidental users who are
somehow with an urgent need will be missed to the inference they didn’t want, such that the type
of service they affiliated with those trademarks are made, leased, sold or even hired by one
person, whether or not the wares belong to the general class. (Hatzimihail, 2008)
The likelihood of a mistaken inference can be weighed only of the intention of the new
mark would be to introduce confusion into the market place, then such a mark should not be
permitted.
From the business perspective, the following are some of the things that can be done to
protect the business;

Provision of quality goods and services. This will attract more customers even if another
business with the same products comes up. Therefore, this means that the name of the business
minus quality products is not enough for business protection, (Nichols, 2012). Both the
government and the court of offer decided out that, the Board's enrollment of the Barbie's
trademark was correct and the two courts additionally did not acknowledge the application that
was made by the litigant which was gone for presenting new proof as a study proffered to
demonstrate the probability of the disarray between the imprints.
Developing a good relationship with customers. This includes adhering to the customer
needs, listening to their complains among others. Business persons that ignore customers place
there business at risks of being overtaken by other business.
References
Gold, D. L. (2009). Introduction. In Law & Economics: Toward Social Justice (pp. xi-xviii).
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Hatzimihail, N. E. (2008). The many lives-and faces-of lex mercatoria: history as genealogy in
international business law. Law and contemporary problems, 71(3), 169-190.
Nichols, P. M. (2012). The business case for complying with bribery laws. American Business
Law Journal, 49(2), 325-368.
Beatty, J. F., Samuelson, S. S., & Abril, P. S. (2018). Business law and the legal environment.
Cengage Learning.
Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc (2006) 1 S.C.R. 772, 2006 SCC 22