Renaud Cointreau v Cordon Bleu International Ltee

Renaud Cointreau and Cordon Bleu International Ltee were parties in a legal dispute concerning the registration of a Canadian mark, with LCB being the appellant in the case. The dispute centred around the likelihood of deception or confusion among consumers due to the use of the mark "cordon bleu." The case was heard in the court of appeal, where the primary judge had previously dismissed an appeal by the French company against the delegate's decision to allow the registration of the Canadian mark. The appeal sought leave to challenge the primary judge's decision, specifically regarding the dismissal of the French company's opposition to the registration.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the use of the Canadian mark "cordon bleu" was likely to deceive or mislead the public, considering the established reputation of the Paris and London Cordon Bleu schools in Australia. The court had to determine if the primary judge erred in his assessment that the Canadian mark would not cause confusion among consumers. Additionally, the court needed to assess the credibility and weight of the evidence presented by the French companies concerning the reputation of their schools in Australia.

The court found that the primary judge's assessment was correct and that there was no likelihood of deception or confusion. The judge did not accept the evidence provided by the French companies as it appeared partisan and lacking in spontaneity. The court concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated any prima facie case of error on the part of the primary judge. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the original decision upholding the registration of the Canadian mark was upheld. The court also ordered that the application be dismissed with costs.

In summary, the court dismissed the appeal brought by the French companies, confirming the decision that the use of the Canadian mark "cordon bleu" would not deceive or mislead the public. The court upheld the primary judge's findings and found no error in the judgment.