Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. - 2006 SCC 22 - Trade-marks Confusion: “Barbie’s” Restaurants

Aug 28, 2026

Court decision on the Trade-marks Act concerning whether a restaurateur’s “Barbie’s” trademark (used for restaurant, take-out, catering, and banquet services) is likely to cause confusion with the “BARBIE” trademark held by the toy manufacturer of BARBIE dolls. The Trade-marks Opposition Board, the Federal Court, and the Federal Court of Appeal found no likely confusion because BARBIE’s fame was linked to dolls and closely related accessories and the applied-for services were sufficiently different. The appeal was dismissed.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages52

Reading Time2 h 11 min

AccessFree to download

Overview of the Appeal

Intellectual Property and Trade-marks Issues

Opposition Proceedings and Standard of Review

Board, Federal Court, and Court of Appeal Findings

Supreme Court Holding

Mattel, Inc. Appellant v. 3894207 Canada Inc. Respondent Indexed as: Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. Neutral citation: 2006 SCC 22. File No.: 30839. 2005: October 18; 2006: June 2. Present: McLachlin C.J. and Major,* Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ. ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Intellectual property — Trade-marks — Confusion—Restauranteur applying to register “Barbie’s” trademark in connection with its small chain of restaurants—Manufacturer of BARBIE dolls opposing registration— Whether use of “Barbie’s” name in relation to restaurants likely to create confusion in market place with BARBIE trade-mark — Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, s. 6. Administrative law—Judicial review—Standard of review — Trade-marks Opposition Board of Canadian Intellectual Property Office —Board rejecting opposition to registration of trade-mark—Standard applicable to Board’s decision. The BARBIE doll is said by the appellant toy manufacturer to be an iconic figure of pop culture. The appellant opposes the respondent’s application to register its“Barbie’s” trade-mark and a related design in association with “restaurant services, take-out services, catering and banquet services” on the basis that some marks are so famous that “marks such as . . . BARBIE may not now be used in Canada on most consumer waresand services without the average consumer being led to infer the existence of a trade connection with the owners of these famous brands”. The Trade-marks Opposition Board of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office * Major J. took no part in the judgment. Mattel, Inc. Appelante c. 3894207 Canada Inc. Intimée Répertorié : Mattel, Inc. c. 3894207 Canada Inc. Référence neutre : 2006 CSC 22. No du greffe : 30839. 2005 : 18 octobre; 2006 : 2 juin. Présents : La juge en chef McLachlin et les juges Major*, Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella et Charron. EN APPEL DE LA COUR D’APPEL FÉDÉRALE Propriété intellectuelle — Marques de commerce— Confusion — Restaurateur demandant l’enregistrement de la marque de commerce « Barbie’s » en liaison avec une petite chaîne de restaurants — Opposition à l’enregistrement par le fabricant des poupées BARBIE—L’emploi du nom « Barbie’s » en liaison avec des restaurants est-elle susceptible de créer de la confusion sur le marché avec la marque de commerce BARBIE?—Loisur les marques de commerce, L.R.C. 1985, ch. T-13, art. 6. Droit administratif— Contrôle judiciaire—Normede contrôle—Commission des oppositions des marques de commerce de l’Office de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada — Rejet par la Commission de l’opposition à l’enregistrement de la marque de commerce — Norme applicable à la décision de la Commission. L’appelante affirme que la poupée BARBIE est une icône de la culture pop. Elle s’oppose à la demanded’enregistrement par l’intimée de sa marque de commerce « Barbie’s » et de son dessin en liaison avec « des services de restaurant, des services de mets à emporter, [ainsi que] des services de traiteur et de banquet », au motif que certaines marques ont acquis une tellerenommée que des marques telles que BARBIE ne peuvent dorénavant être apposées sur la plupart des services et des biens de consommation au Canada, sans que le consommateur moyen soit amené à inférer l’existence d’un lien commercial avec les propriétaires de ces * Le juge Major n’a pas pris part au jugement. (“Board”) accepted the respondent’s argument that its use of the “Barbie” name (since 1992) for its small chain of Montreal area restaurants would not likely create confusion in the marketplace with the appellant’s BARBIE trade-mark and allowed the registration. The Board found BARBIE’s fame to be tied to dolls and doll accessories and that the respondent’s applied-for mark, used in connection with very different products and services, was not likely to be confusing with any of the appellant’s BARBIE marks. Both the Federal C

FAQs

What was the core trade-marks issue in this appeal?

Whether the use of “Barbie’s” for restaurant services was likely to create confusion with the “BARBIE” trade-mark for BARBIE dolls and related products.

How did the Trade-marks Opposition Board assess confusion?

It accepted that the fame of BARBIE was tied to dolls and accessories and that the respondent’s mark, used for very different services, was not likely to be confusing.

What was the Supreme Court of Canada’s outcome?

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Board’s decision and rejecting the request to introduce fresh evidence in the form of a survey.

Aug 28, 2026

Upload by Jordan Avery