skip to main content
Back to all blog posts

Posted in: Intellectual Property

Jun 18, 2018

Quebec Court Denies Exclusive Use Of Geographic Location in Car Dealership’s Name

By Stan Fedun and Ken Clark

In the recent Superior Court of Quebec decision, 7531877 Canada ltée (Buckingham Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge) c 9531025 Canada Inc. (Buckingham Chevrolet Buick GMC), dated May 17, 2018, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant engaged in false advertising (name appropriation) by using “Buckingham” in its name and logo.

This case deals with tooth-and-nail battles between local car dealerships and the extent to which geographical names are trademarkable.

The plaintiff and the defendant are car dealerships. They are located approximately 600 meters apart in Masson-Angers, a borough of Gatineau, Quebec. Both dealerships market themselves as being located in Buckingham, a neighbouring borough in Gatineau. In February 2016, the defendant car dealership changed ownership. The new owner changed the name of the dealership from “Baurore Automobiles” to “Buckingham Chevrolet Buick GMC.”

The plaintiff petitioned the court for an injunction to prohibit the defendant from using “Buckingham” in its name and for any other related commercial purpose (including using “Buckingham” in association with any other car brands). The plaintiff claimed that the use of “Buckingham” may create confusion between the names of the two dealerships. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s claims. It argued that the use of “Buckingham” in its name does not create confusion and that the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive usage of a geographic location in its name. The defendant requested that the court declare the plaintiff’s action “abusive” and to order the plaintiff to reimburse its costs and pay $10,000.00 in punitive damages.

The court considered the likeness of the names and logos and held that the use of “Buckingham” in the defendant’s name did not create confusion between the two dealerships nor the type of cars they sold. It also found no justification for granting the plaintiff exclusive use of the word “Buckingham” in association with any other car brands. Finally, the court did not find the plaintiff’s action abusive and denied the defendant reimbursement of costs and punitive damages. 

Areas of Expertise

Related Categories

Related Blogs

Posted in: Intellectual Property

Insights TheSpotlight
The Dangers of Discount Patent Services - You Get What You Pay For By Ken Clark and Monica Carinci Aug 22, 2018 In the recent Superior Court of Quebec case Bérubé C. - Federation of Inventors of Quebec, 2018 QCCS 3459, dated August 2, 2018, the Court granted a certification for a class action against the Federation of Investors of Quebec and its founder, president and sole director Christian William Varin....

Posted in: Intellectual Property | Blockchain

Insights TheSpotlight
The Ultimate Blockchain Patent Teardown Why blockchain applications are patent-eligible By Tony Sabeta, B.Eng. Aug 15, 2018 As a patent practitioner, one of the questions I often get asked is whether distributed ledger technology (DLT), such as blockchain, is patentable. I naturally respond in the affirmative (with some qualifiers of course), and inevitably there is a deluge of follow-up questions and statements such...

Posted in: Intellectual Property | Court Decision

Insights TheSpotlight
The Value of a Copyrighted Photograph Is Not Necessarily in the Eye of the Beholder By Ken Clark and Stan Fedun Jul 19, 2018 In the May 2018 decision, Gaudreau c Néomédia inc., the Québec Small Claims Court considered the amount of damages to award for the unauthorized use of a copyrighted photograph.