Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Mobil Plus Lubricant Inc., 2025 FC 1987
Justice Furlanetto - 2025-12-17
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
This is a motion by the Plaintiff, Exxon, for default judgment against the Defendants and its sole director, pursuant to Rule 210 of the Federal Courts Rules. ... For the reasons set out below, it is my view that default judgment should be granted on the terms set out herein. ... In this case, the Defendants’ MOBIL PLUS & Design mark does not identically incorporate the Plaintiff’s MOBIL word marks. ... I agree with the Plaintiff’s submissions that the marks are confusingly similar and that the considerations under subsection 6(5) of the TMA support a likelihood of confusion such that a declaration under section 20 of the TMA should issue. The likelihood of confusion is also supported by actual instances of confusion evidenced by the Plaintiff and is consistent with objections raised by the Examiner to the registrability of the MOBIL PLUS Marks, based on confusion with the Plaintiff’s MOBIL Registered Marks. However, I do not agree that a declaration under section 19 can be granted. ... [A]s Hummad is the owner of the MOBIL PLUS and MOBIL PLUS & Design trademark applications, all uses of these trademarks by Mobil Plus must be permitted under a license granted by Hummad. In my view, these activities are sufficient to establish personal liability and to award damages and costs, payable jointly and severally.
Decision relates to:
- T-73-25 - EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION v. MOBIL PLUS LUBRICANT INC. et Al.