Gentec et al v. Nuheara IP Pty et al, 2022 FC 1715

Justice St-Louis - 2022-12-13

Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:

This is a motion for summary trial brought by Gentec in the context of a trademark dispute between Gentec and Nuheara. ... On this Motion, Gentec seeks an Order from the Court confirming that (1) its Registration 998 has not been shown to be invalid; (2) the trademark IQbuds, used and displayed in Canada by Nuheara in association with its earbud headphones, is confusing with Gentec’s registered IQ trademark; (3) Nuheara has infringed Gentec’s rights in the IQ registered trademark under sections 19 and 20 of the Trademarks Act; and (4) it is entitled to an injunction and to an accounting and disgorgement of Nuheara’s profits earned through its infringing sales. Nuheara responds by attacking the validity of Gentec’s Registration 998 for the trademark IQ under paragraph 18(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act, for lack of distinctiveness. ... For the reasons that follow, I find first that proceeding by motion for summary trial is appropriate. As for the merits of this case, I find that (1) Nuheara has established, by balance of probabilities, that Gentec’s Registration 998 for the trademark IQ is invalid due to lack of distinctiveness at the relevant time ... It has established that it is more probable than not that Canadian consumers perceive the term IQ not as a trademark owned by Gentec, but as a shorthand for a smart or intelligent device. (Thanks to Michael Shortt for a copy of the decision)

Decision relates to:



Canadian Intellectual Property