On January 29, 2025, the Federal Court of Canada (the Court) issued its decision in T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. v Glidepath Technologies Inc., 2025 FC 179, finding that the Trademarks Opposition Board (the Board) erred in its assessment of the degree of resemblance of the trademarks at issue and directing that Glidepath Technologies Inc.’s (Glidepath’s) application to register its LIVE WITH CONFIDENCE mark (the Mark) be refused.
In August 2023, the Board rejected T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.’s (Rowe’s) opposition to the Mark in association with certain financial investment and advisory services. The matter was appealed by Rowe, arguing to set aside the Board’s decision and refuse Glidepath’s application for the Mark based on the likelihood of confusion between the Mark and Rowe’s registered RETIRE WITH CONFIDENCE and INVEST WITH CONFIDENCE trademarks. Neither party filed new evidence on appeal.
The Court agreed with the Board’s findings that: (i) the parties’ trademarks are unitary phrases, as no aspect of the trademarks appear more striking or unique than the remainder; and (ii) each of the three short slogan-like phrases suggest that a consumer can either live, invest, or retire, having confidence in one’s financial security by engaging either party for their financial management service offerings. However, the Court found that the Board erred in law by failing to assess the marks in their totalities when it employed a side-by-side comparison, parsing each mark into its component parts and comparing the ideas suggested between the components. When considering the ideas suggested by the trademarks as a whole, the Court concluded that the trademarks bear sufficient resemblance in the ideas suggested by them to be confusing.
The Court went on to find that the Board: (a) committed a palpable and overriding error in conducting an analysis between the trademarks as unitary phrases based on the ideas suggested only by the first word of each trademark; and (b) erred in holding that the suggestive nature of "WITH CONFIDENCE" minimized the degree of resemblance.
Ultimately, the Court granted Rowe’s appeal, set aside the Board’s decision, and directed the Registrar of Trademarks to refuse Glidepath’s application for the Mark.
Summary By: Steffi Tran
E-TIPS® ISSUE
Disclaimer: This Newsletter is intended to provide readers with general information on legal developments in the areas of e-commerce, information technology and intellectual property. It is not intended to be a complete statement of the law, nor is it intended to provide legal advice. No person should act or rely upon the information contained in this newsletter without seeking legal advice.
E-TIPS is a registered trade-mark of Deeth Williams Wall LLP.
