Twisted in Knots: Federal Court Finds Trademark Confusion In Dispute Between GTA Physiotherapy Clinics

On February 14, 2025, the Federal Court of Canada (the Court) issued its decision in Habbous v Arc Physio Health Ltd., 2025 FC 297, finding that Arc Physio Health Ltd. (the Respondent) had infringed, passed off, and depreciated the goodwill of the registered trademark PHYSIOHEALTH STUDIOS (the Mark).

Joanna Habbous (the Applicant) registered the Mark in 2015 for physiotherapy and other health-related goods and services and used it in connection with her physiotherapy clinic in downtown Toronto. The Respondent was initially incorporated as “Physio Health Ltd.” and later changed its name to “Arc Physio Health Ltd.” in response to cease-and-desist correspondence from the Applicant. Despite the Respondent’s change of name, the Applicant commenced an application alleging that the Respondent’s use of the above names (and corresponding marks PHYSIO HEALTH and ARC PHYSIO HEALTH) infringed, passed off, and depreciated the goodwill of the Applicant’s Mark, and that certain individual respondents should be held personally liable.

The Court found that the term “PHYSIOHEALTH” was both a coined term and the dominant element of the Applicant’s Mark. The Court then held that the term “ARC” was descriptive of the location of the Respondent’s business (i.e., the name of the building where it is located) and noted that other businesses in the same building use “ARC” in their name; the Court therefore concluded that, in these surrounding circumstances, consumers would be likely to focus on the words “PHYSIO HEALTH”. As the Respondent had not provided evidence of actual use of the words “PHYSIO” and “HEALTH” by other businesses in the marketplace, the Court found that confusion in this case was likely, and that the tests for infringement, passing off, and depreciation of goodwill were satisfied. However, the Court found that the individual respondents had not acted in a manner which would attract personal liability.

Ultimately, the Court granted the application in part, ordering (among other things) that the Respondent pay $15,000 in compensatory damages and $10,500 in costs and granting a permanent injunction to restrain the Respondent from further acts of infringement, passing off, and depreciation of goodwill.

Summary By: Claire Bettio