On September 23, 2025, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) issued its decision in Sobeys Capital Incorporated v CCP Productos, S.A.P.I. de C.V., 2025 TMOB 190, refusing CCP Productos, S.A.P.I. de C.V.’s (the Applicant) application for the mark VUALA in relation to bread, cookies, frozen confectionary, and pastries.
The TMOB found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Applicant’s mark and one or more of Sobeys Capital Incorporated’s (the Opponent) registered marks for VOILA for grocery ordering and delivery services, focusing its analysis on the Opponent’s VOILA word mark (TMA1132518).
In assessing the degree of resemblance, the TMOB found each of the words VOILA and VUALA to be the single dominant aspect of the parties’ respective trademarks. The TMOB noted that the marks are phonetically similar (if not identical) and share some similarities in appearance, but could not determine with certainty how VUALA would be perceived in terms of the idea suggested by the average consumer. The TMOB thus determined that the marks were slightly more similar than dissimilar overall.
In addition, the TMOB found that the Opponent established extensive use of its VOILA marks in its affidavits and favoured the Opponent’s evidence on inherent and acquired distinctiveness over the Applicant’s.
The TMOB also found the nature of the goods and services to be similar enough that consumers would expect the Applicant’s goods to be sold through channels of trade operated by the Opponent.
The TMOB was left in a state of doubt as to whether a consumer encountering VUALA for the first time would be able to distinguish it from the Opponent’s VOILA wordmark. While the TMOB acknowledged that the degree of resemblance between the parties’ trademarks was not high, it nonetheless held that the differences between the marks were not sufficient to tip the balance of probabilities in favour of the Applicant. The TMOB noted that, at best for the Applicant, the probability of confusion was evenly balanced, and ultimately concluded that, on a balance of probabilities, the Applicant failed to show no reasonable likelihood of confusion between the marks.
Summary By: Amy Ariganello
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.
