SkyChoice urges Federal Court to throw out Bell’s trademark injunction suit

A small Ontario telecommunications provider has told Federal Court it should be able to continue to market its wireless home internet service as “WiFibe,” urging it to deny a trademark injunction request filed by BCE Inc. SkyChoice Communications Inc. said in a statement of defence filed Sep. 4 that its WiFibe wireless service was not in direct competition with Bell’s Fibe IPTV service, which is bundled together with a home internet package, and any similarities between the two trademarks is due to the widespread use of the word “fiber” in recent years. In a suit filed last month, Bell sought an injunction against the Oakville, Ont.-based SkyChoice, while also calling for calls for “Punitive, exemplary, and aggravated” damages. SkyChoice only provides its WiFibe service in low density rural areas, Skychoice’s defence claims, while Bell’s Fibe is “only marketed and made available by the Plaintiff in higher density urban areas where wired fiber optic facilities exist or in urban areas with enough population density that allow for cost-effective return on investment when deploying new wired fiber optic facilities.” Skychoice said its logos, graphics, colours and texts used to market the four WiFibe packages were “distinct and do not create any confusion with the Plaintiff’s trademark.” “At no time did the Defendant capitalize or try to capitalize on the Plaintiff’s FIBE trademark,” Skychoice’s defence states, adding that WiFibe is an abbreviation for “WiFi Fiber Optics.” No instances of confusion among customers had been caused by the names of the two services, Skychoice said in its defence. Further, SkyChoice argued Bell’s trademark for “FIBE” was invalid and urged it to be expunged from the Trademark Register. “The word FIBE lacks distinctiveness and does not function as a trademark. Many consumers view the word FIBE as synonymous with fiber optics, and the Plaintiff’s use of the trademark FIBE in association with its services implies that all of the Plaintiff’s FIBE services are provided by fiber optics,” Skychoice’s defence states. It also claimed the trademark is misleading as the service is actually delivered using a combination of fibre optic and copper wiring, while some services, such as FIBE 5, are not delivered using fibre optic cable at all. Skychoice also denied its use of the WiFibe trademark resulted in it gaining unjust or unlawful profit, or any loss or damage to Bell, and argued Bell was not entitled to any compensation.

SkyChoice urges Federal Court to throw out Bell’s trademark injunction suit

Brief | September 9, 2020

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

SkyChoice urges Federal Court to throw out Bell’s trademark injunction suit

Brief | September 9, 2020

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Bell creates U.S. fibre firm, cuts dividend in first quarter report

Telecom providers spend months preparing for climate disasters, hoping their infrastructure makes it through unscathed

CCTS report finds Telus most complained-about service provider; billing issues ‘top of mind’ for customers

Ontario prison long-distance rates case back at the CRTC

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us