On March 24, 2025, the Trademarks Opposition Board (the TMOB) released its decisions¹ regarding the opposition of two trademark applications (application numbers 1866370 and 2019781) made by Robin Hood Inc. (the Applicant) for registration of the trademark “Robin Hood” (the  Applicant’s Mark). The Applicant’s Mark was filed in association with a wide variety of goods and services, including “providing online non-downloadable electronic books in the field of education.” The applications for the Applicant’s Mark were opposed by Robinhood Markets Inc. (the Opponent). The Opponent is a financial services company that provides a mobile application for securities trading and investing, and provides information regarding finance and investing. Specifically, the Opponent’s services include “providing information in the fields of investment and finance over computer networks and global communication networks.”

The Opponent was ultimately successful in its opposition of the Applicant’s Mark, claiming that the Applicant’s Mark was confusing with the Opponent's registered trademark “ROBINHOOD” (the Registered Mark), as well as its other previously used trademarks and trade names that include the word ROBINHOOD.

Grounds of opposition

The following grounds, among others, were relied upon in the opposition of the Applicant’s Mark:

• The Applicant’s Mark is not registrable because it is confusing with the Registered Mark (the Registrability Ground);
• The Applicant is not the person entitled to register the Applicant’s Mark because, as of the filing date of the application, the Applicant’s Mark was confusing with the Opponent’s other trademarks and trade names containing the word ROBINHOOD;
• The Applicant’s Mark is not distinctive of the Applicant because it does not and cannot distinguish the Applicant's goods and services from those of the Opponent, since the Applicant’s Mark is confusing with the Registered Mark and the Opponent’s other trademarks and trade names containing the word ROBINHOOD;
• The Applicant was not using and did not propose to use the Applicant’s Mark in association with its goods and services, as of the filing date of the application; and
• The application was filed in bad faith because the Applicant was aware of the Opponent's prior trademark rights and filed the application nonetheless, knowing that it could not lawfully use the trademark in Canada.

Reasons for decision

The Registrability Ground

The Opponent submitted that the Applicant’s Mark was not registrable under Canada’s Trademarks Act² because it was confusing with the Registered Mark. Given that the Registered Mark was in good standing as of the date of the TMOB decision, the Applicant was required to demonstrate that the Applicant’s Mark was not confusing with the Registered Mark.

Test for Confusion

The test for confusion in the context of two trademarks is whether the use of both marks in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference that the goods or services associated with the trademarks are manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed (as the case may be) by the same person.³ The standard to be applied to this test is the impression in the mind of a casual consumer somewhat in a hurry, who sees the applied-for trademark at a time when they have no more than an imperfect recollection of the opponent's trademark. All circumstances surrounding the applicable trademarks must be considered, including:

• The inherent distinctiveness of the trademarks and the extent to which they have become known;
• The length of time the trademarks have been in use;
• The nature of the goods, services or business;
• The nature of the trade; and
• The degree of resemblance between the trademarks, including in appearance or sound in the ideas suggested by them.⁴

Decision

In considering the above-noted circumstances, the TMOB found that the subject trademarks are essentially identical, since both consist of English phrases whose ordinary meaning has no discernible connection to the goods or services offered by either party. The TMOB also noted that the Registered Mark has been used in Canada since at least 2019, and the Registered Mark has become known in Canada to at least some extent. Conversely, the TMOB noted that, in the absence of admissible evidence or submissions from the Applicant, it could not conclude that the Applicant’s Mark had become known in Canada to any extent, and there was no evidence that the Applicant’s Mark had ever been used in Canada. Additionally, in the absence of admissible evidence or submissions from the Applicant, a determinate conclusion could not be reached in respect of the parties’ goods, services and trade. Accordingly, the TMOB was not satisfied that the likelihood of consumer confusion was less than even. For these reasons, the Registrability Ground was successful, and the other grounds of opposition did not need to be considered in refusing the registration of the Applicant’s Mark.

These decisions provide an important reminder to those with registered trademarks to monitor the marketplace for third party trademarks that could cause consumer confusion and potentially result in harm to brand distinctiveness.

If you have any questions or want to learn more about how to protect your trademarks, please contact the authors, Jaclin Cassios or Everett Putz or any member of Dentons’ Intellectual Property group.

1. See Robinhood Markets, Inc. v. Robin Hood Inc., 2025 TMOB 71 and Robinhood Markets, Inc. v Robin Hood Inc., 2025 TMOB 73.↩
2. RSC 1985, c T-13.↩
3. Ibid at s 6(2).↩
4. Supra note 2 at s 6(5).↩