772, 2006 SCC 22 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the infringement of famous trade-mark names.

The Board based its decision on the fact that Mattel presented no evidence of actual confusion (although it was not required to), the mark had a low degree of inherent distinctiveness (as it is a short form of the name "Barbara"), and the nature of the uses by the two parties were very different.

The Federal Court decided that the trade-mark, "Barbie" by Mattel is not iconic enough to cause consumer confusion.

Binnie held that the standard of review applicable to the Trade-marks Opposition Board’s decision was reasonableness, based on the test set out in Dr. Q v College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia [2003] 1 SCR 226.

[6] Binnie clarified that the appropriate perspective in which to weigh these five factors is that of an "ordinary casual consumer somewhat in a hurry.

[10] Binnie held that "the parties operate in different and distinct channels of trade within which their respective wares and services do not intermingle.

[12] Binnie stated that lack of any evidence of actual confusion is another circumstance that can be taken into account, while the intention, or mens rea, of the creators of "Barbie’s" restaurant is irrelevant.

[14] However, in determining how broad the scope of the trade-mark protection should be, Binnie stressed the importance of courts considering the totality of the circumstances.