In its recent decision G6 Hospitality IP LLC v. Sandals Resorts International 2000 Inc., 2025 FC 1430, the Federal Court upheld a Trademarks Opposition Board (“TMOB”) decision rejecting G6 Hospitality IP LLC’s (“G6”) opposition to Sandals Resorts International 2000 Inc.’s (“Sandals”) trademark application for THE WORLD’S ONLY SIX STAR LUXURY INCLUDED VACATION & Design in association with travel- and hotel-related goods and services.

Before the TMOB, G6 had argued that Sandals’ mark was confusing with its own “family” of trademarks and trade names associated with its MOTEL 6 chain, which included a registration for the number “6”. The TMOB disagreed, finding that the words “SIX STAR” and the associated numeral six and star design were the most prominent and striking aspects of Sandals’ mark, which the TMOB  determined bore a fairly low degree of resemblance to G6’s marks. Consequently, the TMOB found that Sandals met its onus to show that confusion was not likely and rejected G6’s opposition.

On appeal, G6 alleged two errors:

1. The TMOB erred in treating “SIX STAR” as a dominant aspect of Sandals’ mark; and
2. The TMOB erred by failing to properly consider the G6 marks as a “family” of trademarks.

For the first ground, G6 argued that the supposed suggestive or laudatory connotation of “SIX STAR” meant that it could not be a dominant element of Sandals’ mark. For the second ground, G6 argued that by focusing the analysis on G6’s mark for 6, rather than each mark in G6’s “family” of marks, the TMOB failed to consider all surrounding circumstances as required by section 6(5) of the Trademarks Act.

The Court rejected both arguments. It held that the TMOB was not required to address whether “SIX STAR” was suggestive or laudatory since G6 had not raised this point during the TMOB proceedings, but instead merely asserted that “the trademarks of both parties comprise or are dominated by the numeral 6”. The Court also held that the TMOB had fully addressed the “family” of marks argument in making its findings by focusing on the common element 6 and effectively treating evidence about use of trademarks that included the number 6 as brand recognition of 6 alone.

G6’s appeal was therefore dismissed.