The High Price of Brand Piggybacking: Exxon Mobil Secures $275,000 Default Judgment in Trademark Battle

Case: Exxon Mobil Corporation v Mobil Plus Lubricant Inc. Taqmeer Hummad, 2025 FC 1987

The Federal Court recently granted a default judgment in favor of Exxon Mobil Corporation (“Exxon”) against an Ontario-based company, Mobil Plus Lubricant Inc., and its director, Taqmeer Hummad (the “defendants”). This ruling serves as a warning to businesses attempting to "piggyback" on the reputation of established global brands.

Exxon owns a family of trademarks, MOBIL, registered for use in association with motor oil and related products. In 2024 Exxon discovered that the defendants had applied for trademarks for "MOBIL PLUS" and a related design for use with automobile/automotive lubricants. Investigation revealed that the defendants were selling motor oil and advertising services using these marks at a Toronto location and online.

To obtain default judgment, the moving party must establish first, the opposing party has not filed a statement of defence within the deadline specified in Rule 204 of the Rules; and second, the evidence must enable the Court to find on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff has established its claim.

The defendants failed to file a statement of defence. Exxon put forward significant affidavit evidence on its motion, which found, inter alia:

• The defendants claimed their products were certified by the American Petroleum Institute and General Motors; neither had actually certified the product.
• The defendants sold "MOBIL PLUS" oil alongside genuine Exxon products, occasionally substituting their own product when customers asked for the genuine brand.
• Despite a February 2025 interlocutory injunction, the defendants continued to display infringing signage at their facilities.

The Court ultimately found Exxon had established its claims on the balance of probabilities and found the defendants liable for several violations of the Trademarks Act:

1. Trademark Infringement (s. 20): The "MOBIL PLUS" marks were deemed confusingly similar to Exxon’s registered trademarks.
2. Depreciation of Goodwill (s. 22): The use of the marks on products with false quality certifications likely damaged the "positive association" consumers have with the MOBIL brand.
3. Passing Off (s. 7): The Court ruled the defendants intentionally used Exxon's reputation for their own gain and even substituted their goods for Exxon’s when customers made requests.

The Court allowed the motion for default judgment, and ordered the defendants be barred by permanent injunction from using the MOBIL PLUS marks, and pay Exxon $200,000 in damages and $75,000 in costs. Notably, the defendant Taqmeer Hummad was held personally liable, alongside his company. The Court found that he had personally applied for the trademarks and directed the infringing activities, meaning he cannot hide behind the "corporate veil."

This ruling highlights the Federal Court’s willingness to issue substantial financial penalties, even in default proceedings, when a defendant’s conduct is "blatant and flagrant." For brand owners, it reinforces the importance of aggressive monitoring and swift legal action to maintain the integrity of their trademarks.