Archive for the ‘Trade-mark Oppositions’ Category
« Older Entries |Affidavit Struck: US Trademark Decision Not to Be Used as Evidence
Friday, September 10th, 2010
The Federal Court recently took the unusual step of striking evidence on an interlocutory application, concluding that the affidavit at issue contained irrelevant or hearsay evidence going to controversial issues and that the objecting party would be prejudiced if admissibility was left to the trier of fact.
In The Chamberlain Group v. Lynx Industries Inc., Chamberlain sought to file an affidavit in support of its appeal of two Opposition Board decisions, the Board having rejected its oppositions to the trade-marks LYNXMASTER and LYNXMASTER & Design. The Affidavit at issue was sworn by Chamberlain’s U.S. counsel and sought to introduce the decision of the U.S. Trademark and Trial Appeal Board (“TTAB”) which allowed Chamberlain’s opposition to LYNXMASTER and was not appealed by Lynx.
In its decision the Federal Court of Canada specifically noted that Chamberlain was seeking to rely on the TTAB decision as evidence of the likelihood of confusion and not simply as a precedent, concluding that, while the TTAB decision might have precedential value in appropriate circumstances, it was clearly irrelevant to the determination of factual issues in the Canadian trademark proceedings. Moreover, the fact that Lynx did not appeal the TTAB decision was irrelevant and not something Lynx should be required to explain.
The Court was also concerned that the affidavit sought to summarize evidence given by Lynx’s deponent in the TTAB proceedings, although the same deponent filed affidavits in the Canadian opposition proceedings which Chamberlain declined to cross-examine on.
In light of these concerns the Court chose to exclude the affidavit.
Posted in Case Law, Trade-mark Oppositions | No Comments »
Certification Mark Under the Trade-marks Act Refused: Evidence of Use by Others
Monday, August 16th, 2010
In Ministry of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of Cyprus v. Les Producteurs Laitiers du Canada et al. the Federal Court set aside two decisions of the Registrar of Trade-marks, but allowed a third to stand in part, which was sufficient to prevent registration of the Applicant’s certification mark, HALLOUMI, in association with cheese.
The Registrar concluded that contrary to sections 38(2)(a) and 30(a) of the Trade-marks Act, the Applicant had not discharged its initial burden of proving that it was in fact the authority that issued licences authorizing the use of the Mark in association with cheese. Section 23(2) of the Act provides that only the owner of a certification mark may authorize others to use the mark in association with wares that meet the defined standard. Relying on the Applicant’s own affidavit material the Registrar concluded that it was the Ministry of Health, in collaboration with the Department of Veterinary Services of the Ministry of Agriculture, National Resources and the Environment, that issued licences. On appeal by the Applicant, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, filed additional evidence explaining the internal operations of the Cypriot government in terms of the responsibility for monitoring the use of the Mark. The Court accepted this evidence, applied a correctness standard of review given the new evidence, and concluded that the Applicant was the authority with the power to authorize use of the Mark.
The Applicant also appealed on the basis that the Registrar incorrectly concluded that the Mark had become recognized in Canada by ordinary and bona fide commercial usage as designating a type of cheese, contrary to sections 38(2)(b), 10 and 12(1)(e) of the Act. No new evidence was filed on this point and the standard of review was therefore reasonableness. The Court agreed that one of the Opponents, the Cheese Council, had filed evidence before the Registrar, including packaging from cheese purchased in Ottawa and various cities in Quebec, establishing that marks resembling the Mark and likely to be mistaken for it had been used in Canada to designate a type of cheese.
The other two opponents could not rely on the evidence filed by the Cheese Council and therefore, given the Court’s finding on the other issue, their oppositions failed with the appropriate cost consequences. Nevertheless, success by the Cheese Council meant the certification mark could not be registered, with costs to the Cheese Council on its opposition.
Posted in Case Law, Registration, Trade-mark Oppositions | 1 Comment »
Beer, Trademarks and the Jurisdiction of the Opposition Board
Wednesday, June 9th, 2010
Molson Canada 2005 v. Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, a decision of the Federal Court and another case in an ongoing “beer war”, provides an interesting analysis of the jurisdiction of the Opposition Board. The Opponent before the Opposition Board, Molson, through a predecessor in title, held the registered trademark for the label for Standard Lager:
(“the Standard Lager Mark”) a beer continuously sold in Canada since 1926, but almost exclusively in the province of Manitoba. Anheuser-Busch, the Applicant before the Opposition Board, had two labels that were registered as trade-marks:
(“the Registered Anheuser-Busch Marks”). The opposition arose when Anheuser-Busch sought to register an “updated” version of its two previously registered marks (“the Proposed Anheuser-Busch Marks”).
The Federal Court reviewed the litigation history arising in respect of the earlier registered marks, including a 1986 Federal Court of Appeal decision, Carling O’Keefe Breweries of Canada Ltd. v. Anheuser-Busch Inc., which concluded that the Standard Lager Mark and the Registered Anheuser-Busch Marks were confusing, that there was some sort of impropriety when the Standard Lager Mark was originally registered in 1929 since it was inspired by and designed with knowledge of the BUDWEISER label, but Carling (Molson’s predecessor in title) could rely on the equitable defence of laches and thus there was no basis for expunging either the Standard Lager Mark or the Registered Anheuser-Busch Marks.
The Opposition Board allowed the registration of the Proposed Anheuser-Busch Mark as it applied to clothing since Molson had not established that the ambit of protection accorded to the Standard Lager Mark included wares other than beer. With regards to use in association with beer the Opposition Board determined that it could limit the scope of protection afforded the Standard Lager Mark since the Court of Appeal had determined it was wrongfully obtained. Thus, Molson’s opposition with regards to use in association with beer was rejected.
The Federal Court disagreed and allowed the opposition with regards to use in association with beer. The Court was particularly concerned that the Opposition Board had exceeded its jurisdiction, since it is limited in an opposition proceeding to determining if a trademark is or is not registrable. Thus, for example, if there is a confusing mark on the register, the new mark cannot be registered. However, if the existing registration of an invalid trademark is interfering with the registration of a new trademark, it is up to the applicant for the new mark to take the necessary steps, usually an expungement application to the Federal Court, to get the register corrected. In an opposition proceeding, the validity of an opponent’s registered mark is not in issue.
The Federal Court was concerned that the Opposition Board could not limit the ambit of protection afforded the Standard Lager Mark on the basis that the Court of Appeal had questioned the lawfulness of the registration. Indeed, the Court of Appeal had not found the registration of the Standard Lager Mark was unlawful, but had instead found that the registration was not a nullity. Thus, Molson was relying on a valid registration and the question to be answered was whether the Proposed Anheuser-Busch Mark was confusing with the Standard Lager Mark. The Federal Court concluded they were confusing, applying the test in section 6(5) of the Trade-marks Act and giving particular weight to two surrounding circumstances: (1) that the Court of Appeal had found the Registered Anheuser-Busch Marks confusing; and (2) an acknowledgement in the Memorandums of Fact and Law filed by both the parties that the marks were confusing.
The beer wars continue and we may very well see an appeal.
Posted in Case Law, Registration, Trade-mark Oppositions | 1 Comment »