By In Tucumcari Aero, Inc. v. Cassels, Brock & Blackwell LLP (2010 FC 267), Tucumcari Aero, Inc. ("Tucumcari") appeals the Registrar of Trademarks' ("Registrar") expungment of its MOTO MIRROR Trade-mark Reg. No. 496,171 due to lack of control of character as required by section 50(1) of the Trade-Marks Act ("the Act"). While the Registrar was satisfied as to use with truck and automobile mirrors, it found Tucumcari's affidavit ambiguous as to the control Tucumcari had maintained and ordered the mark expunged under section 45 of the Act. 
Federal Court Holds s50(1) Satisfied Where Registrant Maintains Control Through Chain of Sub-Licenses
FC Declines to Apply Official Mark Prohibitions to Traditional Chinese Medicine Designations, Grants Summary Judgement Finding Designation Acronyms Descriptive, Recognized
In College of Traditional Chinese Medical Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia v. Council of Natural Medicine College of Canada (2009 FC 1110), the Federal Court ("FC") granted the College of Traditional Chinese Medical Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia's ("Chinese Traditional College") motion for summary judgment. Registered and application marks of the Council of Natural Medicine College of Canada ("Natural Medicine College") were expunged for being descriptive under section 12(1)(b) of the Trade-Marks Act (the "Act"), not distinctive under section 18(b), and invalid for registration and in fine under section 18(1). A permanent injunction was issued against Natural Medicine College on two grounds: its marks had previously been commercially usaged under section 10 and mislead the public under section 7(d) of the Act.
TTAB Refuses Acquired Distinctiveness Tacking Under R2.41(b) Finding Hollywood/Bollywood Marks Lacking Legal Equivalence
By In In re Nielsen Business Media, the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board ("TTAB") affirmed an examining attorney's refusal to register a mark under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act. After considering and rejecting the applicant's claim that the acquired distinctiveness of the applicant's previously registered marks could "tack" onto the new mark, the TTAB agreed with the examiner's finding that the mark THE BOLLYWOOD REPORTER (Serial Nos. 77223725 and 77223738) for entertainment news papers and online publications was merely descriptive of the goods.
FCA confirms narrow interpretation of s.20(1) trade secret and confidentiality disclosure exceptions of Access to Information Act
In Canada (Minister of Health) v. Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. (2009 FCA 166), the Federal Court of Appeal ("FCA") reversed the Federal Court ("FC") and held the Minister of Health ("MOH") could disclose pharmaceutical regulatory approval records to a competitor access requestor under section 4(1) of the Access to Information Act ("the Act") without notice since none of the narrow exceptions listed in sections 20(1)(a)-(c) of the Act applied.
An access requestor requested records from the Minister of Health ("MOH") regarding Merck Frosst Canada's ("Merck Frosst") New Drug Submission ("NDS") for Singulair, a drug used in the treatment of asthma. After considering the section 20(1) exceptions, the MOH disclosed sections of the records to the requesting party without notice to Merck Frosst. The FC had held the MOH could not disclose information to an access requestor unless Merck Frosst was given notice to object since the records contained trade secrets, confidential technical information, or materials that could affect the financial or competitive position of a party.
TTAB rules minimual evidence of actual confusion suffuicent for summary judgemnt on liklihood of confusion where mark identical to prior famous mark used on identical goods
In Texas Department of Transportation v. Richard Tucker, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") unanimously granted the Texas Department of Transportation's ("TxDOT") motion for summary judgment, holding no genuine issue of material fact existed and Richard Tucker's ("Tucker") mark was likely to cause confusion.
TxDOT and Tucker both claimed use of and registered the same mark, "DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS" for goods, specifically clothing. TxDOT, claiming priority of use and a likelihood of confusion under 15 U.S.C. § 1052, filed a petition to cancel Tucker's registration and a notice of opposition against Tucker's pending application under 15 U.S.C. § 1064 and 15 U.S.C. § 1063 respectively. The two cases were consolidated.
CAFC Reiterates Supremacy of Judicial Precedent Over PTO’s Rule Making Authority In Interference Proceedings
In Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Company, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") reversed and remanded the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington's ("District Court") order dismissing Koninklijke Philips Electronic's ("Philips") complaint with prejudice.
The District Court affirmed the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' (the "Board") decisions, finding its "reasons for denying or dismissing each motion were grounded in the application of the Board's own procedures and regulations." On appeal, the CAFC reversed and remanded the District Court's decision. The CAFC held that the District Court improperly dismissed Philips' complaint sua sponte, thereby entering a de facto summary judgment; wrongly dismissed Philips' claim that the Board erroneously applied 37 C.F.R. §41.200(b); and improperly dismissed Philips' claim that the Board erred in denying its contingent motion to find several of the competing applicant's claims anticipated or obvious.
|