In Bauer Hockey Corp. v. Easton Sports Canada Inc. (2010 FC 361), the Federal Court (“FC”) held Easton Sports Canada Inc. (Easton) infringed, and induced others to infringe, plaintiff Bauer’s Canadian Patent No. 2302953 (“the ’953 patent”) claiming an improved skate having a one-piece quarter section. The FC found all skates manufactured by Easton using a claimed “F” pattern were infringing since these skates featured all of the essential elements claimed in the ’953 patent design. Continue Reading
In Scott Paper v. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP (2010 FC 478), the Federal Court of Canada (FC) set aside a decision from the Trade-Marks Opposition Board (TMOB) and reinstated applicant Scott Paper’s trade-mark application covering a daisy flower square pattern design for use with bathroom tissue.
Scott Paper had appealed under section 56 of the Trade-marks Act (the Act) against respondent Georgia-Pacific’s opposition on the grounds of confusion under 12(1)(d) and subsection 6(5), lack of entitlement under subsection 16(3) to register a confusing mark and lack of distinctiveness over the respondent’s own mark. Continue Reading
In Apotex Inc. v. Syntex Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (2010 FCA 155), the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) affirmed the Federal Court’s (FC) decision (2009 FC 494) dismissing Apotex’s claim for damages under s.8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (“PMNOCR”). The FCA held that s.8 of the PMNOCR does not apply where an innovator prevailed in PMNOCR prohibition proceedings but not in subsequent patent litigation, meaning generic manufacturers cannot retroactively apply a finding of invalidity to PMNOCR prohibition proceedings. Continue Reading
In Procter & Gamble Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolve Canada Inc. (2010 FC 231), the Federal Court of Canada (FC) upheld a decision of the Trade-marks Opposition Board (“the Board”) rejecting the Applicant Procter & Gamble’s appeal under section 56 of the Trade-marks Act (the Act) opposing the registration of the Respondent Colgate-Palmolive’s trade-mark Application for a Striped Toothpaste Design.
The FC addressed the appropriate standard of review and questioned whether the Board had erred in rejecting the Applicant’s opposition to trade-mark Application No. 760,655 on six grounds. Continue Reading
Subscription Options
