Posts Tagged ‘non-use’
In Jose Cuervo S.A. de C.V. v. Bacardi and Company Limited (2010 FCA 248), the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) upheld a decision (2009 FC 1166) of the Federal Court of Canada (“Federal Court”) without providing additional reasons, dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade-Marks (“Registrar”) to expunge Jose Cuervo S.A. de C.V.’s (“Jose Cuervo”) trade-mark registration # 341,290 CASTILLO for non-use.
Jose Cuervo markets alcoholic beverages, including Castillo rum. Jose Cuervo owned Canadian trade-mark registration No. 341,290 for its CASTILLO trade-mark. Bacardi & Company Limited (“Bacardi”) requested the Registrar issue a notice under S. 45 of the Trade-marks Act, which provides for the expungement of marks not used during a three-year period immediately preceding notice from the Registrar unless the non-use is due to special circumstances. Continue Reading
In Cobalt Brands LLC v. Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP (2010 FC 260), Cobalt Brands LLC (“Cobalt”) appealed the Registrar of Trade-Marks’ (“Registrar”) expungement of its USQUABEACH trade-mark Reg. No. 219,908 from the Trade-Mark register (“register”) due to Cobalt’s failure to file evidence of use pursuant to subsection 45(3) of the Trade-marks Act (“the Act“). Cobalt had acquired the USQUAEBACH mark in order to produce, market, import, and export a blended Scotch Whiskey which had been absent from the market since 2001. The Federal Court of Canada (“Federal Court”) allowed the appeal, setting aside the decision of the Registrar and ordering it to reinstate Cobalt’s USQUAEBACH mark. Continue Reading
In Loro Piana S.P.A. v. Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (2009 FC 1096), the Federal Court reversed a Hearing Officer’s decision to delete certain wares from Loro Piana’s mark, ING. LORO PIANA & C. (“the PIANA mark”), for non-use. On appeal, Loro Piana was able to show that invoices that had been before the Hearing Officer, which referred to the wares in question by code in fact established use, by filing additional exhibits explaining the meaning of those codes. The Court also held that, by adding the text “FABRICS MADE IN ITALY” and “Super 120′s,” Loro Piana had not deviated from the registered form of its trademark as the text would not have been perceived as forming part of the PIANA mark itself. Similarly, cautious variations can be made from a mark, in this case, Loro Piana used a script version of the PIANA mark, so long as the same dominant features of a mark are maintained and the differences are not so unimportant as not to mislead an unaware purchaser. Continue Reading
In Loro Piana S.P.A. v. Canadian Council of Professional Engineers (2009 FC 1095), the Federal Court reversed a Hearing Officer’s decision to delete certain wares from Loro Piana’s mark ING. LORO PIANA & C. & DESIGN (the “Mark”), for non-use. On appeal, Loro Piana was able to show that invoices that had been before the Hearing Officer, which referred to the wares in question by code, in fact established use by filing additional exhibits explaining the meaning of those codes. The Court also held that by adding the text “FABRICS MADE IN ITALY,” Loro Piana had not deviated from the registered form of its trademark as the text would not have been perceived as forming part of the mark itself. Continue Reading
Subscription Options
