Posts Tagged ‘Section 45’
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 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. Continue Reading
In Curb v. Smart & Biggar, the applicant — a well known American record producer — successfully petitioned the Federal Court to set aside the Registrar’s decision to strike certain wares and services from his registration of the mark CURB RECORDS. The Court found that the additional evidence the applicant had filed on appeal was sufficient to establish use for the purposes of § 45 of the Trade-marks Act (the “Act“). In particular, the Court held that under the circumstances, evidence that the applicant’s multimedia website was accessible from Canada was sufficient to show use with respect to the provision of “entertainment services provided by pre-recorded music,” even though the site was hosted abroad. However, the Court disregarded evidence that the applicant had sold t-shirts and caps bearing the mark in Canada “and/or” the United States for lack of specificity, affirming the Registrar’s decision to strike those wares from the applicant’s registration. 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
Subscription Options
