Posts Tagged ‘standard of review’
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 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 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
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. Continue Reading
Subscription Options
