Posts Tagged ‘Summary Judgment’
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. Continue Reading
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. Continue Reading
In Enbridge, Inc. v. Excelerate Energy, LP (Opp. No. 91170364) , the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) unanimously denied the motion for summary judgment brought by Opposer Enbridge, Inc. (“Enbridge”) based on fraud. The TTAB found that there was not “clear and convincing” evidence that Applicant Excelerate Energy, LP (“Excelerate”) intended to deceive the USPTO. Continue Reading
In 2045978 Ontario Inc. (Chaps The Original) v. Chaps Aldershot (2009 FC 872), the Federal Court allowed a motion for summary judgment in a dispute between two restaurant owners. The Court held the evidence clearly indicated infringement and passing-off by defendant Chaps Aldershot, as defined by ss. 19, 20 and s.7(b) of the Trade-Marks Act, respectively. Continue Reading
Subscription Options
