Source: http://trademarkblog.ca/page/42/
Timestamp: 2020-04-01 01:53:07
Document Index: 610666520

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1', 'Application No. 1']

trademarkblog.ca – Page 42 – Canadian Trademark Blog
September 19, 2006 September 19, 2006 By Clark WilsonIn Branding
Applications to the Canadian Trade-marks Registrar evidence the growing trend towards ever more interesting and entertaining wine labels. Witness the following marks advertised in the Canadian Trade-marks Journal over the course of the last 3 months.
Mighty Good Water (Application No. 1,261,728),
Eighty Links (Application No. 1,268,597),
Dancing Bull (Application No. 1,286,717),
Brain Storm (Application No. 1,289,532),
Pick Axe (Application No. 1,263,838),
Two Fins (Application No. 1,281,971),
Funky Llama (Application No. 1,289,469),
Fish Hoek (Application No. 1,261,072),
Crackerjack (Application No. 1,271,199),
Pizza Red (Application No. 1,270,326),
Monkey Trail (Application No. 1,285,774),
Sweet Revenge (Application No. 1,283,146),
Midnight Leap (Application No. 1,283,146),
Bad Dog (Application No. 1,223,732),
Leap of Faith (Application No. 1,269,547),
Rusty Shed, (Application No. 1,280,041).
Of these 15 marks, 6 are Australian in origin, namely, EIGHTY LINKS, PICK AXE, TWO FINS, CRACKERJACK, PIZZA RED and MIDNIGHT LEAP, 4 are sought by Canadian companies, namely, BRAINSTORM, MONKEY TRAIL, SWEET REVENGE and RUSTY SHED. The names are creative and, it would appear, distinctive.
One of the advertised marks, BAD DOG is not just for wine. The mark is also sought for use in association with various clothing, table ware and dog toys, as well as the services of “wine event sponsorships and dog event sponsorships”.
David, Goliath And Reverse Confusion
September 18, 2006 September 18, 2006 By Neil MellishipIn Branding, Protection & Enforcement
Microsoft is once again at the forefront of a trademark infringement dispute , though this time the David in the story is on a bit weaker ground – it sells construction management software under the FOREFRONT brand and MS recently announced it will begin selling security software under that same brand – so clearly the claimed goods are different, but the marks are identical and there could be overlap in the channels of trade. Reading between the lines, the earlier user here is worried about reverse confusion, which occurs where a later user floods the market with its brand, subsuming the earlier user’s more modest reputation.
Though an established cause of action in the U.S., it’s only recently been recognized as being actionable in one Canadian case – however, in that case the A&W fast food chain was unable, on the facts, to prove that it had a cause of action against McDonalds in a battle of their respective CHICKEN GRILL and CHICKEN McGRILL sandwiches.
September 11, 2006 September 11, 2006 By Clark WilsonIn Branding
September 10, 2006 September 10, 2006 By Clark WilsonIn Case Law, Protection & Enforcement
Summer is a quiet time for the Canadian courts. Looking back at July and August, there are three decisions that deserve a brief summary:
In Ratiopharm Inc. v. Laboratories Riva Inc., the Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action alleging infringement of its registered Canadian trade-mark. The plaintiff sold a codeine based cough syrup under the mark CALMYLIN, while the defendant sold a similar codeine based product under the mark DAMYLIN. At trial there were two issues to be heard: (1) Did the plaintiff have standing to sue? and (2) Is DAMYLIN likely to be confused with CAMYLIN within the meaning of section 20 of the Trade-marks Act? With regards to standing, the court held that the license requirements of the Trade-marks Act had been satisfied and as such and the plaintiff had standing to commence an action for trade-mark infringement. With regards to the issue of confusion, the court held that there was no likelihood of confusion between CAMYLIN and DAMYLIN in the mind of the average consumer, even if hurried. The plaintiff’s action for trade-mark infringement was dismissed.
In DJang v. Ji, a decision of the British Columbia Supreme Court, the plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from marketing certain herbal products under names for which the plaintiffs had registered Canadian trade-marks. The plaintiffs also alleged passing off and a breach of the British Columbia Trade Practice Act. The Court applied a two-pronged test for granting interlocutory injunctions, holding that while there was a fair question to be tried, the balance of justice and convenience did not favour the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffsÂ since there was no convincing evidence of the totality of factors to establish irreparable harm. In the end, the Court declined to grant the interlocutory injunction.
Tradition Fine Foods Ltd. v. Group Tradition’l Inc., was an appeal to the Federal Court from a decision of the Trade-marks Opposition Board (the “Board”). The Board had rejected the applicant’s opposition to the respondent’s registration of BAGEL TRADITION’L and design. Upon reviewing the Board’s decision, the Court held that it was open to the Board to dismiss the applicant’s opposition on the ground of confusion. The Court found there to be almost no points of resemblance between the applicant’s TRADITION and TRADITION FINE FOODS trade-marks and the respondent’s proposed trade-mark when the trade-marks were considered in their totality. In the Court’s view, the Board had properly considered all the factors set out in subsection 6(5) of the Trade-marks Act. The Court further held that the applicant had not met its burden of proving that the word “TRADITION’L” or the imagery of the bagel and wheat sheaves was clearly descriptive of the intrinsic quality of bagels.
September 7, 2006 September 7, 2006 By Clark WilsonIn Branding
Archives Select Month March 2020 January 2020 December 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 June 2019 March 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 April 2018 February 2018 February 2017 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 November 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 March 2015 December 2014 October 2014 August 2014 June 2014 April 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 March 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 October 2011 September 2011 July 2011 May 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006