Appeal from TMOB decision dismissed; HALLMARK not clearly descriptive of real estate services.
The applicants appealed a Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) decision rejecting their opposition to the respondent's trademark application for HALLMARK in association with real estate services.
The applicants argued the TMOB erred by failing to find the mark clearly descriptive as a laudatory term, non-distinctive, a prohibited mark, and not owned by the respondent due to a franchise agreement.
The Federal Court held the TMOB made no extricable legal errors or palpable and overriding factual errors, finding HALLMARK not clearly descriptive of real estate services and not exclusively owned by the franchisor under the license agreement.
The appeal was dismissed.
