4 total
Trademark opposition appeal allowed based on new evidence of prior use and likelihood of confusion.
BrandStorm appealed a decision of the Trademarks Opposition Board rejecting its opposition to Naturally Splendid's application to register the NATERA trademark.
BrandStorm filed new evidence establishing its prior use of the NATIERRA trademark in Canada.
The Federal Court conducted a de novo review, found a likelihood of confusion between the two marks, and concluded that the NATERA mark was not distinctive.
The appeal was allowed, and the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to refuse the NATERA application.
Motion for certificate of pending litigation dismissed as damages were an adequate alternative remedy.
The plaintiff, a real estate developer, moved for leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against a property purchased by the defendants.
The plaintiff alleged the defendants used its confidential strategic development plan to acquire the property, breaching a confidentiality agreement, and sought a constructive trust.
The court found the plaintiff raised a triable issue regarding an interest in the land based on breach of confidence and unjust enrichment.
However, the court declined to grant the CPL, finding the property was not unique, damages were an adequate and calculable alternative remedy, and the potential harm to the defendants' financing outweighed the harm to the plaintiff.
Appeal dismissed; application judge correctly interpreted settlement agreement regarding internet search phrases.
The appellant appealed a decision interpreting a settlement agreement between two internet-based boater accreditation businesses.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly interpreted the unambiguous wording of the agreement in accordance with sound commercial principles, particularly regarding the use of phrases to drive internet traffic.
Settlement agreement barred translated trademark phrases but allowed reasonable implementation time.
Two companies providing online boating certification courses brought competing applications alleging breach of a settlement agreement that resolved prior trademark litigation.
One party alleged the other breached the agreement by using translated variations of prohibited trademark phrases in website metatags, while the other alleged breach through acceptance of prepaid vouchers issued by it.
The court held that the settlement agreement’s prohibition on using certain phrases extended to translations such as “boat exam” and “boating exam,” and ordered the respondent to cease using them.
However, the court found that a five‑day delay in ceasing to honour prepaid vouchers constituted performance within a reasonable time where the agreement specified no deadline.
