Trademark appeal allowed in part based on new evidence of prior use for some goods.
The applicant appealed a decision of the Trademarks Opposition Board which refused its application in part for the trademark WORKHORSE on the basis of a likelihood of confusion with the respondent's identical registered mark.
On appeal, the applicant filed new evidence regarding the length and extent of its use of the mark.
The Court found the new evidence was material, warranting a correctness review on affected issues.
The Court allowed the appeal in part, finding no likelihood of confusion with respect to work gloves and socks, but upholding the refusal for other clothing-related goods.
