1 total
Puma's trademark application for "procat" refused due to likelihood of confusion with Caterpillar's "CAT" marks.
Caterpillar appealed a decision of the Trademarks Opposition Board which rejected its opposition to Puma's proposed trademark "procat" for footwear and headgear.
The Federal Court conducted a de novo review due to new material evidence and found that Caterpillar met its burden to demonstrate controlled licensing of its trademarks.
The Court concluded that Puma failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that its trademark was not confusing with Caterpillar's marks or that it was distinctive, resulting in the refusal of Puma's application.
