1
ALLEGEDUSENOLONGERARELEVANTCONSIDERATIONWHENEXAMININGA
TRADE-MARKAPPLICATION,RULESFEDERALCOURTOFAPPEALINEFFIGICASE
BarryGamache*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,LLP
Lawyers,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Victoria-Square–BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242–Fax(514)8457874
info@robic.com-www.robic.ca
Inanimportantdecisionthatchangestherulesofthegameregardingthe
filingoftrade-markapplicationsinCanada,Canada’sFederalCourtof
Appeal,inAttorneyGeneralofCanadav.EffigiInc.,2005FCA172(F.C.A.,
Décary,LétourneauandPelletierJJ.A.)confirmedanearlierdecisionofthe
FederalCourt(EffigiInc.v.AttorneyGeneralofCanada(2004),35C.P.R.(4th)
307(F.C.,ShoreJ.))whichhadruledthattheRegistrarcannotrefusean
applicationonthebasisthatitisconfusingwithanotherapplicationfiledata
laterdate,butalleginganearlierdateoffirstuse;inotherwords,atthe
examinationstage,allegationsofusearenotarelevantconsiderationto
determineentitlement.
EversincetheadoptionofCanada’scurrentTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.
T-13(the”Act”)backonJuly1,1954,ithadbeenthepracticeoftheRegistrar
ofTrade-markstorefertoanyallegeddateoffirstusementionedinatrade-
markapplication(andnottoitsactualfilingdate)whencomparingtwo
confusingandco-pendingapplications.Thispracticeresultedinpreferential
treatmentbeinggiventoalaterfiledapplicationallegingadateoffirstuse
whichwasearlierthanthefilingdateofafirstfiledproposeduseapplication;
thelaterfiledapplicationwasthustheoneallowedtopublicationfor
oppositionpurposes.
ItisinthecontextofthispracticethatonDecember19,2000,EffigiInc.
(hereafter”Effigi”)filedanapplicationtoregisterthetrade-markMAISON
UNGAVAonthebasisofproposeduseofthistrade-markinCanadain
associationwithbeddingproducts.Exactlyten(10)monthslater,onOctober