1
ANIMPORTANTCHANGEREGARDINGTHETREATMENTOFTRADE-MARK
APPLICATIONSINCANADA:AFIFTYYEARPRACTICEBYTHETRADE-MARKS
OFFICEISOVERTURNEDFOLLOWINGTHEDECISIONOFTHEFEDERALCOURTOF
APPEALINTHEEFFIGICASE
BarryGamache*
LEGERROBICRICHARD
,L.L.P.
Lawyers,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com
Inanimportantdecisionwhichchangestherulesofthegameregardingthe
treatmentoftrade-markapplicationsinCanada,theFederalCourtofAppeal
inAttorneyGeneralofCanadav.EffigiInc.,2005FCA172(F.C.A.,Décary,
LétourneauandPelletier,JJ.A.)confirmedanearlierdecisionhandeddown
in2004bytheFederalCourt(EffigiInc.v.AttorneyGeneralofCanada(2004),
35C.P.R.(4th)307(F.C.,ShoreJ.))whereitwasdecidedthattheRegistrarof
Trade-marks,whenexaminingatrade-markapplicationunderparagraph
37(1)(c)oftheTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.(1985),c.T-13,cannotrefusea
proposedusetrade-markapplicationbecauseofconfusioncreatedwith
anothertrade-markmentionedinalaterfiledapplicationwhichallegesa
dateoffirstusethatisearlierthanthedateoffilingofthefirstfiled
application;inotherwords,attheexaminationstage,anallegeddateofuse
isnotarelevantfactortodetermineentitlementtoregistration.
TheRegistrar’spractice
EversincetheadoptionofCanada’scurrentTrade-marksActbackonJuly1
st,
1954,ithadbeenthepracticeoftheRegistrarofTrade-markstorefertoany
allegeddateoffirstusementionedinatrade-markapplication(andnottoits
actualfilingdate)whencomparingtwoconfusingandco-pending
applicationsinordertodeterminewhichonewillbepublishedforopposition
purposesintheTrade-marksJournalandwhichonewillberejected.