Court Rules on Appropriate Forum for Challenging Existing Registration

C
OURTRULESONAPPROPRIATEFORUMFORCHALLENGINGEXISTING
REGISTRATION

STELLASYRIANOS*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS
Inaveryrecentdecision,theFederalCourtofAppealruledthatrightlyorwrongly,
whenatrade-markisregistered,anappealunderSection56oftheTrade-marksAct
isaninappropriateremedyforapartyseekingtosetasideanexistingregistration
[SadhuSinghHamdardTrustv.TheRegistrarofTrade-marksandAjitNewspaper
Advertising,MarketingandCommunications,Inc.2007FCA355(DocketA-93-06)
November2
nd,2007].
TheFacts
TheCourtofAppealwasfacedwithasetoffactsthatmadethecasebeforeit
unique:theAppellantsoughttoexerciseitsrightofappealunderSection56ofthe
Trade-marksActaftertheRespondent’smarkhadbeenregistered.Theparticularset
ofcircumstancesthatresultedintheAppellanthavingtochallengearegistrationit
initiallyintendedtoopposeissummedupasfollows.
OnJanuary20,2004,theRespondentfiledanapplicationfortheregistrationofits
trade-mark,AJITWEEKLYDesign.OnNovember10,2004,itwasadvertised.The
statutorydelaytoopposetheapplicationexpiredtwomonthslater,onJanuary10,
2005.OnDecember23,2005,theAppellantwrotetotheRegistrarseekingathree
monthextensiontofileaStatementofOpposition,therebybringingthenextdelayto
opposetoApril10,2005.
TherewasnodisputeastotheletterbeingreceivedbytheRegistrarbutitwasnever
acknowledgedandwhetherbyinadvertenceorforsomeotherreason,theextension
requestwasoverlooked.Asaresult,onJanuary28,2005,theRegistrarissueda
NoticeofAllowanceadvisingtheRespondentitsmarkhadbeenallowedto
registrationandonMarch3,2005,itstrade-markwasregistered.

©CIPS,2007.*Lawyer,StellaSyrianosisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,LLP.,amultidisciplinaryfirmof
lawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.Publication142.205.

2
Inthemeantime,theAppellantsagenthadnotfollowed-uptoseewhathadbecome
ofitsrequestforanextensionoftimetooppose.Unawarethatithadnotbeen
consideredbytheRegistrar,onMarch31,2005,theAppellantsagentfileda
StatementofOpposition,onlytolearnthatthetrade-markhadbeenregistered.
Initially,theAppellantsoughttochallengetheregistrationbymeansofanapplication
forjudicialreviewonthegroundoflackofproceduralfairness.However,itchoseto
abandonthatapplicationwhichwasdiscontinuedonJune7,2005.Subsequently,on
September27
th,2005,theAppellantbroughtamotion(whichwasthesubjectofthe
presentappealbeforetheFederalCourtofAppeal),seekinganextensionoftimeto
fileaNoticeofAppealpursuanttosection56oftheTrade-marksAct.ThisSection
givesCanada’sFederalCourtjurisdictiontohearappealsfromanyfinaldecisionsof
theRegistrar.
AmongstthereliefsoughtbytheAppellantwasanorderdirectingtheopposition
againsttheAJITWEEKLYDesigntrade-marktoproceedinaccordancewiththe
StatementofOppositionfiledwiththeRegistraranddatedMarch31,2005aswellas,
inthealternative,anorderthatsubjectregistrationbestruckoutbecause,atthedate
itwasregistered,itdidnotaccuratelyexpressordefinetheexistingrightsofthe
Respondent.
FederalCourtdecision
ThemotionforanextensionoftimetofileaNoticeofAppealwasdismissedasthe
CourtruledthattheAppellanthadmisconceiveditsremedy.Themotionsjudgefound
thattherewasnodecisionoftheRegistrartochallengebecauseAppellant’srequest
tofileanextensionoftimetoopposewasnotrefusedbytheRegistrar,ithadsimply
goneunanswered.Therefore,wherethereisnodecision,therighttoappealisnot
triggeredandasaresult,theappropriateremedywastochallengetheregistrationby
wayofanexpungementproceedingpursuanttosection57oftheTrade-marksAct.
ThisSectiongivesCanada’sFederalCourtexclusivejurisdictionindecidingwhether
aregisteredtrade-markshouldbeexpunged:
TheFederalCourthasexclusiveoriginaljurisdiction,onthe
applicationoftheRegistrarorofanypersoninterested,toorderthat
anyentryintheregisterbestruckoutoramendedontheground
thatatthedateoftheapplicationtheentryasitappearsonthe
registerdoesnotaccuratelyexpressordefinetheexistingrightsof
thepersonappearingtobetheregisteredownerofthemark.
ThemotionsjudgewasalsocriticaloftheAppellant’sfailuretoverifythestatusofits
requestforanextensionoftimewiththeRegistrarasitsJanuary10
th,2005deadline
approached,choosinginsteadtodonothinggiventheAppellantconsideredit“a
routinerequestofthesortthatisinvariablygrantedbytheRegistrar”.

3
FederalCourtofAppealdecision
TheAppellantseemedtorelyheavilyonadecisionoftheFederalCourtinAultFoods
Ltd.v.Canada(RegistrarofTrade-Marks(1991),36C.P.R.(3d)499(affirmedbythe
FederalCourtofAppeal,(1992),45C.P.R.(3d)479)insupportofitspositionthatthe
Courthadthejurisdictiontointerveneinitsfavourevenaftertheregistrationof
Respondent’strade-mark.
ThefactsinAultFoodsweresimilartothefactsinthepresentcaseonlyinsofaras
theRegistrarhadnottakenintoaccountarequestforanextensionoftimetofilea
statementofoppositionandhadissuedanoticeofallowancetoregistration.
However,unlikethepresentcase,themarkinAultFoodshadnotbeenregistered.At
thetimeoftheAultFoodsdecision,theschemeoftheTrade-MarksActprevented
theRegistrarfromactinguponsuchrequestsiftheapplicationhadalreadybeen
allowedtoregistration.UnderwhattheCourtinAultFoodsdeemedtobe
“appropriate”circumstances,itconcludedthatbywayofjudicialreview,Section18of
theFederalCourtActallowedtheCourttoquashthenoticeofallowanceanddirect
theRegistrartoconsidertheextensionoftimerequest.
However,theFederalCourtofAppealhaddifficultywithAppellant’srelianceonthe
AultFoodscasebecausesubsequenttothatdecision,theActwasamendedto
provideanalternateremedythatwasnotavailabletotheopponentatthetime:the
Registrarispermittedtosetasideanoticeofallowancetoregistrationatanytime
beforeissuingacertificateofregistrationincaseswhereshehasnotconsidereda
previouslyfiledrequestforanextensionoftimetofileastatementofopposition.
Therefore,anopponentwhoseextensionwasoverlookedmaybringtheissuetothe
Registrar’sattentionpriortotheissuanceofthecertificateofregistration.Thisisone
ofthereasonswhytheCourtdismissedtheappeal.Theexistenceofanadequate
alternateremedyjustifiedtheFederalCourt’srefusaltoexerciseitsjurisdiction.
TheotherreasonconveyedbytheCourtisthatanoppositionproceedingisnotthe
appropriateforumforquestioningaregistrationandthatthisisconsistentwiththe
schemeoftheActwhichprovidesaspecificforumandspecificgroundsfor
challenginganexistingregistration(Section57oftheAct).
Failuretomonitortherequestforanextensionoftimetooppose
TheAppellantalsodefendeditselfregardingitsresponsibilityforthecourseofevents
thathadbefallenit.Appellant’scounseltookthepositionthatitiscommonpracticein
thetrade-marksfieldtofilerequestsforextensionsoftimetoopposeandthatsuch
requestsaregrantedbytheRegistrarasamatterofcourse.Furthermore,Appellant’s
counselrejectedthesuggestionitwasboundtomonitorwhetherornotitsrequestfor
anextensionoftimewasgranted.Tothecontrary,accordingtoAppellant’scounsel,

4
theburdenwasontheRegistrartoactinaccordancewiththelawandtheAppellant
wasundernoobligationtoverifythegrantingofsuchanextensionrequest.
Foritspart,theRespondentarguedthattheAppellantcannotassumethatarequest
foranextensionoftimetoopposeatrade-markapplicationinvariablyresultsinits
grant.TheCourtdidnotaddresstheseissuesotherthantostate“Withtheexercise
ofalittlediligence,apartywhoserequestforanextensionoftimehasnotbeen
consideredcanbringthemattertotheregistrar’sattentionpriortotheissuanceofa
registrationandhaveitsrequestforanextensionconsideredonitsmerits.The
appellantcannotfailtotakeadvantageofasummaryremedyundertheActandthen
arguethattheregistrar’soversighthascausedittobeputtothetroubleandexpense
ofamoreonerousproceeding.”
Conclusion
T
hiscasemeritstheseriousattentionofeverytrade-markpractitionerwhoroutinely
filesrequestsforextensionsoftimetoopposetrade-markapplications.Asidefrom
appropriateforumissues,whatismoreimportanttoretainfromthiscaseisthatthe
exerciseofalittlediligencecouldgoalongway.Verifyingthestatusofarequestfor
anextensionoftimetoopposecouldpreventanopponentfromfindingitselfinthe
unenviablepositionofhavingtochallengearegisteredtrade-markviajudicial
proceedingsthatitinitiallyintendedtochallengethroughadministrativechannels.

5
ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,
logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentions
végétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchiseset
transfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;
marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligente
etaudit.ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicated
since1892totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:
patents,industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksand
indicationsoforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,
neighbouringrights;computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,
pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-
trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionand
businesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;
duediligence.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLULINVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELA
PLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOUR
IDEASTOTHEWORLD