Federal Court of Canada allows judicial review of interlocutory ruling refusing leave to add a new ground of oppposition

F
EDERALCOURTOFCANADAALLOWSJUDICIALREVIEWOF
INTERLOCUTORYRULINGREFUSINGLEAVETOADDANEWGROUNDOF
OPPOSITION

STELLASYRIANOS*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS
Inarecentjudgment,Canada’sFederalCourtallowedajudicialreviewofthe
Registrar’srefusaltograntleavetotheApplicanttoamenditsstatementof
oppositiontoincludeanadditionalgroundofoppositionrelatingtotheRespondent’s
satisfactionofitsentitlementtouseitsmark(section30(i)oftheTrade-marksAct)in
combinationwithanotherprovisionintheCanadianTrade-MarksActconcerningthe
depreciationofthegoodwillattachedtoanopponent’sregisteredtrade-mark(section
22oftheTrade-marksAct).(ParmalatCanadaInc.v.SyscoCorporation,2008FC
1104(CanLII),October2,2008)
Thefacts
OnMay3
rd,2002,theRespondent(“Sysco”)filedanapplicationtoregisterthetrade-
markBLACKDIAMONDinassociationwithvariousproductsincludingcutlery,chef’s
apparelsuchascapsandaprons,aswellascookingpotsandfryingpansdistributed
tofoodserviceprovidersforuseinservingfood,basedonuseandregistrationinthe
UnitedStates.
OnMay4
th,2004,theApplicant(“Parmalat”)filedaStatementofOpposition,based
onseveralgroundsincludingconfusionwithParmalat’sfamilyofBLACKDIAMOND
trade-marksregisteredforcheeseandrelatedproducts.Parmalatobtainedseveral
extensionsoftime,onconsent,tofileitsevidencependingresolutionofsettlement
discussionsbetweentheparties.
OnJuly25
th,2007,onthebasisofcommentsmadeintheSupremeCourtofCanada
decisionofJune2,2006regardingtheVEUVECLICQUOTtrade-mark(Veuve
ClicquotPonsardin,MaisonFondéeen1772v.BoutiquesCliquotLtée,2006SCC23
(CanLII),[2006]1S.C.R824),whichhaddiscussedsection22oftheTrade-marks
Act(hereafter:the“Act”)dealingwithdepreciationofgoodwill,Parmalatrequested



















































CIPS,2008.*Lawyer,StellaSyrianosisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirmof
lawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.PublishedintheNovember2008issueoftheWorld
IntellectualPropertyReport.Publication142.218.

2
leavetofileanamendedstatementofoppositionseekingtoincludeanadditional
groundofoppositionbaseduponsection30(i)incombinationwithsection22ofthe
Act.Inessence,theaddedgroundofoppositionraisedanallegationthatSysco
coundnot,atthedateoffilingofitsapplication,havebeensatisfiedthatitwas
entitledtousethetrade-markBLACKDIAMONDgivenitsawarenessofParmalat’s
confusinglysimilarBLACKDIAMONDtrade-marksandthatsuchusewasandis
likelytohavetheeffectofdepreciatingthevalueofthegoodwillattachingtothe
registeredtrade-markBLACKDIAMONDownedbyParmalat,contrarytosection22
oftheAct.
TheRegistrar’sdecision
OnDecember6
th,2007,Parmlat’srequestwasdismissedbytheTrade-marks
OppositionBoard(hereafter:the“TMOB”)whostatedthatintheschemeof
administrativeoppositionproceedings,theRegistrarisnotempoweredtoinquireon
issuesofdepreciationofgoodwillwhichamattersoleytobedeterminedbythe
Courts.TheTMOBalsoruledthatsection22oftheActisnotapropergroundof
oppositionundertheAct.
ParmalatsoughttosetasidetheTMOB’sdecisionofDecember6
th,2007byfilinga
judicialreviewapplicationbeforetheFederalCourtofCanada.Section18.1ofthe
FederalCourtActprovidesforanapplicationforjudicialreviewinrespectoffederal
administrativetribunals,suchastheTMOB.Parmalatfileditsapplicationbecause
undersection40oftheTrade-markRegulations(hereafter:the“Regulations”),
ParmalatneededleavefromtheTMOBinordertoamenditsstatementofopposition
forthepurposeofaddinganewgroundofopposition.
Issuestobedetermined
Parmalat’sjudicialreviewapplicationraisedthefollowingissues:
1.
Thetribunal’sdecisionbeinginterlocutoryshouldtheFederalCourtdecide
thisjudicialreviewapplicationconsideringthesettledjurisprudencethat
interlocutorydecisionsshouldnotbereviewedonappealoronjudicialreview
unlessthereexistsexceptionalcircumstances?
2.
Ifthedecisionistobereviewed,whatistheappropriatestandardofreview?
3.
Didthetribunalcommitanyreviewableerrors?
Reviewofinterlocutorydecisions
Barringspecialcircumstances,itissettledlawinCanadathatinterlocutoryrulings
shouldnotbereviewedonappealorinjudicialreviewproceedings.Similarly,thereis
usuallynobasisforjudicialreviewonaninterlocutorydecisionwhensomeother

3
remedyexistsattheendoftheproceedings.
TheFederalCourtheldthatinthecontextofoppositionproceedingstoregister
trade-marks,thereexistsspecialcircumstanceswarrantingimmediatejudicialreview
ofadecisionrefusingtograntleavetoaddanewgroundofoppositiongiventhatat
theendoftheoppositionproceedingwhichisanappealtotheFederalCourtunder
section56oftheAct,theFederalCourtwouldhavenojurisdictiontodealwithan
issuenotfoundinthestatementofopposition.Assuch,thereexistsnoadequate
remedyotherthanthecourseofactiontakenbyParmalatbywayofjudicialreview.
Applicablestandardofreview
ParmalatarguedthattheTMOBrefuseditsrequesttograntleavetoamendits
statementofoppositionbasedonlegalgroundsratherthanintheexerciseofits
discretionundersection40oftheRegulationsandthereforecommittedseveral
legalerrors.Aboveall,ParmalatarguedtheTMOBmisapprehendedthenatureof
theissuebeforeitbyrulingonwhethersection22oftheActcanbepleadedasa
groundofoppositionratherthandecidingwhetherornotitshouldgrantleaveto
Parmalattoamenditsstatementofoppositiononproperprinciplesforthegrantof
suchleavesetoutintwoPracticeNoticesrelatingtoproceedingsbeforetheTMOB
datedAugust19
th,1996andOctober1,2007.TheseNoticesidentifythefollowing
factorstobetakenintoconsideration:(a)thestageoftheproceedings;(b)timing;(c)
importance;and(d)prejudice.
SyscoarguedthattheTMOB’sdecisionwasmadeintheexerciseofitswide
discretionundersection40oftheRegulationsandithadnotoverlookedanimportant
matter.
Basedontheparties’submissions,theFederalCourtruledthattheapplicable
standardofreviewwascorrectnessandnotreasonablenessasitconcludedthatthe
TMOBdidnotrenderitsdecisionintheexerciseofitsdiscretionundersection40of
theRegulations.TheCourtunderlinedthatinitsdecision,theTMOBmadeno
referencetothefactorsmentionedinthePracticeNotices.Instead,theTMOB
rejectedParmalat’srequestbecauseinitsview,asamatteroflaw,ithadno
authoritytoentertainissuesofdepreciationofgoodwillandasaresultruledthat
section22oftheActwasnotapropergroundofopposition.TheCourtheldthatthis
decisionbasedonabsenceofjurisdictionisreviewableofacorrectnessstandard.
Reviewableerror
TheFederalCourtdecidedthatitsinterventionwaswarrantedinsofarastheTMOB
misstatedtheissuebeforeit.ItagreedwithParmalat’scounselwhounderlinedthat
Parmalatneverarguedthenotionthatsection22oftheActcouldbyitselfsustainan

4
independentgroundofopposition.Hence,theCourtreferredthematterbacktothe
Trade-MarksOppositionBoardforreconsiderationbyadifferentmembertakinginto
accountthereasonssetforthbytheFederalCourt.
Conclusion
TheCourt’sdecisionservesasaremindertotrade-markpractitionersthat
amendmentstostatementsofoppositionfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheRegistrar.
Moreover,inthecaseofarefusaltoamend,theappropriateremedytocontestthe
Registrar’sdecisionisbywayofjudicialreviewandnotonappeal.Indeed,a
statementofoppositionisanoriginatingdocumentthatcanonlybefiledinthe
CanadianTrade-marksOfficeandisnotadocumenttobefiledbeforetheFederal
Courtforwhichamendmentstosuchdocumentwouldfallwithinthejurisdictionofthe
FederalCourt(seeSunWorldInternationalInc.v.ParmalatDairy&BakeryInc.,
2007FC641(F.C.Aronovitchprothonotary,June20,2007).Moreimportantly,this
decisionmayhaveopenedthedoortomultiplefuturedebatesastowhetherornot
section22oftheActcoupledwithsection30(i)oftheActisavalidgroundof
opposition.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,
propriétélittéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;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.

5
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
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
Trade-marksofLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP(“ROBIC”)