Filing of Evidence on Appeal in Trade-Mark Opposition Proceedings will now be Impossible in Certain Cases, Federal Court Rules



FILINGOFEVIDENCEONAPPEALINTRADE-MARKOPPOSITIONPROCEEDINGS
WILLNOWBEIMPOSSIBLEINCERTAINCASES,FEDERALCOURTRULES

by
BarryGamache
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

ArecentdecisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadahassetasidealong
standingassumptionthatnewevidencecouldalwaysbefiledbeforetheTrial
DivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadaonappealofdecisionsrenderedby
theTradeMarksOppositionBoard(PrimaxComputerCorp.v.Primax
Electronic(U.S.A.)Inc.,T-665-95,June27,1995,reportedat(1995),62C.P.R.
(3d)75(FederalCourt,TrialDivision,Denault,J.);uponMotion,theFederal
CourtofAppealhasrejectedtheappealofthisdecisiononDecember15,
1995).
UnderSubsection56(1)ofCanada’sTrade-MarksAct(R.S.C.1985,c.T-13),an
appealliestotheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtfromanydecisionofthe
Registrar(whetheritbefromoneortheotheroftheRegistrar’sadministrative
Sectionsi.e.theOppositionBoardortheSection45ExpungementDivision)
withintwomonthsfromthedateonwhichnoticeofthedecisionis
dispatchedbytheRegistrarorwithinsuchfurthertimeastheCourtmayallow,
eitherbeforeoraftertheexpirationofthetwomonths.Furthermore,
Subsection56(5)oftheActstates:”OnanappealunderSubsection(1),
evidenceinadditiontothatadducedbeforetheRegistrarmaybeadduced
andtheFederalCourtmayexerciseanydiscretionvestedintheRegistrar”.
ThedecisionoftheRegistrarfromwhichanappealliesunderSection56is
onewhichinvolvesajudicialdeterminationofapracticalquestionoffact
anddoesnotinvolvetheexerciseoftheRegistrar’sdiscretion.Wherethe
Registrarhasgonewrong,itisopentotheCourttosubstituteitsconclusionfor
thatoftheRegistrar(seeOshawaGroupLtd.v.RegistrarofTradeMarksand
CreativeResourcesCo.Ltd.(1982),61C.P.R.(2d)29,perHealdJ.at36.See
alsoBenson&Hedges(Canada)Ltd.v.St.RegisTobaccoCorp.,[1969]S.C.R.
192;BeverlyBedding&UpholsteryCo.v.RegalBedding&UpholsteringCo.
(1982),60C.P.R.(2d)70).



WhennonewevidenceisadducedunderSubsection56(5),theFederal
Courtwillallowtheappealonlyiftheappellantsucceedsinshowingthatthe
Registrarhasmadeanerror.Indeed,theCourtwillalwaysconsiderwith
cautionanyappealfromadecisionoftheRegistrarsincethelatteris
generallyconsideredtobeanexpertorspecialistintrade-markmatters.
However,incaseswherenewevidenceisintroducedinaccordancewith
Subsection56(5)oftheAct,theCourtwillrenderitsdecisionbymeansofa
trial”denovo”sinceithastoconsideralltheevidencepresentedbeforethe
Registrarandadditionalevidencesubmittedforthepurposeoftheappeal
(whichwasobviouslynotbeforetheRegistrar)(seeSaks&Co.v.Registrarof
TradeMarksetal.(1989),24C.P.R.(3d)49(F.C.T.D.,AddyJ.)).
Upuntilrecently,ithasalwaysbeenunderstoodthatinanappealfroma
decisionoftheOppositionBoard,itwaspermittedtoanyparty,whether
appellantorrespondent,inallcircumstances,tofilefreshevidenceon
appeal,ifforwhateverreason,itdidnotorwasunabletofilesuchevidence
beforetheBoard.Thisinterpretationwasbasedonthewordsusedin
Subsection56(5)oftheActasinterpretedbeforeJune1995.
InrenderinghisdecisioninPrimaxComputerCorp.v.PrimaxElectronic
(U.S.A.)Inc.,acasewhereneitherpartyhadfiledevidencebeforethe
OppositionBoard,Mr.JusticeDenaultconsideredthatusebyParliamentin
Subsection56(5)oftheTrade-MarksAct
ofthewords”inadditiontothat
adducedbeforetheRegistrar”meantthatinordertofileevidenceonappeal
beforetheFederalCourt,evidencemusthavebeenfiledbeforetheRegistrar
(Mr.JusticeDenaultdidnotmentionfromwhichpartysuchevidencemust
haveoriginated).
Mr.JusticeDenaultwroteatpages80-81ofhisdecision:”Inlightofthe
specificlanguageofthisprovision,whichisclearandimperative,the
appellantwasbarredonMarch31,1995,andevenmoresonow,fromfiling
evidenceinthiscourtinsupportofitsoppositionsincetherewasnoevidence
adducedbeforetheRegistrar.ItseemsapparentthatParliamentintendedto
conferupontheRegistrarthetaskofevaluatingtheevidenceputforthbya
partyopposingtheregistrationofatrademarkwhereasthiscourt,asan
appealcourtinthesematters,isauthorizedbythelegislationtoaccept
additionalevidencetothatadducedbeforetheRegistrar.Thus,inthe
presentcase,theappellantdoesnothavetherighttofileevidenceon
appealsincenonehasbeenfiledintheoriginalproceedingbeforethe
Registrar”.
Mr.JusticeDenault’srulingraisesinterestingissues:wherenoevidencewas
filedbeforetheOppositionBoard,nopartycanfileevidenceonappeal;
whenonlytherespondenthasfiledevidencebeforetheOppositionBoard,
willtheappellantbeallowedtofileevidence”inadditiontothatadduced



beforetheRegistrar”,thusplacingitinabetterpositionbeforetheCourtonly
becauseoftheotherside’sactionsbeforetheBoard?
Mr.JusticeDenault’sdecisionhasimportantconsequencesfortrade-mark
practitioners:contrarytowhatwasalwaysassumedregardinginterpretation
ofSubsection56(5)oftheAct,onemustnowunderstandthatinordertofile
evidenceonappeal,evidence(fromwhateverparty)musthavebeenfiled
beforetheOppositionBoard.UpuntilMr.JusticeDenault’sruling,ithasoften
beenaparty’sdecisionnottofileevidencebeforetheOppositionBoardfor
strategicreasonsinordertofileevidenceonappealbeforetheFederal
Court.Thisavenuenowseemstobeclosed(especiallyfortheopponentwho
mustfileitsevidencefirstbeforetheBoard)andprudencewouldnowinvitea
partytofileatleastsomeevidence(whetherrelevantornot)beforethe
Boardinordertoenableit,ifneedbe,tofile”evidenceinadditiontothat
adducedbeforetheRegistrar”beforetheFederalCourt.
Publishedat(1996),10W.I.P.R.128-129underthetitleFilingofNewEvidencein
TradeMarksOppositionBoardAppealRestricted.

LEGERROBICRICHARD,1996.



ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD