No new ground of opposition may be added on appeal from registrar’s decision, Federal Court rules in SUN WORLD CASE

N
ONEWGROUNDOFOPPOSITIONMAYBEADDEDONAPPEALFROM
REGISTRAR’SDECISION,FEDERALCOURTRULESINSUNWORLDCASE

BARRYGAMACHE**
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLP
L
AWYERS,PATENT&TRADEMARKAGENTS
InadecisionthathighlightstheimportanceofputtingforwardbeforetheRegistrarof
Trade-marksallthegroundsofoppositionanopponentwantstoargue,Canada’s
FederalCourtrecentlyconfirmedthatnewgroundsofoppositionmaynotberaised
forthefirsttimeonappeal(SunWorldInternationalInc.v.ParmalatDairy&Bakery
Inc.,2007FC641(F.C.Aronovitchprothonotary,June20,2007)).
Section56ofCanada’sTrade-marksAct,R.S.C.1985,c.T-13(hereafter:the“Act”)
governsappealstakenagainstdecisionsoftheRegistrarofTrade-marks,including
thoserenderedinoppositionproceedings,i.e.proceedingsbeforeatrade-markis
registered,underSection38oftheAct.Subsection56(5)thusprovides:
(5)Onanappealundersubsection(1),evidenceinadditiontothat
adducedbeforetheRegistrarmaybeadducedandtheFederalCourt
mayexerciseanydiscretionvestedintheRegistrar.

IftheActclearlyallowsthefilingofadditionalevidencebeforetheCourt(whichthen
hasmorelatitudetoreviewtheRegistrar’sdecision,inlightoftheevidencethe
Registrardidnothavethechancetoconsider),doesthisopportunitytochangethe
factualrecordbeforetheCourtenablethelattertoconsideradditionalgroundsof
oppositiontothosefirstarguedbeforetheRegistrar?Suchwasthequestionputto
theFederalCourtinthecontextofParmalatDairy&BakeryInc.’soppositiontothe
trade-markBLACKDIAMONDfiledbySunWorldInternationalInc.inassociationwith
freshfruitsandvegetables,laternarrowedto“plums”.ParmalatDairy&BakeryInc.
arguedbeforetheRegistrartwogroundsofopposition,namelythatSunWorld
InternationalInc.hadnotestablishedtheuseofitstrade-markandhadalsonot
demonstratedthattherewouldbenoreasonablelikelihoodofconfusionbetweenits
appliedfortrade-markandParmalatDairy&BakeryInc.’sowntrade-markfor
cheese.

*©CIPS,2007.
BarryGamacheisamemberofLEGERROBICRICHARD,
LLPamultidisciplinaryfirmoflawyers,
patentandtrade-markagents.PublishedintheApril2007issueofWIPR.Publication142.207.

2
FurthertoSunWorldInternationalInc.’sappealandthefilingbythelatterof
additionalevidenceasallowedbysubsection56(5)oftheAct,ParmalatDairy&
BakeryInc.presentedamotiontoaddbeforetheCourtanewgroundofopposition
basedonSection22oftheAct.TheCourtthereforehadtoconsidersubsection38(2)
oftheActthatdescribesthevariousgroundsofopposition:
(2)Astatementofoppositionmaybebasedonanyofthefollowing
grounds:
(a)thattheapplicationdoesnotconformtotherequirementsof
section30;
(b)thatthetrade-markisnotregistrable;
(c)thattheapplicantisnotthepersonentitledtoregistrationofthe
trade-mark;or
(d)thatthetrade-markisnotdistinctive.
TheCourtfurthernotedthatsubsection22(1)oftheActdealswithlikelihoodof
depreciation:
(1)Nopersonshalluseatrade-markregisteredbyanotherpersonina
mannerthatislikelytohavetheeffectofdepreciatingthevalueofthe
goodwillattachingthereto.
Althoughlikelihoodofdepreciationisnotagroundofopposition,ParmalatDairy&
BakeryInc.arguedthatdepreciationcouldbetiedtoagroundofoppositionbasedon
section30oftheAct(whichoutlinesvariousproceduralrequirementswhenfilinga
trade-markapplication,includingadeclarationthattheapplicantisentitledtousethe
trade-mark);accordingly,intheopponent’sview,atthedateoffilingofthe
application,SunWorldInternationalInc.couldnothavebeensatisfiedthatitwas
entitledtouseitsappliedfortrade-markbecausesuchusewouldbeunlawfulas
depreciatingthevalueofthegoodwillattachingtoParmalatDairy&BakeryInc.’s
trade-mark,contrarytoSection22oftheAct.
IndiscussingthemeritsofParmalatDairy&BakeryInc.’smotiontoaddanew
groundofopposition,prothonotaryAronovitchreviewedjurisprudenceoftheFederal
Courtontheissueandconcludedthatwhilefreshevidencemaybeadducedunder
Section56andthatanappealdoesnotnecessarilyproceedonthebasisofthe
recordasitstoodbeforetheRegistrar,anynewevidencecanonlygotoissuesraised
beforetheRegistrar.Thus,theissuesonappealareframedbyandremainlimitedto
thoseraisedbeforetheRegistrar.Oneexceptiontothisgeneralpropositionwouldbe
anewgroundonapurequestionoflawbutonlyinreferencetoevidencealready
presentbeforetheRegistrar(LabattBrewingCo.v.Benson&Hedges(Canada)Ltd.
(1996),67C.P.R.(3d)258atparas.7-8(F.C.T.D.)).
Moreover,theCourtdeclinedtoexerciseitsjurisdictiontopermitanamendmenttoa
“document”filedbeforeit(“document”beingunderstoodasanoriginatingdocument,
oradocumentrequiredtobefiledpursuanttotheFederalCourtsRules,inaFederal

3
Courtproceeding).However,theCourt’sjurisdictiontoallowtheamendmentofsuch
“document”doesnotincludeastatementofopposition,whichisanoriginating
documentthatisrequiredtobefiledand,indeed,canonlybefiledintheCanadian
Trade-marksOfficeforthepurposesofanoppositionproceeding.Itisnotan
originatingdocumenttobefiledbeforetheFederalCourt.
TheCourt’sdecisionservesasatimelyreminderthatopponentswishingtoopposea
trade-markpublishedforoppositionpurposesintheTrade-marksJournalshould
makesuretoputtheirbestfootforwardbeforetheRegistraranddetailaccordinglyall
thegroundsofoppositionthataredeemedrelevant;otherwise,anyamendment
soughtonappealtointroduceanewgroundofoppositionwillberefusedonthebasis
oftheabovereasons.

4
ROBIC,ungroupedavocatsetdagentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommerce
vouédepuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledans
touslesdomaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesde
commerce,marquesdecertificationetappellationsdorigine;droitsdauteur,propriété
littéraireetartistique,droitsvoisinsetdelartisteinterprète;informatique,logicielset
circuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secrets
decommerce,know-howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsde
technologies;commerceélectronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,
publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892
totheprotectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,
industrialdesignsandutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindications
oforigin;copyrightandentertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;
computer,softwareandintegratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsand
plantbreeders;tradesecrets,know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,
franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;
marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecutionlitigationandarbitration;duediligence.
































































































































!