Monster Daddy applied to register the trade-mark MONSTER in
association with particular wares relating generally to cleaning
supplies. Monster Cable opposed the registration. The Registrar
rejected the opposition in part, and Monster Cable appealed.
The Registrar allowed the Opposition in respect of Monster
Cable's fourth ground of opposition, namely confusion with its
previously registered trade-marks relating to solutions for
cleaning electronic equipment and displays, cleaning wipes and
cleaning cloths, but excluded the other wares listed by Monster
Daddy in its application. The Court found that Monster Cable had
limited itself by its own language in the Opposition to these
specific wares, but the Court did expand the finding of confusion
to include all purpose disinfecting and sanitizing preparations
based on additional evidence submitted by Monster Cable.
The Registrar found that Monster Daddy's trade-mark is not
distinctive and not apt to distinguish between the cleaning
supplies of Monster Daddy and Monster Cable. The Court found that
this finding was reasonable and the Registrar did not err in not
finding lack of distinctiveness in respect of the remaining wares
in Monster Daddy's application.
Official Mark Allowed Based on One Demonstration of Adoption
The Electrical Safety Authority (ESA) applied for and was
granted registration of the mark DIG SAFE as an official mark
pursuant to section 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trade-marks Act (Official
Mark). The basis for the application was a copy of ESA's Spring
2010 newsletter, which showed the Official Mark. Cable Control had
previously registered the trade-mark DIG SAFE & Design. Cable
Control commenced this application for judicial review of the
Registrar's decision on the basis that ESA did not meet its
burden to demonstrate that it had adopted and used the Official
Cable Control argued that the Official Mark was not used by ESA
but that ESA was promoting the activities of other organizations.
The Court held that the Registrar's decision was not
unreasonable. The Registrar was not required to investigate the use
by others of the same mark; ESA was only required to demonstrate
that it is a public authority, and that it has adopted and used the
A recent Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench decision allowed a court-appointed receiver to sell and transfer intellectual property rights free and clear of encumbrances, finding that a license to use improvements of an invention was a contractual interest and not a property interest.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).