CGA sought an application for an injunction pursuant to
subsection 30(1) of the Certified General Accountants Act,
2010, S.O. 2010, c. 6, Schedule A ("CGA
Act"). The Respondents were alleged to be using the
acronym CGMA, which stands for Chartered Global Management
Accountant, as an accounting designation in the province of
Ontario. The application was dismissed as the Applicant did not
show on a balance of probabilities that the Respondents were
contravening the CGA Act.
Section 26 of the CGA Act provides that no individual
or corporation shall use the designation CGA or C.G.A. alone or in
combination with other words or abbreviations. CGA Ontario argued
that CGA alone or in combination with other words or abbreviations,
such as CGMA, would fall within the scope of the prohibition. The
Court disagreed, finding that it was the specific permutation of
letters and punctuation that was protected, as opposed to each
individual letter. The M element breaks up the CGA element by being
inserted into the middle, and while the Court considered that
"MCGA" or "CGAM" would be prohibited, CGMA is
No palpable or overriding errors in dismissal of summary
In an unreported decision dated March 25, 2013, in Court File
No. T-467-11, the Federal Court had dismissed Venngo's motion
for summary judgment. The Court had held that there were at least
three genuine issues for trial in relation to the claim for
infringement, and at least one genuine issue with regard to the
claim of depreciation of goodwill. The Court of Appeal found that
there were no palpable or overriding errors on all the factual
issues, and so the appeal was dismissed.
Request for reconsideration of invalid claim denied
Eurocopter filed a motion in writing to ask the Court of Appeal
to reconsider paragraphs 157 and 158 of its reasons in an earlier appeal where claim 16 was found to be
invalid for a lack of demonstrated utility or sound prediction.
Claim 16 refers to an integrated front cross piece which is offset
backwards, as opposed to claim 15 which has the landing gear offset
forwards. Claim 15 was ultimately found valid and infringed, and
Eurocopter asked the Court of Appeal to recognize that the
specification of the patent provides that the embodiment of claim
16 has the advantage of improving ground resonance behaviour in
The motion was dismissed for three reasons. First, the Court of
Appeal felt that this argument was raised on the appeal and could
not be raised again. Second, the Court of Appeal held that no line
of reasoning was set out in the patent to support a sound
prediction. Third, Bell Helicopter had brought evidence that the
inventors had not demonstrated or soundly predicted the promised
utility of claim 16, and Eurocopter failed to rebut that evidence
through evidence of its own.
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).