Judicial Review of TMOB's Decision Dismissed; Court
Awards Elevated Costs for Applicant's New and Inappropriate
Argument This was a judicial review of a Trade-marks Opposition Board
("TMOB") decision dismissing the Applicant's
application for registration of the "F CANCER &
Design" trademark (the "Applicant's Mark").The
Applicant, Ms. Cohen, claimed use of the mark in Canada since
September 2008 in association with t-shirts and a charitable
foundation. The Respondent, however, asserted unregistered
trademark rights to a family of trademarks, including "F
CANCER", "F* CANCER", "F--- CANCER" and an
additional (objectionable) trademark (collectively the
"Opponent's Marks"), and that they had been used in
Canada since May 2008 in association with jewellery and fundraising
charities. Health Canada has published a new Draft Guidance for Sponsors:
Preparation of Clinical Trial Applications for use of Cell Therapy
Products in Humans. The consultation period is open until December 6,
2014. The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
Trademark Cases
Cohen v. Susan Fiedler Incorporated, 2014 FC 967
The TMOB dismissed the Applicant's application on the basis
that the Respondent had established that the Opponent's Marks
had been used in Canada prior to the claimed date of first use of
the Applicant's Mark. In addition, the TMOB found that the
Applicant had not demonstrated that there was no reasonable
likelihood of confusion between the two Marks. Before the Court,
the Applicant did not take issue with those findings, but instead
raised a new argument: that the Respondent was in fact prohibited
from using [the "F" word] since it is obscene and
therefore contrary to s. 9(1)(j) of the Trademarks Act . The Court
characterized the Applicant's argument as
"counter-intuitive", since if it had been accepted, would
have been fatal to her application. The Court exercised its
discretion not to consider this argument since it was raised for
the first time on judicial review, and was, in the Court's
view, inappropriate. The Court therefore dismissed the
Applicant's application for judicial review and awarded
elevated costs to the Respondent in light of the Applicant's
novel argument on judicial review.Industry News
The BLG Life Sciences Group has published LIFESIGNS: Life Sciences Legal Trends in
Canada, a Report on Intellectual Property, Litigation,
Corporate Commercial legal trends and industry developments in
Canada.