Co-authored by Dino Clarizio On January 31, 2025, the Federal Court (per Gascon J.) dismissed a motion for summary judgment in a copyright infringement action involving a “Rosie the Riveter” design because the moving party failed to prove that there was no “genuine issue” for trial. The Court found that, on the facts and law, […]
Summary Judgment Denied in a Riveting Rosie Copyright Battle Read More »
On February 14, 2025, the Federal Court (per Fuhrer J.) found that Joanna Habbous, owner of the registered trademark PHYSIOHEALTH STUDIOS, had established infringement, passing off, and depreciation of goodwill against Arc Physio Health Ltd. The application was, however, dismissed against the named personal Respondents. Habbous v. Arc Physio Health Ltd., 2025 FC 297 Background Ms.
Importance of Brand Strength: The Arc of Confusion in Physio Health Trademark Read More »
The Federal Court (per Southcott J.) allowed C-Tow’s application to have Sea Tow’s registered trademarks struck from the Trademarks Register (the “Register”), on the basis that C-Tow’s use of its marks predated Sea Tow’s adoption of the Sea Tow Marks, and that Sea Tow knew of the C-Tow Marks at the time of Sea Tow’s
C-Tow and Sea Tow go Toe-to-Toe Over Trademarks Read More »
The Alberta Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) held that the six-year limitation period in the Patent Act applies to infringement actions filed in the Alberta court, not the two-year period prescribed by provincial law. The plaintiff’s claim was not statute-barred and was remitted to the trial court for continued litigation. JL Energy Transportation
Six-Year Limitation Period Applies to Patent Infringement Claims Filed in Alberta Court Read More »
Co-written with Emily Papsin The Federal Court (per Zinn J.) set aside a decision by the Commissioner of Patents (“Commissioner”) refusing to reinstate Matco Tools Corporation’s (“Matco”) patent application which had been deemed abandoned for failure to pay maintenance fees. The Court found that the Commissioner did not conduct the requisite two-stage inquiry to assess
The Federal Court (O’Reilly J.) dismissed an application for judicial review brought by Bayer Inc. (“Bayer”). The Court found that the Minister of Health (the “Minister”) was not unreasonable in not determining the Bayer patent’s eligibility for listing on the patent register the same day it was received for consideration. Bayer Inc. v. Amgen Canada
Court holds that Health Canada patent listing delay is reasonable Read More »
On January 3, 2025, the Federal Court (per McVeigh J) dismissed an application alleging passing off of the unregistered trademark “Indican Pictures” because the Applicant did not establish use of its mark prior to the Respondent beginning to use its allegedly confusing marks. 2K4 Inc. (Indican Pictures) v. Indiecan Entertainment Inc., 2025 FC 20 Background
From Reel to Real: The Importance of Prior Use Evidence in Passing Off Cases Read More »
The Federal Court of Appeal (per Locke J.A. with Leblanc J.A. and Pamel J.A. concurring) (“FCA”) held that the Federal Court (per St.-Louis J.) did not err in finding that several claims of Nordik Blades’ (“Nordik”) three patents on snowplow blades were invalid for obviousness. Usinage Pro-24 Inc. v. Valley Blades Ltd., 2025 FCA 4
Nordik’s Appeal of Obviousness Finding for its Snow Plow Patents Gets Blown Over Read More »
Canada and India have a very significant trading relationship. A large number of Indian companies operate in Canada, particularly in the information technology, software, steel, natural resources and banking sectors.[1] Similarly, India’s economy offers tremendous opportunities for Canadian companies in emerging sectors such as transportation, infrastructure, life sciences, clean energy technology (e.g. integration of renewable
Patent Litigation in Canada and India: A Comparative Summary Read More »
In a decision by Southcott J., the Federal Court agreed with the Registrar of Trademarks (the “Registrar”) that Limbic Media Corporation (“Limbic”) did not establish continuous use of its registered trademark and ordered the registration expunged. There was no evidence confirming that Limbic’s trademark was sufficiently associated with its goods at the time the goods
