Michaels v. Unitop Spolka Z Organiczona Odpowiedzialnoscia, 2020 FC 937

Justice Fuhrer - 2020-09-29

Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:

Mr. Michaels raised two issues before the Hearing Officer of the Trademarks Opposition Board, the Registrar’s delegate, regarding Mr. Grabowski’s evidence: (i) the use of the SESAME SNAPS Marks was not that of Agros SA nor did the use ensure to the latter’s benefit; and (ii) the goods sold were sesame snaps as opposed to sesame bars. ... For the reasons that follow, I dismiss this appeal. I am not persuaded that the Hearing Officer decided any extricable legal issues in this matter attracting the correctness standard. I also am not persuaded that the Hearing Officer made any palpable and overriding errors. ... In my view, this is not an extricable legal principle, but rather it is a statement of fact; there simply is no provision in the Trademarks Act that mandates a trademark owner’s identity. If the owner chooses to do so in the manner contemplated in Trademarks Act s 50(2), then the owner may obtain the benefit of the (rebuttable) presumption of controlled licensing. In other words, whether the owner discloses its identity on product packaging, or in some other manner in association with its goods (or services), is voluntary in so far as the Trademarks Act is concerned.

Decision relates to:



Canadian Intellectual Property