PKF Trade Mark Limited v. PKF Chambers Inc., 2026 FC 1072
Justice Whyte Nowak - 2026-08-19
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
The Applicant has appealed the Decision (see 2025 TMOB 98) and brings this motion pursuant to subsection 56(5) of the Trademarks Act seeking leave to file new evidence on the appeal. The Applicant argues that because it filed its evidence when it was entitled to file new evidence as of right under the former subsection 56(5) of the Trademarks Act, it should be afforded the grace referenced by [Products Unlimited] in the transition between the old and new provision. … As I explain in the reasons that follow, I am granting leave to the Applicant to file the new evidence. The relevance and materiality of the evidence outweigh the Applicant’s failure to provide evidence explaining its delay and given that the prejudice cited by the Respondent is either inherent to the scheme of the Trademarks Act or can be compensated for in costs. … The Applicant filed its evidence and made its submissions to the Board before subsection 56(5) came into force and before Products Unlimited established the test for leave. In these circumstances, the interests of justice continue to favour some latitude (Constellation Brands at para 24). It is because the former provision was viewed as allowing parties to file new evidence seemingly as of right, that I also decline to draw an adverse inference from the Applicant’s failure to explain its delay.
Decision relates to:
- T-2197-25 - PKF TRADE MARK LIMITED v. PKF CHAMBERS INC.