Andres Wines Ltd. v. Canadian Marketing International Ltd., (1986) 2 F.T.R. 292 (TD)

• Judge: Joyal, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 19, 1985
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1986), 2 F.T.R. 292 (TD)

Andres Wines v. Cdn. Marketing Intl. (1986), 2 F.T.R. 292 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

In The Matter Of an appeal from a decision of a hearing officer acting under Section 37(8) of the Trade Marks Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. T-10;

And In The Matter Of an opposition by Andres Wines Ltd. to trademark Application No. 467,766 for registration of Newfie Duck filed by Canadian Marketing International Limited

Between:

Andres Wines Ltd. (appellant) v. Canadian Marketing International Limited (Respondent)

(T-1124-85)

Indexed As: Andres Wines Ltd. v. Canadian Marketing International Ltd.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Joyal, J.

March 27, 1986.

Summary:

Canadian Marketing International Ltd. (Canadian) applied to register the word mark "Newfie Duck" in association with sparkling wine. Andres Wines Ltd. (Andres) opposed the application. The Registrar of Trademarks rejected Andres' argument. Andres appealed and applied under Federal Court Rules 482 and 704(7) to be permitted to file two supplementary affidavits of an expert witness.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed Andres' application to file the two affidavits.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 986

Registration - Appeals - Admissibility of supplementary affidavits on appeal - C applied to register a mark - A objected - The Registrar of Trademarks rejected A's objection - A appealed and applied to file two supplementary affidavits of an expert witness - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused to admit the affidavits, because they would be of doubtful assistance in determining the issue and they were in the nature of rebuttal evidence, which is not ordinarily admissible in summary proceedings like an appeal under the Trade Marks Act - See paragraphs 15 to 25.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 4406

Practice - Evidence - Expert evidence - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed the admissibility of expert evidence in a trademark case - See paragraphs 6 to 14.

Cases Noticed:

Home Juice Co. v. Orange Maison Ltee (1967), 52 C.P.R. 175, refd to. [paras. 7, 18].

Ethicon Inc. v. Cyanamid of Canada (1977), 35 C.P.R.(2d) 126, refd to. [para. 8].

Xerox of Canada Ltd. et al. v. IBM Canada Ltd. (1977), 33 C.P.R.(2d) 24, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Graat (1982), 45 N.R. 451; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 365, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Abbey (1982), 43 N.R. 30; 68 C.C.C.(2d) 394, refd to. [para. 10].

Jordan & Ste-Michelle Cellars Ltd. et al. v. T.G. Bright & Co. Ltd. et al. (1983), 71 C.P.R.(2d) 138, refd to. [para. 10].

M. & K. Stereo Plus v. Broadway Sound Plus (1985), 5 C.P.R.(3d) 390, consd. [para. 11].

Cochrane-Dunlop Ltd. v. Capital Diversified Ltd. (1976), 30 C.P.R.(2d) 176, refd to. [para. 13].

Adidas (Canada) Ltd. v. Colins Inc. (1978), 38 C.P.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 13].

Benson & Hedges (Canada) Ltd. v. St. Regis Tobacco Corporation, [1969] S.C.R. 192, refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 482, rule 704 (7) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka and Lederman, Law of Evidence in Civil Cases (1974), p. 305 [para. 11].

Counsel:

W.R. Meredith, Q.C., for the appellant;

G.A. Bloom, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Meredith & Finlayson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 19, 1985, before Joyal, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on March 27, 1986: