Gesco Industries Inc. v. Sim & McBurney et al., (1997) 138 F.T.R. 130 (TD)

• Judge: Wetston, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 23, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 138 F.T.R. 130 (TD)

Gesco Ind. Inc. v. Sim & McBurney (1997), 138 F.T.R. 130 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.051

Gesco Industries Inc. (appellant) v. Sim & McBurney and the Registrar of Trademarks (respondents)

(T-2770-96)

Indexed As: Gesco Industries Inc. v. Sim & McBurney et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Wetston, J.

October 30, 1997.

Summary:

The Registrar of Trademarks expunged Gesco's registration of the trademark "Stainshield" for use in association with the services of stain resistant treatment for carpets and rugs. The Registrar determined that Gesco failed to submit any evidence of use of the trademark. Gesco appealed the Registrar's decision.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the appeal and ordered that the trademark be reentered in the register.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Lack of use or abandonment - The Registrar of Trademarks expunged Gesco's registration of the trademark "Stainshield" for use in association with the services of stain resistant treatment for carpets and rugs - The Registrar determined that Gesco failed to submit any evidence of use of the trademark (s. 45 of the Trade-marks Act) - While Gesco demonstrated use of the trademark, the Registrar determined that it was not in association with the provision of services as contained in the registration, but rather was in association with wares - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that by going beyond the determination of whether Gesco had provided some evidence of use, the Registrar exceeded her jurisdiction under s. 45 and erred in law - The Registrar's consideration of the validity of the mark, as described in the registry, was beyond the scope of s. 45.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 890

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Evidence and proof - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889 ].

Cases Noticed:

Saks & Co. v. Registrar of Trademarks et al. (1989), 25 F.T.R. 65; 24 C.P.R.(3d) 49 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Choice Hotels International Inc. v. Hotels Confortel Inc. (1996), 112 F.T.R. 39; 67 C.P.R.(3d) 340 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

McDonald's Corp. v. Silcorp Ltd. (1992), 54 F.T.R. 80; 41 C.P.R.(3d) 67 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Keepsake Inc. v. Prestons Ltd., [1983] 2 F.C. 489 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Carling O'Keefe Breweries of Canada Ltd. and Registrar of Trademarks, [1983] 2 F.C. 71; 45 N.R. 126 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Meredith and Finlayson v. Registrar of Trademarks et al. (1991), 138 N.R. 379; 40 C.P.R.(3d) 409 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Plough (Canada) Ltd. v. Aerosol Fillers Inc. (1980), 34 N.R. 39; 53 C.P.R.(2d) 62 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Moosehead Breweries Ltd. v. Molson Cos. and Registrar of Trademarks (1985), 63 N.R. 140; 11 C.P.R.(3d) 208 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Effem Foods Ltd. v. Sears Canada Inc. (1987), 16 C.P.R.(3d) 23 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Value Village Markets (1990) Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1995), 95 F.T.R. 83; 60 C.P.R.(3d) 502 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

International Board of Standards and Practices for Certified Financial Planners Inc. v. Canadian Institute of Financial Planning (1993), 63 F.T.R. 29; 48 C.P.R.(3d) 134 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Mantha & Associés/Associates v. Central Transport Inc. (1995), 64 C.P.R.(3d) 354 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Goodman & Carr v. Royal LePage Real Estate Services (1988), 20 C.P.R.(3d) 459 (Reg. T.M.), refd to. [para. 15].

Rogers, Bereskin & Parr v. Registrar of Trademarks and Keds Corp. (1986), 2 F.T.R. 151; 9 C.P.R.(3d) 260 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Roebuck et al. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1987), 13 C.I.P.R. 75 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 45(1), sect. 45(3) [para. 9].

Counsel:

Marilyn Field-Marsham, Sarah Gagan and Frank Zaid, for the appellant;

Kenneth McKay, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Sim, Hughes, Ashton & McKay, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on September 23, 1997, before Wetston, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on October 30, 1997.