Hartco Enterprises Inc. v. Becterm Inc., (1989) 24 F.T.R. 69 (TD)

• Judge: Dube, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 13, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 24 F.T.R. 69 (TD)

Hartco Ent. Inc. v. Becterm Inc. (1989), 24 F.T.R. 69 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Hartco Enterprises Inc. (applicant) v. Becterm Inc. (respondent)

(No. T-1632-86)

Indexed As: Hartco Enterprises Inc. v. Becterm Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Dube, J.

January 31, 1989.

Summary:

Hartco applied under s. 57(1) of the Trade Marks Act to strike out Becterm's 1983 registration of the trademark "Multi-Micro", on the ground of confusion with Hartco's trademark "Multimicro", which had been in use since 1981.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 706

Registration - Conditions precedent - Lack of confusion with other marks - Hartco used the trade mark "Multimicro" since 1981 in association with the distribution of computer hardware and software - In 1983 Becterm registered the trademark "Multi- Micro" to be used in association with the fabrication and installation of highly sophisticated computers - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, ordered that Becterm's registration be struck, as there was an obvious likelihood of confusion where the marks were used in association with the same type of wares on the same market.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 885

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Who may apply - Section 57(1) of the Trade Marks Act provided that any "person interested" may apply to strike registration of a trademark - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that "person interested" included any person whose rights may be restricted by a registration or who may reasonably apprehend that he may be affected by a registration - See paragraph 6.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 982

Trademarks - Registration - Appeals - Decisions appealable - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that the Registrar's refusal to grant a person an additional extension of time to file an opposition to the registration of a trademark was not appealable - See paragraph 2.

Cases Noticed:

J.K. Smit v. Packsack (1962), 41 C.P.R. 158, refd to. [para. 2].

Burmal-Castrol (Canada) Ltd. v. Nasolco Inc. (1974), 16 C.P.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 6].

Canada's Royal Gold Pinetree Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Samann (1985), 3 C.P.R.(3d) 313, refd to. [para. 6].

Rainsoft Water Conditioning Co. v. Rainsoft (Regina) Ltd. (1987), 11 F.T.R. 109; 14 C.P.R.(3d) 267, refd to. [para. 6].

Wilhelm Layher GmbH v. Anthes Industries Inc. (1986), 1 F.T.R. 82; 8 C.P.R.(3d) 187, refd to. [para. 6].

Boliden Aktiebolag v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co. of Canada Ltd. (1974), 14 C.P.R.(2d) 222, refd to. [para. 6].

Gordon A. MacEachern Ltd. v. National Rubber Co. Ltd., [1964] Ex C.R. 135, refd to. [para. 6].

Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Carling O'Keefe Breweries of Canada Ltd. et al. (1982), 45 N.R. 126; 69 C.P.R.(2d) 135 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

La Maur Inc. v. Prodon Industries Ltd. (1971), 2 C.P.R.(2d) 114, refd to. [para. 6].

Manhattan Industries Inc. v. Princeton Manufacturing Ltd. (1971), 4 C.P.R.(2d) 6, refd to. [para. 6].

Porter v. Don the Beachcomber (1966), 48 C.P.R. 280, refd to. [para. 9].

Kraft Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, [1984] 2 F.C. 874; 1 C.P.R.(3d) 457, refd to. [para. 10].

Visa International Service Association v. Visa Motel Corporation (1984), 1 C.P.R.(3d) 109, refd to. [para. 11].

Maximum Nutrition Ltd. v. Dominion Stores Ltd. (1979), 59 C.P.R.(2d) 179, refd to. [para. 11].

Beachcombers Restaurant Ltd. v. Vita-Pakt Citrus Products Co. (1976), 26 C.P.R.(2d), refd to. [para. 11].

Burroughs Wellcome & Co. (Canada) Ltd. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. (1959), 31 C.P.R. 94, refd to. [para. 11].

Eaton Co. Ltd. v. Horne & Pitfield Foods Ltd. (1976), 32 C.P.R.(2d) 273, refd to. [para. 11].

Conde Nast Publications Inc. v. Gozlan Brothers Ltd. (1984), 49 C.P.R.(2d) 250, refd to. [para. 11].

Lightning Fastener Company Limited v. Canadian Goodrich Company Limited, [1932] S.C.R. 189, refd to. [para. 13].

John Labatt Ltd. v. Carling Breweries Ltd. (1974), 18 C.P.R.(2d) 15, refd to. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade Marks Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. T-10, sect. 4(2) [para. 9]; sect. 6(5) [para. 12]; sect. 17(1) [para. 6]; sect. 57(1), sect. 57(2) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Milan Chromecek, for the applicant;

Claude Pare, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Stikeman Elliott, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

Martineau, Walker, Quebec, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application was heard on December 13, 1988, at Montreal, Quebec, before Dubé, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment in both official languages on January 31, 1989.