REPRESENTATIVE CASES
Federal Court of Canada
Black & Decker Corporation v. Piranha Abrasives Inc., 2015 FC 185
Method Law represented the Defendant in this highly commented on split decision, in which the Defendant was permitted to continue use of their trademark on certain goods despite the Plaintiff’s claim of trademark infringement.
Patent Appeal Board
Re Patent Application No. 2,484,818, Patent Appeal Board: 2018-07-20
The Patent Appeal Board directed the application for a computer-implemented invention to be issued with changes to the claims proposed by the Applicant, overcoming objections raised by the Patent Office that the claims filed do not define patentable subject-matter, that the claims on file are obvious, and that the specification is insufficient.
Trademarks Opposition Board
X.E.S.-NY LTD. and Joseph A. Company LLC v. Joseph Limited, 2019 TMOB 36
Method Law successfully defended an opposition against a trademark application for JOSEPH based on alleged confusion with the opponent’s trademark registration for JOSEPH A. QU’EST-CE QUE C’EST SILK?.
Maple Leaf Consumer Foods Inc v Kelbro Enterprises Inc, 2012 TMOB 28
Method Law lawyers successfully defended against an opposition launched by Maple Leaf Consumer Foods Inc. against their client’s trademark application for GRIDDLE STACKERS for the goods of “sandwich comprising one or more of the following: pancakes, egg, meat and cheese” based on alleged confusion with the trademark registration for STACKERS for the goods of “prepackaged snacks comprising prepared meats, cheese and crackers”.
Method Law v. Joseph A Company LLC, 2015 TMOB 81
Method Law v. Boutique Jacob Inc., 2015 TMOB 5
Section 45 Proceedings
Method Law Professional Corporation v. Urban Rags Clothing Inc., 2018 TMOB 98
Method Law successfully had goods deleted from a registration for VOLTAGE SYSTEM, even though the registered owner filed evidence and alleged that the mark was in use.
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP v. Skyline International, 2017 TMOB 65
Method Law successfully maintained the SKYLINE REIT registration on the Trademark Register, despite not having offered a REIT during the relevant period as the Hearing Officer inferred that at least some Canadians would have viewed the webpage and prospectuses bearing the trademark.
Coastal Trademark Services v. Purepharm Inc., 2014 TMOB 12
Helpful Links:
Federal Court of Canada: https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/home
Supreme Court of Canada: https://www.scc-csc.ca/home-accueil/index-eng.aspx
Ontario Courts: https://www.ontariocourts.ca/
CanLII: https://www.canlii.org/en/
Trademarks Opposition Board: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr00120.html
Patent Appeal Board: https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr01955.html
For further information or assistance, please contact us by phone (416) 847-0054 or by email at mail@methodlaw.ca.
The trademarks PIRANHA ABRASIVES and PIRANHA ABRASIVES & Design and copyright in the grinding cup, stripping cup and PIRANHA ABRASIVES & Design are the exclusive property of Piranha Abrasives Inc., and used with permission. The trademarks CORE and CORE Design and copyright in the diamond abrasive circular blade and CORE Design are the exclusive property of Core Diamond Abrasives Inc. and used with permission.