Date: 19990222
Docket: T-2482-97
| IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal pursuant to Section |
| 56 of the Trade-marks Act R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13 from |
| a Decision of the Registrar dated September 17, 1997, |
| rejecting the Opposition by Novopharm Ltd. to Canadian |
| Trade-mark Application No. 630,537 for the mark |
| TABLET DESIGN filed by Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. |
BETWEEN: NOVOPHARM LTD.
Appellant
- and -
CIBA-GEIGY CANADA LTD.
and
REGISTRAR OF TRADE-MARKS
Respondents
Docket: T-2483-97
| IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal pursuant to Section |
| 56 of the Trade-marks Act R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13 from |
| a Decision of the Registrar dated September 17, 1997, |
| rejecting the Opposition by Apotex Inc. to Canadian |
| Trade-mark Application No. 630,536 for the trade-mark |
| TABLET DESIGN filed by Ciba-Geigy Canada Ltd. |
BETWEEN: APOTEX INC.
Appellant
- and -
CIBA-GEIGY CANADA LTD.
and
REGISTRAR OF TRADE-MARKS
Respondents
Docket: T-224-98
| IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal pursuant to Section |
| 56 of the Trade-marks Act R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13 from |
| a Decision of the Registrar dated December 9, 1997, |
| rejecting the Opposition by Novopharm Limited to |
| Canadian Trade-mark Application No. 692,410 for |
| the mark CAPSULE DESIGN BROWN-PINK filed |
| by Astra Aktiebolag (formerly Aktiebolaget Astra) |
BETWEEN: NOVOPHARM LIMITED
Appellant
- and -
ASTRA AKTIEBOLAG
and
REGISTRAR OF TRADE-MARKS
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED J. (Orally)
[1] These three motions seek dismissal of the respective appeals on the grounds of delay.
[2] There has been delay and I agree that the philosophy of the new rules is that the Court is not prepared to brook delay. The delay in this case, however, was caused by a number of unfortunate incidents that occurred at approximately the same time, none of which were the result of the direct actions of the clients.
[3] First there were the health difficulties of counsel, then, the reorganization of law firms consequent thereon. This, unfortunately, was accompanied by a certain amount of disorganization and uncertainty as to the responsibilities of counsel. Then, there was the uncertainty arising as a result of the new rules, and whether or not they were applicable - uncertainty in which the Court itself played a part by giving conflicting advice. Then, there was the illness of a father (counsel's father) and the Trade-mark Office's difficulty in finding, or at last knowing where, the relevant files were.
[4] These are not circumstances in which I think the Court should dismiss for delay. It would be wrong to do so. The delay has been explained.
[5] I do not need to consider whether or not prejudice exists, or the merits of the appeals. I note, however, with respect to the former, that these cases are not ones to which great urgency has attached.
[6] I am prepared to impose a schedule for the completion of the appeals if such is desired.
"B. Reed"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
February 22, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Docket: T-2482-97 |
Appellant
Respondents
Appellant
Respondents
Appellant
Respondents
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: REED, J.
DATED: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1999
APPEARANCES: Mr. Warren Sprigings
For the Appellants
Mr. Gunars Gaikis and
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Hitchman & Sprigings
| 2340-120 Adelaide Street West |
For the Appellants
| 1500-438 University Avenue |
For the Respondents
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19990222
Dockets: T-2482-97, T-2483-97 and T-224-98
Docket: T-2482-97
Appellant
Respondents
Docket: T-2483-97
Appellant
Respondents
Docket: T-224-98
Appellant
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content