Date: 19990615
Docket: T-2175-98
BETWEEN:
VALENTINO S.P.A.
Applicant
- and -
MARIO VALENTINO S.P.A.
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
McKEOWN J.
[1] In my view, Broderick and Bascom Rope Co. v. Registrar of Trade-Marks (1971), 65 C.P.R. 209 is still good law with respect to standing for an appeal under s. 45(4) of the Trade-Marks Act. The facts are very similar to those before me: see p. 212. I agree with the reasoning of Thurlow J. at p. 214.
[2] There is no specific assignment of the right to appeal in the Confirmation of Transfer document. Furthermore, although the title of the document purports to be a confirmation of an existing transfer, the wording in the transfer is to the contrary.
[3] Section 45 provides a simple and expeditious method of removing trade-marks which have fallen into disuse. Pinard J. in Renaud Cointreau et Cie. v. Cordeau Bleu International Ltd. (1992), 45 C.P.R. (3d) 374 at p. 378, states the limitations on s. 45(4):
| |
... the notice pursuant to s. 45 could only be initiated on behalf of the Registrar and the appellants could not be considered as requesting parties nor be entitled by s. 45(4) of the Act to receive notice of the Registrar"s decision and reasons therefor. Consequently, the appellants have no standing to request the present appeal. |
|
In my view, the jurisprudence concerning opposition cases and the right of appeal cannot be applied to a s. 45 proceeding.
[4] The respondent"s motion to dismiss the appeal brought by the Notice of Application filed November 20, 1998 by the applicant, is granted.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
June 15, 1999.
Email this Content