Date: 20000928
Docket: A-83-99
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
McDONALD J.A.
BETWEEN:
UNITEL INTERNATIONAL INC.
Appellant
- and -
REGISTRAR OF TRADE-MARKS
Respondent
HEARD AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO, ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2000
JUDGMENT DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2000
REASONS OF THE COURT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
Date: 20000928
Docket: A-83-99
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
McDONALD J.A.
BETWEEN:
UNITEL INTERNATIONAL INC.
Appellant
- and -
REGISTRAR OF TRADE-MARKS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on Thursday, September 28, 2000)
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
[1] The issue in this appeal from the Trial Division is whether the Registrar of Trade-marks erred in refusing the appellant's trade-mark application under paragraph 37(1)(c) of the Trade-marks Act. Paragraph 37(1)(c) provides:
| 37. (1) The Registrar shall refuse an application for the registration of a trade-mark if he is satisfied that
. . .
(c) the applicant is not the person entitled to registration of the trade-mark because it is confusing with another trade-mark for the registration of which an application is pending,
|
37. (1) Le registraire rejette une demande d'enregistrement d'une marque de commerce s'il est convaincu que, selon le cas :
. . .
c) le requérant n'est pas la personne qui a droit à l'enregistrement de la marque de commerce parce que cette marque crée de la confusion avec une autre marque de commerce en vue de l'enregistrement de laquelle une demande est pendante.
|
| and where the Registrar is not so satisfied, he shall cause the application to be advertised in the manner prescribed.
|
Lorsque le registraire n'est pas ainsi convaincu, il fait annoncer la demande de la manière prescrite.
|
[2] Here, the trade-mark in question is "UNITEL" and the appellant concedes there is confusion between its trade-mark and that of Canadian Pacific Telecommunications Inc. (CP). The application by CP to register its trade-mark preceded the appellant's application and was, therefore, pending when the appellant's application was filed. In the circumstances, the Registrar was obliged to refuse the appellant's trade-mark application under paragraph 37(1)(c).
[3] The Court has been advised that in opposition proceedings in respect of the CP application, the Registrar refused registration of CP's UNITEL trade-mark. The appellant will not be prejudiced by reason of its original application having been refused. The registrability of CP's UNITEL trade-mark has been adjudicated and the appellant was successful in those proceedings. The appellant may now re-file its UNITEL application.
[4] In their reasons, the Registrar and the Trial Judge referred to the alleged dates of first use in the two applications. We would observe that the dates of first use are not a relevant consideration under paragraph 37(1)(c). The only issue is whether there is confusion between an applicant's trade-mark and a trade-mark for which an application for registration is already pending.
[5] The appellant seems to be concerned that the procedure under paragraph 37(1)(c) leads to delay and a multiplicity of proceedings. If this is so, the remedy lies with Parliament and not the Court.
[6] The appeal will be dismissed.
"Marshall Rothstein"
J.A.
Email this Content