Date: 19990901
Docket: T-773-99
MONTREAL, QUEBEC, THIS 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1999
PRESENT: RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ., PROTHONOTARY
| IN THE MATTER OF an Appeal from a Decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks (Opposition Board) dated March 3, 1999 Refusing Application No. 803,796 for the trade mark STICK MAN & STAR DESIGN |
Between:
BRAIN TUMOR FOUNDATION OF CANADA
Applicant
AND
THE STARLIGHT FOUNDATION and
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE-MARKS
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ., PROTHONOTARY:
[1] This is a motion in writing by the Respondent The Starlight Foundation for:
| 1. an order striking out the Applicant's affidavit sworn to by Sue Barnes on May 28, 1999; |
| 2. an order dismissing the Applicant's application; and |
| 3. an order for the Respondent's costs of this application. |
[2] The Applicant filed no evidence in the opposition proceedings disposed of by the Registrar of Trade-marks' decision of March 3, 1999, presently under appeal by the Applicant in its application before this Court.
[3] The Respondent contends that the Applicant's affidavit sworn by Sue Barnes on May 28, 1999 does not constitute additional evidence permitted under Section 56(5) of the Trade- marks Act (the Act), since no evidence had been filed by the Applicant in the original opposition proceedings before the Registrar of Trade-marks.
[4] Therefore, the Applicant shall be barred from adducing any evidence in support of its Trade-mark application for the Court to review as an appeal court in the matter of the March 3, 1999 decision of the Registrar of Trade-marks dismissing the trade-mark application, since no evidence had been filed by the Applicant in the original opposition proceedings before the Registrar of Trade-marks.
[5] Section 56 of the Act reads as follows:
| 56. (1) Appel de toute décision rendue par le registraire, sous le régime de la présente loi, peut être interjeté à la Cour fédérale dans les deux mois qui suivent la date où le registraire a expédié l'avis de la décision ou dans tel délai supplémentaire accordé par le tribunal, soit avant, soit après l'expiration des deux mois. (2) L'appel est interjeté au moyen d'un avis d'appel produit au bureau du registraire et à la Cour fédérale. (3) L'appelant envoie, dans le délai établi ou accordé par le paragraphe (1), par courrier recommandé, une copie de l'avis au propriétaire inscrit de toute marque de commerce que le registraire a mentionnée dans la décision sur laquelle porte la plainte et à toute autre personne qui avait droit à un avis de cette décision. (4) Le tribunal peut ordonner qu'un avis public de l'audition de l'appel et des matières en litige dans cet appel soit donné de la manière qu'il juge opportune. (5) Lors de l'appel, il peut être apporté une preuve en plus de celle qui a été fournie devant le registraire, et le tribunal peut exercer toute discrétion dont le registraire est investi. |
56. (1) An appeal lies to the Federal Court from any decision of the Registrar under this Act within two months from the date on which notice of the decision was dispatched by the Registrar or within such further time as the Court may allow, either before or after the expiration of the two months. (2) An appeal under subsection (1) shall be made by way of notice of appeal filed with the Registrar and in the Federal Court. (3) The appellant shall, within the time limited or allowed by subsection (1), send a copy of the notice by registered mail to the registered owner of any trade-mark that has been referred to by the Registrar in the decision complained of and to every other person who was entitled to notice of the decision. (4) The Federal Court may direct that public notice of the hearing of an appeal under subsection (1) and of the matters at issue therein be given in such manner as it deems proper. (5) On an appeal under subsection (1), evidence in addition to that adduced before the Registrar may be adduced and the Federal Court may exercise any discretion vested in the Registrar. |
[6] The Applicant argues that by virtue of the fact that the Respondent adduced two affidavits before the Registrar of Trade-marks, thus, the Sue Barnes' affidavit sworn May 28, 1999 does indeed constitute additional evidence to that adduced before the Registrar.
[7] I do not share the Applicant's approach to subsection 56(5) of the Act. In my interpretation of said subsection, in order for a party to adduce additional evidence before the Court, that party - and not an opposing party - must first have adduced some evidence before the Registrar. I draw some support for my instant position from the reasons of this Court in Nissei Plastics Industrial Co. v. Pascal & Associates (1994), 86 F.T.R. 249, at 254 paragraph 17 and Primax Computer Corp. v. Primax Electronic (U.S.A.) Inc. (1995), 62 C.P.R. (3d) 75 at 80-81, even though in these two cases there was no evidence at all before the Registrar.
[8] I therefore agree with the Respondent that the Applicant's affidavit sworn by Sue Barnes on May 28, 1999 should be struck.
[9] I also agree that where the record clearly shows that the Applicant cannot discharge its legal burden of proof to obtain the relief sought, namely, to reverse the Registrar of Trade-marks' decision of March 3, 1999, the Court does not have to defer disposing of the Applicant's trade-mark application until after the exchange of representations by the parties.
[10] For the above reasons, I am of the view that it is appropriate to grant the orders sought by the Respondent. Consequently, it is hereby ordered that:
| - The Applicant's affidavit sworn to by Sue Barnes on May 28, 1999 is struck; |
| - The Applicant's application in appeal of the Registrar of Trade-marks' decision of March 3, 1999 is dismissed; |
| - The whole with costs to the Respondent. |
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.:
STYLE OF CAUSE:
T-773-99
BRAIN TUMOR FOUNDATION OF CANADA
Applicant
AND
THE STARLIGHT FOUNDATION and
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE-MARKS
Respondents
MOTION IN WRITING EXAMINED IN MONTREAL WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY:Richard Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary
DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER:September 1, 1999
WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS BY:
| Ms. Virginia Lam |
for the Applicant |
| Mr. Serge Anissimoff |
for the Respondents |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| De Grandpré Chait Ms. Virginia Lam Montreal, Quebec |
for the Applicant |
| Anissimoff & Associates Mr. Serge Anissimoff London, Ontario |
for the Respondents |