Trademark Opposition Board Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

SECTION 45 PROCEEDINGS
TRADE-MARK: NATURAL REGENA
REGISTRATION NO. 287,081

On January 10, 1990, at the request of Robic, Robic & Associates

on behalf of Framesi S.R.L., the Registrar forwarded a Section 45

notice to Minerva Beauty Supplies Ltd.- Minerva Produits de Beaute

Ltee, the registered owner of the above-referenced trade-mark

registration.

The trade-mark NATURAL REGENA was registered on January 20, 1984

for use in association with the wares "hair cream".

In response to the Registrar's notice, the registrant furnished the

affidavit of Angelio Baggio. The requesting party filed a written

submission on May 10, 1990.

On August 7, 1990, the registrant requested and was granted a

retroactive extension of time pursuant to section 47 ( 2 ) of the

Trade-marks Act to file a supplementary affidavit of Angelo Baggio.

The requesting party filed a further written submission; the

registrant also filed a written submission; there was no oral

hearing.

The registrant made a further request on April 10, 1991 for filing

additional evidence; such request was refused by official letter

of May 15, 1991 for the reasons stated therein.

In his second affidavit, Mr. Baggio has stated that the wares are

manufactured in Italy and imported by the registrant in 100kg

barrels and then filled in Montreal in 2 types of white plastic

pots of 120gr. and 500 gr.; he has indicated that the pots bear a

green label with the trade-mark "Natural Regina" and has submitted

a specimen of the label; he has furnished sales figures for the
years 1982, 1983 and 1988 and 1989; and he has submitted invoices

1


.•..


which, for the most part, show sales of wares including the

registered wares to hair salons.

The requesting party's main argument is that the registrant is not

using the trade-mark as registered i.e. NATURAL REGENA.

Although in paragraph 4 of his affidavit, Mr. Baggio has made

reference to "Natural Regina" rather than "Natural Regena", the

label submitted with the affidavit shows the trade-mark as being

NATURAL REGENA. Furthermore, in its written submissions, the

registrant has stated that the misspelling in the affidavit was due

to a typographical error.

The requesting party has pointed out that if one looks closely at

the invoices, it is the word REGINA that appeared as it can be seen

that the "I" was changed for an "E". In response thereof, the

registrant has stated in its written submission that such

misspelling was due to a clerical error. It further submitted that

spelling errors in the computers continue to be printed until

corrected and that presently they have been corrected.

Although I find it is very peculiar that year after year the same

error would have been repeated, the invoices as corrected and as

submitted show the word "Regena", although it is unclear when the

corrections to the invoices were made. Nevertheless, as mentioned

earlier, the label submitted with the affidavit shows the trade-

mark as registered.

I would like to add that section 45 proceedings are intended to be

of a summary nature and that technical submissions of the nature

of those put forward by the requesting party are not ones to be

addressed in such proceedings.

Consequently, although the evidence furnished contains many
shortcomings, when considered in its totality it is sufficient to

2


shown use of the trade-mark NATURAL REGENA at the material date

in association with the registered wares.

In view of the evidence filed, I have concluded that at the

material date the registrant had been using the trade-mark in


 


association


with


the


registered wares.


Accordingly,


its


 


registration ought to be maintained.

Registration No. 287,081 will be maintained in compliance with the

provisions of section 45(5) of the Trade-marks Act.


 


DATED AT HULL, QUEBEC, THIS 30th -DAY OF November

 

(Mrs.) Denise Savard
Senior Hearing Officer
section 45

3


1992.


. ..

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.