Citation: 2017 TMOB 148

Date of Decision: 2017-10-31

IN THE MATTER OF AN OPPOSITION

	La Cornue	Opponent
and
	Rogers Media Inc.	Applicant
	1,628,447 for CHATELAINE	Application

Introduction

[1]  La Cornue (the Opponent) opposes registration of the trade-mark CHATELAINE (the Mark), filed by Rogers Publishing Limited. The application is presently owned by Rogers Media Inc. (Rogers Publishing Limited and Rogers Media Inc. shall be referred to indistinctively as the Applicant).

[2]  For the reasons that follow, I allow in part the application.

The Record

[3]  On May 28, 2013 the Applicant filed the application bearing serial No. 1,628,447.

[4]  The application is based on proposed use and use of the Mark in Canada in association with the goods and services listed in Annex A to my decision (the Goods and Services).

[5]  The application was published on April 9, 2014 in the Trade-marks Journal for the purposes of opposition.

[6]  On June 1, 2015 the Opponent filed a statement of opposition. The grounds of opposition pleaded are based on sections 12(1)(d) (registrability), 16(1) and (3) (entitlement) and 2 (distinctiveness) of the Trade-marks Act, RSC 1985, c T-13 (the Act).

[7]  The Applicant filed a counter statement on September 22, 2015.

[8]  The Opponent filed as its evidence a certified copy of registration TMA704,341 for the trade-mark LE CHATEAU & Design.

[9]  The Applicant filed as its evidence the affidavit of Penny Hicks sworn on May 17, 2016 together with Exhibits 1 to 27. She was not cross-examined.

[10]  Both parties filed written arguments and were represented at the hearing.

Preliminary issue and comments

Filing of additional evidence

[11]  A few days prior to the hearing, the Applicant requested leave to file additional evidence, pursuant to Rule 44 of the Trade-marks Regulations (the Regulations), in the form of the affidavit of Joanne Lo Monaco, sworn on September 28, 2017 and documents coming from the file wrapper of the Opponent’s registration TMA704,341, which was amended voluntary on May 5, 2017, at the Opponent’s request, to delete some of the registered goods.

[12]  It is clear from the Applicant’s covering letter requesting the filing of such affidavit that its purpose is to inform the Registrar that the certificate of registration relied upon by the Opponent in support of its ground of opposition based on section 12(1)(d) of the Act had been amended, at the request of the Opponent, with the deletion of some of the goods.

[13]  At the hearing I asked the Applicant’s agent if the original of such affidavit had been filed. I was told that only a faxed copy of the affidavit had been submitted to the Registrar. I then informed the Opponent that, since the original of Joanne Lo Monaco’s affidavit had not been filed in the record, I could not granted leave to file the faxed version [see Rule 3(9)(b) of the Regulations].

[14]  However, as explained during the hearing, such decision did not cause any prejudice to the Applicant, as under a ground of opposition based on section 12(1)(d) of the Act, the Registrar has discretion to check the register to see if the registration alleged by an opponent, in support of a ground of opposition based on section 12(1)(d) of the Act is extant [see Quaker Oats Co of Canada v Menu Foods Ltd (1986), 11 CPR (3d) 410 (TMOB)].

[15]  Any amendment to the registration would have to be taken into consideration as the relevant date for this ground of opposition is the date of my decision [see Park Avenue Furniture Corporation v Wickes/Simmons Bedding Ltd (1991), 37 CPR (3d) 413 at 424 (FCA].

Goods and Services in issue

[16]  As it appears from Annex A, the application covers a wide range of goods and services. The Opponent refers in its statement of opposition to the following goods and services listed in the application:

bakeware; cookware; small electric kitchen appliances; tableware, namely flatware, dinnerware, glassware; serving dishes, serving plates, serving utensils, serving trays, serving trolleys; baking, confectionery and food decorating tools; cooking utensils; cleaning utensils; food storage containers (the Kitchen Goods); and

Promoting the sale of wares and services of third parties through promotional contests and the distribution of related printed material (the Promotional Services).

[17]  Contrary to the apparent wording of the statement of opposition, the Opponent mentioned at the hearing that the grounds of opposition pleaded are applicable to all Goods and Services, but the representations at the hearing would be limited to the Kitchen Goods and the Promotional Services.

[18]  Suffice to say at this stage that it will become apparent from my decision that only the Kitchen Goods and the Promotional Services could lead to a positive result for the Opponent. The other goods and services have no relationship with the Opponent’s goods covered by its registration and thus rendering the likelihood of confusion between the marks in issue, even more remote.

Evidence considered

[19]  In reaching my decision I have considered all the evidence in the file. However, I shall refer only to those portions of the evidence which are directly relevant to the issues discussed in the body of my decision.

Evidentiary burden

[20]  The legal onus is on the applicant to show that the application complies with the provisions of the Act. However, there is an initial evidential burden on the opponent to adduce sufficient admissible evidence from which it could reasonably be concluded that the facts alleged to support each ground of opposition exist. Once this initial burden is met, the applicant has to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the particular ground of opposition should not prevent the registration of the Mark [see Joseph E. Seagram & Sons Ltd et al v Seagram Real Estate Ltd (1984), 3 CPR (3d) 325 (TMOB), John Labatt Ltd v Molson Companies Ltd (1990), 30 CPR (3d) 293 (FCTD), and Wrangler Apparel Corp v The Timberland Company [2005] FCJ No 899, (FC)].

Grounds of opposition summarily dismissed

[21]  The mere filing of a certificate of registration of a trade-mark is not sufficient to meet the initial onus on an opponent to prove prior use of its trade-mark under a section 16 ground of opposition [see Rooxs Inc v Edit-SRL (2002), 23 CPR (4th) 265 (TMOB)].

[22]  Since there is no evidence of prior use of the Opponent’s trade-mark LE CHATEAU & Design in the record, I dismiss the grounds of opposition based on sections 16(1) and (3) of the Act for failure by the Opponent to meet its initial burden.

[23]  As for the ground of opposition of lack of distinctiveness of the Mark (section 2 of the Act), the Opponent had to establish that as of June 1, 2015, the filing date of the statement of opposition, its trade-mark LE CHATEAU & Design had become sufficiently known to negate the distinctiveness of the Applicant’s Mark [see Bojangles’ International, LLC v Bojangles Café Ltd (2004), 40 CPR (4th) 553, affirmed (2006), 48 CPR (4th) 427 (FCTD)].

[24]  Given that the Opponent has not filed any evidence of use of its trade-mark LE CHATEAU & Design in the record, the Opponent has failed to meet its initial burden under this ground of opposition.

[25]  Consequently, I also dismiss this ground of opposition

Registrability of the Mark under section 12(1)(d) of the Act

[26]  As mentioned previously, the Opponent filed, as its evidence, a certified copy of registration TMA704,341 for the trade-mark LE CHATEAU & Design, hereinafter reproduced:

[27]  I checked the register and I noticed that such registration has been recently amended to delete some of the goods and now covers only:

Baking and cooking apparatus, namely: stoves, ovens, furnaces, cooking tops; hoods.

[28]  Therefore, the Opponent has met its initial burden with respect to this ground of opposition.

[29]  The test for confusion is outlined in section 6(2) of the Act. Some of the surrounding circumstances to be taken into consideration when assessing the likelihood of confusion between two trade-marks are described in section 6(5) of the Act: the inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks and the extent to which they have become known; the length of time the trade-marks or trade names have been in use; the nature of the goods, services, or business; the nature of the trade; and the degree of resemblance between the trade-marks in appearance, or sound or any ideas suggested by them. Those criteria are not exhaustive and it is not necessary to give each one of them equal weight [see Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v Boutiques Cliquot Ltée et al (2006), 49 CPR (4th) 401 (SCC), Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc (2006), 49 CPR (4th) 321 (SCC) and Masterpiece Inc v Alavida Lifestyles Inc et al (2011), 96 CPR (4th) 361 (SCC)].

[30]  The test under section 6(2) of the Act does not concern the confusion of the marks themselves, but confusion of goods or services from one source as being from another source. In the instant case, the question posed by section 6(2) is whether a consumer, with an imperfect recollection of the Opponent’s trade-mark LE CHATEAU & Design, who sees the Applicant’s Goods and Services in association with the Mark, would think they emanate from, or are sponsored by, or approved by the Opponent.

Inherent distinctiveness of the marks and the extent to which they have become known

[31]  The Opponent takes the position that both parties’ marks do not refer to the parties’ goods and services and I agree. As such, both marks possess a certain degree of inherent distinctiveness when used in association with the parties’ goods and services.

[32]  I should point out that there is not much inherent distinctiveness attached to the design portion of the Opponent’s trade-mark, namely the use of quotation marks and a specific font.

[33]  The degree of distinctiveness of a trade-mark can be enhanced through use and promotion in Canada. The Opponent has filed no evidence of use of its LE CHATEAU & Design trade-mark in Canada. However, it refers to its registration to assert that its mark is known in Canada as the registration issued in January 2008 and claims a date of first use since November 1, 2000 in association with the goods covered by its registration. Consequently, there had to be use of its mark for a period of at least seven years at the registration date.

[34]  While the Opponent's registration is based on use, this only entitles me to assume de minimis use [Entre Computer Centers Inc v Global Upholstery Co (1991), 40 CPR (3d) 427 (TMOB) at 430]. De minimis use does not support a conclusion that the trade-mark has become known to any significant extent, nor that the trade-mark has been used continuously. Even if I were to consider such argument, I have no indication of the extent of such use. As such, I am unable to determine the extent to which the trade-mark LE CHATEAU & Design has become known in Canada as of this date.

[35]  Ms. Hicks describes herself as “the Group publisher of Chatelaine and Today’s Parent magazines”, owned by the Applicant. She first provides a corporate history of Chatelaine magazine which was created in 1928 by the Maclean Hunter Publishing Company. She describes Chatelaine magazine as a magazine that would provide a voice for, and reflect the interests of, women from across Canada. From the outset, its pages were filled with a mixture of articles addressing current affairs, fashion, and advice on family life and household management.

[36]  Ms. Hicks explains that Chatelaine magazine is now owned by the Applicant, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rogers Communications Inc., Canada’s largest provider of wireless communication services and one of Canada’s leading providers of cable television, high-speed Internet and telephone services to consumers and businesses.

[37]  Ms. Hicks then provides the details of trade-mark registrations owned by the Applicant, all of which include the word ‘CHATELAINE’. She filed as Exhibit 1 copies of these registrations.

[38]  As for the use of the trade-mark CHATELAINE in association with magazines and publications, Ms. Hicks provides the following information and documentation:

• examples of Chatelaine magazine covers as Exhibit 3 going back to 1928 and as Exhibit 4 those between 1999 and 2008; between 2008 and 2010; and then used between 2010 and early 2014;
• the current typographical version of the trade-mark CHATELAINE was introduced in May 2014 and it is used today for print and digital editions of Chatelaine magazine as well as for household products;
• the evolution over the content of the magazine Chatelaine from 1928 to the present and filed extracts of Chatelaine magazine’s archives as Exhibit 5 as well as extracts from the website www.chatelaine.com obtained from the archival website Wayback Machine as Exhibit 6;
• the magazine’s annual circulation totals for the last decade that vary from over 370,000 to close to 610,000. The decrease in magazine’s print circulation has been matched by a corresponding increase in the reach of digital publications. She also furnishes the print circulation totals by province and territory for the year 2015 to demonstrate that the magazine is national in scope;
• Chatelaine magazine had themes such as cooking, food budgeting and nutritious meal preparation and filed as Exhibit 7 samples of Chatelaine magazine archives. As such, she asserts that the trade-mark CHATELAINE is closely associated with recipes, cooking and baking, as every issue of Chatelaine magazine from March 1928 onwards has included recipes as per samples provided as Exhibit 8. Special editions are published that focus on food themes and she filed samples as Exhibit 9;
• Maclean Hunter and later the Applicant have, over the years, published and promoted many cookbooks focusing on various types of food or food for entertaining, all under the trade-mark CHATELAINE. She states that between 1965 and 2011 Maclean Hunter and the Applicant published 17 Chatelaine cookbooks. Copies of cover pages of several of these cookbooks are attached to her affidavit as Exhibit 10. The Chatelaine magazine also contains articles on matters of nutrition and diet and she filed an example as Exhibit 12;
• Chatelaine magazine also contains numerous articles addressing home decor and kitchen organization, which cover recommendations for materials, choice of appliances and the spatial arrangement of key elements such as sinks and counters and she filed as Exhibit 13 cover pages and articles drawn from the Chatelaine magazine’s archives. These articles also provide advice on selecting kitchen utensils, including cookware;
• over the last two decades, Chatelaine has expended considerable effort to ensure that its mark is strongly represented online. It has digital editions of the Chatelaine magazine in English and French. She provides the average number of times per month in 2015 the Chatelaine magazine’s English website has been visited and she attaches as Exhibit 24 to her affidavit a table of website visitors data. She also provides the number of visitors during the month of June 2015 alone for the English (over 4.3 million) and French (over 1 million) versions of the Chatelaine website as well as analog figures for Chatelaine magazine’s various social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Pinterest, and Periscope;
• the annual gross revenues from all operations over the last ten years of Chatelaine magazine, which totalled over 365 million dollars.

[39]  Then Ms. Hicks provides the following information and documentation concerning the different steps taken by the Applicant to expand the use of its trade-mark CHATELAINE to Cooking Goods:

• In 2003, the Applicant decided that an expansion into household products was a natural step in the evolution of Chatelaine as a lifestyle brand. She explains the different marks registered and the expansion onto household products from coffee to cookware and kitchen appliances which lead to the filing of the present application covering the Goods and Services. It was in that context that the Applicant introduced in 2003 its line of Chatelaine Home linens and in December 2013 its Chatelaine-branded coffee;
• thereafter, the Applicant further reasoned that the development of a set of kitchen wares would be a natural fit for the overall strategy of enlarging Chatelaine magazine’s character as a lifestyle brand. The Chatelaine Cooking Goods include various kitchen items such as baking sets, accessory kits, roasting pans, bakeware sets and a cordless warming tray, the packaging of which features the trade-mark CHATELAINE and she filed as Exhibit 15 copies of those packaging;
• the Chatelaine Cooking Goods have been advertised on The Shopping Channel (TSC) since March 2015. She filed as Exhibit 18 an order list that shows the various Chatelaine Cooking Goods ordered through TSC between April 1, 2015 and May 1, 2016. There were 121 units of Kitchen Goods sold during that period. They are also advertised in Chatelaine magazine and she filed as Exhibit 20 a sample of such full page advertising that appeared in the April 2015 issue of Chatelaine. Finally, they are also promoted on Chatelaine magazine’s Facebook and Twitter accounts and she filed extracts of those websites as Exhibit 21.

[40]  There is clear evidence from Ms. Hicks’ affidavit that the Mark is known in Canada in association with a Canadian lifestyle magazine. However, I agree with the Opponent that such reputation cannot be expanded to Kitchen Goods as the Applicant would like it to be [see Advance Magazine Publishers Inc v Farleyco Marketing Inc 2009 FC 153 at para 108]. Nevertheless, as described above, there is some evidence of use of the Mark in association with Kitchen Goods in Canada since March 2015 in the form of sales and they have been advertised on TSC and in Chatelaine magazine. As such, the Mark is known in Canada to some extent in association with Kitchen Goods but to a lesser extent when compared to its use in association with a magazine.

[41]  In all, I conclude that the evidence shows that the Mark is more known than the Opponent’s trade-mark LE CHATEAU & Design, even when considering only with respect to the Kitchen Goods.

[42]  This factor favours the Applicant.

Length of time the trade-marks have been in use

[43]  The evidence shows that the Applicant has been using its Mark in association with Kitchen Goods since March 2015, while I have evidence of de minimis use of the Opponent’s trade-mark LE CHATEAU & Design since November 1, 2000. Under these circumstances, the length of time the marks have been in use is not a determining factor in this case.

The nature of the goods and services

[44]  Under a section 12(1)(d) ground of opposition, I must compare the goods and services as described in the application with the goods covered by the Opponent’s registration [see Mr Submarine Ltd v Amandista Investments Ltd (1987), 19 CPR (3d) 3 at 10-11 (FCA); Henkel Kommadnitgellschaft v Super Dragon (1986), 12 CPR (3d) 110 at 112 (FCA); Miss Universe Inc v Dale Bohna (1994), 58 CPR (3d) 381 at 390-392 (FCA)]. However, those statements must be read with a view to determine the probable type of business or trade intended by the parties rather than all possible trades that might be encompassed by the wording. The evidence of the parties' actual trades is useful in this respect [see McDonald's Corp v Coffee Hut Stores Ltd (1996), 68 CPR (3d) 168 (FCA); Procter & Gamble Inc v Hunter Packaging Ltd (1999), 2 CPR (4th) 266 (TMOB); and American Optical Corp v Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2000), 5 CPR (4th) 110 (TMOB)].

[45]  Clearly from a reading of the Goods and the Services, the only potentially overlapping Goods and Services are the Kitchen Goods as defined above.

[46]  The Opponent submitted no case law that would support its request that the following services:

Promoting the sale of wares and services of third parties through promotional contests and the distribution of related printed material

be redefined in my decision to exclude the promotion and the advertising of the Kitchen Goods. The Registrar’s jurisdiction, in the opposition process, is clearly defined in section 38 of the Act. Nowhere, there is a provision that would authorize the Registrar to amend the list of goods or services to narrow its scope of protection.

[47]  I do not see any overlap between the Opponent’s goods and the Promotional Services.

[48]  As for the Kitchen Goods, the Opponent argues it is common knowledge that such goods and the Opponent’s goods are in the same general class. I do not believe the fact that the parties’ goods could be found in a kitchen means that they automatically fall in the same general class of goods. There is certainly a distinction to be made between utensils, tableware and glassware on one hand and kitchen appliances, on the other hand.

[49]  However, I do find an overlap between the Opponent’s goods and bakeware, cookware and small electric kitchen appliances included in the Applicant’s Kitchen Goods.

[50]   As for their channels of trade, the Opponent is alleging that it is common general knowledge and is asking the Registrar to take note of the fact that the Opponent’s goods and the Kitchen Goods can be offered for sale and sold in the same stores.

[51]  I am not prepared to go as far as the Opponent would like me to go. In the absence of evidence of the parties’ respective channels of trade, I am not willing to conclude that all Kitchen Goods could be sold side by side with large appliances, save and except perhaps for small electric kitchen appliances. This is a contentious issue and it had to be substantiated with evidence [see Astrazeneca v Apotex Inc 2003 FC 981]. There is no evidence in the record to support the Opponent’s contention.

[52]  These factors favour the Opponent but only in so far as small electric kitchen appliances, cookware and bakeware are concerned.

Degree of resemblance

[53]  As indicated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Masterpiece, in most instances, the degree of resemblance between the marks in issue is the most important relevant factor. One must consider the degree of resemblance between the marks in issue from the perspective of appearance, sound and in the ideas suggested by them. Moreover, it stated that the preferable approach when comparing trade-marks is to begin by determining whether there is an aspect of the trade-mark that is particularly striking or unique. It is not the proper approach to set the marks side by side and to critically analyse them to find similarities and differences.

[54]  The Opponent argues that both marks begin with the same five letters namely, “CHATE”. Despite this common feature, I am of the opinion that the marks differ phonetically, visually and in the ideas suggested by them. The word portion of the Opponent’s trade-mark consists of two words, with the dominant word (CHATEAU) comprising two syllables. The Mark is one word, having four syllables.

[55]  Both parties, in their written arguments make reference to the meaning of the words “château” and “chatelaine”. However, no dictionary definition has been provided. I, therefore, exercised my discretion [see National Laser Products Ltd v Canada (Registrar of Trade Marks) (1976), 28 CPR (2d) 59 (FCTD)] and consulted Larousse French dictionary as well as Canadian Oxford Dictionary and obtained the following definitions:

Château: Habitation seigneuriale ou royale

Châtelaine: propriétaire ou locataire d’un château

Chatelaine: the mistress of a large house.

[56]  I note that the parties’ marks are written without a circumflex accent.

[57]   The word portion LE CHATEAU of the Opponent’s trade-mark is a masculine noun that refers to a building (a castle in English) while the Mark is a feminine noun, referring to an individual. Therefore, the ideas suggested by the parties’ marks are different.

[58]  Overall, given that both marks are common words in the French language and that the Mark is also a common English word, the differences described above are sufficient to outweigh the similarity of the first five letters of the dominant portion of each of the marks (CHATEAU vs. CHATELAINE). Consequently, this important factor favours the Applicant.

Additional surrounding circumstances

[59]  The Opponent is asking me to exercise the Registrar’s discretion to consult the register in order to see that the parties’ marks are the only one on the register covering kitchen and cooking goods that begin with the letters “CHATE”.

[60]  I mentioned to the Opponent, at the hearing, that I would not be prepared to exercise my discretion to check the register in order to confirm such assertion. The Registrar will exercise her discretion to check the register to verify if registration(s) cited by an opponent in support of a ground of opposition is (are) extant. Also, in cases where an opponent failed to file a certified copy of the registration(s) cited in its statement of opposition, the Registrar will usually use such discretionary power to verify if the registration(s) exists [see Quaker Oats of Canada Ltd/La Compagnie Quaker Oats Ltée v Manu Foods Ltd, 11 CPR (3d) 410]. There might be other situations where the Registrar may use her discretion to check the register, including those where an opponent is relying on previously filed application(s) (sections 16(1)(b) and 16(3)(b)) but failed to file a copy of such application(s) [see Royal Appliance Manufacturing Co v Iona Appliances Inc/Appareils Iona Inc (1990), 32 CPR (3d) 525 (TMOB)].

[61]  The Opponent has not cited any case law where the Registrar exercised her discretion to check the register to determine if an argument based on the state of the register is well founded. The Opponent, if it wished to argue the state of the register, had to file the proper evidence to substantiate such argument. This omission, on the part of the Opponent, cannot be compensated by the exercise of the Registrar’s discretion to consult the register.

[62]  In any event, generally speaking, there is no public interest in the Registrar seeking to assist a party by checking the state of the register in order to overcome any deficiencies in one party’s evidence [see John Labatt Limited v WCW Western Canada Water Enterprises Inc (1991), 39 CPR (3d) 442 (TMOB)].

Conclusion

[63]  Subsequent to the analysis of all the relevant criteria listed under section 6(5) of the Act, I conclude that the Applicant has discharged its burden to prove, on a balance of probability, that there is no likelihood of confusion between the Mark and the Opponent’s trade-mark LE CHATEAU & Design, when used in association with the Goods and Services.

[64]  I reach this conclusion on the basis that, despite the fact that the marks have the common beginning “CHATE”, they differ in sound, visually and in the ideas suggested by them; the Goods and Services and their channels of trade differ, save and except for the bakeware, cookware and small electric kitchen appliances. However, despite the fact that those goods overlap with the Opponent’s goods; and so are most likely their channels of trade, the differences in the marks, visually, phonetically and in the ideas suggested by them, are sufficient to avoid any likelihood of confusion as to the source of those goods.

Disposition

[65]  Pursuant to the authority delegated to me under section 63(3) of the Act, I reject the opposition pursuant to section 38(8) of the Act.

Jean Carrière

Member

Trade-marks Opposition Board

Canadian Intellectual Property Office

Annex A

• (1) Computer software application that allows users to access publications via wireless networks
• (2) bakeware; cookware; small electric kitchen appliances; tableware, namely flatware, dinnerware, glassware; serving dishes, serving plates, serving utensils, serving trays, serving trolleys; baking, confectionery and food decorating tools; cooking utensils; cleaning utensils; food storage containers; linens, namely bath linen, bed linen, kitchen linen, table linen; fragrances; paper products, namely calendars, greeting cards, writing paper and envelopes, memo pads, napkins, table covers, placemats, towels, gift bags, gift boxes, coasters, party decorations, wrapping paper, gift wrap, posters, recipe boxes, invitations, postcards; housewares, namely candles and candle holders, vases, frames, bowls, tabletop displays, picture albums; patio and garden furniture and accessories, namely chairs, chair cushions, seat pads, chaise lounges, tables, table covers, deck boxes, table umbrellas and umbrella bases, bistro sets, outdoor gazebos, pots and planters (the Goods)

• (1) Operation of a website providing information in the fields of health, nutrition, cooking, food, recipes, exercise, fitness, money, career, family, relationships, home, garden, beauty, fashion, news, books; advertising the wares and services of third parties
• (2) Promoting the sale of wares and services of third parties through promotional contests and the distribution of related printed material
• (3) Development, production, distribution, and broadcasting of television programs; broadcasting of television programs
• (4) Development, production, distribution, and broadcasting of radio programs; broadcasting of radio programs

Used in CANADA since at least as early as December 2011 on goods (1).

Used in CANADA since at least as early as April 1999 on services (1).

Used in CANADA since at least as early as April 2001 on services (2).

Used in CANADA since at least as early as August 14, 2012 on services (3).

Proposed Use in CANADA on goods (2) and on services (4).

 

 

 

TRADE-MARKS OPPOSITION BOARD

CANADIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE

APPEARANCES AND AGENTS OF RECORD

___________________________________________________

HEARING DATE

2017-10-05

APPEARANCES

Me. Guillaume Lavoie Ste. Marie	FOR THE OPPONENT
Mr. Peter Giddens	FOR THE APPLICANT

AGENT(S) OF RECORD

Smart & Biggar	FOR THE OPPONENT
McMillan LLP	FOR THE APPLICANT