This is an appeal under section 56 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) by the Applicant, THI Canada Inc., of a decision of the Trademarks Opposition Board (“TMOB”), refusing THI’s opposition to the registration of a Trademark Application owned by the Respondent, King Rack Industrial Co., Ltd.

This appeal is with respect to the AVIREX Mark owned by Centric. The Mark was expunged on August 26, 2022, in a decision by the Registrar, after issuing its Notice under section 45 of the Trademark Act. Centric appealed the decision with new evidence, including two affidavits, claiming special circumstances to excuse the absence of the use of the Mark.

The underlying action was a patent infringement claim, which was struck by the Court on its own motion. The Court detailed various procedural Orders setting timelines which were repeatedly disregarded, leading to the Court issuing the Order proprio motu dismissing the action.

Between The Governing Council of the University of Toronto, Robert Gazzale, Lisa Kramer and Ai Taniguchi v. Easy Group Inc. D/B/A/ Easy Education, Easy 4 Education Canada Inc., Easy 4.0 Education Inc., Easy 4.0 Education UTSC Inc., 2024 FC 205 (CanLII)

Google appeals the decisions of Justice Zinn, which found that Sonos did not infringe claim 7 of Google’s Patent No. 2,545,150, and the subsequent decision for Google to pay Sono’s costs.

The Defendant, Whitewater, appeals a decision of Associate Justice Crinson, which denied its request to amend its Statement of Defence to add allegations of invalidity due to insufficient disclosure.

McDowell brought an ex parte motion in writing to the Federal Court, seeking an order for default judgment against the defendant, “A Drip of Honey.” McDowell alleged that A Drip of Honey used trademarks that closely resembled her marks, amounting to trademark infringement, passing off, and depreciation of goodwill.

Novartis commenced an application in the Federal Court claiming trademark infringement, passing off, and depreciation of goodwill.

This case is a simplified action for copyright and moral rights infringement, which proceeds with a list of documents instead of an affidavit of documents. This case clarifies the timing of when this list of documents should be served.

This is a motion within a case alleging copyright infringement of the Plaintiff’s photographic works. The Plaintiff filed this motion to submit a reply to the Defendant’s expert report.