Distinctiveness
February 9, 2023
2023 FCA 4: The prefix "pro" did little to make Puma's "procat" mark distinctive over Caterpillar's CAT & Triangle Design.
October 18, 2021
2021 FC 974: The Federal Court concluded that Puma’s use of procat would likely cause confusion with heavy equipment manufacturer Caterpillar Inc.’s ‘CAT’ trademark.
September 3, 2020
With problematic brands like Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben being dropped, how can brand owners prevent third parties from hijacking the discontinued marks?
June 4, 2020
The Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) has clarified how Vavilov's standard of review will apply to decisions made by the Trademarks Opposition Board (“TMOB”).
January 17, 2020
Because of the status of cannabis and trademark laws in the US, brand owners are looking to Canada to register their cannabis trademarks.
December 11, 2018
Fed. Cir. 2017-1468 – The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirms that surname may be registered as trademark as it acquired distinctiveness.
December 6, 2018
2018 FC 951 – The FC reiterates that trademarks will not be registered if they are likely to confuse consumers.
November 27, 2018
2018 FC 941 – The FC confirms that trademark variants must retain distinctive features to demonstrate “use” of the registered Mark.
September 11, 2018
2018 FC 853 - The Federal Court allowed Swatch AG’s appeal of a decision of the Registrar of Trade-marks allowing Hudson Watch Inc’s opposition to Swatch’s registration of its “iSWATCH” mark.