In this appeal of a Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) decision, Divert, Inc. (Divert) appealed the rejection of its opposition against Resource Recovery Fund Board Inc.’s (RRFB) application for the trademark DIVERT NS (the Mark) for use in association with a variety of services related to waste diversion.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that leave is mandatory under section 6.11 of the PM(NOC) Regulations. If leave is not sought, the appeal is at risk of being dismissed outright.

This Court of Appeal decision largely turned on the facts, with the Court dismissing the various issues raised on appeal. Interestingly, the decision demonstrates that one, or even a few, stray but wrong statements in a trial decision will not necessarily amount to an overriding error.

Blossman Gas Inc. brought an application against Alliance Autopropane Inc. [AAP] to invalidate their marks and to argue passing off. AAP claimed Blossman had acquiesced to the use of the marks.

The Attorney General of Canada (the “AGC”) brought an application under s. 40 of the Federal Courts Act for an order declaring Mr. Stukanov a vexatious litigant and staying a patent appeal advanced by Mr. Stukanov (collectively, the “Application”).

In 2022, Rovi Guides, Inc. and TiVo Solutions (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) sued Bell Canada and Telus Corporation et al. (collectively, the “Defendants”) for patent infringement of Canadian patents 2,336,870, 2,339,629, 2,425,482, and 2,514,585 (collectively, the “Patents”).

Dispensing with the formal requirements for bringing a motion under Rules 359 and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules (the “Rules”), Associate Judge Duschesne granted the Appellant, North Brewing Company Ltd. (“North Brewing”), request to amend its style of cause in this proceeding by substituting DLA Piper (Canada) LLP (“DLA Piper”) for the Registrar of Trademarks as the Respondent.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion to vary a Protective and Confidentiality Order issued under Rule 151 of the Federal Courts Rules.

Mr. Drizen, the Plaintiff’s only officer and employee, as well as inventor of the patent in suit, described himself as a “one-man band” on cross-examination.

The defendant and third party in a copyright infringement proceeding sought to bifurcate liability from remedies. The Court found that the action was “simply an action for copyright infringement” and therefore not particularly complicated even though it had an “unusual” claim for disgorgement of profits generated from a contract that was arguably facilitated by the alleged infringement.