De Kuyper v. Van Dulken / Van Dulken v. De Kuyper

De Kuyper v. Van Dulken / Van Dulken v. De Kuyper

The majority held that plaintiffs had not validly registered the heart‑shaped label because the statutory requirement of a verbal description accompanying the drawing was not satisfied and the departmental certificate reflected registration of the anchor and name only; therefore plaintiffs could not enforce...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
(1895) 24 SCR 114
Parties
Plaintiff; Appellant: John De Kuyper & Son; Defendant; Respondent; Cross‑appellant: Van Dulken Weiland & Co.
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 January 1895
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada / On Appeal (final Judgment)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs; Exchequer Court judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Registration, Infringement, Rectification of Register, Jurisdiction to Restrain Unregistered Marks, Passing Off, Remedies
Source Language
english
Trade Mark Intellectual Property Commercial Law Civil Procedure Trade Mark Registration Infringement Rectification of Register Jurisdiction to Restrain Unregistered Marks +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John De Kuyper & Son

Plaintiff; Appellant

Van Dulken Weiland & Co.

Defendant; Respondent; Cross‑appellant

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada / On Appeal (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the heart‑shaped white label formed part of the plaintiffs' registered trade mark
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' heart‑shaped label infringed plaintiffs' trade mark or amounted to passing off
  3. 3 Whether the registration complied with statutory requirements (drawing and verbal description)

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that plaintiffs had not validly registered the heart‑shaped label because the statutory requirement of a verbal description accompanying the drawing was not satisfied and the departmental certificate reflected registration of the anchor and name only; therefore plaintiffs could not enforce exclusive rights in the label by registration. Nevertheless the court affirmed that defendants had no exclusive right to claim the heart‑shaped label and that their registration should be rectified by striking the claim to the heart shape; accordingly the Exchequer Court's orders (including rectification and costs) were affirmed and both appeals dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs; Exchequer Court judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' appeal dismissed
  • Defendants' cross‑appeal dismissed