Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Farleyco Marketing Inc.

Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. Farleyco Marketing Inc.

Appeal dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the application judge erred: there was no factual foundation that licensing expanded the GLAMOUR mark and the affidavit evidence did not establish expansion, and it was not shown that the judge's subsection 16(3) conclusion depended on evidence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2009 FCA 348
Parties
Appellant: Advance Magazine Publishers Inc.; Respondent: Farleyco Marketing Inc.
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal (federal Court of Appeal) / Hearing and Judgment (reasons Delivered From the Bench)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Confusion, Licensing and Use of Trademark, Applicable Date Under S.16(3), Evidentiary Timing
Source Language
en
Trade Mark Law Intellectual Property Confusion Licensing and Use of Trademark Applicable Date Under S.16(3) Evidentiary Timing

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Advance Magazine Publishers Inc.

Appellant

Farleyco Marketing Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (federal Court of Appeal) / Hearing and Judgment (reasons Delivered From the Bench)

  1. 1 Whether licensing of the GLAMOUR mark to third parties expands the scope of the mark for confusion analysis
  2. 2 Whether the application judge relied on evidence post-dating the applicable date for subsection 16(3) of the Trade-marks Act
  3. 3 Whether the application judge erred in concluding there was no confusion

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the application judge erred: there was no factual foundation that licensing expanded the GLAMOUR mark and the affidavit evidence did not establish expansion, and it was not shown that the judge's subsection 16(3) conclusion depended on evidence post-dating December 16, 2003.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.