Community Credit Union Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade-marks

Community Credit Union Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade-marks

The Registrar's findings were reasonable: the applicant did not positively establish the claimed November 1986 date of first use and the mark "Community Credit Union" was inherently non-distinctive and descriptive because it was commonly used by many credit unions across Canada; the additional evidence was cumulative and would not have materially affected the Registrar's conclusions, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
2006 FC 1119
Parties
Applicant: Community Credit Union Ltd.; Respondent Registrar of Trade Marks: Registrar of Trade-marks; Respondent Credit Union Central of Canada: Credit Union Central of Canada; Respondent Community Savings Credit Union: Community Savings Credit Union
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Trade Marks Act / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From Registrar (decision Dated July 13, 2005)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Registrability, Distinctiveness, Descriptiveness, Date of First Use, Standard of Review, Section 30(b), Section 12(1)(b)
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Law Administrative Law Registrability Distinctiveness Descriptiveness Date of First Use Standard of Review +2 more

Case Brief

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Community Credit Union Ltd.

Applicant

Registrar of Trade-marks

Respondent Registrar of Trade Marks

Credit Union Central of Canada

Respondent Credit Union Central of Canada

Community Savings Credit Union

Respondent Community Savings Credit Union

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under the Trade Marks Act / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From Registrar (decision Dated July 13, 2005)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate standard of review?
  2. 2 Did the Registrar err in holding applicant had not positively established the claimed date of first use?
  3. 3 Did the Registrar err in not considering the s.12(1)(b) clearly descriptive ground of opposition?

Ratio Decidendi

The Registrar's findings were reasonable: the applicant did not positively establish the claimed November 1986 date of first use and the mark "Community Credit Union" was inherently non-distinctive and descriptive because it was commonly used by many credit unions across Canada; the additional evidence was cumulative and would not have materially affected the Registrar's conclusions, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Registrar's refusal of registration upheld