Kelendji v. Diplomat Fullhalter Gasellschaft Kurz &Rauchle GMBH & Co. KG

Kelendji v. Diplomat Fullhalter Gasellschaft Kurz &Rauchle GMBH & Co. KG

The motions judge erred by failing to consider the s.18(1)(a) ground of invalidity which is not subject to the five-year limitation in s.17(2); the appeal is allowed, the trial judge's decision is reversed, and the matter is remitted to the Trial Division for reconsideration of s.18(1)(a) (and, as appropriate,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 FCA 480
Parties
Appellant: Fouad Kelendji (doing business as Dipomate Watch of Canada); Respondent: Diplomat Fullhalter GASELLSCHAFT Kurz & Rauchle GMBH & Co. KG
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
2 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Trade Marks Application to Strike; Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal / Appeal Allowed; Matter Remitted to Trial Division for Re Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; decision of the trial judge reversed with costs to the applicant; matter referred back to the Trial Division for re-hearing.
Legal Topics
Registrability, Distinctiveness, Statute of Limitations/prescription, Remittal
Source Language
en
Trade Marks Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Registrability Distinctiveness Statute of Limitations/prescription Remittal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fouad Kelendji (doing business as Dipomate Watch of Canada)

Appellant

Diplomat Fullhalter GASELLSCHAFT Kurz & Rauchle GMBH & Co. KG

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trade Marks Application to Strike; Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal / Appeal Allowed; Matter Remitted to Trial Division for Re Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the motion to strike was time-barred under s.17(2) of the Trade Marks Act
  2. 2 Whether the motions judge erred by failing to consider s.18(1)(a) (registrability) which is not subject to the five-year limitation
  3. 3 Whether lack of distinctiveness under s.18(1)(b) should be considered or permitted by amendment on remittal

Ratio Decidendi

The motions judge erred by failing to consider the s.18(1)(a) ground of invalidity which is not subject to the five-year limitation in s.17(2); the appeal is allowed, the trial judge's decision is reversed, and the matter is remitted to the Trial Division for reconsideration of s.18(1)(a) (and, as appropriate, s.18(1)(b)) issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; decision of the trial judge reversed with costs to the applicant; matter referred back to the Trial Division for re-hearing.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Decision of the Trial Division reversed with costs to the applicant