Lendingtree, LLC v. Lending Tree Corp.

Lendingtree, LLC v. Lending Tree Corp.

Because the Opposition Board may consider and determine the propriety of amendments to the applicant's name and whether they change the applicant's identity, an adequate alternative remedy existed; no special circumstances justified collateral judicial review, and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Citation
2006 FC 373
Parties
Applicant: LendingTree, LLC; Respondent: Lending Tree Corp.; Respondent: Alex Haditaghi doing business as Lending Tree Corp.; Respondent: The Minister of Industry (Registrar of Trade-marks); Respondent: The Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review (trade Mark Amendment) / Decision on Judicial Review Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed.
Legal Topics
Amendment of Trade Mark Application, Identity of Applicant, Opposition Proceedings, Judicial Review, Standing, Alternative Remedy, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Law Administrative Law Amendment of Trade Mark Application Identity of Applicant Opposition Proceedings Judicial Review Standing +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LendingTree, LLC

Applicant

Lending Tree Corp.

Respondent

Alex Haditaghi doing business as Lending Tree Corp.

Respondent

The Minister of Industry (Registrar of Trade-marks)

Respondent

The Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review (trade Mark Amendment) / Decision on Judicial Review Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Registrar erred by allowing an amendment that changed the identity of the applicant contrary to subsection 31(a) of the Trade-marks Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the propriety of such an amendment can be raised and decided in opposition proceedings
  3. 3 Whether LendingTree U.S. had access to an adequate alternative remedy such that judicial review should be refused absent special circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Opposition Board may consider and determine the propriety of amendments to the applicant's name and whether they change the applicant's identity, an adequate alternative remedy existed; no special circumstances justified collateral judicial review, and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed.
  • Applicant shall pay the respondents' costs; if not agreed, costs to be assessed at the mid-point of column III to the table to Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules.