Procter & Gamble Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Canada Inc.

Procter & Gamble Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Canada Inc.

The Board's decisions were reasonable and supported by the record: the opponent failed to meet its initial evidential burden on s.30 intent and distinctiveness grounds, the pleadings for ornamentation/functionality/use grounds were properly found defective but in any event the evidence did not establish ornamentation or primary functionality or impossibility of use, and the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness because the new evidence on appeal would not have materially affected the Board's findings.

Citation
2010 FC 231
Parties
Appellant/opponent: Procter & Gamble Inc.; Respondent/trade Mark Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Canada Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Trade Marks Opposition Board Under S.56 Trade Marks Act / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From Board Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Registrability, Distinctiveness, Functionality, Ornamentation, Intent to Use (s.30), Deemed Use (s.4), Standard of Review, Pleading Requirements
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Administrative Law Civil Procedure Registrability Distinctiveness Functionality Ornamentation +4 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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Procter & Gamble Inc.

Appellant/opponent

Colgate-Palmolive Canada Inc.

Respondent/trade Mark Applicant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Trade Marks Opposition Board Under S.56 Trade Marks Act / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From Board Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate standard of review for Board findings and new evidence
  2. 2 Whether opponent met initial evidential burden on s.30 grounds (intent to register/use)
  3. 3 Whether Design is registrable or invalid for ornamentation or primary functionality

Ratio Decidendi

The Board's decisions were reasonable and supported by the record: the opponent failed to meet its initial evidential burden on s.30 intent and distinctiveness grounds, the pleadings for ornamentation/functionality/use grounds were properly found defective but in any event the evidence did not establish ornamentation or primary functionality or impossibility of use, and the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness because the new evidence on appeal would not have materially affected the Board's findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs