United States Postal Service v. Canada Post Corporation
The appeal was dismissed because the proper interpretation of subparagraph 9(1)(n)(iii) requires that a "public authority" be subject to control by a Canadian government and engage in activities benefiting the public; that interpretation does not conflict with the Paris Convention or TRIPS.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2007 FCA 10
- Parties
- Appellant: United States Postal Service; Respondent: Canada Post Corporation
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 9 January 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under the Trade Marks Act / Judgment Delivered From the Bench at Federal Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Public Authority, Statutory Interpretation, International Treaty Compliance (paris Convention, Trips)
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
United States Postal Service
Appellant
Canada Post Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Trade Marks Act / Judgment Delivered From the Bench at Federal Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether United States Postal Service is a "public authority" under subparagraph 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trade-marks Act
- 2 Whether the government exercising control for the definition of "public authority" must be a Canadian government
- 3 Whether excluding foreign government entities from the definition conflicts with the Paris Convention or TRIPS
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the proper interpretation of subparagraph 9(1)(n)(iii) requires that a "public authority" be subject to control by a Canadian government and engage in activities benefiting the public; that interpretation does not conflict with the Paris Convention or TRIPS.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
United States Postal Service v. Canada Post Corporation Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-01-09 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 10 File numbers A-633-05 Decision Content Date: 20070109 Docket: A-633-05 Citation: 2007 FCA 10 CORAM: NADON J.A. SEXTON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Appellant and CANADA POST CORPORATION Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 9, 2007. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 9, 2007. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20070109 Docket: A-633-05 Citation: 2007 FCA 10 CORAM: NADON J.A. SEXTON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Appellant and CANADA POST CORPORATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 9, 2007) SHARLOW J.A. We are all of the view that this Appeal must be dismissed.The Court held in Ontario Association of Architects v. Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario (C.A.), [2003] 1 F.C. 331, that, to be a “public authority” within the meaning of subparagraph 9(l)(n)(iii) of the Trade-Marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. T-13, an entity must be subject to government control and must engage in activities that benefit the public. In our view, to fulfil the intention of Parliament, the government exercising the control must be a Canadian government. We are not persuaded that this interpretation of the statute offends the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. “K. Sharlow” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: A-633-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: united states postal service Appellant and CANADA POST CORPORATION Respondent DATE OF HEARING: January 9, 2007 PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: (SHARLOW, NADON & SEXTON JJ.A.) DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: SHARLOW j.a APPEARANCES BY: ANTHONY PRENOL ANTONIO TURCO FOR THE Appellant JOHN LASKIN For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: BLAKE, CASSELS, GRAYDON LLP TORONTO, onTARIO for the appellant TORYS LLP TORONTO, ONTARIO FOR THE RESPONDENT