Markwell Clarizio LLP

Menu
Contact Us

Author name: Jason Markwell

Cooking Up Goodwill: How First Use Secured Trademark Rights in ASIALICIOUS

IP Decisions /

On April 14, 2026, the Federal Court (per Manson J) issued a detailed and instructive reminder that trademark rights in Canada can arise through use alone without registration. The Court reaffirmed that where goodwill and confusion are established, the courts will not hesitate to protect those rights. This decision is particularly significant when brands are

Cooking Up Goodwill: How First Use Secured Trademark Rights in ASIALICIOUS Read More »

Federal Court of Appeal: Don’t Kiss Online Trademark Confusion Surveys Goodbye           

IP Decisions /

On February 25, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal (per De Montigny C.J., Webb J.A. and Pamel J.A.) (“FCA”) upheld a Federal Court decision (discussed in our previous blog post) that Promotion in Motion Inc. (“PIM”)’s trademarks SWISSKISS and SWISSKISS & Design (in association with Swiss chocolate) were not registrable in light of Hershey Chocolate

Federal Court of Appeal: Don’t Kiss Online Trademark Confusion Surveys Goodbye            Read More »

Ambiguity Strikes Again: The Court of Appeal Finds the Claims Ambiguous

IP Decisions /

On January 22, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal (per Locke J.A, Roussel J.A., and Goyette J.A.) (“FCA”) upheld the Federal Court’s (“FC”) ruling that certain claims in AP&C ADVANCED POWDERS & COATINGS INC.’s Canadian Patents Nos. 3,003,502 and 3,051,236 (collectively, the “AP&C Patents”) were ambiguous and therefore invalid. This decision is notable for at

Ambiguity Strikes Again: The Court of Appeal Finds the Claims Ambiguous Read More »

Federal Court Outlines Test for Admitting New Evidence on Appeals From the Trademarks Opposition Board

Trademarks /

Co-authored with Marc Mitri On January 16, 2026, the Federal Court (per McHaffie J) held that the Trademarks Opposition Board (“Board”) erred in refusing registration of Products Unlimited, Inc.’s (“Applicant”) FILTER DESIGN trademark. Of note, this was the first judicial decision to consider the interpretation of subsection 56(5) of the Trademarks Act (effective April 1,

Federal Court Outlines Test for Admitting New Evidence on Appeals From the Trademarks Opposition Board Read More »

Patients Are A Relevant Consumer in the Trademark Confusion Analysis For Biosimilars

Trademarks /

Co-authored with Emily Johnston On November 28, 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal (Per Woods JA and Laskin JA) (“FCA”) held that the Federal Court (per Pallotta J) (“FC”) did not err in (1) enjoining Samsung Bioepis (“Samsung”) and Biogen, et al (collectively “Biogen”), as well as their licensees, from using the trademark BYOOVIZ in

Patients Are A Relevant Consumer in the Trademark Confusion Analysis For Biosimilars Read More »

Federal Court Goes All-In on Claim Construction in Assessing Patentable Subject Matter

IP Decisions /

Co-authored with Adam Haller On November 12, 2025, the Federal Court (per Whyte Nowak J.) held that the Commissioner of Patents (the “Commissioner”) made several errors of law in finding that an application for a “Method for Playing a Card Game” did not qualify as patentable subject matter under the Patent Act. The Court remitted

Federal Court Goes All-In on Claim Construction in Assessing Patentable Subject Matter Read More »

What You Claim Is What You Get; The Disclosure Cannot Change It

IP Decisions /

On July 29, 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) per Rennie J.A. dismissed an appeal from a trial judgment that found all claims in AGI Suretrack, LLC’s (“AGI”) 742 Patent invalid for anticipation or obviousness. AGI Suretrack, LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc. 2025 FCA 134 Background AGI’s 742 Patent relates to agricultural technology that

What You Claim Is What You Get; The Disclosure Cannot Change It Read More »

Timing is Everything: FCA Affirms OSIP’s Timing Interpretation in Patent Register Dispute

IP Decisions /

  On August 8, 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) held that Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”), a biosimilar manufacturer, was not required to address Bayer Inc.’s (“Bayer”) newly issued patent (the “315 Patent”) for EYLEA (aflibercept) under the PM(NOC) Regulations because it had not been added to the Patent Register when Amgen’s New Drug Submission

Timing is Everything: FCA Affirms OSIP’s Timing Interpretation in Patent Register Dispute Read More »

Summary Judgment Denied in a Riveting Rosie Copyright Battle

IP Decisions /

Co-authored by Dino Clarizio On January 31, 2025, the Federal Court (per Gascon J.) dismissed a motion for summary judgment in a copyright infringement action involving a “Rosie the Riveter” design because the moving party failed to prove that there was no “genuine issue” for trial. The Court found that, on the facts and law,

Summary Judgment Denied in a Riveting Rosie Copyright Battle Read More »

Importance of Brand Strength: The Arc of Confusion in Physio Health Trademark

IP Decisions /

On February 14, 2025, the Federal Court (per Fuhrer J.) found that Joanna Habbous, owner of the registered trademark PHYSIOHEALTH STUDIOS, had established infringement, passing off, and depreciation of goodwill against Arc Physio Health Ltd. The application was, however, dismissed against the named personal Respondents. Habbous v. Arc Physio Health Ltd., 2025 FC 297 Background Ms.

Importance of Brand Strength: The Arc of Confusion in Physio Health Trademark Read More »