In a decision issued January 9, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal (per LeBlanc JA, Roussel JA, and Heckman JA) (“FCA”) upheld the Federal Court’s (“FC”) decision to maintain three of Coors Brewing Company’s (“Coors”) trademark registrations related to beer products (collectively “the Trademarks”). The FC had held there were special circumstances that excused the […]
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 »
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 »
In the latest chapter of the Adeia Guides Inc. (formerly “Rovi”) (“Adeia”) and Videotron Ltd. (“Videotron”) patent infringement battle, Adeia alleged that Videotron infringed four patents within the same family related to digital entertainment technologies. Videotron denied infringement and counterclaimed for invalidity on the basis of anticipation, obviousness, and in the case of one patent,
Common Design Infringement Finds its Footing in Canada Read More »
Co-authored with Adam Haller Now that spooky season is over, it is the perfect time to check your trademark portfolio for “mutant” trademarks that may still be lurking. Companies frequently update their brands and logos. Over time, small changes can add up, and a trademark being used in the market may deviate significantly from, and
Who’s Afraid of a Little Old Mutant Trademark? Read More »
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 »
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 »
The Federal Court (per Southcott J.) allowed C-Tow’s application to have Sea Tow’s registered trademarks struck from the Trademarks Register (the “Register”), on the basis that C-Tow’s use of its marks predated Sea Tow’s adoption of the Sea Tow Marks, and that Sea Tow knew of the C-Tow Marks at the time of Sea Tow’s
C-Tow and Sea Tow go Toe-to-Toe Over Trademarks Read More »
The Alberta Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) held that the six-year limitation period in the Patent Act applies to infringement actions filed in the Alberta court, not the two-year period prescribed by provincial law. The plaintiff’s claim was not statute-barred and was remitted to the trial court for continued litigation. JL Energy Transportation
Six-Year Limitation Period Applies to Patent Infringement Claims Filed in Alberta Court Read More »
Co-written with Emily Papsin The Federal Court (per Zinn J.) set aside a decision by the Commissioner of Patents (“Commissioner”) refusing to reinstate Matco Tools Corporation’s (“Matco”) patent application which had been deemed abandoned for failure to pay maintenance fees. The Court found that the Commissioner did not conduct the requisite two-stage inquiry to assess
