On September 27, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) affirmed that four patents owned by AngelCare Canada (“AngelCare”) are valid and were infringed by the manufacture and sale of diaper pail cassettes by Munchkin Baby Canada Inc. (“Munchkin Canada”) and its US parent, Munchkin, Inc. (“Munchkin USA”). The decision raises important issues relating to […]
The Federal Court (Tsimberis J.) recently held that the Applicant, F.I.A.L. Finanziaria Industrie Alto Lario, S.P.A. (“Applicant” or “Fial”) is entitled to register the trademark, GALPERTI pursuant to ss. 38(2)(c) and 16(1)(a) of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) in an appeal of a decision of the Trademarks Opposition Board (“Board”) that had refused Fial’s application
Court Overturns TMOB Decision Based on New Evidence of Earlier and Continuous Use Read More »
In a decision by Pentney J., the Federal Court dismissed an appeal by Patagonia, Inc. (“Patagonia” or the “Applicant”) of a decision of the Registrar of Trademarks (the “Registrar”) to maintain the registration for the trademark, PATAGONIA, when used in association with “Beer”. The result of this decision is that the mark, Patagonia, can be
Labatt’s Brew-haha with Patagonia Read More »
The Federal Court (per Furlanetto J.) has held that the Commissioner of Patents (“Commissioner”) acted reasonably in denying a request for reinstatement of a patent that lapsed due to non-payment of an annual maintenance fee. This decision underscores the importance of having multiple lines of communication between a patent agent and a client – and
The “Due Care” Standard for Patent Reinstatement in Canada: A Very High Bar Read More »
The Federal Court (per St-Louis J.) held that the asserted claims of three patents owned by Nordik Blades (collectively, the “Nordik Patents”) are invalid on the basis of obviousness. However, the Court found that the asserted claims are not overbroad and the Nordik Patents are not void under section 53 of the Patent Act. The
Snowplow Patents are Snowed Under due to Federal Court Findings of Obviousness Read More »
In Galderma’s long-running dispute with the PMPRB, the Federal Court (per Fothergill J.) recently upheld the PMPRB’s decision that Galderma’s patent claiming the use of a 0.3% adapalene formulation “pertained” to its DIFFERIN (0.1% adapalene) product. Galderma Canada Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) – Federal Court (fct-cf.gc.ca) This is the most recent chapter in a
