Case information

Intellectual property — Trademarks — Expungement for non-use — Where transferee of registration of trademark receives notice under s. 45 of Trademarks Act and claims in response to not have information concerning period that precedes its acquisition, whether Registrar may ignore statutory requirement set out in Act to provide date of last use of registered trademark and if any, special circumstances justifying absence of use since that date, and replace it with requirement absent from Act to provide acquisition date and reasons justifying non-use between that date and issuance of notice — Trademarks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, s. 45.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

At the request of the Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne (Comité) and the Institut National de l’Origine et de la Qualité (Institut), the Registrar of Trademarks issued notices pursuant to s. 45 of the Trademarks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, requiring Coors Brewing Company to demonstrate use of the marks registered in the Register of Trademarks during the preceding three-year period, and, if not, to show the date of their last use and the reason for absence of use since that date. Coors Brewing Company had acquired the marks six months before the notices were issued. The Registrar said he was satisfied that the non-use of the marks between the acquisition and the date of the notices was attributable to special circumstances, that is, the requirement of having to obtain the necessary regulatory approvals before being able to launch the goods associated with the marks.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal of the Comité and the Institut, finding that the Registrar had committed no palpable and overriding error. The Federal Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal of the Comité and the Institut, finding, on the basis of Centric Brands Holding LLC v. Stikeman Elliott LLP, 2025 FCA 161, that the Federal Court had not erred in rejecting the argument that s. 45 requires that the justification for non-use of a trademark in the context of an acquisition cover the entire period between the date of last use of the mark and the date of a notice.