Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Centre Ice Ltd. v. National Hockey League

95-T-52

Nadon J.

7/9/95

12 pp.

Motion under Trade-marks Act, s. 56 for leave to appeal decision of Trade Marks Opposition Board notwithstanding expiry of two-month statutory period for appeal-Three concurrent proceedings with respect to similar trade mark applications, two of which concerning application to register trade marks "Center Ice", "Centre Ice"-Although filed affidavit with Board, Centre Ice defaulted in serving NHL by one day-Attempted to file affidavit by partially following procedures for submitting additional evidence-Opposition Board rejecting Centre Ice's opposition to NHL's application for trade mark "Center Ice" for use in association with clothing for failing to adduce any evidence supporting allegations of fact-On December 5, 1994 Centre Ice requested Board declare decision nullity as not having regard to Jones affidavit-On June 16, 1995 Board refusing request-Present motion filed August 28, 1995-S. 56 providing for appeal within two months from date on which notice of decision dispatched-Factors guiding determination of whether retroactive extension of time to appeal decision of Registrar of Trade Marks should be granted: (1) Appeal arguable-Issues raised in applications similar-Jones affidavit filed in Centre Ice trade mark application, passing off action-Registrar not having Jones' evidence before him, although filed day before-(2) No prejudice to respondent if extension granted, since already served with affidavit evidence in other application-(3) Genuine intention to appeal as of January 30, 1995-(4) Appellant must establish good reason for entire delay-Although notice of appeal due August 16, 1995, Centre Ice not filing any appeal, but filing present motion on August 28, 1995 instead-No explanation why not filing Notice of Appeal within two months of dispatch of June 16, 1995 letter-Motion dismissed-Trade-marks Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. T-13, s. 56(1)-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 1308.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.