Coexistence of trademarks: Federal Court's decision reaffirms limited scope of consent agreements
Trademark practitioners in Canada know that consent agreements between a trademark applicant and the owner of a cited trademark are not easily accepted by the Trademarks Office (TMO). The TMO claims that it is not bound by such consents, namely because its duty is to protect the public from confusion between two registered marks, notwithstanding whether the consenting trademark owners believe that their respective marks can coexist. The only exception is with respect to “official marks”, owned by governments or “public authorities”, where the TMO is bound by such consents. A recent federal court decision reaffirms the TMO’s view in assessing consent agreements.
Want to read more?
Register to access two of our subscriber only articles per month
Subscribe for unlimited access to articles, in-depth analysis and research from the World Trademark Review experts
What our customers are saying
World Trademark Review, and particularly the WTR 1000, are always very useful sources for obtaining impressions and detailed information about foreign colleagues, law firms and jurisdictions. Our whole trademark team benefits from articles published in World Trademark Review.
Christian R Thomas
Attorney at law, legal and trademark department
KUHNEN & WACKER Intellectual Property Law Firm
Subscribe to World Trademark Review to receive access to the full range of trademark intelligence, insight, and case law, as well as our guides, rankings and daily market insight delivered to your inbox.
Register for more free content
- Read more World Trademark Review blogs and articles
- Receive the editor's weekly review by email