Federal Court Rejects Claims of Trademark Ownership and Copyright Invalidity

Date: 20260121 Docket: A-193-24 Citation: 2026 FCA 12 CORAM: LOCKE J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. [NAME] J.A. BETWEEN: [COMPANY]. Appellant and [NAME] and [COMPANY]. Respondents Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on January 21, 2026. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on January 21, 2026.

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: [NAME] J.A. Date: 20260121 Docket: A-193-24 Citation: 2026 FCA 12 CORAM: LOCKE J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. [NAME] J.A. BETWEEN: [COMPANY]. Appellant and [NAME] and [COMPANY]. Respondents

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on January 21, 2026). [NAME] J.A. [ 1 ] [COMPANY]. appeals from the judgment of the Federal Court: 2024 FC 688. The Federal Court dismissed [COMPANY].’s action seeking, among other things, 1) a declaration that it owned the unregistered trademark [COMPANY]; 2) a declaration that the respondents, [NAME] as well as Mr. [NAME]’s company, [COMPANY]. engaged in unfair competition prohibited under subsections 7(b), (c) and (d) of the Trademarks Act , R.S.C. 1985 c. T-13; and 3) a declaration that the copyright in the [COMPANY] logo registered to [NAME] is invalid and should be expunged. [ 2 ] Before this Court, [COMPANY]. says the Federal Court made reviewable errors by exceeding its jurisdiction, misapplying the law and misapprehending the evidence. Specifically, [COMPANY]. submits in determining whether [COMPANY]. was entitled to a declaration of ownership of the [COMPANY] trademark, the Federal Court went beyond its jurisdiction by “effectively” deciding matters related to a parallel shareholder dispute and trademark opposition proceedings between the same parties: Appellant’s Memorandum at para.

56. In addition, [COMPANY]. says the Federal Court misinterpreted the evidence in dismissing the claim of unfair competition and in refusing to expunge the copyright registration. [ 3 ] We disagree. [ 4 ] The applicable standard of review plays an important role in this appeal. The Federal Court’s decision is subject to the appellate standards of review as set out in [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2002 SCC 33. Questions of law and questions of mixed fact and law involving an extricable question of law are reviewed for correctness. On the other hand, factual findings or inferences are accorded a very high degree of deference under the palpable and overriding error standard of review. Such an error must not only be obvious, but it must also affect the outcome of the case: [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FCA 157 at paras. 62-64. [ 5 ] The Federal Court did not commit any errors warranting intervention. [ 6 ] It properly determined that it had jurisdiction to address the issue raised by the appellant with respect to ownership of the [COMPANY] trademark, including its authority to interpret the contractual documents in evidence. The Federal Court correctly cited the legislative sources of its jurisdiction in the Federal Courts Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, and Trademarks Act as well as the jurisprudence: Federal Court Decision at paras. 45–50 citing, among other cases, [COMPANY]. v. [NAME] , 2020 FCA 127 at paras. 24, 31 and 40, and Royal Doulton Tableware Ltd v Cassidy’s Ltd , [1986] 1 FC 357 at pp. 374–376. In addition, the Federal Court carefully measured its words to avoid straying outside its jurisdiction, recognizing that some aspects of the dispute lie outside its authority: Federal Court Decision at paras. 49, 50 and 81. [ 7 ] As for the Federal Court’s conclusion that the evidence did not establish unfair competition, it was reached by applying the required legal tests and carefully reviewing the evidence: Federal Court Decision at paras. 83–131. The factual findings are well supported and owed deference: [COMPANY]. v. [COMPANY]. , 2011 SCC 27 at para. 102. [ 8 ] Finally, we do not see any reason to interfere with the Federal Court’s decision not to expunge the copyright registration in the [COMPANY] logo. An application to expunge a registration under subsection 57(4) of the Copyright Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42, turns on the specific facts and the evidence: [COMPANY]. v [NAME] , 2017 FC 463 at para. 16; [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2010 FCA 229 at para.

2. Based on the evidence, the Federal Court found that [NAME] was the author of the logo and that the copyright in the artistic work was validly registered by [NAME] on behalf of [NAME]: Federal Court Decision at paras. 143-144, 148, and 150. [COMPANY]. has not pointed to a palpable and overriding error that would require overturning the Federal Court. [ 9 ] For all the foregoing reasons, this appeal will be dismissed with costs. "[NAME]" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-193-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [COMPANY]. v. [NAME] and [COMPANY]. PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC DATE OF HEARING: January 21, 2026

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LOCKE J.A. ROUSSEL J.A. [NAME] J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: [NAME] J.A. APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Appellant [NAME] For The Respondents SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY] Montréal, Quebec For The Appellant [NAME]. Montréal, Quebec For The Respondents