This application was an appeal under section 56 of the Trademarks Act, concerning the decision issued by the Registrar of Trademarks. The decision pertained to proceedings under section 45 of the Trademarks Act, which resulted in the amendment of two trademark registrations held by the applicant. The amendment deleted all goods and services from the registrations, except for the sale of horse tack (saddles, breast collars, headstalls, and saddlebags) and the sale of briefcases. The background of the case revealed that the applicant held two trademark registrations, one for a word mark ("MASTER SADDLES CANADA") and the other for a design mark featuring an oval surrounding a horse and western designs. Both marks were registered for use with horse tack, clothing and apparel, as well as related importation, exportation, purchase, sale, and trade services. The Registrar issued notices under section 45 of the Trademarks Act, requiring the applicant to demonstrate the use of the marks in Canada within the previous three-year period. The applicant provided an affidavit in response. Subsequently, the Registrar issued a decision amending the registrations to delete most goods and services, except for the sale of horse tack and briefcases. The applicant filed an appeal seeking the reinstatement of certain goods and services associated with the marks. The applicant submitted a second affidavit providing additional evidence of use. The court considered additional evidence permissible under section 56(5) of the Trademarks Act. Upon reviewing the second affidavit, the court concluded that the evidence presented would have materially affected the Registrar's findings. Thus, the court was authorized to decide the matter de novo. Regarding the use of the marks in association with goods, the court found evidence of use for saddles, stirrups, bridles, halters, harnesses, breastplates, breast collars, headstalls, and saddlebags. However, there was insufficient evidence of use in relation to briefcases, and thus, the registrations could not be amended to include them. Regarding the use of the marks in association with services, evidence of use was established for the sale of the aforementioned goods. The court agreed to amend the registrations accordingly. However, the requested amendment to include "trade" services was denied due to the lack of evidence supporting such services. As a result, the court set aside the Registrar's decision in part and ordered the amendment of the trademark registrations as specified. Each party would bear its own costs.

No uploaded documents