Skip to main content
Federal Court of Appeal· 2007

United States Postal Service v. Canada Post Corporation

2007 FCA 10
PropertyJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing the official court-reporter headnote. An editorial brief (facts · issues · held · ratio · significance) is on the roadmap for this case. The judgment text below is the authoritative source.

Court headnote

United States Postal Service v. Canada Post Corporation Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-01-09 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 10 File numbers A-633-05 Decision Content Date: 20070109 Docket: A-633-05 Citation: 2007 FCA 10 CORAM: NADON J.A. SEXTON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Appellant and CANADA POST CORPORATION Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 9, 2007. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 9, 2007. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20070109 Docket: A-633-05 Citation: 2007 FCA 10 CORAM: NADON J.A. SEXTON J.A. SHARLOW J.A. BETWEEN: UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Appellant and CANADA POST CORPORATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 9, 2007) SHARLOW J.A. We are all of the view that this Appeal must be dismissed.The Court held in Ontario Association of Architects v. Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario (C.A.), [2003] 1 F.C. 331, that, to be a “public authority” within the meaning of subparagraph 9(l)(n)(iii) of the Trade-Marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. T-13, an entity must be subject to government control and must engage in activities that benefit the public. In our view, to fulfil the intention of Parliament, the government exercising the control must be a Canadian government. We are not persuaded that this interpretation of the statute offends the Paris Convention for the Protectio…

Read full judgment
United States Postal Service v. Canada Post Corporation
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2007-01-09
Neutral citation
2007 FCA 10
File numbers
A-633-05
Decision Content
Date: 20070109
Docket: A-633-05
Citation: 2007 FCA 10
CORAM: NADON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Appellant
and
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 9, 2007.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 9, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20070109
Docket: A-633-05
Citation: 2007 FCA 10
CORAM: NADON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Appellant
and
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on January 9, 2007)
SHARLOW J.A.
We are all of the view that this Appeal must be dismissed.The Court held in Ontario Association of Architects v. Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario (C.A.), [2003] 1 F.C. 331, that, to be a “public authority” within the meaning of subparagraph 9(l)(n)(iii) of the Trade-Marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. T-13, an entity must be subject to government control and must engage in activities that benefit the public. In our view, to fulfil the intention of Parliament, the government exercising the control must be a Canadian government. We are not persuaded that this interpretation of the statute offends the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property or the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
“K. Sharlow”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-633-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: united states postal service
Appellant
and
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: January 9, 2007
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: (SHARLOW, NADON & SEXTON JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE
BENCH BY: SHARLOW j.a
APPEARANCES BY:
ANTHONY PRENOL
ANTONIO TURCO FOR THE Appellant
JOHN LASKIN For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
BLAKE, CASSELS, GRAYDON LLP
TORONTO, onTARIO for the appellant
TORYS LLP
TORONTO, ONTARIO FOR THE RESPONDENT

Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca

Related cases