As far as Canadian trademark rights are concerned, foreign hoteliers can rest easy
2018The Federal Court has recently affirmed that Hilton’s trademark in words, WALDROF-ASTORIA, is used in Canada for “hotel services” even though the WALDORF-ASTORIA hotel operates only in New York City. The room reservation services and loyalty points program that Canadians access via Hilton’s U.S. WALDORF-ASTORIA web site are sufficient to comprise “hotel services” for the purpose of the Trade-marks Act.
The matter arose in the context of a “section 45 proceeding” under the Trade-marks Act. In response to a request of Miller Thomson, the Registrar of Trade-marks issued a notice requiring Hilton to demonstrate its use of WALDORF-ASTORIA in the previous three years in association with the “hotel services” for which this trademark had been registered. In terms of services offered to Canadians, Hilton pointed out that it displayed WALDORF-ASTORIA in the operation of an interactive web site where Canadians were offered worldwide registration services, discounted room and a rewards program. The Registrar rejected Hilton’s arguments and expunged the trademark because, insofar as “hotel services” themselves were concerned, there was no WALDORF-ASTORIA in Canada.
Hilton appealed to the Federal Court, asserting that the trade-mark displayed at the web site had indeed been used because people in Canada benefited from Hilton’s reservation services, discounted room rates, and loyalty program, all offered at the web site, and that these offerings were encompassed by the term, “hotel services”.
The Federal Court agreed and reversed the decision of the Registrar. The Court held that “use” of a trademark for hotel services in Canada does not require that the hotel have a physical presence in Canada and that the term, “services” is to be liberally construed to include all , incidental or ancillary services to the primary services of, in this case, operating a hotel. In so doing, the Federal Court indicated its intention to recognize the prevalence of online commerce and the expanding commercial realities for both businesses and customers.
Authors: Amalia Berg, Larissa Fulop, Richard Naiberg, and Hassan Rasmi and Samanthea Samuels, 2018/2019 Articling Student-at-law
Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@martenbjork
Authors
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…