Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20030515

Docket: T-287-02

                                                                                                                              Citation: 2003 FCT 629

Ottawa, Ontario, this 15th day of May, 2003

Present:           The Honourable Madam Justice Sandra J. Simpson

BETWEEN:

                                                 DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                                 and

                                               LATITUDE COMMUNICATIONS INC.

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                                            REASONS AND ORDER

UPON application by Dell Computer Corporation ("Dell") pursuant to section 56 of the Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. T-13 by way of an appeal from the decision of the Registrar of Trade-marks (the "Registrar") dated December 20, 2001 (the "Decision") in the matter of an opposition by Latitude Communications Inc. (the "Respondent") to application number 746,774 for the trade-mark LATITUDE filed by Dell;

AND UPON hearing the submissions of counsel for Dell in chambers in Toronto on Wednesday, May 7, 2003;

AND UPON being advised that the appeal is unopposed by the Respondent;


AND UPON reviewing the additional evidence in the form of a co-existence agreement executed in June of 2002 (the "Agreement") by Dell and Next Wood Inc., the owner of the registered trade-mark;

AND UPON determining that the Agreement acknowledges that there has been no confusion in the past between Dell's computer wares and Next Wood Inc.'s custom office furniture in connection with the name "LATITUDE" and that steps will be taken to ensure that there will be no confusion in the future;

AND UPON being satisfied that the Agreement is a significant document which would have materially affected the Registrar's Decision.

NOW THEREFORE THIS COURT ORDERSthat:

(i)          the appeal is allowed;

(ii)         the Decision is hereby set aside;

(iii)        Dell's trade-mark application number 746,774 is hereby allowed; and

(iv)        there is no order as to costs.

                "Sandra J. Simpson"           

JUDGE


                        FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

             Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                              T-287-02

STYLE OF CAUSE:              DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION

Applicant

- and -

LATITUDE COMMUNICATIONS INC

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                         TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                           WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003   

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:             SIMPSON J.

DATED:                                                    THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2003

APPEARANCES BY:                              Mr. Aaron Schwartz

                                                                    Mr James Buchan

For the Applicant

No One Appearing

For the Respondent

                                                                                                                                                                       

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:                 GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP

                                                                      Barristers & Solicitors

Suite 4900, Commerce Court West,

Toronto, Ontario

M5L 1J3

For the Applicant             


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                            Date:20030515

                   Docket: T-287-02

BETWEEN:

DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION

Applicant

- and -

LATITUDE COMMUNICATIONS INC

                                  Respondent

                                                   

REASONS FOR ORDER

                                                   

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.