Citation: 2022 TMOB 119

Date of Decision: 2022-06-13

IN THE MATTER OF AN OPPOSITION

	Engineers Canada/Ingénieurs Canada	Opponent
and
	ThyssenKrupp AG	Applicant
	1,733,999 for Engineering tomorrow. Together.	Application

Overview

[1] ThyssenKrupp AG (the Applicant) has filed application No. 1,733,999 (the Application) to register the following trademark (the Mark): Engineering tomorrow. Together.

[2] The Application is based on proposed use of the Mark in association with the services set out in Schedule “A” to this decision (the Services).

[3] Engineers Canada/Ingénieurs Canada (the Opponent) opposes the Application. The Opponent is a federation of the statutory provincial and territorial engineering regulators in Canada.

[4] For the reasons that follow, the Application is refused.

The Record

[5] The Application was filed on June 22, 2015 and claims priority to a corresponding application filed in Germany on December 22, 2014. The Application was advertised for opposition purposes in the Trademarks Journal on July 26, 2017. On December 22, 2017, the Opponent filed a statement of opposition pursuant to section 38 of the Trademarks Act, RSC 1985, c T-13 (the Act). I note that the Act was amended on June 17, 2019, and pursuant to section 70 of the Act, the grounds of opposition in this proceeding will be assessed based on the Act as it read prior to June 17, 2019.

[6] The Opponent raises grounds of opposition based on registrability under sections 12(1)(b) and 12(1)(e), distinctiveness under section 2, and non-compliance with section 30(e) of the Act. The Applicant filed a counter statement denying the grounds of opposition.

[7] The Opponent filed evidence which is discussed below. The Applicant elected not to file any evidence.

[8] Only the Opponent filed written representations and attended the hearing.

Preliminary Comments

[9] The Opponent has participated in numerous opposition proceedings over the years against parties which have applied to register trademarks which include the terms “engineer”, “engineering” or variants thereof. As a consequence, there is a substantial body of jurisprudence from the Federal Court and this Board which addresses facts and legal principles relevant to the present case. I note that the evidence which the Opponent filed in this proceeding is in many respects similar to that on which it relied in past cases and which is discussed in past decisions.

[10] In view of the above, while every case must be decided on its own merits, I will in some instances abbreviate my discussion of the law and evidence where they have already been canvassed in other cases. In this regard, I note at the outset that I consider the following decisions to be particularly instructive:

· Canadian Council of Professional Engineers v APA - The Engineered Wood Assn (2000), 7 CPR (4th) 239 (FC) (The Engineered Wood Assn), where an application for the trademark THE ENGINEERED WOOD ASSOCIATION was refused under section 2 of the Act;

· Canadian Council of Professional Engineers v John Brooks Co, 2004 FC 586, 35 CPR (4th) 507 (FC) (John Brooks Co), where an application for a trademark which included the words “Brooks Brooks Spray Engineering” was refused under section 12(1)(b) of the Act;

· Engineers Canada / Ingénieurs Canada v Burtoni, 2014 TMOB 174, 127 CPR (4th) 378 (Burtoni) where an application for the trademark V12 Engineering was refused under sections 12(1)(b) and 2 of the Act;

· Engineers Canada/Ingénieurs Canada v Financière Westrand, 2014 TMOB 14 (Westrand) where an application for the trademark WESTRAND INGÉNIERIE DE L'ODEUR & Design was refused under sections 12(1)(b) and 2 of the Act;

· Engineers Canada / Ingénieurs Canada v Affinia International Inc, 2015 TMOB 8, 132 CPR (4th) 129 (Affinia) where applications for two design marks that included the phrase SAFETY FIRST ENGINEERING were refused under sections 12(1)(b) and 2 of the Act; and

· Engineers Canada / Ingénieurs Canada and Eureka! Institute, Inc, 2021 TMOB 215 (Eureka) where an application for the trademark INNOVATION ENGINEERING was refused under sections 12(1)(b) and 2 of the Act.

Evidence

[11] The Opponent filed as its evidence the affidavit of Gerard McDonald sworn May 28, 2018 (the McDonald Affidavit) and the affidavit of D. Jill Roberts sworn June 5, 2018 (the Roberts Affidavit). Neither affiant was cross-examined. The Opponent’s evidence in this case is voluminous and therefore, while I have considered it in its entirety, I have summarized below only those portions which I consider most pertinent to resolving the grounds of opposition.

The McDonald Affidavit

[12] Mr. McDonald is the CEO of the Opponent. He describes that the Opponent was established in 1936 as the Dominion of Canada Council of Professional Engineers. In the late 1950s, the organization was renamed the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. In 2007, the organization operated under the business name Engineers Canada and in 2014 the official name was changed to Engineers Canada [para 5].

[13] Mr. McDonald describes that engineering is a regulated profession in Canada and that the Opponent is the national, non-profit organization that services and supports twelve provincial and territorial associations responsible for regulating the practice of engineering in Canada (the Regulators). These Regulators act to regulate every aspect of the engineering profession in each of Canada’s provinces and territories, including the licensing of over 290,000 members of the engineering profession in Canada [paras 6 and 7].

[14] Each Regulator has been established under a statute of its provincial or territorial legislature and serves as the licensing authority for engineers within its jurisdiction [para 8]. A list of these statutes is attached as Exhibit 2 to the McDonald Affidavit. Mr. McDonald states that each of the statutes mandates that only persons registered and licensed as engineers are authorized to perform engineering services in that province or territory or to designate or hold themselves out as engineers. This requirement is universal – it applies regardless of citizenship or whether the person has been educated in Canada or not [para 41].

[15] Mr. McDonald states that engineering is the discipline that links scientific discoveries with the practical application of those discoveries to meet the needs of society and to improve quality of life. He states that there are many branches of engineering, including but not limited to mechanical, civil, chemical, electrical, computer, industrial, aerospace and metallurgical engineering. Within the scope of any principal branch of engineering, there are many sub-disciplines and specialized sub-branches focused on specific technologies, products, subject matter or industries [paras 23-24].

[16] Mr. McDonald describes the nature of many of these disciplines of engineering, including references to specific courses available on these subjects at Canadian universities [paras 66-137].

[17] Mr. McDonald states that each of the Regulators maintains a register of persons and/or entities entitled to engage in the practice of engineering within their jurisdiction. Mr. McDonald states that the Opponent has obtained certified confirmations from each of the Regulators that the Applicant is not licensed or registered to engage in the practice of engineering in Canada and that the Applicant does not employ any engineers licensed to practise engineering in Canada [paras 138-139]. These certified responses are included as Exhibit 40 to the McDonald Affidavit.

[18] Exhibits 18 to 26 to the McDonald Affidavit are printouts from what appears to be the Applicant’s website at thyssenkrupp.com wherein the company is described as “a diversified industrial group” [paras 57-61]. Each webpage in these exhibits displays the words “engineering. tomorrow. together.” at the top of the page. The webpage included as Exhibit 26 identifies a variety of products and services offered within the following five areas: Components Technology, Elevator Technology, Industrial Solutions, Materials Services and Steel Europe.

The Roberts Affidavit

[19] Ms. Roberts identifies herself as a graduate of the Law Clerk program at Cambrian College in Sudbury, Ontario. Her affidavit includes dictionary definitions and Wikipedia entries for the words “engineering”, “tomorrow” and “together”.

Onus

[20] The legal onus is on the Applicant to show that the application complies with the provisions of the Act. However, there is an initial evidential burden on the Opponent to adduce sufficient admissible evidence from which it could reasonably be concluded that the facts alleged to support each ground of opposition exist. Once this initial burden is met, the Applicant must satisfy the Registrar, on a balance of probabilities, that the grounds of opposition pleaded should not prevent the registration of the Mark [John Labatt Ltd v Molson Companies Ltd (1990), 30 CPR (3d) 293 (FCTD) at 298; Dion Neckwear Ltd v Christian Dior, SA (2002), 20 CPR (4th) 155 (FCA)].

Analysis of the Grounds of Opposition

Section 12(1)(b) ground of opposition

[21] The material date for assessing this ground of opposition is the filing date of the Application, namely, June 22, 2015.

[22] There are two prongs to the Opponent’s section 12(1)(b) ground of opposition. The first is that if members of the profession of engineering in Canada are involved in the production of the Applicant’s Services, then the Mark is clearly descriptive of the character and quality of the services and of the persons employed in their production. The second prong is that if members of the profession of engineering in Canada are not involved in the production of the Services, then the Mark is deceptively misdescriptive.

[23] This two pronged approach was raised by the Opponent in previous oppositions, including John Brooks Co., Burtoni, Affinia and Eureka, and I will resolve the section 12(1)(b) ground using the same analytical framework as in those prior cases.

Is the Mark clearly descriptive?

[24] In the present case, the Opponent’s evidence suggests that the Applicant is not engaged in the practice of engineering in Canada. In particular, the McDonald Affidavit indicates that the Applicant is not licensed or registered to engage in the practice of engineering in Canada and that the Applicant does not employ any engineers licensed to practise engineering in Canada. Further, there is no evidence from the Applicant with which to establish that accredited engineers are employed in the production of the Applicant’s Services. In these circumstances, as in Burtoni at paras 23-24, I do not consider it necessary to assess the first prong of the section 12(1)(b) ground of opposition, and will instead focus on the second.

Is the Mark deceptively misdescriptive?

[25] With respect to the second prong of the section 12(1)(b) ground, namely, whether the Mark is deceptively misdescriptive, the jurisprudence suggests that there are two questions to be addressed: (1) are the Applicant’s Services ones that a typical consumer may expect to involve engineers or engineering, and if so, (2) does the word “Engineering” so dominate the Mark as a whole as to render it deceptively misdescriptive and thus unregistrable? [See, for example, John Brooks Co at paras 19-22, Burtoni at paras 47-51, and Affinia at paras 27-30].

[26] In considering these two questions, I am guided by the following statement of the Federal Court in John Brooks Co at para 20:

In my view, the very fact that the term "engineering" is closely regulated has implications here. Most people would assume that businesses using that word in their name offer engineering services and employ professional engineers, unless the context clearly indicated otherwise.

[27] With respect to the first question, in my view, the Opponent has provided sufficient evidence that the Services fall within categories of services which can involve engineers and engineering. In particular, the McDonald Affidavit canvasses the broad scope of engineering disciplines and services offered in Canada, including civil engineering, mechanical engineering, construction engineering, environmental engineering, chemical engineering, computer engineering, communications engineering, and systems engineering, among many others. Indeed, for many of the Services listed in the Application (e.g. “building construction”, “providing computer training”, “Architecture; town planning; structural engineering; mining engineering”), the connection to engineering is either express or readily apparent. In addition, the McDonald Affidavit includes evidence from the Applicant’s website which suggests that the Applicant is an entity which provides a diverse array of products and services in many industrial and technical fields, including components in the automotive field, technology for elevators, and solutions for industrial and chemical plants (see Exhibit 26 to the McDonald Affidavit). Against this backdrop, while some of the Services listed in the Application might appear to have a less direct connection to engineering, in my view, the Opponent has nevertheless provided sufficient evidence to at least meet its initial evidential burden that the Applicant’s Services are ones that a consumer may expect to involve engineers or engineering. The Applicant has filed no evidence or argument to the contrary.

[28] With respect to the second question, I find that the word “Engineering” so dominates the Mark as a whole as to render it deceptively misdescriptive. “Engineering” is the first word of the Mark and indeed is the focal point without which the remainder of the Mark would make little sense.

[29] In view of the above, I find that the Opponent has met its initial evidential burden under the second prong of its section 12(1)(b) ground of opposition, and that the Applicant has failed to meet its legal burden to demonstrate that the Mark is not deceptively misdescriptive. Therefore, the section 12(1)(b) ground of opposition succeeds on the basis that the Mark is deceptively misdescriptive.

Section 2 ground of opposition

[30] The material date for the distinctiveness ground of opposition is the date of filing of the statement of opposition, namely, December 22, 2017.

[31] In The Engineered Wood Assn, in considering a distinctiveness ground of opposition, the Federal Court stated as follows at paragraph 49:

While it may be true that a purely descriptive or a deceptively misdescriptive trade-mark is necessarily not distinctive, it is not correct to hold that merely because a mark is adjudged not to be either purely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive, it is therefore distinctive. [Emphasis added]

[32] In subsequent decisions of this Board, including Burtoni, Affinia, Westrand and Eureka, the underlined portion of The Engineered Wood Assn, above, has been adopted to stand for the principle that a trademark which is found to be deceptively misdescriptive under section 12(1)(b) is necessarily not distinctive under section 2 of the Act.

[33] I will note one possible anomaly in the above line of cases. In John Brooks Co (a case subsequent to The Engineered Wood Assn) at paras 23-24, the Federal Court appears to have rejected a distinctiveness ground of opposition despite having found that the trademark in issue was deceptively misdescriptive under section 12(1)(b). I am unable to reconcile that aspect of the John Brooks Co decision with the above-referenced analysis in The Engineered Wood Assn and the subsequent Board cases which have relied on that analysis, other than to note that arguably the brief discussion of distinctiveness in John Brooks Co could be considered obiter as the application in that case had already been refused on another ground.

[34] In these circumstances, I defer to the weight of authority following The Engineered Wood Assn decision in which it has repeatedly been held that a trademark which is deceptively misdescriptive is necessarily not distinctive [see Burtoni at paras 54-55, Affinia at para 31, Westrand at paras 35-36, and Eureka at para 38]. Since I have found that the Mark in this case is deceptively misdescriptive under section 12(1)(b), and there is no reason for me to conclude differently as of the filing date of the opposition, I similarly find that the Mark is not distinctive. In any event, by virtue of the finding under section 12(1)(b), the Opponent has at least met its initial evidential burden to suggest that the Mark is not distinctive, and the Applicant has not filed any evidence or argument to satisfy its legal burden. Therefore, the section 2 ground of opposition succeeds.

Section 12(1)(e) ground of opposition

[35] The material date for this ground of opposition is the date of the Registrar’s decision [Canadian Olympic Assn v Olympus Optical Co (1991), 38 CPR (3d) 1 (FCA)].

[36] The Opponent alleges that the Mark contravenes section 10 of the Act because the word “engineering” has become recognized as designating the kind, quality and value of the goods and/or services provided by licensed engineers. However, section 12(1)(e) deals with an assessment of the mark as a whole. Thus, even if the Opponent was successful in establishing that “engineering” had become so recognized, this would not be sufficient to find that the Mark as a whole violates section 10 of the Act [see Engineers Canada / Ingénieurs Canada v Bryant, 2016 TMOB 177 at para 65; see also Eureka at paras 33-35].

[37] Accordingly, the ground of opposition based on section 12(1)(e) of the Act is rejected.

Section 30(e) ground of opposition

[38] The Opponent pleads that, as of the filing date of the Application, the Applicant did not intend to use the Mark in Canada as required by section 30(e) of the Act. In particular, the Opponent argues that because the Applicant’s website depicts the trademark “engineering. tomorrow. together.” (i.e. with periods separating each of the three words – see Exhibit “20” to the McDonald Affidavit), this suggests a lack of intention on the part of the Applicant to use the Mark as applied for. I disagree with the Opponent on this point. First, I do not consider “engineering. tomorrow. together.” to be a material deviation from the Mark [see Canada (Registrar of Trade Marks) v Cie internationale pour l'informatique CII Honeywell Bull SA, [1985] 1 FC 406, 4 CPR (3d) 523; and Convenience Food Industries (Private) Ltd v Clic International Inc, 2011 FC 1338, 97 CPR (4th) 420]. Second, even if I were to consider it to be a material deviation, I do not consider this alone to be sufficient for the Opponent to meet its initial evidential burden to suggest that the Applicant did not intend to use the Mark as of the Application filing date.

[39] Consequently, the section 30(e) ground is rejected.

Disposition

[40] Pursuant to the authority delegated to me under section 63(3) of the Act, I refuse the Application pursuant to section 38(12) of the Act.

Timothy Stevenson

Member

Trademarks Opposition Board

Canadian Intellectual Property Office

Schedule A

Application No. 1,733,999 for Engineering tomorrow. Together.

Services:

(1) Personnel management consultancy; temporary employment agencies; business management and organisation consultancy; professional business analysis of business processes; business management; business administration; business investigations; accounting; office functions, namely computer or smartphone based electronic word processing, typing, spreadsheet processing, presentation processing, database processing, electronic mail processing; services of an online service provider, namely provision of information, texts, drawings and images, news and data related to repair services and installation services of goods; scaffolding services; statistical services, namely compilation of statistics; negotiation and concluding of commercial transactions for others; auctioneering; marketing services in the field of arranging for the distribution of the products of others; advertising the goods and services of others; marketing studies and analyses; opinion polling; organisation of trade fairs and exhibitions for industrial purposes or for advertising purposes; office machines and equipment rental; compilation of information into computer databases; media consultancy, namely organisational consultancy in the field of press and public relations

(2) Provision of information in the field of financial affairs, namely financial asset management, financial investment brokerage, financial investment counselling, financial management, financial planning, financial services, namely, debt settlement, financial valuations, financial trust operations, financial trust planning, financial valuation of personal property and real estate, financial valuations; financial sponsorship, namely sponsoring of company-facilitated and public sports activities, art and music events, art and technology exhibitions, kindergarten and playschools; facility management, transaction management, construction management and purchase of real estate; vehicle fleet leasing and vehicle fleet lease management, financial leasing, real estate leasing; insurance.

(3) Building construction; rental of scaffolding, formwork, work platforms; interior and exterior painting and lacquering; rental of panel walls of sheet piling elements for building construction, in particular building construction elements, bearings, profiles and systems for roof, wall and ceiling, including sandwich elements composed of steel and non-steel elements, trapezoidal steel profiles, arched roof profiles, cassette wall profiles; rental of industrial machines, namely construction apparatus and equipment for earthworks, in particular sheet piling, construction machines for anchoring, drilling, pressing, vibrating, pile driving and drawing techniques, flood protection systems; facility management in the field of technical facilities, namely repair, maintenance and servicing of real estate, namely permanently connected supply installations thereof, namely treatment systems for contaminated process water, exhaust air systems, power supply systems and power supply control systems, cleaning of buildings, and assembly, maintenance and repair of elevator lifts, escalators, moving walkways, platform lifts, lifting platforms for people, passenger bridges, moving staircases, stair lifts, equipment and machines for use in mining, open-cast mining, quarrying, ore or coal mining, demolition and road building, buildings, industrial machines and manufacturing installations, telecommunications apparatus, namely telecommunications apparatus being used for remote plant monitoring and remote condition monitoring and maintenance of elevators, escalators and moving walks, modules or systems for the power train and undercarriage parts of vehicles and apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water, vehicles and apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water and parts thereof, transportable buildings, room modules, refrigerating chambers and parts thereof, fence and gate installations, rail systems; cleaning of buildings; assembly, maintenance and repair of lifts, escalators, moving walkways, platform lifts, lifting platforms for people, passenger bridges, moving staircases, stair lifts; assembly, maintenance and repair of equipment and machines for use in mining, open-cast mining, quarrying, ore or coal mining, demolition and road building; assembly, maintenance and repair of industrial machines and manufacturing installations, namely elevators and parts of elevators, escalators, pumps and compressors as parts of machines, motors and engines, toolholder machine parts for metalworking machines, valves for industrial machinery, centering drilling bits being parts of machines, fuel injector parts for land and water vehicle engines, glaziers' diamonds being parts of machines, journal boxes that are parts of machines, abrasive discs for automotive use, automotive exhaust pipes, automotive hoists, automotive parking lifts, machine tools for the automotive industry, axles for industrial machinery, balers for industrial use, brakes for industrial machinery, clutches for industrial machinery, compressors for industrial machinery, cylinders for industrial machinery, engines for industrial machinery, generators for industrial machinery, industrial machine presses, motors and engines used in industrial applications, power transmission belts for industrial machinery, roller bearings for industrial machinery, shock absorbers for industrial machinery, thrusters for industrial machinery, timing belts for machines used in industrial applications, transmissions for industrial machinery, wheels for industrial machinery, bits for mining machines, drills for the mining industry, compressors for refrigerators, locomotive cranes, mechanical railed lifting conveyors, rail-laying machines; assembly, maintenance and repair of transportable buildings, room modules, refrigerating chambers and parts therefor; assembly, maintenance and repair of fence and gate installations; assembly, maintenance and repair of rail installations, namely fence and gate installations; scaffolding.

(4) Radio and television broadcasting; rental of broadcasting times during radio and television programmes, coordination and Providing of internet and intranet services, namely providing user access to global computer networks, providing of platforms on the internet, providing of portals on the internet, providing of forums, chatlines and chatrooms on the internet, e-mail services; telecommunications services, namely technical design and planning of installations and apparatus for telecommunication engineering; compilation and supplying of information, texts, drawings and images, namely compilation and supplying of information, texts, drawings, images and messages relating to business matters, repair, installation and assembly of goods, entertainment and training as services of news or press agencies; providing of access to and transmission of information, texts, drawings and images, messages and data on computer networks relating to business matters, repair of goods, installation of goods and assembly of goods, entertainment and providing of training; compilation of information into computer databases; rental of access time to databases.

(5) Transportation services for the removal of waste and hazardous waste, namely contaminated soil; transport of particulate solids to storage containers adapted for the delivery of particulate solids, in particular for the feeding of pulverized coal from a storage hopper to a gasifier or furnace, namely barge transport, cargo ship transport, cable-car transport, ferry-boat transport, freight train transport, helicopter transport, monorail transport, tanker transport, truck transport, turbojet airplane transport, freight transportation by air, air transportation of goods, freight transportation by boat, freight transportation by rail, freight transportation by truck, and railway transportation of goods; packaging articles for transportation and storage of goods, and supply chain logistics, namely, storage and transport of goods for others, namely, barge transport, cargo ship transport, cable-car transport, ferry-boat transport, freight train transport, helicopter transport, monorail transport, tanker transport, truck transport, turbojet airplane transport, freight transportation by air, air transportation of goods, freight transportation by boat, freight transportation by rail, freight transportation by truck, and railway transportation of goods; logistics in the transport and warehousing sector; water, steam, electricity and gas distribution, water, steam, electricity and gas supply (transport); removal of waste and special waste, including in the form of contaminated soil.

(6) Treatment of materials, namely processing of workpieces, production of profiles, production of slit coils, cutting of sheets and plates of metal, boards or trapezoids, curing of materials and surface finishing, in particular by means of hot dip galvanising, hot dip aluminising, zinc plating or organic coating; custom manufacture of bodies for vehicles, chassis parts, components for vehicle undercarriages and components for vehicle drives, in particular internal combustion engines, for others; toolmaking in the form of custom manufacture, for others; waste, waste water and pollutant treatment, recycling of waste, waste water, scrap and trash; print shops, namely printing; locksmiths (metal treating); carpentry (woodworking).

(7) Providing computer training; organization of sporting and cultural events in the fields of football, soccer, handball, basketball, field and ice hockey, golf, motorboat and sailing sports, swimming sports, tennis, volleyball, fighting sports, racing sports, including world cups, championships and olympic games, arts, music, and technology, namely company-facilitated and public sports activities, art and technology exhibitions; radio, television, video and film production; rental of books, periodicals, newspapers; rental of radios, television sets, video equipment, movie projectors, CD, tape and DVD players and recorders, and cameras; translation; media consultancy, namely providing of training and further training in the field of press and public relations; photography

(8) Architecture; town planning; structural engineering; mining engineering; chemistry services, namely chemical research and chemical analysis; consultancy on computer technology ; civil engineering services; design of interior decor; media consultancy, namely technical consultancy in the field of press and public relations; physics (research); software programming; stress analysis (construction planning), namely stress, strength and fatigue strength testing of devices, machines, machine parts or components thereof, measuring of hardness and residual stress patterns of devices, machines, machine parts or components thereof; technical drawing; surveying; research, construction of prototypes for research purposes and for technical product development, and research in the field of technology for ships; design and development of computer software in the field of ships; material testing, namely fatigue failure testing of steel/composite joints, fatigue registration using non-linear acoustic and traditional strain gauges, bending tests, four point bending tests, ageing tests, particularly ageing tests in high humidity, mechanical testing of adhesive joints, fire tests, particularly drencher and external flame spread tests, facade tests, particularly outside fire-facade tests; conducting technical inspections in the field of ships; technical drawing, construction of prototypes and technical development of products and research in the field of technology for ships; providing of technical information in relation to ships; technical condition monitoring for ships; technical consultancy in the field of computing; installation and maintenance of computer software; rental of data processing installations and computers; technical analysis of IT infrastructures; technical design and planning of installations and apparatus for telecommunication engineering; contaminated site management, namely technical design of property decontamination projects; computer rental.

 

 

 

TRADEMARKS OPPOSITION BOARD

CANADIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE

APPEARANCES AND AGENTS OF RECORD

___________________________________________________

HEARING DATE: 2022-04-04

APPEARANCES

Adele J. Finlayson	For the Opponent
No one appearing	For the Applicant

AGENTS OF RECORD

Macera & Jarzyna LLP	For the Opponent
Bereskin & Parr LLP/S.E.N.C.R.L., S.R.L.	For the Applicant