Canadian Intellectual Property Office
Citation: 2022 TMOB 261
Date of Decision: 2022-12-20
IN THE MATTER OF AN OPPOSITION
Opponent: ERFA PROPRIÉTÉ INTELLECTUELLE INC.
Applicant: JOHNSON & JOHNSON
Application: 1,837,802 for ERFANDEL
Introduction
[1] ERFA PROPRIÉTÉ INTELLECTUELLE INC. (the Opponent) opposes registration of the trademark ERFANDEL (the Mark), which is the subject of application No. 1,837,802 (the Application) filed by JOHNSON & JOHNSON (the Applicant) in association with a variety of pharmaceuticals, pharmaceutical preparations, medications, and vaccines.
[2] The opposition is primarily based on an allegation that the Mark is confusing with the Opponent’s ERFA-formative trademarks and trade names.
[3] For the reasons that follow, the opposition is rejected.
Record
[4] The Application was filed on May 16, 2017 and is based on proposed use in Canada; it also claims a priority date of March 8, 2017 based on the Applicant’s corresponding application filed in the United States. The statement of goods for the Application is reproduced below, together with the associated Nice class (Cl):
Cl 5 (1) Human pharmaceuticals for the prevention or treatment of auto-immune diseases, cardiovascular diseases, gastro-intestinal diseases, oncologic diseases, ophthalmic diseases, and respiratory diseases; pharmaceutical preparations for the prevention or treatment of metabolic diseases and disorders, namely diabetes, gout, arthritis and anemia; pharmaceutical preparations for the prevention or treatment of neurological diseases, namely Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s disease, and cerebral palsy; pharmaceutical preparations for the prevention or treatment of psychiatric diseases, namely, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, cognitive disorders, and schizophrenia; pharmaceutical preparations for use in dermatology, namely dermatitis, skin pigmentation diseases, psoriasis; anti-viral medications; anti-inflammatory medications; anti-pain medications; and anti-infective medications; human vaccines
[5] The Application was advertised in the Trademarks Journal of June 27, 2018 and on August 22, 2018 the Opponent filed a statement of opposition under section 38 of the Trademarks Act, RSC 1985, c T‐13 (the Act). The statement of opposition cites sections 30(e) and (i), 12(1)(d), 16(3)(a) and (c) and 2 of the Act as basis for the opposition, as these sections read before the Act was amended on June 17, 2019 (see section 70).
[6] The Applicant filed a counter statement denying the grounds of opposition.
[7] The Opponent’s evidence consists of:
Certified copies of its trademark registration Nos. TMA532,683 (ERFA); TMA960,681 (ERFA HQ); and TMA993,242 (ERFA AMIKACIN);
An affidavit of Simon Soucy, dated February 12, 2019, with Exhibits 1 to 11;
A declaration of Hélène Deslauriers, dated January 29, 2019, with Exhibit HD-1.
[8] Ms. Deslauriers and Mr. Soucy were cross-examined. The corresponding transcripts and the replies to undertakings that were filed form part of the record.
[9] The Applicant’s evidence consists of an affidavit of Charlotte Dong, dated June 5, 2020, with Exhibits A to D. Ms. Dong was not cross-examined.
[10] Both parties filed written representations but only the Applicant attended a hearing.
Overview of the evidence
The Opponent’s evidence
The Soucy affidavit and cross-examination
[11] Mr. Soucy is President and Secretary of the Opponent and has worked for the Opponent since it was incorporated on October 12, 2017. He is also President of ERFA CANADA 2012 Inc. (ERFA 2012) and has worked for that entity since it was incorporated on April 25, 2012 and, prior to the purchase of its assets, as officer of Erfa Canada (9266-7682 Québec Inc.) from the beginning of the 2000s. [paras 1-2]
[12] Mr. Soucy states that, on January 1, 2018, ERFA 2012 assigned all the intellectual property rights it held to the Opponent and that, on the same date, the Opponent granted ERFA 2012 a licence to use the marks it had acquired. Mr. Soucy states that the Opponent controls the quality of the goods and services used in association with such marks. [para 4]
[13] With respect to the registered trademarks relied upon by the Opponent in its statement of opposition, Mr. Soucy states that they are used by the Opponent and its predecessors in title since at least the dates claimed in the registrations (“depuis au moins la date mentionnée dans les enregistrements”) [para 6, Exhibit 1].
[14] Specifically with respect to the trademark ERFA, Mr. Soucy states that it has been used in Canada by the Opponent and its predecessor in title ERFA 2012 since at least as early as April 2012 in association with the manufacture, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical products and in association with the following pharmaceutical products: [Translation] “Antiallergic preparations and pharmaceutical substances; Antihistamines; Liquid epinephrine for pharmaceutical use; Antibiotic; Antiepileptic pharmaceutical preparations; Pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of cancer; Anesthetics for surgery; Pharmaceutical preparation for the treatment of bleeding disorders; Pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of psychiatric illnesses, namely, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorders, schizophrenia and psychoses; Pharmaceutical preparations and substances for the treatment of gastro-intestinal diseases; Pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of asthma; Pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of nausea and vomiting; Pharmaceutical preparation for the treatment of dermatitis and hives; Expectorants; Pharmaceutical preparation for the treatment of amenorrhea, endometriosis and abnormal uterine hemorrhages; Pharmaceutical preparation for the treatment of symptoms of Parkinson’s disease; Antibiotic and decongestant in the form of nasal spray; Pharmaceutical preparation for the treatment of diseases, disorders and infections of the endocrine system, namely growth and thyroid disorders; Pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of epilepsy; Probiotic preparations for medical use to maintain the natural balance of the intestinal flora; Pharmaceutical preparation for the treatment of vaginal infections; Melatonin for sleep regulation; Nasal spray; Analgesics; Antidepressants; Pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases; skin-lightening preparations” [para 8].
[15] Mr. Soucy also states that all of the Opponent’s pharmaceutical products bear the ERFA brand and attaches illustrations of a container and packaging described as “bearing the brands” (“portant ces marques”) [para 7, Exhibit 2]. I note that where “ERFA” is displayed on the exhibited products, it is only as part of “ERFA Canada 2012 Inc.”, as shown below.
|
|
|
[16] I should note at this stage that, in my view, this use of ERFA Canada 2012 Inc. also constitutes use of the trademark ERFA which preserves its identity and remains overall recognizable as a matter of first impression [per Nightingale Interloc Ltd v Prodesign Ltd (1984), 2 CPR (3d) 535 (TMOB)].
[17] Mr. Soucy states that sales of ERFA-branded pharmaceutical products amount to over $15 million in 2017 and in 2018 [para 11].
[18] Mr. Soucy states that the Opponent’s ERFA-branded pharmaceutical products are sold in several Canadian pharmacies through McKesson Canada, a company specialized in the distribution of pharmaceutical products, and that ERFA HQ-branded products are also sold on amazon.ca [paras 12-13, Exhibits 5-6].
[19] Mr. Soucy states that, in the last three years (“dans les trois dernières années”), over $500 000 were spent annually for advertising and marketing [para 15]. He explains that the ERFA brand is publicized through nine medical representatives who present the products to physicians, wholesalers and hospitals as well as through several sales representatives who promote it to Canadian pharmacies and attaches examples of promotional materials for ERFA HQ-branded gel used by said representatives in the last three years (“dans les trois dernières années”) [para 16, Exhibit 7]. Mr. Soucy states that the Opponent and its predecessor in title ERFA 2012 have also advertised via email, fax, Facebook and the websites located at eci2012.net and hydroquinone.ca [paras 17-20, Exhibits 8-11].
[20] Mr. Soucy states that ERFA 2012 publishes a catalogue listing the Opponent’s ERFA-branded products. He attaches copies of a 2014 and 2015 French and English catalogues, as well as a copy of a 2018 bilingual catalogue. [para 10, Exhibit 4]
[21] On cross-examination, Mr. Soucy notably stated the following:
The Opponent and ERFA 2012 have the same shareholders [p. 8].
The Opponent does not manufacture products; it merely “holds trademarks” [pp. 5, 8 and 14-15].
ERFA 2012 looks after the quality of the pharmaceutical products marketed in association with the Opponent’s trademarks, as it did prior to the Opponent’s acquisition of same [pp. 12-15, 20].
ERFA 2012 is presently a sales and distribution company for pharmaceutical products—it does not manufacture pharmaceutical products [pp. 19-20].
ERFA 2012 does not distribute or sell medical devices, is not involved with resource planning software, and does not charge for consultation services [pp. 21-22].
As of the date of his cross-examination, ERFA AMIKACIN-branded antibiotics had not yet entered the market [pp. 22-24].
The first sale of ERFA HQ-branded product occurred in October 2016 [p. 25].
ERFA 2012 sells its products to hospitals and to wholesalers; the latter then sell the products to pharmacies [pp. 53-55].
A number of products featured in the exhibited catalogues have been either out of stock, dormant, recalled or removed from the market either voluntarily or as a result of a requirement from Health Canada at various times [pp. 56-79].
Over-the-counter products bring in less than $300 000 and sales of products on Amazon, which are all over-the-counter products, are of approximately $300 per month [pp. 80, 83].
The Deslauriers declaration and cross-examination
[23] Ms. Deslauriers, is a searcher employed by CompuMark [para 1]. She introduces the results of her search of the Canadian Trademarks Register for active marks containing the prefix ERFA in class 5 covering goods related to pharmaceuticals [paras 3 and 4, Exhibit HD-1].
[24] On cross-examination, Ms. Deslauriers notably confirmed that her search did not retrieve active applications or registrations for ERFA (on its own) in class 5 [pp. 6, 11].
The Applicant’s evidence – the Dong affidavit
[25] Ms. Dong is an articling student employed by the Applicant’s trademark agents [para 1]. She attaches:
A copy of a corporate profile report for 9266-7682 Québec inc. obtained on April 27, 2020 that indicates that ERFA Biotech was another name used by this corporation in Québec [para 2, Exhibit A];
Printouts of the contents of the website erfabiotech.net in English and in French, respectively, which she accessed and preserved on June 3, 2020 [para 3, Exhibits B and C]; and
A copy of an online document entitled “ERFA Canada 2012 Inc. Catalogue de Produits Product Catalog” accessed and preserved on June 3, 2020 [para 4, Exhibit D].
Parties’ respective burden or onus
[26] There is an initial evidential burden on the Opponent to adduce sufficient evidence from which it could reasonably be concluded that the facts alleged to support each ground of opposition exist [John Labatt Limited v The Molson Companies Limited (1990), 30 CPR (3d) 293 (FCTD)]. If this burden is met, the Applicant then bears the legal onus of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that no grounds of opposition prevent the registration of the Mark.
Analysis
Grounds of opposition summarily rejected
Section 30(e) of the Act
[27] The Opponent pleads that the Application does not comply with the requirements of section 30(e) of the Act because, as of the Application date, the Applicant did not intend to use the Mark in Canada, either by itself or by a licensee, in association with the applied-for goods since the Applicant was already using the Mark in association with same.
[28] However, no evidence or submissions were filed in support of this allegation.
[29] Accordingly, the section 30(e) ground of opposition is rejected because the Opponent has not met its initial evidential burden.
Section 30(i) of the Act
[30] The Opponent pleads that the Applicant could not have been satisfied that it had the right to use the Mark in Canada in association with the applied-for goods as it knew or should have known of the prior use by the Opponent of the Opponent’s trademarks and trade names.
[31] The Opponent has not filed any submissions in support of this allegation.
[32] In any event, mere knowledge of the existence of an opponent’s trademark or trade name is not sufficient to support a section 30(i) ground of opposition. Section 30(i) of the Act required that an applicant include a statement in the application that it is satisfied that it is entitled to use its trademark in Canada. Where this statement was provided, non-compliance with section 30(i) can only be found in exceptional cases, such as where there is evidence of bad faith.
[33] The Application here contains the required statement and there is no evidence of exceptional circumstances that would suggest it is untrue. Accordingly, the section 30(i) ground of opposition is also rejected.
Remaining grounds of opposition based on confusion
[34] The non-registrability, non-entitlement and non-distinctiveness grounds of opposition all turn on an alleged likelihood of confusion between the Mark and the ERFA-formative trademarks and trade names asserted by the Opponent.
[36]
With respect to its section 16 grounds of opposition the Opponent alleges that the Applicant is not the person entitled to registration since, as of the priority filing date of the Application, the Mark was confusing with the trademarks ERFA and ERFA CANADA 2000 INC. previously used by the Opponent or its predecessors in title in association with the goods listed in Schedule B below; and with the trade names ERFA, ERFA CANADA 2000 INC. and ERFA PROPRIÉTÉ INTELLECTUELLE INC. previously used by the Opponent or its predecessors in title in association with the manufacture, development, distribution, and sale of pharmaceutical products.
[37]
With respect to its section 2 ground of opposition, the Opponent alleges that the Mark is not distinctive as it does not distinguish, and is not adapted to distinguish, the Applicant’s goods from the goods and services of others, notably those of the Opponent, as a result of the advertising and use of the trademarks of the Opponent.
[38]
The material dates to assess the issue of confusion are (i) the date of this decision with respect to the non‐registrability ground of opposition; (ii) the deemed filing date of the Application, that is, March 8, 2017, with respect to the non‐entitlement grounds of opposition; and (iii) the date of opposition, that is, August 22, 2018, with respect to the non‐distinctiveness ground of opposition.
Test for confusion
[39]
The test to determine the issue of confusion is one of first impression and imperfect recollection. In applying it, all of the relevant surrounding circumstances must be considered, including those listed in section 6(5) of the Act, namely: (a) the inherent distinctiveness of the trademarks or trade names and the extent to which they have become known; (b) the length of time they have been in use; (c) the nature of the goods, services or business; (d) the nature of the trade; and (e) the degree of resemblance between the trademarks or trade names, including in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them. These are not exhaustive and different weight can be assigned to each factor in a context-specific assessment [Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v Boutiques Cliquot Ltée, 2006 SCC 23; Mattel, Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc, 2006 SCC 22]. I also refer to Masterpiece Inc v Alavida Lifestyles Inc, 2011 SCC 27 at para 49, where the Supreme Court of Canada states that the resemblance between the marks, will often have the greatest effect on the confusion analysis.
Section 12(1)(d) of the Act
[40]
Having exercised the Registrar’s discretion to check the register, I note that the Opponent’s registration Nos. TMA532,683, TMA960,681 and TMA993,242 are in good standing as of the date of this decision.
[41] As the Opponent has met its initial burden with respect to this ground of opposition, the Applicant must now establish, on a balance of probabilities, that there is not a reasonable likelihood of confusion between the Mark and the Opponent’s registered trademarks.
Discussion of the section 6(5) factors
Degree of resemblance
[42]
When considering the degree of resemblance, the law is clear that the trademarks must be considered in their totality and not dissected into their component parts. The appropriate test is not a side-by-side comparison but an imperfect recollection in the mind of a consumer of an opponent’s trademark [Veuve Clicquot at para 20]. While in some cases, the first element of a trademark may prove the most important for the purpose of distinction, the preferable approach is to begin the confusion analysis by determining whether there is an aspect of each trademark that is particularly striking or unique [Masterpiece at para 64].
[43]
The striking aspect of each of the Opponent’s marks is the word ERFA. It follows that there is resemblance between the trademarks at hand to the extent that this element forms part of the Mark. The striking aspect of the Mark, however, is the word ERFANDEL as a whole. So when they are considered in their entireties, this distinguishes the parties’ trademarks and makes them more different than alike, particularly in appearance and in sound. The fact that they are not similarly structured also contributes in this respect. Specifically focusing on ERFANDEL and ERFA, I agree that while the marks may share the same first four letters, these letters function differently in each one with the overall effect of communicating distinct impressions. The other registered trademarks asserted by the Opponent feature additional elements—namely HQ and AMIKACIN, respectively—making them even more distinguishable from the Mark.
[44]
Accordingly, I find that the section 6(5)(e) factor favours the Applicant.
Inherent distinctiveness and extent known
[45]
The Mark is a coined word with no readily perceivable notional significance and is therefore inherently distinctive. The Opponent’s trademark ERFA is also inherently distinctive, but less so than the Mark to the extent that it is admittedly an acronym which stands for Entreprise de Recherche, Fabrication, et Analyse [Soucy cross-examination, p. 98]. Similarly, to the extent that HQ could arguably be perceived as referring to hydroquinone (a bleaching agent used topically to remove pigmentation) and that AMIKACIN is descriptive of a type of antibiotic, these suffixes do little to increase the inherent distinctiveness of the Opponent’s trademarks ERFA HQ and ERFA AMIKACIN.
[46] With respect to the extent to which the trademarks have become known, the Applicant has not presented evidence that the Mark has been used or become known to any extent in Canada. As for the Opponent, although its evidence outlined above shows use for some of its asserted trademarks, in association with some of the registered goods and services, the Opponent has not provided a breakdown of its sales and advertising expenditures, nor any details regarding the circulation of its promotional materials or product catalogues, nor any statistics regarding its email and social media advertising or its websites. That being said, the Opponent’s sales numbers (even if only for 2017) are not insignificant and Mr. Soucy has attested that each product bears the ERFA brand. In view of my comments above in paragraph 16, the trademark ERFA may therefore have become somewhat known in Canada in association with sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products. The deficiencies in the evidence make it difficult to ascertain the extent known of the Opponent’s trademarks for any other particular items.
[47]
Accordingly, I find that the overall consideration of the section 6(5)(a) factor favours the Opponent, albeit only slightly.
Length of time in use
[48] The Application is based on proposed use in Canada and the Applicant has not demonstrated any use of the Mark. So, to the extent that the trademarks ERFA and ERFA HQ were used by the Opponent’s predecessor in title ERFA 2012 from April 2012 and October 2016, respectively, the section 6(5)(b) factor favors the Opponent.
Goods, services or business and nature of the trade
[49]
The section 6(5)(c) factor favours the Opponent to the extent that there is direct overlap at least between the Opponent’s registered goods and the Applicant’s pharmaceutical preparations for use in dermatology as well as its anti-infective medications. As for the section 6(5)(d) factor, both parties here are involved in the pharmaceutical field. That being said, in view of my overall conclusion regarding the likelihood of confusion below, I do not believe that it is necessary to further discuss the parties’ goods and services or to establish to what extent their relevant customers and channels of trade may eventually overlap.
Additional surrounding circumstance – family of marks
[50] The Opponent pleads that it has a family of registered and unregistered ERFA-formative trademarks (namely ERFA, ERFA HQ, ERFA AMIKACIN and ERFA CANADA 2012 INC.) and that it is therefore deserving of a broader scope of protection.
[51] In the case at hand, I do not consider this as a surrounding circumstance assisting the Opponent. First, as indicated above, the Opponent’s evidence does not address each of its asserted trademarks individually (e.g. whatever sales or advertising information is provided by Mr. Soucy, it is not broken down by trademark but rather consists of aggregate figures and statements). Second, on cross-examination, Mr. Soucy has stated that the trademark ERFA AMIKACIN was not used. There is also the matter raised by the Applicant as to whether the Opponent’s licence complies with the Act in terms of requisite control. While I do not believe that it is necessary to resolve the licensing issue in order to decide this opposition, I will note that even were I to consider whatever use was shown as that of the Opponent (and as sufficiently particularized for each ERFA, ERFA HQ and ERFA CANADA 2012 INC.) three trademarks does not a significant family make [see Spirits International BV v Nemiroff Intellectual Property Establishment, 2009 CanLII 90301-02 (TMOB)].
Additional surrounding circumstance – third party coexistence
[52] The Applicant pleads that at least one other entity registered to do business in Quebec operates using the trade names ERFA Biotech and ERFA Science, formerly used the name ERFA Canada Inc. and is unrelated to the Opponent, though the Opponent is and has been aware of its existence.
[53] I do not consider this as a surrounding circumstance assisting the Applicant. Even were I to accept Ms. Dong’s search results as showing active use of third party ERFA-formative marks and names in the marketplace (which is questionable), they do not speak to the extent of such use and are far from sufficient to establish that consumers would be accustomed to making a distinction between marks or names incorporating the element ERFA in association with pharmaceutical goods or services. Further, even were I to accept Mr. Soucy’s acknowledgement during cross-examination of the entity located by Ms. Dong as establishing the Opponent’s willingness to tolerate that party’s use of ERFA-formative marks or names (which is also questionable), it would not necessarily follow that the Opponent has waived its rights to challenge the registration of other trademarks applied-for by other parties such as the Applicant.
[54] That being said, I do not believe that it is necessary to rely on Ms. Dong’s evidence to find in favour of the Applicant.
Conclusion – no likelihood of confusion
[55] Having regard to all of the surrounding circumstances, I find that the Applicant has met its onus to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no reasonable likelihood of confusion between the Mark and each of the Opponent’s registered trademarks. I reach this conclusion mainly as I find that the lack of resemblance between the trademarks at hand outweighs all the other relevant factors which favour the Opponent combined. As this was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the Masterpiece decision at para 49, “[...] if the marks or names do not resemble one another, it is unlikely that even a strong finding on the remaining factors would lead to a likelihood of confusion”.
[56] Accordingly, the section 12(1)(d) ground of opposition is rejected with respect to all of the Opponent’s pleaded registrations.
Sections 2, 16(3)(a) and 16(3)(c) of the Act
[57] I will start by noting that the non-entitlement grounds in the statement of opposition refer to a trademark and trade name identified as ERFA CANADA 2000 INC. instead of as ERFA CANADA 2012 INC. The Opponent has not sought leave to file an amended statement of opposition in order to make a correction. In any event, even were I to treat this as a typographical error it would not ultimately affect the outcome of my decision.
[58] As indicated above, while the material dates differ, the sections 2 and 16 grounds of opposition also turn on the issue of confusion and all fail for reasons analogous to those discussed under the section 12(1)(d) ground either because the Opponent has not discharged its evidential burden or as I find, on a balance of probabilities, that there is no likelihood of confusion between the Mark and the Opponent’s relied upon trademarks and trade names at all material times (mainly due to the insufficient degree of resemblance between them).
Disposition
[59] Pursuant to the authority delegated to me under section 63(3) of the Act, I reject the opposition pursuant to section 38(12) of the Act.
_______________________________
Iana Alexova
Member
Trademarks Opposition Board
Canadian Intellectual Property Office
Schedule A
Registered trademarks of the Opponent
| Trademark
|
Reg. No.
|
Goods/Services and Claims
|
|---|---|---|
| ERFA
|
TMA532,683
|
La fabrication, le développement, la distribution et la vente pour la requérante et sur commande et/ou spécification de tiers de produits pharmaceutiques, de dispositifs médicaux et de logiciels de planification des ressources de gestion; services de consultation en matière de commercialisation de produits pharmaceutiques, de dispositifs médicaux et de logiciels de planification des ressources de gestion.
Declaration of use filed August 1, 2000
|
| ERFA HQ
|
TMA960,681
|
Cl 3: Skin bleaching and skin lightening creams.
Cl 5: Skin bleaching and skin lightening creams.
Declaration of use filed January 6, 2017
|
| ERFA AMIKACIN
|
TMA993,242
|
Cl 5: Intravenous pharmaceutical preparations, namely antibiotics.
Declaration of use filed March 26, 2018
|
Schedule B
Non-registered trademarks allegedly used by the Opponent or its predecessors in title (as pleaded in the statement of opposition)
| Trademark
|
Goods/Services
|
|---|---|
| ERFA
|
Préparations pharmaceutiques destinées aux humains pour la prévention ou le traitement de maladies auto-immunes, des maladies cardiovasculaires, des maladies gastro-intestinales, des maladies oncologiques et des maladies respiratoires; préparations pharmaceutiques pour la prévention ou le traitement des maladies neurologiques, des maladies mentales et de maladies dermatologiques; médicaments analgésiques; médicaments anti-infectieux
|
| ERFA CANADA 2000 INC.
|
Préparations pharmaceutiques destinées aux humains pour la prévention ou le traitement de maladies auto-immunes, des maladies cardiovasculaires, des maladies gastro-intestinales, des maladies oncologiques et des maladies respiratoires; préparations pharmaceutiques pour la prévention ou le traitement des maladies neurologiques, des maladies mentales et de maladies dermatologiques; médicaments analgésiques; médicaments anti-infectieux
|
Appearances and Agents of Record
HEARING DATE: 2022-09-29
APPEARANCES
For the Opponent: No one appearing
For the Applicant: Monique M. Couture
AGENTS OF RECORD
For the Opponent: Joël Brassard (DUNTON RAINVILLE SENCRL)
For the Applicant: GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP