CGMA not found to imply a person is practicing as a CGA
Certified General Accountants Assoc. of Ontario v. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 2013 ONSC 7111

CGA sought an application for an injunction pursuant to subsection 30(1) of the Certified General Accountants Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 6, Schedule A (“CGA Act ”). The Respondents were alleged to be using the acronym CGMA, which stands for Chartered Global Management Accountant, as an accounting designation in the province of Ontario. The application was dismissed as the Applicant did not show on a balance of probabilities that the Respondents were contravening the CGA Act.

Section 26 of the CGA Act provides that no individual or corporation shall use the designation CGA or C.G.A. alone or in combination with other words or abbreviations. CGA Ontario argued that CGA alone  or in combination with other words or abbreviations, such as CGMA, would fall within the scope of the prohibition. The Court disagreed, finding that it was the specific permutation of letters and punctuation that was protected, as opposed to each individual letter. The M element breaks up the CGA element by being inserted into the middle, and while the Court considered that “MCGA” or “CGAM” would be prohibited, CGMA is not.

No palpable or overriding errors in dismissal of summary judgment motion
Venngo Inc. v. Concierge Connection Inc., 2013 FCA 272

In an unreported decision dated March 25, 2013, in Court File No. T-467-11, the Federal Court had dismissed Venngo’s motion for summary judgment. The Court had held that there were at least three genuine issues for trial in relation to the claim for infringement, and at least one genuine issue with regard to the claim of depreciation of goodwill. The Court of Appeal found that there were no palpable or overriding errors on all the factual issues, and so the appeal was dismissed.


Request for reconsideration of invalid claim denied
Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée v. Eurocopter, 2013 FCA 261

Eurocopter filed a motion in writing to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider paragraphs 157 and 158 of its reasons in an earlier appeal where claim 16 was found to be invalid for a lack of demonstrated utility or sound prediction. Claim 16 refers to an integrated front cross piece which is offset backwards, as opposed to claim 15 which has the landing gear offset forwards. Claim 15 was ultimately found valid and infringed, and Eurocopter asked the Court of Appeal to recognize that the specification of the patent provides that the embodiment of claim 16 has the advantage of improving ground resonance behaviour in helicopters.

The motion was dismissed for three reasons. First, the Court of Appeal felt that this argument was raised on the appeal and could not be raised again. Second, the Court of Appeal held that no line of reasoning was set out in the patent to support a sound prediction. Third, Bell Helicopter had brought evidence that the inventors had not demonstrated or soundly predicted the promised utility of claim 16, and Eurocopter failed to rebut that evidence through evidence of its own.


Chantal Saunders

Beverley Moore

Adrian J. Howard


Intellectual Property