What are the grounds of opposition against HOPE Worldwide & Design?

The final two grounds of opposition essentially turn on the issue of confusion between the applied for mark HOPE WORLDWIDE & Design and the opponent’s trade-marks and trade-name at the material date September 7, 2004, that is, at the date of filing the opposition: for a review of case law concerning material dates in opposition proceedings see American Retired Persons v. Canadian Retired Persons (1998), 1998 CanLII 8908 (FC), 84 C.P.R.(3d) 198 at 206 ‑ 209 (F.C.T.D.). For the most part, my conclusions regarding the issues pertaining to the grounds of opposition based on non-entitlement also apply to the last two grounds. Accordingly, I find that, on a balance of probabilities, the applicant has shown that its mark distinguished and was adapted to distinguish the applicant’s services at the material date September 7, 2004. The grounds of opposition alleging non-distinctiveness are therefore rejected. Disposition