2. Confusion

Table of Contents


The proposed corporate name may be found to be confusing with any corporate name, trade name, trademark or official mark appearing on the NUANS search report.

2.1 Factors to Consider in Determining Confusion

Reg. 19. For the purpose of paragraph 12(1)(a) of the Act, a corporate name is prohibited if its use causes confusion with a trade-mark, official mark or trade-name, having regard to the circumstances, including

  1. the inherent distinctiveness of the whole or any element of the trade-mark, official mark or trade-name and the extent to which it has become known;
  2. the length of time that the trade-mark, official mark or trade-name has been in use;
  3. the nature of the goods, services or business with which the trade-mark, official mark or trade-name is associated;
  4. the nature of the trade with which the trade-mark, official mark or trade-name is associated;
  5. the degree of resemblance between the proposed corporate name and the trade-mark, official mark or trade-name in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them; and
  6. the geographical area in Canada in which the trade name or proposed corporate name is likely to be used.

Often, applicants do not supply sufficient information in the name request to properly assess all of the factors under section 19 of the regulations. In these cases Corporations Canada can only rely on Regulation 19 (a) and (e) to make the name decision. If the applicant should decide to provide more information, the name decision can be re-evaluated in light of the new facts.

A decision of confusing similarity may be based on phonetic similarity alone.

Applicants should note that federal incorporation does not in itself give applicants rights over an existing provincial corporate name or trade name.

top of page

2.2 Treatment of Existing Names which are Famous, Highly Distinctive, or Diluted

Corporations Canada's primary concern in enforcing the name regulations is in eliminating confusion. Nowhere do the regulations enshrine the principle that a highly distinctive name should be protected from dilution. In practice, however, the protection principle complements the principle of avoiding confusion. A corporation may have a highly distinctive name (i.e. unique and imaginative), being a purely arbitrary creation (e.g., DWIDAG Foods Inc. for a food wholesaler), as opposed to an obviously derived composition (e.g., Cortivet for the manufacture of cortisone veterinarian preparation). Granting the highly distinctive element to a second corporation (e.g., DWIDAG Stores Ltd.) is more likely to generate confusion because this distinctive element is more likely to linger in the mind of the public. Each case, however depends on its facts and depending on differences of goods services territory and clientele Corporations Canada may or may not feel that there is in fact a likelihood of confusion.

Corporations Canada does not assume, for the purposes of the name granting policy, that any given existing corporation with a highly distinctive name will develop into a famous conglomerate, dealing in a variety of products and services.

"Famous" names are a case apart. They may originally have been highly distinctive (e.g., Kodak) or alternatively, very lacking in distinctiveness (e.g., General Motors or International Business Machines), but they have acquired high distinctiveness through use. They are generally conglomerates and Corporations Canada will not approve any corporate name that uses their distinctive feature.

Some words are so common that they are used as the distinctive element in many business names. Such wide usage dilutes the impact of the business name and gives it a reduced claim to protection. As a general rule, if a distinctive element is highly diluted (low distinctiveness), the same distinctive feature may be used in new corporate names that are only slightly different from the existing names. For instance, a different descriptive word might be all that is needed to distinguish the proposed corporate name from similar existing names, even if the descriptive word describes essentially the same business that is carried on under the existing names.

For example, names such as "Universal Products Inc." or "Universal Bakery Products Inc." would not be prohibited, even though there were existing names like "Universal Food Enterprises Inc.", because the distinctive element "Universal" is highly diluted, and the existing names do not deserve much protection.

Therefore, the guidelines for initial, front-line name decisions (normally without benefit of much detailed information) should be as follows:

2.2 Guidelines for initial, front-line name decisions
Classification Decision Considerations
Note: Of course even the unavailable names would be available if the corporations were related and consent was provided.

Famous

IBM Draperies Ltd. (unavailable)

Highly Distinctive

1) IGSAC Toys Inc. — existing

IGSAC Bicycles Ltd. — proposed (unavailable)

IGSAC Drapery Installation Inc. — proposed (available subject to risk accepted by the applicant in writing)

2) IGSAC Inc. — existing

IGSAC Drapery Installation Inc. (unavailable because it is not known how different its products & services are)

There are circumstances which are not generally known at the time of initial name granting which would make BICYCLES available, or DRAPERY unavailable on reconsideration or confusion allegation.

Upon investigation it may be determined that IGSAC Inc. is in toys, and therefore, on reconsideration, IGSAC Drapery would be available.

Low Distinctiveness / Dilution

1) Maple Leaf Toys Inc. —existing Maple Leaf Bicycles Ltd.— proposed (available)

2) Maple Leaf Inc. —existing Maple Leaf Bicycles Inc.— proposed (available)

There are circumstances which are not generally known at the time of initial decision which would make BICYCLES unavailable on Reconsideration or Confusion Allegation.

Detailed information with respect to products, clientele and territory of existing corporations must be provided in writing to facilitate the name granting process.

top of page

2.3 Initials and Confusion

There is no hard and fast rule with respect to when a name containing initials is likely to cause confusion. Territory of operations and any other relevant information always has to be taken into consideration. What follows is merely a guideline which assumes that the territory of the existing businesses and the proposed business will overlap and that the applicant has produced no other information showing that confusion is unlikely (e.g., totally different clientele, long co-existence, existing corporation inactive for a long period).

  1. If a distinctive feature is made up of two initials, the proposed name will be considered confusing if:
    • the descriptive feature is the same or confusingly similar, and
    • the initials are identical and in the same order or if the first initial is the same and the last initial is phonetically similar.

    e.g. BN Construction

    • - confusing with BM Construction
    • - confusing with BN Builders
    • - not confusing with BF Construction
  2. If three or more initials make up the distinctive feature of a name, the proposed name will be considered confusing if:
    • the descriptive feature is the same or confusingly similar,
    • all of the initials except for the last one are identical, and
    • the initials are in the same order as the initials in the existing corporate name.

    e.g. ABCD Construction

    • - confusing with ABCF Construction
    • - not confusing with DABC Construction
  3. Initials may be acceptable without a descriptive word if the result is not confusing.

Because it is difficult to develop a general policy which applies to each case that arises, some discretion must be used for cases not strictly covered by these guidelines. For example, a name like "BNND Construction" or "BMND Building" would be considered confusing with "BNMD Construction" because M and N are very similar in sound and appearance. "A & M Construction Inc." would be found to be confusing with "ANM Construction Ltd." because phonetically there is little difference between the two.

top of page

2.4 Confusion and the Word "Group"

If there arc no other unrelated corporations with the same distinctive feature (not very high, not very low distinctiveness) as the proposed corporate name, the proposed name would be available without further requirement.

If there are other corporations with the same distinctive feature as the proposed corporate name but unrelated to the corporation for which the name is proposed, the applicant must explain why the proposed corporate name will not misleadingly suggest a grouping of those corporations.

Examples of possible responses:

  • the business of the proposed corporation and that of the existing unrelated corporations are too different for them to be confused as being affiliated.
  • the proposed corporation will be the umbrella corporation for related corporations using that distinctive feature and the proposed name will connote a relationship with them alone.

The addition of a descriptive word (e.g., textile) modifying the word "Group" will likely make the' proposed name available as long as the descriptive word clearly distinguishes the business of the proposed corporation from the business of existing corporations with the same distinctive element.

Note: Consents of the "grouped" corporations will be required unless the existing parent of those corporations is requesting a change of name to "Group".

top of page

2.5 Inactive Corporations (Regulation 20)

Reg. 20. Despite section 19, a corporate name that is confusing with the name of a body corporate that has not carried on business in the two years immediately before the day on which the Director receives the documents referred to in subsection 8(1), section 178 or subsection 185(4), 187(4), 191(5), 192(7) or 209(3) of the Act or a request to reserve a name under subsection 11(1) of the Act is not prohibited for that reason alone if

  1. the body corporate has been dissolved; or
  2. in the case of a body corporate that has not been dissolved, it consents in writing to the use of the name and undertakes in writing to dissolve immediately or to change its name before the corporation that proposes to use the name begins using it.

A proposed corporate name is prohibited if its use could lead to confusion with the name of a body corporate that has been inactive for less than 2 years, whether or not the body corporate has been dissolved.

Names identical to, or with the identical distinctive element to, those of the corporation that has been dissolved, that has amalgamated under another name or that has changed its name are not available (whether the corporations are related or not) for two years after the date the body corporate ceased to carry on business under the name. The purpose of this period of non-availability is to allow the public time to disassociate that name from a specific business.

Within the two-year period anyone could, however, incorporate a successor corporation (i.e. a corporation with the same name but with a year of incorporation in brackets immediately before the legal element of the name), or a corporation with a slightly varied name (or with an identical name if they meet the Regulation 24(1) requirement) as long as the consent of the amalgamated corporation or the corporation whose name was amended, is obtained. Because no consent is obtainable from a dissolved corporation, the applicant for the new corporation must demonstrate that it acquired the rights to the name from the dissolved corporation prior to its dissolution.

After two years, the name becomes available to anyone as long as no successor corporations were incorporated within the two years and as long as the original name has not been perpetuated as a registered trade name.

top of page

2.6 Application for Revival

If another corporation with an identical name is incorporated either before dissolution or in the interval between dissolution and revival of a federal corporation, the federal corporation will not be able to revive with that name as long as the identical name is in existence.

In the above circumstances, if the new name is only confusingly similar, it is important to know the continuousness of the operation of the applicant for revival. If its operation was continuous during a substantial period of the time that the new corporation was in operation, this demonstrates that the revival of the federal corporation is unlikely now to cause confusion.

top of page

2.7 Confusion with Corporate Names, Trade Names, Trade-marks, and Official Marks

2.7.1 Confusion with Trade-marks

  1. In order to approve a name for which there are phonetically similar trade-mark citations, Corporations Canada must know in general terms what the proposed corporation will do and that all phonetically similar trade-marks are in substantially different products or services in order to determine that there is no likelihood of confusion. This information must be provided to Corporations Canada in writing. If this information is lacking, Corporations Canada will assume that the business, products and services associated with the trade-mark are the same as that of the proposed corporation.
  2. The following guidelines provide guidance in situations where there is an existing trade-mark in substantially the same products or services as the proposed name.
    1. Trade-mark (TM) owned by someone other than applicant (i.e. conflicting trade-mark)
      • TM has been registered for five years: Corporate name applicant cannot have the proposed name without consent of the TM owner, no matter how long the applicant has used it.
      • TM application has been filed under the Trade-marks Act or TM has been registered for less than five years: It will be determined who had prior use. If the corporate name applicant files an affidavit that satisfies Corporations Canada that the applicant had prior use of a corporate name or a trade name and provides Corporations Canada with an undertaking that the applicant will contest the other party's TM application or registration, the applicant will be granted the name.
    2. Trade-mark (TM) owned by the applicant (i.e. supporting trade-mark)
      • TM has been registered for five years: Even if there is another business name that is confusing, the corporate name applicant will be given the name because the applicant's TM is not likely to be struck from the TM registry.
      • TM application has been filed under the Trade-marks Act or TM has been registered for less than five years: If there is another business name that is confusing and this business appears to have used the name before the corporate name applicant, the applicant's TM is not sufficient reason to grant the name. The name will not be approved. If, however, the applicant had prior use, the applicant will be allowed to incorporate.

      Please note that in these types of trade-mark situations, the important information is:

      • the length of time that the TM has been in use
      • whether or not the trade-mark has been registered for five years.
  3. Applicants should be aware that the holder of a corporate name bears the responsibility of ensuring that no new confusing trade-marks are registered by anyone else, after his or her incorporation.

General enquiries concerning trade-marks should be directed to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office at 1-866-997-1936, or view the website at http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/Home

top of page

2.7.2 Confusion with Trade Names

Corporations Canada thinks that it could be confusing for a trade name and a confusingly similar corporate name to exist at the same time (even if they are owned by the same person) unless both names form part of the same business.

For this reason, Corporations Canada will refuse a proposed corporate name if an individual is carrying on business in that trade name (even if the individual is the applicant for incorporation) unless Corporations Canada receives the individual's consent and his or her undertaking to cease carrying on business in that trade name or to transfer the trade name registration to the corporation. A sample letter of consent is available.

There will, of course, be no need for such a consent and undertaking if

  1. a change of corporate name is proposed by a corporation that has already registered a trade name; and
  2. the proposed name of the corporation will be that trade name.

A copy of the trade name registration showing the corporation as the owner should be filed, however.

  • Note 1: For Ontario Business Names on the NUANS report, Ontario business names expire after 5 years unless they are renewed. Unrenewed registrations may remain on the NUANS database however. Corporations Canada will assume that all Ontario trade name registrations less than 5½ years old and appearing on the NUANS report are active. Any registrations over 5½ years old and not renewed, will be disregarded. The ½ year period is a grace period to allow time for renewal after expiry.
  • Note 2: For confusion with corporate and trade names for franchised businesses the use of the name of a franchise accrues to the franchisor rather than to the franchisee, the consent of existing business and trade names which are franchisee businesses will not be required for the incorporation of a confusingly similar name. Only the consent of the franchisor will be required. In that consent, the franchisor must identify the existing corporate names as franchisees.
top of page

2.7.3 Confusion with Official Marks

An official mark is "an official mark referred to in subparagraph 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Trade-marks Act". If a proposed name is likely to cause confusion with an existing official mark adopted and used pursuant to the provisions of section 9 of the Trade-marks Act, it will be rejected:

top of page

2.8 Overcoming Confusion

The regulations suggest various ways to overcome a finding that a proposed corporate name is likely to cause confusion.

2.8.1 Consent and Undertaking by a Corporation (Regulation 20)

Reg. 20. Despite section 19, a corporate name that is confusing with the name of a body corporate that has not carried on business in the two years immediately before the day on which the Director receives the documents referred to in subsection 8(1), section 178 or subsection 185(4), 187(4), 191(5), 192(7) or 209(3) of the Act or a request to reserve a name under subsection 11(1) of the Act is not prohibited for that reason alone if

  1. the body corporate has been dissolved; or
  2. in the case of a body corporate that has not been dissolved, it consents in writing to the use of the name and undertakes in writing to dissolve immediately or to change its name before the corporation that proposes to use the name begins using it.

This regulation applies only in the situation where the existing business with which the proposed name is confusing, has not carried on business for two years. A sample letter of consent is available..

The signature of the authorized signing officer must describe him or her as an officer of the consenting corporation.

top of page

2.8.2 Consent to a Distinctive Word (Regulation 21)

Reg. 21. Despite section 19, if a word in a corporate name is confusing with the distinctive element of a trade-mark, official mark or trade-name, the corporate name is not prohibited for that reason alone if the person who owns the trade-mark, official mark or trade-name consents in writing to the use of the corporate name.

A sample letter of consent is available.

Such a consent would not be required from a foreign company unless it was known or carrying on business in Canada.

There is a difference between consenting to putting certain distinctive words in a corporate name and consent to the use of certain words as a trade name. A mere consent to the use of certain words will not be accepted for purposes of regulation 21.

Consents must be unconditional.

top of page

2.8.3 Successor businesses and Year of Incorporation (Regulation 22)

Reg. 22. (1) Despite section 19, a corporate name that is confusing with the name of a body corporate is not prohibited for that reason alone if

  1. the corporate name is the name of an existing or a proposed corporation that is the successor to the business of the body corporate and the body corporate has ceased or will, in the immediate future, cease to carry on business under that corporate name and undertakes in writing to dissolve or to change its name before the successor corporation begins carrying on business under that name; and
  2. the corporate name of the existing or proposed corporation sets out in numerals the year of incorporation, or the year of the most recent amendment to the corporate name, in parentheses, immediately before the word or expression "Limited", "Limitée", "Incorporated", "Incorporée", "Corporation", "Société par actions de régime fédéral" or "Société commerciale canadienne" or the abbreviation "Ltd.", "Ltée", "Inc.", "Corp.", "S.A.R.F." or "S.C.C."

(2) If a corporate name is changed so that the reference to the year of incorporation or the year of the most recent amendment to the corporate name is deleted at least two years after it is introduced, it is not prohibited for that reason alone.

A sample letter of consent is available.

Section 22 may apply both in the case where a corporation changes its name and in the case of a proposed new corporation. In the former case, the date in parenthesis is the date the corporation succeeds to the name and not the date it is incorporated.

Please note that Regulation 22 does not override other applicable regulations. If, for instance, X1, the body corporate which is consenting and providing an undertaking to the incorporation of X1 (2010), pursuant to Regulation 22 was, itself, incorporated pursuant to a consent of X in conformity to Regulation 21, the consent of X is presumed for the incorporation of X1 (2010).

If a corporation succeeds to a name of a non-federal body corporate whose name is primarily or only the name of an individual, the corporation will not be able to delete the reference to the year in parentheses after two years, unless secondary meaning can be established. The name without the year in parentheses is prohibited under Regulation 30(1)(b) for being primarily or only the name of an individual. At the time of obtaining the successor corporation name under Regulation 22, the applicant may wish to add another word, in addition to the year in parentheses, so that the year in parentheses can be deleted after two years pursuant to Regulation 22(2).

top of page

2.8.4 Other use of "(2010)" and substitution of "(Canada)" for "(2010)"

The regulations do not prohibit the use of numerals indicating the year of incorporation in parentheses (e.g., "(2010)") for the incorporation of a non-succèssor new corporation. This will be allowed except if the new corporation is going to be the affiliate of an existing corporation which will remain in existence and "(2010)" is proposed as the distinguishing element. This is considered misleading because "(2010)" connotes a successor.

As a general rule, Corporations Canada will not accept "Canada" or any other term as a replacement for "(2010)" in a successor situation unless the successor corporation is related to the existing corporation which has undertaken to dissolve or to change its name in which case we are really dealing with regulation 21 not 22.

The chart below provides a clarification of these guidelines.

ABC (Canada) or ABC Canada or ABC (2010) or ABC 2010* as newco: no existing corporation, ABC
Approval
ABC (Canada) or ABC Canada as newco related to existing corporation, ABC which will continue to exist (consent — we assume affiliation)
Approval
ABC (2010) as newco related to existing corporation, ABC which will continue to exist. (consent — affiliation is assumed)
Rejection (generally not available because it is misleading, however may be permissible if clients of newco are sophisticated enough to know that newco is not the successor to existing co. ABC even though it looks like it is, and ABC consents)
ABC 2010 as a newco related to existing corporation, ABC, which will continue to exist (consent — we assume affiliation)
Approval
ABC (2010) as newco related or unrelated to existing corporation, ABC which is dissolving or changing name (consent — undertaking)
Approval
ABC (Canada) or ABC Canada or ABC 2010 as newco related to ABC which is dissolving or changing name (consent)
Approval
ABC (Canada) or ABC Canada or ABC 2010 as newco unrelated to ABC dissolving or changing name
Rejection (as a general rule) (may be permissible if clients of newco are sophisticated enough to know that newco is not related to existing co. ABC even though it looks like it is.)
* As long as the corporation is not to be a successor to an existing corporation any reasonable date is permissible, unless it is misleading. (Return to Table Reference 1)

e.g. ABC 1884 Ltd. would be misleading for the name of a corporation which has not been in business since 1884.

Exception to Regulation 22(1)(b) If Existing Corporation is Inactive

If the existing corporation has not carried on business for two years preceding the request to use the name, the successor corporation does not need to insert the year of incorporation or amendment but the requirements of Regulation 20 must be met.

Exception to Regulation 22(1) (b) If Existing Corporation is a Quebec Company

"De facto" import continuances

Corporations Canada will permit a corporation to be incorporated with a name that is identical (i.e. without the year of incorporation) to the name of an existing provincial (e.g., Quebec) company if the federal incorporation is to serve as a "de facto" continuance from that province which does not permit exports to the federal jurisdiction.

The applicant must file with us a written undertaking of the provincial company to dissolve forthwith or to change its name before the corporation proposing to use the name carries on business.

There must be a note on file to indicate that the applicant considers this incorporation to be a "de facto" continuance (i.e. the same shareholders and assets will be involved in the federal corporation as in the provincial company).

Like other import continuances, the availability of this name will be subject to a NUANS name search and approval.

top of page

2.8.5 Amalgamations

Reg. 17 (2) For greater certainty, this Part applies to the corporate name of an amalgamated corporation.

Reg. 23 Despite section 19, if the corporate name of an amalgamated corporation is the same as the name of one of the amalgamating corporations, it is not prohibited for that reason alone.

Reg. 72.1 (1) Despite subparagraph 184(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, the resolutions approving the amalgamation of a holding corporation with one or more of its subsidiary corporations may provide that the corporate name set out in the articles of amalgamation is not the same as that set out in the articles of the amalgamating holding corporation.

(2) Despite subparagraph 184(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, the resolutions approving the amalgamation of two or more wholly owned subsidiary corporations of the same holding body corporate may provide that the corporate name set out in the articles of amalgamation is not the same as that set out in the articles of the amalgamating subsidiary corporation whose shares are not cancelled.

Regulation 72.1 applies when 2 or more corporations amalgamate through the short-form process. The corporation resulting from a vertical short-form amalgamation may have any approved corporate name and is not be restricted to the corporate name of the holding corporation. A corporation resulting from a horizontal short-form amalgamation may also have any approved corporate name and is not limited to the corporate name of the amalgamating corporation whose shares are not cancelled.

top of page

2.8.6 Acquisitions

Reg. 24. (1) Despite section 19, the corporate name of an existing corporation that is the same as the name of an affiliated body corporate from which the corporation has acquired or will, in the immediate future, acquire all or substantially all of the property of the body corporate is not prohibited for that reason alone if the body corporate undertakes in writing to dissolve, or to change its name, before the corporation begins using the corporate name.

(2) Despite section 19, if the corporate name of a proposed corporation is the same as the name of a body corporate that is to be an affiliate of the proposed corporation from which the proposed corporation will, in the immediate future, acquire all or substantially all of the property of the body corporate, the corporate name is not prohibited for that reason alone if the body corporate undertakes in writing to dissolve, or to change its name, before the proposed corporation begins using the corporate name.

If the name is granted on the understanding that the applicant will, in the immediate future acquire all or substantially all the property of the affiliated body corporate, the applicant should confirm within a few days that substantially all the property did transfer from the affiliated body corporate.

Upon incorporation of the proposed corporation, Corporations Canada will keep the file open pending receipt of written confirmation that substantially all property did transfer. If it is not received within a reasonable period, steps will be taken to require the corporation to change its name.

A transfer of all the shares is not considered to be a transfer of property.

A sample letter of consent is available.

top of page

2.8.7 Failing to Honour Undertaking

Subsections 12(4.1) and (5) of the CBCA state that if a corporation acquires a name as a result of a person undertaking to dissolve or to change names, and that undertaking is not honoured, the Director may direct the corporation to change its name in accordance with section 173. The Director may revoke the corporation's name and assign a name unless the undertaking is honoured within 60 days of the Director directing the corporation to change its name.

top of page

2.8.8 Initials and Given Names

The addition of initials to a surname that is otherwise confusing is not sufficient to overcome that confusion.

e.g. "J.B. Smith Shoes LTD." would be confusing with "Smith Shoes INC."

However, adding a given name to a corporate name that contains a surname may be sufficient to overcome confusion.

e.g. "Smith Shoes Ltd." would not be used to refuse "Robert Smith Shoes Ltd." unless we are aware that their territory of operation is the same.

top of page

2.8.9 Bankruptcy

For the purposes of Regulations 20 to 24, a name is available, if it is confusing with the name of a bankrupt corporation, if the trustee in bankruptcy consents.

top of page

2.8.10 Names of Canada. Provinces, and Cities Added to Remove Confusion

The name of a province or city with or without parentheses is not considered a general term and may be added to a corporate name to overcome confusion with the name of an existing related corporation.

e.g. "Newton Tool Québec Ltd." would not be considered confusingly similar to "Newton Tool Manitoba Ltd." or "Newton Tool (Canada) Ltd."

"Newton Tool (Canada) Inc." would not be considered confusing with "Newton Tool Inc." (a USA company)

However, the consent of the existing corporation(s) would be required under Regulation 21 in order to grant such a similar name. If there are many existing affiliates, the consent of the geographically closest affiliate or the parent of all the affiliates would be sufficient.

Note: There are rules about the use of certain provincial and territorial names in federal corporation names. Refer to section 4.2 for more information.

top of page

2.8.11 Canadian Subsidiaries

If a proposed Canadian subsidiary of a foreign, provincial or federal parent uses the name of that parent, which name is too general or merely descriptive, the proposed corporation must add the word "Canada" or equivalent unless there is some other distinguishing feature between parent and subsidiaries and can overcome the objection of generality by showing that the name has acquired some distinctiveness in Canada, whether or not it has actually been used in Canada (e.g., the name may have acquired distinctiveness due to advertising which reaches the Canadian market for the product). The name will be prohibited if it is confusing with an existing Canadian corporation or trade- mark.

  • Note 1: A proposed Canadian subsidiary of a foreign parent with the identical name would not be required to add the word "Canada" if it could establish that the foreign company had never carried on business in Canada and is not known in Canada.
  • Note 2: If a name is rejected on the basis that it appears to create a likelihood of confusion, Corporations Canada will reconsider the decision if other information is presented which demonstrates that, in fact, there is no likelihood of confusion, such as:
    • activities, including the ways the goods and services are distributed;
    • territory of operation;
    • clientele;
    • the inherent distinctiveness and dilution of the name; and/or
    • the derivation of the name.

Rate this page

The content of this page was useful to me.

Share this page

To share this page, just select the social network of your choice:
  • More

No endorsement of any products or services is expressed or implied.