SIX STAR Review: Federal Court Dismisses Opposition To Trademark Application

On August 27, 2025, the Federal Court of Canada (the Court) issued its decision in G6 Hospitality IP LLC v. Sandals Resorts International 2000 Inc., 2025 FC 1430, dismissing G6 Hospitality IP LLC’s (G6) appeal from a decision of the Trademark Opposition Board (TMOB), which rejected all grounds of its opposition against Sandals Resorts International 2000 Inc’s (Sandals’) trademark application (the Application) for THE WORLD’S ONLY SIX STAR LUXURY INCLUDED VACATION & Design (the Mark) in association with travel- and hotel-related goods and services:

G6 opposed the Application on the grounds that it was confusing with G6’s registered trademarks and trade names that also feature the number 6 and are used in association with similar services (collectively, the G6 Marks). The TMOB dismissed the opposition, finding the words “SIX STAR” and the numeral 6 and star design to be the dominant aspects of the Mark, and that both the degree of resemblance between the relevant marks and the likelihood of confusion was low. G6 appealed this decision, alleging that the TMOB erred in (1) assessing the degree of resemblance between the relevant marks in its confusion analysis, including by treating “SIX STAR” as a dominant aspect of the Mark, as it has a suggestive or laudatory connotation and the TMOB should have, instead, focused on the number 6 alone; and (2) failing to consider whether the G6 Marks constitute a “family” of trademarks incorporating the number 6, which would have afforded a broader scope of protection. 

Addressing G6’s first argument, the Court found that the TMOB had not committed a palpable and overriding error in assessing the degree of resemblance between the relevant marks, noting that the TMOB was not required to address whether “SIX STAR” has a suggestive or laudatory connotation as G6 did not argue or file evidence on this point. For G6’s second argument, the Court found that, though the TMOB had not used the word “family” in its analysis, it had fully addressed G6’s arguments and evidence on this point. The Court further clarified that a “family” of trademarks does not always impact the confusion analysis, particularly where the common element is not distinctive. This led the Court to ultimately dismiss G6’s appeal with costs awarded to Sandals.

Summary By: Claire Bettio