Sweet Victory! Federal Court Allows Registration Of MASTER CHOCOLAT Trademark

On May 5, 2026, the Federal Court (the Court) released its decision in GRC Food Services Ltd. v. Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG, 2026 FC 594, allowing GRC Food Services Ltd.’s (GRC’s) appeal of the Trademark Opposition Board’s (TMOB’s) refusal to register its MASTER CHOCOLAT trademark (the GRC Mark).

The TMOB initially refused registration of GRC’s Mark based on confusion with two of Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG’s (Lindt’s) registered CHOCOLATE MASTERS trademarks. However, the CHOCOLATE MASTERS marks were subsequently expunged, prompting the Court, in a previous appeal, to set aside the TMOB’s decision (as previously reported by the E-TIPS® Newsletter here). At the same time, the Court bifurcated the proceeding, holding that Lindt’s remaining grounds of opposition should be considered after further submissions by the parties. 

In this appeal, Lindt opposed the registration of the GRC Mark on the grounds that it was (1) confusing with Lindt’s unregistered MAÎTRE CHOCOLATIER mark, and (2) not distinctive in view of the MAÎTRE CHOCOLATIER mark.

A significant preliminary issue was the standard of review. Although the parties had earlier agreed that the grounds of opposition should be decided on a de novo basis, GRC later argued that this was inconsistent with applicable legal principles. Lindt asserted that, even if the agreement was wrong in law, it was binding on the parties. The Court disagreed with Lindt, finding that it was not open to the parties to “contract out” of the standard of review, as this must be determined by the Court. In considering the matter, the Court found that issue (1) of confusion should be considered de novo; and (2) of distinctiveness can be considered under the appellate standard of review.

For issue (1), Lindt had to meet an initial burden of proof by establishing that the MAÎTRE CHOCOLATIER mark was used or made known prior to the relevant date. The Court found that this evidentiary burden was not met, as the mark only appeared in combination with other marks owned by Lindt. Though the MAÎTRE CHOCOLATIER mark differed in appearance to the other marks it appeared with, these differences in appearance could not, without more, constitute use of the trademark per se.

For issue (2), the Court found that Lindt failed to meet its initial evidentiary burden to establish that the MAÎTRE CHOCOLATIER mark was known in Canada at the material time. Additionally, the Court determined that Lindt could not properly advance this argument, as it had failed to raise the issue in its written submissions.

The Court therefore held that Lindt failed to meet its initial evidentiary burden on both grounds. It allowed GRC’s appeal and directed the Registrar to register the GRC Mark.

Summary By: Claire Bettio