Veni, Vidi, Litigavi: Federal Court Upholds Rejection Of FALESCA MOLISANA Opposition

On January 26, 2026, the Federal Court (the Court) in 996660 Ontario Ltd. v. Falesca Importing Ltd., 2026 FC 114, dismissed 996660 Ontario Ltd.’s (the Applicant’s) appeal of a Trademark Opposition Board’s (TMOB’s) decision that rejected its opposition to Falesca Importing Ltd.’s (the Respondent’s) registration of the mark FALESCA MOLISANA.

The Applicant owns many REGINA MOLISANA trademarks and the TMOB found that both parties’ trademarks had low inherent distinctiveness, as MOLISANA refers to the region of Molise, Italy. Furthermore, FALESCA had no apparent meaning whereas REGINA invoked an association with a queen, making the Respondent’s mark “somewhat more inherently distinctive” and the likelihood of confusion “somewhat less than even”.

On appeal, the Court considered whether the TMOB erred in assessing the likelihood of confusion between the FALESCA MOLISANA mark and the REGINA MOLISANA trademarks. This includes reviewing whether the TMOB:

1. erred in holding that the marks had low inherent distinctiveness;
2. improperly weighed the Applicant’s evidence of the acquired distinctiveness of its REGINA MOLISANA marks;
3. improperly applied relevant principles in its degree of resemblance analysis;
4. gave undue weight to marketplace co-existence evidence; and
5. improperly weighed factors for confusion under section 6(5) of the Trademarks Act (the Act).

For issue (1), the Court found no basis to re-evaluate the TMOB’s conclusion on inherent distinctiveness.  Although MOLISANA is a demonym and not a geographic location, the Court held that the TMOB did not err by applying the same principles used for geographic descriptors – MOLISANA is at least geographically suggestive, and it was open for the TMOB to find the marks to have low inherent distinctiveness as a result.

For issue (2), the Court found that while the TMOB did not expressly weigh its findings on inherent distinctiveness with its findings on acquired distinctiveness to provide an overall conclusion under subsection 6(5)(a) of the Act, this was not a palpable and overriding error that would change the outcome of the confusion analysis. Similarly, the Court found that the TMOB (3) did not err in its degree of resemblance analysis and properly considered the marks in their entirety; and (4) properly weighed marketplace co-existence (including third-party marks) in concluding that consumers would be able to distinguish the parties’ respective marks. Lastly, for issue (5), the Court also found that the TMOB addressed all section 6(5) factors and properly weighed them according to their significance.

These findings led the Court to conclude that there was no palpable and overriding error in the TMOB’s decision, and dismiss the Applicant’s appeal.

Summary By: Amy Ariganello