Both of the opponent’s grounds were dismissed because it failed to meet its initial evidentiary burden. The first ground of attack alleged the services in the NHOW application were not described in “ordinary commercial terms”; but the Registrar held the services listed were not “impermissibly vague or otherwise deficient on their face” and so dismissed the ground. In regard to the second ground of attack (the applicant did not have an intention to use the mark in accordance with section 30(e)), after reviewing the opponent’s evidence, the Registrar dismissed the opposition.
The Coryn Group II, LLC and NH HOTEL GROUP, S.A., 2023 TMOB 18