Decision: Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne & Institut National De L’origine Et De La Qualité v. Coors Brewing Company, 2026 FCA 2 (Jan. 9, 2026) Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)

---

Overview

On January 9, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) ruled that section 45 of the Trademarks Act does not impose a fixed rule requiring a trademark owner to justify non‑use dating back to the last proven use of the mark. 

Instead, the FCA affirmed that, in appropriate cases, the date a new owner acquires the trademark may serve as the starting point for assessing non‑use. This approach—known as the New Owner Jurisprudence—had been applied by the Registrar and Federal Court for decades. It is now expressly endorsed by the FCA. 

The decision has significant implications for brand owners, purchasers of trademark portfolios, and parties seeking to clear “deadwood” marks from the Register. 

---

Facts in Brief

• Coors Brewing Company acquired the registrations for the trademarks “The Champagne of Beers” “Le Champagne des Bières”, as well as the label and design for “Miller High Life, the Champagne of Beers, in October 2016 during a multi‑billion‑dollar acquisition of Miller Brewing assets. 

• Section 45 notices were issued on April 3, 2017. 

• Coors acknowledged it could not show use in the three years prior to the notices; last known use appeared to be in 2012. 

• Coors submitted evidence of post‑acquisition integration steps, regulatory requirements, and preparation for re‑launch in Canada. 

• The Registrar, the Federal Court, and ultimately the FCA accepted that the relevant non‑use period began on the 2016 acquisition date, not 2012. 

---

Key Legal Holding

A) No Fixed Rule for the Non‑Use Starting Point

The FCA held that section 45 contains no statutory requirement that the non‑use period must extend back to the last use of the mark. 

Instead, the statute permits flexibility: 

• Subsection 45(1) requires an owner to state whether the mark was used in the previous 3 years; 

• Subsection 45(3) asks whether any non‑use during the period under review is excused by “special circumstances.” 

The Court endorsed the view that a recent arm’s‑length acquisition may itself be a “special circumstance”, capable of limiting the look‑back period. 

This position had recently been affirmed in Centric Brands Holding LLC v. Stikeman Elliott LLP, 2025 FCA 161. The Court treated Centric Brands as binding precedent.

B) Special Circumstances Found

The Court upheld findings that: 

• The October 2016–April 2017 non‑use period was short; 

• Coors was addressing the integration of a large and complex acquisition; 

• Canadian provincial liquor regulators required finished product labels and samples, necessitating preparatory steps; 

• Coors demonstrated a serious intention to resume use. 

These factors were held to be circumstances beyond the new owner’s control, satisfying the test for “special circumstances” under s.45(3). 

---

Implications for Trademark Owners

A) Purchasers of Trademark Portfolios Benefit

The decision significantly reduces the risk that acquiring a long‑unused mark will lead to its immediate expungement. 

• A purchaser no longer bears the burden of explaining decades of non‑use by prior owners. 

• Section 45 exposure can be limited to the period post‑acquisition, provided there is evidence of bona fide steps toward use. 

This is especially important in industries with regulatory burdens (e.g., alcohol, cannabis, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics).

B) Section 45 Challenges Become More Complex

For parties seeking to clear unused marks: 

• It may be more difficult to expunge marks recently acquired by new owners. 

• Evidence of long historical non‑use may not be decisive provided the new owner has taken genuine steps to resume use. 

Section 45 remains a valuable tool, but its effectiveness depends on the timing and context of ownership changes.

C) What Still Doesn’t Qualify as Special Circumstances 

The FCA reaffirmed classic limitations: 

• A mere future plan to use the mark, without explanation of non‑use, does not satisfy the test. 

• Prolonged, deliberate non‑use (e.g., no use 13 years after acquisition in Scott Paper v. Smart & Biggar, 2008 FCA 129) remains fatal.

D) Practical Steps for Owners

Owners—especially new owners—should: 

• Document integration activities post‑acquisition; 

• Maintain records of regulatory processes, supply chain transitions, and label development; 

• Ensure contemporaneous evidence of intended re‑launch; 

• Aim to resume use promptly once practical barriers are removed. 

---

Bottom Line

The FCA’s decision provides welcome clarity and flexibility in Canadian non‑use proceedings: 

• New owners are not strictly bound to justify distant historical non‑use. 

• Section 45 remains a summary procedure aimed at true “deadwood,” not bona fide re‑launches. 

• The decision modernizes Canadian practice by aligning the law with commercial reality, particularly in industries where regulatory and operational integration inevitably takes time. 

For any organization managing trademark portfolios or considering the acquisition of dormant marks, this ruling offers strategic room to maneuver. 

---

Want to Read the Full Case?

You can access the case, Comité interprofessionnel du vin de champagne v. Coors Brewing Company, 2026 FCA 2 here. 

For more news and resources, visit our Articles and Videos pages.

Updated January 2026