TMOB refuses “Weed Pool” Trademark applications in Canada

This article discusses the recent decision of Canada's Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) in the case of Weed Pool Cannabis Co-operative Limited Weed Pool Processing Co-operative v Nexus Cannabis Solutions Inc., 2025 TMOB 115 (CanLII). This case is a useful reminder of the need to consider regulatory issues when adopting and clearing trademarks and is instructive of the need to properly evidence ownership and subsistence of third-party rights relied upon in oppositions.

The Opponent, Weed Pool Cannabis Co-operative Limited and Weed Pool Processing Co-operative, a group of independent retailers servicing more than 100 stores across Saskatchewan, opposed the registration of the following four marks filed by the Applicant, Nexus Cannabis Solutions Inc. covering various hemp and cannabis goods featuring the words “Weed Pool” as an element of the designs.  

The opposition was based on grounds related to: 

1. non-registrability, 
2. non-entitlement to use, 
3. non-distinctiveness, and 
4. bad faith. 

The TMOB refused the opposition on all grounds and allowed the registration of the applications. 

The bad faith grounds were brought on the basis the applicant was trading off and misappropriating the reputation, copyrights, and trademarks of a now defunct, though allegedly iconic, third-party agricultural co-operative, Alberta Wheat Pool. The TMOB held that, as the earlier cooperative merged into another entity in 1998, it cannot be inferred from this that the average consumer would recognize that the word ‘pool’ in ‘Alberta Wheat Pool’ designated its historical legal status as a cooperative entity or that the word “pool” would be understood as synonymous with “cooperative”. The reasons of the TMOB emphasized the need for impartial evidence – ideally from a qualified expert on consumer perception.

In respect of the claims of copyright and trademark misappropriation, the TMOB held that the Opponent’s evidence did not demonstrate ownership by the Alberta Wheat Pool of the copyrights and trademarks asserted, and accordingly, the Opponent did not meet its initial burden with respect to this ground of opposition. 

The non-registrability grounds related to allegations of deceptive misdescriptiveness as to the character, quality, conditions of production and place of origin of the goods, in so far as the “hemp” goods of the Applicant were neither made from marijuana nor were they produced by or originated from a cooperative, and in respect of the cannabis goods, that they were not produced by or originated from a cooperative. The TMOB held that the word “pool” in the applied-for marks was ambiguous and would be more readily understood by the relevant consumer to refer to an “accumulation or aggregation” and a “readily available supply” rather than to a specific corporate designation associated with co-operative business forms. Accordingly, the mark was most suggestive. This ground was accordingly dismissed. 

The non-entitlement to use grounds were raised on the basis that the Applicant’s use of “pool” in the marks was in contravention of the Canada Cooperatives Act (“CCA”) and Competition Act (“CA”) because the Applicant was not a “cooperative”. The TMOB found the Opponent had not demonstrated that the Applicant was in contravention of the CCA mainly because there was no evidence regarding the interpretation of the relevant section to assist the Registrar regarding non-compliance, nor was evidence of an associated proceeding brought against the Applicant. The TMOB rejected the CA claims on the basis that they were predicated on the assumption that the use of the term “pool” was synonymous with “cooperative”, which for the reasons discussed above, was held not to be the case. 

For the non-distinctiveness grounds, the TMOB held that Opponent’s evidence did not demonstrate that its use negated the distinctiveness of the applied-for marks at the material dates, or that it was well-known in a particular area of Canada. 

This article provides an overview of recent TMOB decisions and should not be taken as legal advice. If you would like to explore how these developments could impact your trademark protection and opposition strategies, please contact a member of our Trademarks team.