Whether the Opponent’s evidence meets its initial burden
[50] To meet its evidential burden, the Opponent relies on the affidavit of Ms. Galperti.
[51] Ms. Galperti explains that the Opponent’s roots in the field of metalworking date back to
the founding of the family business in Italy in 1740 [paras 7-9]. The business is currently carried
on by the Opponent, who purchased it from the predecessor F.lli Galperti fu Paolo s.r.l.,
sometimes referred to simply as “F.lli Galperti s.r.l.”, on June 21, 2000 [para 6]. Today, the
company manufactures “flanges, rings, discs and special forgings for piping in metal materials”
(Opponent’s Products) for the chemical, hydropower, and oil & gas industries, and exports such
products worldwide, including to Canada [paras 5, 7]. The Opponent’s product line is described
on its website as products of steel, nickel alloy, copper alloy, and titanium, including flanges,
rings, nozzles, ball-valve components, and special forgings, the latter being “forgings according
to customer drawings” [Exhibit DG-4].
[52] Ms. Galperti states that the Opponent’s GALPERTI trademark is the only trademark used
in association with the Opponent’s Products and that it has been so used in Canada since the
beginning of the 1980s [para 11]. While the products themselves are only engraved with a G
symbol—as the “manufacturing logo” required by international standards—the GALPERTI
trademark is displayed on the packaging of products sold and shipped to customers worldwide,
including in Canada, and Ms. Galperti attaches as Exhibit DG-6 to her affidavit representative
photographs of the packaging used for this purpose since 2000 [paras 12-13, Exhibits DG-5-
DG-6, Q208-213]. She attests that the GALPERTI trademark was also displayed on the
packaging of the Opponent’s Products delivered to customers in Canada prior to 1999, with
minor variations as shown on the invoices issued prior to 1999 [para 13]. Ms. Galperti further
attests that the GALPERTI trademark has always been prominently displayed at the top of the
invoices, which always accompanied the products’ delivery into Canada [para 14].
[53] As Exhibit DG-7 to her affidavit, Ms. Galperti attaches representative invoices, some
with related customs and/or shipping documents, showing sales of the Opponent’s Products to
Canadian clients from 1988 to 2013. She confirms that the only products referenced in the
exhibited invoices are the Opponent’s Products, manufactured and sold by the Opponent
[para 14]. The invoices may be divided into three sets. The first contains a single 1988 invoice
16