Datasets:

prithviraj-maurya

/

adminsafesign

like 0

suggestive

{'index': 8.0, 'text': 'The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

arbitrary

{'index': '3', 'text': 'The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

arbitrary

{'index': 9.0, 'text': 'The mark "Dove" for body care products.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Dove" for body care products. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

fanciful

{'index': '4', 'text': 'The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

suggestive

{'index': 8.0, 'text': 'The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

generic

{'index': 6.0, 'text': 'The mark "Dry Ice" for solid carbon dioxide. https://www.mandourlaw.com/trademark-examples/'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Dry Ice" for solid carbon dioxide. https://www.mandourlaw.com/trademark-examples/ What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

suggestive

{'index': '2', 'text': 'The mark "Caress" for body soap.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

suggestive

{'index': 8.0, 'text': 'The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

arbitrary

{'index': 9.0, 'text': 'The mark "Dove" for body care products.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Dove" for body care products. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

fanciful

{'index': '4', 'text': 'The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

arbitrary

{'index': '3', 'text': 'The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

arbitrary

{'index': 9.0, 'text': 'The mark "Dove" for body care products.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Dove" for body care products. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

arbitrary

{'index': 9.0, 'text': 'The mark "Dove" for body care products.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Dove" for body care products. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

suggestive

{'index': '2', 'text': 'The mark "Caress" for body soap.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

descriptive

{'index': 7.0, 'text': 'The mark "American Airlines" for air transport of passengers and freight.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "American Airlines" for air transport of passengers and freight. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

fanciful

{'index': '4', 'text': 'The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

descriptive

{'index': '1', 'text': 'The mark "Tasty" for bread.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

arbitrary

{'index': 9.0, 'text': 'The mark "Dove" for body care products.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Dove" for body care products. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

descriptive

{'index': 7.0, 'text': 'The mark "American Airlines" for air transport of passengers and freight.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "American Airlines" for air transport of passengers and freight. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

descriptive

{'index': '1', 'text': 'The mark "Tasty" for bread.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

fanciful

{'index': '4', 'text': 'The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

generic

{'index': '0', 'text': 'The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

generic

{'index': 6.0, 'text': 'The mark "Dry Ice" for solid carbon dioxide. https://www.mandourlaw.com/trademark-examples/'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Dry Ice" for solid carbon dioxide. https://www.mandourlaw.com/trademark-examples/ What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

descriptive

{'index': 7.0, 'text': 'The mark "American Airlines" for air transport of passengers and freight.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "American Airlines" for air transport of passengers and freight. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

fanciful

{'index': 10.0, 'text': 'The mark "Pepsi" for soft drinks.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Pepsi" for soft drinks. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

generic

{'index': '0', 'text': 'The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

generic

{'index': 6.0, 'text': 'The mark "Dry Ice" for solid carbon dioxide. https://www.mandourlaw.com/trademark-examples/'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Dry Ice" for solid carbon dioxide. https://www.mandourlaw.com/trademark-examples/ What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

suggestive

{'index': '2', 'text': 'The mark "Caress" for body soap.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

suggestive

{'index': 8.0, 'text': 'The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

arbitrary

{'index': '3', 'text': 'The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

fanciful

{'index': 10.0, 'text': 'The mark "Pepsi" for soft drinks.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Pepsi" for soft drinks. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

suggestive

{'index': '2', 'text': 'The mark "Caress" for body soap.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

fanciful

{'index': '4', 'text': 'The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

suggestive

{'index': '2', 'text': 'The mark "Caress" for body soap.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

suggestive

{'index': 8.0, 'text': 'The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

fanciful

{'index': '4', 'text': 'The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

fanciful

{'index': 10.0, 'text': 'The mark "Pepsi" for soft drinks.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Pepsi" for soft drinks. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

suggestive

{'index': 8.0, 'text': 'The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

descriptive

{'index': '1', 'text': 'The mark "Tasty" for bread.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

arbitrary

{'index': '3', 'text': 'The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

fanciful

{'index': 10.0, 'text': 'The mark "Pepsi" for soft drinks.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Pepsi" for soft drinks. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

descriptive

{'index': '1', 'text': 'The mark "Tasty" for bread.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

generic

{'index': 6.0, 'text': 'The mark "Dry Ice" for solid carbon dioxide. https://www.mandourlaw.com/trademark-examples/'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Dry Ice" for solid carbon dioxide. https://www.mandourlaw.com/trademark-examples/ What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

fanciful

{'index': 10.0, 'text': 'The mark "Pepsi" for soft drinks.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Pepsi" for soft drinks. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

generic

{'index': 6.0, 'text': 'The mark "Dry Ice" for solid carbon dioxide. https://www.mandourlaw.com/trademark-examples/'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Dry Ice" for solid carbon dioxide. https://www.mandourlaw.com/trademark-examples/ What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

fanciful

{'index': '4', 'text': 'The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

descriptive

{'index': '1', 'text': 'The mark "Tasty" for bread.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

arbitrary

{'index': '3', 'text': 'The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

suggestive

{'index': 8.0, 'text': 'The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "KitchenAid" for kitchen tools. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

arbitrary

{'index': 9.0, 'text': 'The mark "Dove" for body care products.'}

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Ivory" for a product made of elephant tusks. What is the type of mark? A: generic Q: The mark "Tasty" for bread. What is the type of mark? A: descriptive Q: The mark "Caress" for body soap. What is the type of mark? A: suggestive Q: The mark "Virgin" for wireless communications. What is the type of mark? A: arbitrary Q: The mark "Aswelly" for a taxi service. What is the type of mark? A: fanciful Q: {{text}} What is the type of mark? A:

A mark is generic if it is the common name for the product. A mark is descriptive if it describes a purpose, nature, or attribute of the product. A mark is suggestive if it suggests or implies a quality or characteristic of the product. A mark is arbitrary if it is a real English word that has no relation to the product. A mark is fanciful if it is an invented word. Q: The mark "Dove" for body care products. What is the type of mark? A:

abercrombie

dismissed

{'index': 6, 'text': 'The appeal with respect to assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the Appellant’s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years is therefore dismissed. No costs shall be awarded. Signed at Timmins, Ontario, this 9th day of April 2024. (Brereton v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521246/index.do)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: The appeal with respect to assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the Appellant’s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years is therefore dismissed. No costs shall be awarded. Signed at Timmins, Ontario, this 9th day of April 2024. (Brereton v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521246/index.do) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': '3', 'text': 'The appeal filed by the Appellant against the Respondents decision regarding the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement that she was entitled to under the Old Age Security Act for the months of February to June 2014 (included within the payment period of July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014) is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 12th day of December 2018.\nRal Favreau\nFavreau J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': 10, 'text': 'In light of my consideration of the factors set out in subsection 147(3) of the Rules, and my review of the Court’s costs decisions, 35% of total costs strikes me as an appropriate award for the Respondent. This amounts to a fixed cost award of $92,728.42. The Respondent is also entitled to recover disbursements of $3,251.96 for a total award of $95,980.38. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of December 2023. (FOOi Inc v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521192/index.do?q=%2221st+day+of+December+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: In light of my consideration of the factors set out in subsection 147(3) of the Rules, and my review of the Court’s costs decisions, 35% of total costs strikes me as an appropriate award for the Respondent. This amounts to a fixed cost award of $92,728.42. The Respondent is also entitled to recover disbursements of $3,251.96 for a total award of $95,980.38. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of December 2023. (FOOi Inc v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521192/index.do?q=%2221st+day+of+December+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': 7, 'text': 'Repeated words in a section should be given a consistent interpretation. The law from Thomson states that one takes the term or expression as it appears elsewhere in the Act, analyzes the interpretation given to the term to understand its meaning in context, and then applies the presumption of consistent expression if no contrary intention. That analysis leads to the conclusion Dennis was not an ordinary resident of Canada. The residency component needed to claim medical expense deductions is not present. Regrettably, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no costs. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 18th day of April 2024. (Persaud v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521249/index.do)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Repeated words in a section should be given a consistent interpretation. The law from Thomson states that one takes the term or expression as it appears elsewhere in the Act, analyzes the interpretation given to the term to understand its meaning in context, and then applies the presumption of consistent expression if no contrary intention. That analysis leads to the conclusion Dennis was not an ordinary resident of Canada. The residency component needed to claim medical expense deductions is not present. Regrettably, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no costs. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 18th day of April 2024. (Persaud v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521249/index.do) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': '4', 'text': 'Pursuant to Rule 172 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), these amended reasons for judgment are issued in substitution to the reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015.\nUpon paragraphs [9] and [10] having been inadvertently inverted;\nThe reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015 are therefore amended so that former paragraph [10] now reads as paragraph [9], and former paragraph [9] now reads as paragraph [10], as per the attached amended reasons for judgment.\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of June 2015.\n"Gerald J. Rip"\nRip J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': 6, 'text': 'The appeal with respect to assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the Appellant’s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years is therefore dismissed. No costs shall be awarded. Signed at Timmins, Ontario, this 9th day of April 2024. (Brereton v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521246/index.do)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: The appeal with respect to assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the Appellant’s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years is therefore dismissed. No costs shall be awarded. Signed at Timmins, Ontario, this 9th day of April 2024. (Brereton v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521246/index.do) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

allowed

{'index': 9, 'text': 'For the foregoing reasons, the appeal of the Appellant is allowed and the matter referred back to the Minister for reassessment in accordance with my reasons. More specifically, the Minister shall reassess the Appellant in respect of its 2014 Taxation Year on the basis that:\n\n(a) World Surplus assets in the amounts of $110,116,000 for the 2013 taxation year CIF and $217,025,000 for the 2014 taxation year CIF are not to be included;\n\n(b) assets and liabilities of the A&S Business in the amounts of $982,000 for the 2013 taxation year CIF and ($3,299,000) for the 2014 taxation year CIF are to be included; and\n\n(c) the Appellant is correct in designating Investment Property in respect of its A&S Business pursuant to ITR paragraphs 2401(2)(b) and (d), including, pursuant to ITR paragraph 2401(2)(d), any additional Excess CIF determined in accordance with these reasons.\n\nThe Appellant has 30 days from the date of this decision to provide written submissions on costs, not to exceed 10 pages. The Respondent has a further 30 days to provide written submissions on costs in response to the Appellant’s submissions. Signed at Toronto, this 17th day of August 2023. (Independent Order of Foresters v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521144/index.do?q=%2217th+day+of+August+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other The Appellant has 30 days from the date of this decision to provide written submissions on costs, not to exceed 10 pages. The Respondent has a further 30 days to provide written submissions on costs in response to the Appellant’s submissions. Signed at Toronto, this 17th day of August 2023. (Independent Order of Foresters v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521144/index.do?q=%2217th+day+of+August+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': '2', 'text': 'The appeal from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act with respect to the Appellants 2008 and 2009 taxation years is dismissed, without costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.\nSigned at Montral, Qubec this 23rd day of April 2014.\nPatrick Boyle\nBoyle J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': 6, 'text': 'The appeal with respect to assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the Appellant’s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years is therefore dismissed. No costs shall be awarded. Signed at Timmins, Ontario, this 9th day of April 2024. (Brereton v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521246/index.do)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: The appeal with respect to assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the Appellant’s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years is therefore dismissed. No costs shall be awarded. Signed at Timmins, Ontario, this 9th day of April 2024. (Brereton v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521246/index.do) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': 10, 'text': 'In light of my consideration of the factors set out in subsection 147(3) of the Rules, and my review of the Court’s costs decisions, 35% of total costs strikes me as an appropriate award for the Respondent. This amounts to a fixed cost award of $92,728.42. The Respondent is also entitled to recover disbursements of $3,251.96 for a total award of $95,980.38. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of December 2023. (FOOi Inc v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521192/index.do?q=%2221st+day+of+December+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: In light of my consideration of the factors set out in subsection 147(3) of the Rules, and my review of the Court’s costs decisions, 35% of total costs strikes me as an appropriate award for the Respondent. This amounts to a fixed cost award of $92,728.42. The Respondent is also entitled to recover disbursements of $3,251.96 for a total award of $95,980.38. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of December 2023. (FOOi Inc v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521192/index.do?q=%2221st+day+of+December+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': 10, 'text': 'In light of my consideration of the factors set out in subsection 147(3) of the Rules, and my review of the Court’s costs decisions, 35% of total costs strikes me as an appropriate award for the Respondent. This amounts to a fixed cost award of $92,728.42. The Respondent is also entitled to recover disbursements of $3,251.96 for a total award of $95,980.38. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of December 2023. (FOOi Inc v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521192/index.do?q=%2221st+day+of+December+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: In light of my consideration of the factors set out in subsection 147(3) of the Rules, and my review of the Court’s costs decisions, 35% of total costs strikes me as an appropriate award for the Respondent. This amounts to a fixed cost award of $92,728.42. The Respondent is also entitled to recover disbursements of $3,251.96 for a total award of $95,980.38. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of December 2023. (FOOi Inc v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521192/index.do?q=%2221st+day+of+December+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': 7, 'text': 'Repeated words in a section should be given a consistent interpretation. The law from Thomson states that one takes the term or expression as it appears elsewhere in the Act, analyzes the interpretation given to the term to understand its meaning in context, and then applies the presumption of consistent expression if no contrary intention. That analysis leads to the conclusion Dennis was not an ordinary resident of Canada. The residency component needed to claim medical expense deductions is not present. Regrettably, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no costs. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 18th day of April 2024. (Persaud v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521249/index.do)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Repeated words in a section should be given a consistent interpretation. The law from Thomson states that one takes the term or expression as it appears elsewhere in the Act, analyzes the interpretation given to the term to understand its meaning in context, and then applies the presumption of consistent expression if no contrary intention. That analysis leads to the conclusion Dennis was not an ordinary resident of Canada. The residency component needed to claim medical expense deductions is not present. Regrettably, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no costs. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 18th day of April 2024. (Persaud v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521249/index.do) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': '4', 'text': 'Pursuant to Rule 172 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), these amended reasons for judgment are issued in substitution to the reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015.\nUpon paragraphs [9] and [10] having been inadvertently inverted;\nThe reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015 are therefore amended so that former paragraph [10] now reads as paragraph [9], and former paragraph [9] now reads as paragraph [10], as per the attached amended reasons for judgment.\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of June 2015.\n"Gerald J. Rip"\nRip J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': '3', 'text': 'The appeal filed by the Appellant against the Respondents decision regarding the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement that she was entitled to under the Old Age Security Act for the months of February to June 2014 (included within the payment period of July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014) is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 12th day of December 2018.\nRal Favreau\nFavreau J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': 7, 'text': 'Repeated words in a section should be given a consistent interpretation. The law from Thomson states that one takes the term or expression as it appears elsewhere in the Act, analyzes the interpretation given to the term to understand its meaning in context, and then applies the presumption of consistent expression if no contrary intention. That analysis leads to the conclusion Dennis was not an ordinary resident of Canada. The residency component needed to claim medical expense deductions is not present. Regrettably, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no costs. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 18th day of April 2024. (Persaud v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521249/index.do)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Repeated words in a section should be given a consistent interpretation. The law from Thomson states that one takes the term or expression as it appears elsewhere in the Act, analyzes the interpretation given to the term to understand its meaning in context, and then applies the presumption of consistent expression if no contrary intention. That analysis leads to the conclusion Dennis was not an ordinary resident of Canada. The residency component needed to claim medical expense deductions is not present. Regrettably, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no costs. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 18th day of April 2024. (Persaud v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521249/index.do) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': 7, 'text': 'Repeated words in a section should be given a consistent interpretation. The law from Thomson states that one takes the term or expression as it appears elsewhere in the Act, analyzes the interpretation given to the term to understand its meaning in context, and then applies the presumption of consistent expression if no contrary intention. That analysis leads to the conclusion Dennis was not an ordinary resident of Canada. The residency component needed to claim medical expense deductions is not present. Regrettably, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no costs. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 18th day of April 2024. (Persaud v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521249/index.do)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Repeated words in a section should be given a consistent interpretation. The law from Thomson states that one takes the term or expression as it appears elsewhere in the Act, analyzes the interpretation given to the term to understand its meaning in context, and then applies the presumption of consistent expression if no contrary intention. That analysis leads to the conclusion Dennis was not an ordinary resident of Canada. The residency component needed to claim medical expense deductions is not present. Regrettably, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no costs. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 18th day of April 2024. (Persaud v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521249/index.do) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': '2', 'text': 'The appeal from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act with respect to the Appellants 2008 and 2009 taxation years is dismissed, without costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.\nSigned at Montral, Qubec this 23rd day of April 2014.\nPatrick Boyle\nBoyle J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': '5', 'text': '(Delivered orally at the hearing of May 2, 2006, at Montral, Quebec.)\nLamarre Proulx J.\n[1] These appeals pertain to the 2002 and 2003 taxation years.\n[2] The facts are set out as follows in paragraph 18 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal ("the Reply"):\n[TRANSLATION]\n(a) The Appellant worked as an investment advisor for Laurentian Bank Securities Inc. (hereinafter "LBS") from January 2000 to October 2002.\n(b) On June 13, 2000, the Appellant signed an employment agreement with LBS.\n...\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of May 2006.\n"Louise Lamarre Proulx"\nLamarre Proulx J.\nTranslation certified true\non this 31st day of October 2006\nMonica F. Chamberlain, Reviser\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': '4', 'text': 'Pursuant to Rule 172 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), these amended reasons for judgment are issued in substitution to the reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015.\nUpon paragraphs [9] and [10] having been inadvertently inverted;\nThe reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015 are therefore amended so that former paragraph [10] now reads as paragraph [9], and former paragraph [9] now reads as paragraph [10], as per the attached amended reasons for judgment.\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of June 2015.\n"Gerald J. Rip"\nRip J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

allowed

{'index': '1', 'text': 'This appeal is allowed and the matter is referred back to the Minister for reconsideration and further redeterminations on the bases that the Appellant is entitled to the denied CCTB benefit payments for the beginning of each month within the period July 2013 through to and including March 2015, and also that the Appellant is entitled to the denied GSTC benefit payments for the beginning of each July, October, January and April within the said period July 2013 through to and including March 2015.\nSigned at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 30th day of July 2020.\nB.Russell\nRussell J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': 7, 'text': 'Repeated words in a section should be given a consistent interpretation. The law from Thomson states that one takes the term or expression as it appears elsewhere in the Act, analyzes the interpretation given to the term to understand its meaning in context, and then applies the presumption of consistent expression if no contrary intention. That analysis leads to the conclusion Dennis was not an ordinary resident of Canada. The residency component needed to claim medical expense deductions is not present. Regrettably, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no costs. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 18th day of April 2024. (Persaud v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521249/index.do)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Repeated words in a section should be given a consistent interpretation. The law from Thomson states that one takes the term or expression as it appears elsewhere in the Act, analyzes the interpretation given to the term to understand its meaning in context, and then applies the presumption of consistent expression if no contrary intention. That analysis leads to the conclusion Dennis was not an ordinary resident of Canada. The residency component needed to claim medical expense deductions is not present. Regrettably, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no costs. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 18th day of April 2024. (Persaud v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521249/index.do) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': 11, 'text': 'Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': '5', 'text': '(Delivered orally at the hearing of May 2, 2006, at Montral, Quebec.)\nLamarre Proulx J.\n[1] These appeals pertain to the 2002 and 2003 taxation years.\n[2] The facts are set out as follows in paragraph 18 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal ("the Reply"):\n[TRANSLATION]\n(a) The Appellant worked as an investment advisor for Laurentian Bank Securities Inc. (hereinafter "LBS") from January 2000 to October 2002.\n(b) On June 13, 2000, the Appellant signed an employment agreement with LBS.\n...\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of May 2006.\n"Louise Lamarre Proulx"\nLamarre Proulx J.\nTranslation certified true\non this 31st day of October 2006\nMonica F. Chamberlain, Reviser\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

allowed

{'index': '1', 'text': 'This appeal is allowed and the matter is referred back to the Minister for reconsideration and further redeterminations on the bases that the Appellant is entitled to the denied CCTB benefit payments for the beginning of each month within the period July 2013 through to and including March 2015, and also that the Appellant is entitled to the denied GSTC benefit payments for the beginning of each July, October, January and April within the said period July 2013 through to and including March 2015.\nSigned at Halifax, Nova Scotia, this 30th day of July 2020.\nB.Russell\nRussell J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': 11, 'text': 'Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': '4', 'text': 'Pursuant to Rule 172 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), these amended reasons for judgment are issued in substitution to the reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015.\nUpon paragraphs [9] and [10] having been inadvertently inverted;\nThe reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015 are therefore amended so that former paragraph [10] now reads as paragraph [9], and former paragraph [9] now reads as paragraph [10], as per the attached amended reasons for judgment.\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of June 2015.\n"Gerald J. Rip"\nRip J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

allowed

{'index': '0', 'text': 'The appeal from the reassessment dated October 29, 2018 made under the Income Tax Act for the 2017 taxation year is allowed, without costs, and the reassessment is vacated in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 14th day of July 2020.\nDavid E. Spiro\nSpiro J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': 11, 'text': 'Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

allowed

{'index': 9, 'text': 'For the foregoing reasons, the appeal of the Appellant is allowed and the matter referred back to the Minister for reassessment in accordance with my reasons. More specifically, the Minister shall reassess the Appellant in respect of its 2014 Taxation Year on the basis that:\n\n(a) World Surplus assets in the amounts of $110,116,000 for the 2013 taxation year CIF and $217,025,000 for the 2014 taxation year CIF are not to be included;\n\n(b) assets and liabilities of the A&S Business in the amounts of $982,000 for the 2013 taxation year CIF and ($3,299,000) for the 2014 taxation year CIF are to be included; and\n\n(c) the Appellant is correct in designating Investment Property in respect of its A&S Business pursuant to ITR paragraphs 2401(2)(b) and (d), including, pursuant to ITR paragraph 2401(2)(d), any additional Excess CIF determined in accordance with these reasons.\n\nThe Appellant has 30 days from the date of this decision to provide written submissions on costs, not to exceed 10 pages. The Respondent has a further 30 days to provide written submissions on costs in response to the Appellant’s submissions. Signed at Toronto, this 17th day of August 2023. (Independent Order of Foresters v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521144/index.do?q=%2217th+day+of+August+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other The Appellant has 30 days from the date of this decision to provide written submissions on costs, not to exceed 10 pages. The Respondent has a further 30 days to provide written submissions on costs in response to the Appellant’s submissions. Signed at Toronto, this 17th day of August 2023. (Independent Order of Foresters v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521144/index.do?q=%2217th+day+of+August+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': '5', 'text': '(Delivered orally at the hearing of May 2, 2006, at Montral, Quebec.)\nLamarre Proulx J.\n[1] These appeals pertain to the 2002 and 2003 taxation years.\n[2] The facts are set out as follows in paragraph 18 of the Reply to the Notice of Appeal ("the Reply"):\n[TRANSLATION]\n(a) The Appellant worked as an investment advisor for Laurentian Bank Securities Inc. (hereinafter "LBS") from January 2000 to October 2002.\n(b) On June 13, 2000, the Appellant signed an employment agreement with LBS.\n...\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 15th day of May 2006.\n"Louise Lamarre Proulx"\nLamarre Proulx J.\nTranslation certified true\non this 31st day of October 2006\nMonica F. Chamberlain, Reviser\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': 11, 'text': 'Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

allowed

{'index': 8, 'text': "[TRANSLATION] The father took care of his children while they were with him. During weekday overnight stays, he would eat dinner with them and prepare their school lunches for the next day. He made sure they did their homework in the evening. The father attended some of the children's activities, and he remembers accompanying the mother to a few medical appointments. The mother coordinated all of the children's activities as well as their appointments with the family doctor, the optometrist and the dentist. She was the main parent the school communicated with regarding the children. When one of the children had to leave school early due to behavioral problems, the school communicated primarily with the mother, who would then pick up the child or ask the mother to do so. After school, the children returned to their mother's house, where their father would pick them up between 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. for his overnight stay, even on Mondays. When the children were home from school, the mother would give them snacks and make sure they did their homework before they went to their father's house. In light of these facts, even if it were proven that every second Monday, during school, counts towards the time spent with the father, and that the school could have been authorized to reach one either parent to raise concerns about the children, I conclude that the mother was primarily responsible for the care and education of the children during each school day. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed with costs. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 18th day of April 2024. (Lévesque St-Cyr c. Le Roi, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/fr/item/521248/index.do?q=%22Ottawa%22)"}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: [TRANSLATION] The father took care of his children while they were with him. During weekday overnight stays, he would eat dinner with them and prepare their school lunches for the next day. He made sure they did their homework in the evening. The father attended some of the children's activities, and he remembers accompanying the mother to a few medical appointments. The mother coordinated all of the children's activities as well as their appointments with the family doctor, the optometrist and the dentist. She was the main parent the school communicated with regarding the children. When one of the children had to leave school early due to behavioral problems, the school communicated primarily with the mother, who would then pick up the child or ask the mother to do so. After school, the children returned to their mother's house, where their father would pick them up between 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. for his overnight stay, even on Mondays. When the children were home from school, the mother would give them snacks and make sure they did their homework before they went to their father's house. In light of these facts, even if it were proven that every second Monday, during school, counts towards the time spent with the father, and that the school could have been authorized to reach one either parent to raise concerns about the children, I conclude that the mother was primarily responsible for the care and education of the children during each school day. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed with costs. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 18th day of April 2024. (Lévesque St-Cyr c. Le Roi, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/fr/item/521248/index.do?q=%22Ottawa%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

allowed

{'index': '0', 'text': 'The appeal from the reassessment dated October 29, 2018 made under the Income Tax Act for the 2017 taxation year is allowed, without costs, and the reassessment is vacated in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 14th day of July 2020.\nDavid E. Spiro\nSpiro J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': 10, 'text': 'In light of my consideration of the factors set out in subsection 147(3) of the Rules, and my review of the Court’s costs decisions, 35% of total costs strikes me as an appropriate award for the Respondent. This amounts to a fixed cost award of $92,728.42. The Respondent is also entitled to recover disbursements of $3,251.96 for a total award of $95,980.38. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of December 2023. (FOOi Inc v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521192/index.do?q=%2221st+day+of+December+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: In light of my consideration of the factors set out in subsection 147(3) of the Rules, and my review of the Court’s costs decisions, 35% of total costs strikes me as an appropriate award for the Respondent. This amounts to a fixed cost award of $92,728.42. The Respondent is also entitled to recover disbursements of $3,251.96 for a total award of $95,980.38. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of December 2023. (FOOi Inc v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521192/index.do?q=%2221st+day+of+December+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': 10, 'text': 'In light of my consideration of the factors set out in subsection 147(3) of the Rules, and my review of the Court’s costs decisions, 35% of total costs strikes me as an appropriate award for the Respondent. This amounts to a fixed cost award of $92,728.42. The Respondent is also entitled to recover disbursements of $3,251.96 for a total award of $95,980.38. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of December 2023. (FOOi Inc v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521192/index.do?q=%2221st+day+of+December+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: In light of my consideration of the factors set out in subsection 147(3) of the Rules, and my review of the Court’s costs decisions, 35% of total costs strikes me as an appropriate award for the Respondent. This amounts to a fixed cost award of $92,728.42. The Respondent is also entitled to recover disbursements of $3,251.96 for a total award of $95,980.38. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 21st day of December 2023. (FOOi Inc v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521192/index.do?q=%2221st+day+of+December+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

allowed

{'index': 9, 'text': 'For the foregoing reasons, the appeal of the Appellant is allowed and the matter referred back to the Minister for reassessment in accordance with my reasons. More specifically, the Minister shall reassess the Appellant in respect of its 2014 Taxation Year on the basis that:\n\n(a) World Surplus assets in the amounts of $110,116,000 for the 2013 taxation year CIF and $217,025,000 for the 2014 taxation year CIF are not to be included;\n\n(b) assets and liabilities of the A&S Business in the amounts of $982,000 for the 2013 taxation year CIF and ($3,299,000) for the 2014 taxation year CIF are to be included; and\n\n(c) the Appellant is correct in designating Investment Property in respect of its A&S Business pursuant to ITR paragraphs 2401(2)(b) and (d), including, pursuant to ITR paragraph 2401(2)(d), any additional Excess CIF determined in accordance with these reasons.\n\nThe Appellant has 30 days from the date of this decision to provide written submissions on costs, not to exceed 10 pages. The Respondent has a further 30 days to provide written submissions on costs in response to the Appellant’s submissions. Signed at Toronto, this 17th day of August 2023. (Independent Order of Foresters v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521144/index.do?q=%2217th+day+of+August+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other The Appellant has 30 days from the date of this decision to provide written submissions on costs, not to exceed 10 pages. The Respondent has a further 30 days to provide written submissions on costs in response to the Appellant’s submissions. Signed at Toronto, this 17th day of August 2023. (Independent Order of Foresters v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521144/index.do?q=%2217th+day+of+August+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': 11, 'text': 'Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': 11, 'text': 'Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': '2', 'text': 'The appeal from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act with respect to the Appellants 2008 and 2009 taxation years is dismissed, without costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.\nSigned at Montral, Qubec this 23rd day of April 2014.\nPatrick Boyle\nBoyle J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': 11, 'text': 'Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: Would things have been different had the CRA, on March 17, 2021, not suggested to Mr. Campbell that he file notices of objection but, instead, reminded Mr. Campbell that he had just over two weeks to file an application with the Court to extend time to institute his appeals? We will never know. What we do know is that the CRA made blatantly inaccurate representations of law to Mr. Campbell several weeks before his time expired to apply to the Court for an extension. Is the CRA entitled to collect the amounts reassessed? The answer is yes. But whether it chooses to exercise that right in light of all the circumstances is another question entirely – one in respect of which the Court has no choice but to remain silent. Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 15th day of December 2023. (Campbell v. The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521195/index.do?q=%2215th+day+of+December+2023%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': 6, 'text': 'The appeal with respect to assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the Appellant’s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years is therefore dismissed. No costs shall be awarded. Signed at Timmins, Ontario, this 9th day of April 2024. (Brereton v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521246/index.do)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: The appeal with respect to assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the Appellant’s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years is therefore dismissed. No costs shall be awarded. Signed at Timmins, Ontario, this 9th day of April 2024. (Brereton v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521246/index.do) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': '3', 'text': 'The appeal filed by the Appellant against the Respondents decision regarding the calculation of the guaranteed income supplement that she was entitled to under the Old Age Security Act for the months of February to June 2014 (included within the payment period of July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014) is dismissed in accordance with the attached reasons for judgment.\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 12th day of December 2018.\nRal Favreau\nFavreau J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

allowed

{'index': 8, 'text': "[TRANSLATION] The father took care of his children while they were with him. During weekday overnight stays, he would eat dinner with them and prepare their school lunches for the next day. He made sure they did their homework in the evening. The father attended some of the children's activities, and he remembers accompanying the mother to a few medical appointments. The mother coordinated all of the children's activities as well as their appointments with the family doctor, the optometrist and the dentist. She was the main parent the school communicated with regarding the children. When one of the children had to leave school early due to behavioral problems, the school communicated primarily with the mother, who would then pick up the child or ask the mother to do so. After school, the children returned to their mother's house, where their father would pick them up between 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. for his overnight stay, even on Mondays. When the children were home from school, the mother would give them snacks and make sure they did their homework before they went to their father's house. In light of these facts, even if it were proven that every second Monday, during school, counts towards the time spent with the father, and that the school could have been authorized to reach one either parent to raise concerns about the children, I conclude that the mother was primarily responsible for the care and education of the children during each school day. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed with costs. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 18th day of April 2024. (Lévesque St-Cyr c. Le Roi, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/fr/item/521248/index.do?q=%22Ottawa%22)"}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: [TRANSLATION] The father took care of his children while they were with him. During weekday overnight stays, he would eat dinner with them and prepare their school lunches for the next day. He made sure they did their homework in the evening. The father attended some of the children's activities, and he remembers accompanying the mother to a few medical appointments. The mother coordinated all of the children's activities as well as their appointments with the family doctor, the optometrist and the dentist. She was the main parent the school communicated with regarding the children. When one of the children had to leave school early due to behavioral problems, the school communicated primarily with the mother, who would then pick up the child or ask the mother to do so. After school, the children returned to their mother's house, where their father would pick them up between 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. for his overnight stay, even on Mondays. When the children were home from school, the mother would give them snacks and make sure they did their homework before they went to their father's house. In light of these facts, even if it were proven that every second Monday, during school, counts towards the time spent with the father, and that the school could have been authorized to reach one either parent to raise concerns about the children, I conclude that the mother was primarily responsible for the care and education of the children during each school day. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed with costs. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 18th day of April 2024. (Lévesque St-Cyr c. Le Roi, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/fr/item/521248/index.do?q=%22Ottawa%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': '2', 'text': 'The appeal from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act with respect to the Appellants 2008 and 2009 taxation years is dismissed, without costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.\nSigned at Montral, Qubec this 23rd day of April 2014.\nPatrick Boyle\nBoyle J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': '4', 'text': 'Pursuant to Rule 172 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), these amended reasons for judgment are issued in substitution to the reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015.\nUpon paragraphs [9] and [10] having been inadvertently inverted;\nThe reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015 are therefore amended so that former paragraph [10] now reads as paragraph [9], and former paragraph [9] now reads as paragraph [10], as per the attached amended reasons for judgment.\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of June 2015.\n"Gerald J. Rip"\nRip J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': '2', 'text': 'The appeal from the reassessments made under the Income Tax Act with respect to the Appellants 2008 and 2009 taxation years is dismissed, without costs, in accordance with the attached Reasons for Judgment.\nSigned at Montral, Qubec this 23rd day of April 2014.\nPatrick Boyle\nBoyle J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': 6, 'text': 'The appeal with respect to assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the Appellant’s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years is therefore dismissed. No costs shall be awarded. Signed at Timmins, Ontario, this 9th day of April 2024. (Brereton v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521246/index.do)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: The appeal with respect to assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the Appellant’s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years is therefore dismissed. No costs shall be awarded. Signed at Timmins, Ontario, this 9th day of April 2024. (Brereton v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521246/index.do) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

other

{'index': '4', 'text': 'Pursuant to Rule 172 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure), these amended reasons for judgment are issued in substitution to the reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015.\nUpon paragraphs [9] and [10] having been inadvertently inverted;\nThe reasons for judgment issued on May 26, 2015 are therefore amended so that former paragraph [10] now reads as paragraph [9], and former paragraph [9] now reads as paragraph [10], as per the attached amended reasons for judgment.\nSigned at Ottawa, Canada, this 10th day of June 2015.\n"Gerald J. Rip"\nRip J.\n'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

allowed

{'index': 8, 'text': "[TRANSLATION] The father took care of his children while they were with him. During weekday overnight stays, he would eat dinner with them and prepare their school lunches for the next day. He made sure they did their homework in the evening. The father attended some of the children's activities, and he remembers accompanying the mother to a few medical appointments. The mother coordinated all of the children's activities as well as their appointments with the family doctor, the optometrist and the dentist. She was the main parent the school communicated with regarding the children. When one of the children had to leave school early due to behavioral problems, the school communicated primarily with the mother, who would then pick up the child or ask the mother to do so. After school, the children returned to their mother's house, where their father would pick them up between 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. for his overnight stay, even on Mondays. When the children were home from school, the mother would give them snacks and make sure they did their homework before they went to their father's house. In light of these facts, even if it were proven that every second Monday, during school, counts towards the time spent with the father, and that the school could have been authorized to reach one either parent to raise concerns about the children, I conclude that the mother was primarily responsible for the care and education of the children during each school day. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed with costs. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 18th day of April 2024. (Lévesque St-Cyr c. Le Roi, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/fr/item/521248/index.do?q=%22Ottawa%22)"}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: [TRANSLATION] The father took care of his children while they were with him. During weekday overnight stays, he would eat dinner with them and prepare their school lunches for the next day. He made sure they did their homework in the evening. The father attended some of the children's activities, and he remembers accompanying the mother to a few medical appointments. The mother coordinated all of the children's activities as well as their appointments with the family doctor, the optometrist and the dentist. She was the main parent the school communicated with regarding the children. When one of the children had to leave school early due to behavioral problems, the school communicated primarily with the mother, who would then pick up the child or ask the mother to do so. After school, the children returned to their mother's house, where their father would pick them up between 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. for his overnight stay, even on Mondays. When the children were home from school, the mother would give them snacks and make sure they did their homework before they went to their father's house. In light of these facts, even if it were proven that every second Monday, during school, counts towards the time spent with the father, and that the school could have been authorized to reach one either parent to raise concerns about the children, I conclude that the mother was primarily responsible for the care and education of the children during each school day. For these reasons, the appeal is allowed with costs. Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this 18th day of April 2024. (Lévesque St-Cyr c. Le Roi, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/fr/item/521248/index.do?q=%22Ottawa%22) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes

dismissed

{'index': 6, 'text': 'The appeal with respect to assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the Appellant’s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years is therefore dismissed. No costs shall be awarded. Signed at Timmins, Ontario, this 9th day of April 2024. (Brereton v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521246/index.do)'}

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: {{text}} OUTCOME:

INSTRUCTIONS: Indicate whether the following judgment excerpt from a Tax Court of Canada decision allows the appeal or dismisses the appeal. Where the result is mixed, indicate that the appeal was allowed. Ignore costs orders. Where the outcome is unclear indicate other. Options: allowed, dimissed, other JUDGMENT EXCERPT: The appeal with respect to assessments made under the Income Tax Act for the Appellant’s 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 taxation years is therefore dismissed. No costs shall be awarded. Signed at Timmins, Ontario, this 9th day of April 2024. (Brereton v The King, https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/521246/index.do) OUTCOME:

canada_tax_court_outcomes