The principal of Molo Design (Plaintiff) breached the protective order in the matter by revealing to counsel in foreign jurisdictions confidential information that was disclosed by Chanel in the Canadian action, also by so doing breaching the implied undertaking rule.

In this proceeding brought via the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (“PMNOC Regulations”), the Plaintiffs moved for production of samples pursuant to Rule 249 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.

Dermaspark Products Inc v Prestige MD Clinic concerns a motion under Rules 51 and 369 appealing the Order of the Case Management Judge (CMJ) regarding a motion to strike and motion to amend the claim, which were heard together.

This decision was rendered contemporaneously with the trial decision finding of the Defendant (Plaintiff by Counterclaim), Double Diamond Distribution Ltd. (“Double Diamond”), motion for a confidentiality order.

This case is significant as a recent decision applying the Industrial Design Act where the Defendant, Double Diamond Distribution Ltd. (“Double Diamond”), was found liable for infringing the industrial design registration of the Plaintiffs (collectively “Crocs”) in a line of footwear that had previously been subject to industrial design registration (“the 939 Design”).

Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”), Pharmascience Inc. (“Pharmascience”) and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc. (collectively, “Dr.Reddy’s”) each commenced an action under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations against Janssen Inc., Janssen Oncology Inc. and BTG International Ltd. (collectively, “Janssen”) in relation to the drug abiraterone acetate.

The Applicant, Sharame Sherzady, sought to challenge the Registrar of Trademarks’ (“Registrar”) ruling expunging trademark number 866,485 for WATCHFINDER from the Trademarks Register.

This decision relates to the Applicant’s appeal of a decision of the Trademarks Opposition Board (“TMOB”) refusing its application to register a VIVO stylized mark on the basis of prior use and registration of the trademarks VIVOACTIVE and VIVOFIT by the Respondent.

This application arises out of a claim for copyright infringement. The Applicants are an architectural and interior design firm and its proprietor, and the Respondents are a landscape architectural design firm and its proprietor.

This decision stems from a motion by the Plaintiffs (Bell Media, CTV Specialty Television Enterprises, The Sports Network, and Le Reseau Des Sports (RDS)), for an interlocutory injunction order against the Third Party Respondents (various internet service providers) for a “site blocking” Order.