This is an appeal of a successful motion to strike the claim of the Plaintiff, who asserted copyright in their MLS system. The decision was made by the Case Management Judge (“CMJ”) to strike The Toronto Regional Real Estate Board’s (“TRREB”) Statement of Claim against IMS Incorporated and Leon Y. D’Acona (collectively, the “Defendants”).

This is a motion to set aside a default judgment for copyright infringement obtained by the Plaintiff, The Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (“TRREB”). TRREB developed the MLS (Multiple Listing Service System) accessed by real estate professionals and obtained judgment against the Defendants, who operated an online portal that provides services to the real estate industry.

In preparation for trial of the plaintiff’s claim under s. 8 of the PM(NOC) Regulations, the parties had attempted, but failed, to reach agreement on a confidentiality order. The plaintiff then brought a motion for the Court to grant its proposed confidentiality order (the “Proposed Confidentiality Order”).

This decision involves a motion to strike a Notice of Change and Appointment of Solicitor. The motion was brought in the context of a patent infringement action commenced by Farmobile LLC (“Farmobile”) against Farmers Edge Inc (“Farmers Edge”). During the course of that proceeding, two of Farmobile’s solicitors left their original firm and formed their own firm; Farmobile filed a document that purported to appoint the new firm as solicitor in addition to its previous firm.

John Norman, Alex Gloor, and Rebecca Styles for H. Lundbeck A/S and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. Inc.

Rogers Media Inc. et al v. John Doe 1 et al and Bell Canada et al 2021 CanLII 107613 (FC)

Canadian Standards Association v P.S. Knight Co Ltd, 2021 FC 1346

Merck Canada Inc v The Minister of Health, 2021 FCA 224

Kobold Corporation v. NCS Multistage Inc., 2021 FC 1247

ZNSI applied to register ZARA, based on use in Canada. Industria opposed based on its earlier filed application for ZARA HOME. Industria erroneously relied on section 16(3) of the old Trademarks Act, which applies to proposed use applications, instead of section 16(1), which applies to use based applications, as applicable in this case.