JURISDICTION REPORT: CANADA
COUNTERFEITERS BEWARE: CANADIAN COURT’S MESSAGE TO PURVEYORS OF ‘KNOCK OFFS’
Victoria Carrington Shapiro Cohen
In a case that is being hailed as the latest landmark decision in the recent trend of bringing counterfeiters to justice, the Federal Court of Canada (FC) awarded Louis Vuitton and Burberry the largest ever punitive damages award in a trademark counterfeiting and copyright case in Canada. Louis Vuitton has taken an aggressive approach to combating counterfeiting in Canada and globally over the last several years, and was also the party responsible for the previous record damages given in a Canadian counterfeiting case, when it was awarded over $900,000 in 2008.
Earlier in 2011 in Louis Vuitton Malletier SA et al v Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc et al, Mr Justice Russell ordered three Canadian companies to pay the plaintiffs a total of $2.5 million for activities the court characterised as “egregious”. According to the claim, the defendants were engaged in “large- scale, sophisticated manufacturing operations in China and were importing vast amounts of counterfeit products into Canada, with the intent of selling them nationwide in stores, at giſt shows and online”. Te plaintiffs’ case proceeded by way of a motion for summary judgment and was essentially undefended. Te court took note of the “significant time and resources” the plaintiffs were forced to expend in order to gather the evidence, which showed not only the wide scope of the infringing activities, but their continuation even aſter the action was started.
Te court commented that, in light of the evidence, the conclusions the plaintiffs asked the court to draw were “if anything, decidedly on the conservative side”. Te defendants’ minimal participation in the proceedings and repeated delay tactics also drew criticism from the judge, who noted that the defendants’ disrespectful disregard for the process of the court resulted in further unnecessarily increasing the plaintiffs’ costs.
Tis case represents a significant step forward for brand owners in their ongoing battle against a multi-billion dollar industry in Canada and around the world.
Domain name developments: Ontario Court of Appeal recognises domains as “personal property”
Tucows.com Co v Lojas Renner SA arose out of the filing of a UDRP complaint by Lojas Renner SA, a Brazilian department store chain, seeking the transfer of the domain name
renner.com from its Canadian registrant,
Tucows.com Co. Instead of responding to the complaint, Tucows turned to the Ontario court for declaratory relief, namely, confirmation that it had rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, that it had not registered the domain name in bad faith and that Renner was not entitled to the transfer of the domain name. Renner then brought a motion under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside the extra-territorial service of the Tucows’ statement of claim and to permanently stay the action for lack of jurisdiction. Renner was successful at first instance, as the motions judge agreed that service outside the province
www.worldipreview.com
without leave was restricted by the Ontario Rules to cases involving real or personal property and the domain name at issue was neither (i) “personal property” within the meaning of the Rules, nor (ii) located in Ontario, as it had no physical presence. Moreover, a “real and substantial connection” between the domain and Ontario was not established, thus the court had no jurisdiction.
Te Ontario Court of Appeal canvassed international jurisprudence in this area and reversed the decision, holding that a domain name, while intangible, is in fact personal property under the Rules. Noting that there is no definition for property in the Rules or common law, the court held that property must entail some exclusive right that is definable, capable of assumption by third parties and have some degree of permanence. Te “bundle of rights” acquired by a domain name registrant satisfies these criteria. Te court similarly had little trouble finding the requisite connection between the domain and Ontario to establish jurisdiction on the basis that this was the location of the registrant, the registrant (and the servers), which was important and relevant to the question of enforceability of the court’s order.
Dr Victoria E. Carrington is a partner at Shapiro Cohen. She can be contacted at:
vcarrington@shapirocohen.com
“THE COURT COMMENTED THAT THE CONCLUSIONS THE PLAINTIFFS ASKED THE COURT TO DRAW WERE ‘IF ANYTHING, DECIDEDLY ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE’.”
World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2011
69
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100