In 2012, Puma Se (“Puma”) filed a trademark application for “procat” in association with certain clothing items related to footwear and headgear (the “Application”).

In this case, the Applicant (Cheung’s Bakery) successfully expunged two of the Respondent’s (Easywin) trademarks registrations.

On March 21, 2023, the Federal Court of Canada issued its decision in Dermaspark Products Inc v Patel, 2023 FC 388.

Services Juridiques Samuel Cohen (“SJSC”) brought a motion to remove themselves as solicitors of record. The motion was uncontested by the Plaintiff, who sought only to include terms in the Order that provide for a fixed time by which the Plaintiff could bring a motion to strike the Statement of Defence.

In this matter, the trial Judge provided a costs decision after finding patent infringement against the Defendant, Agracity.

In this decision, made by the second costs’ Assessment Officer assigned to the matter, the fact pattern is somewhat unusual. The Plaintiff, Georgetown Rail Equipment Company, had initially been successful at trial. The Federal Court found “the patents were not invalid on the ground of obviousness” and went on to find that “Tetra’s sale of the system to CN Rail and its support of the system infringed both patents.”

This is a motion by Janssen in a PMNOC s. 8 case (damages) for the drug abiraterone acetate (ZYTIGA) to obtain productions from third parties to this action, namely other generic pharmaceutical plaintiffs in other s. 8 cases.

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.