UBS Group AG (UBS) sought default judgment in a trademark infringement action to enforce its UBS family of registered marks against a corporate defendant, Unified Business Solutions Group, as well as its directors. Unified Business Solutions Group was using a design that incorporated an abbreviated version of its name – UBS – in association with financial services.

In this Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) decision, the Appellant, Pyrrha Design Inc., (“Pyrrha”) brought a copyright infringement claim against the Respondent, Plum and Posey Inc. (“Plum and Posey”), arguing that the Respondent had infringed its designs of jewelry that resembled wax seal impressions.

In 2020, the Federal Court heard the trial of two patent infringement actions commenced under the PM(NOC) Regulations, concerning whether Pharmascience would infringe Teva’s two patents for COPAXONE 40 mg by entering the market with its generic version, GLATECT 40 mg.

The defendants are a group of companies, which together developed a system that provides the retransmission of television content, including TVA and TVA sports, in hotel rooms via a private network. In this action, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants infringed their copyright by broadcasting the TVA and TVA sports channels without their authorization.

iSpring filed an application to register APEC WATER for water treatment devices on April 23, 2015. It claimed a date of first use in Canada since August 4, 2012. Its application was advertised on September 21, 2016 and registered on April 26, 2017. On November 21, 2019, Advanced applied to register its trademark APEC WATER and learned of iSpring’s registration.

This was an appeal by the Defendants of a decision by case management judge (“CMJ”) Milczynski. The CMJ dismissed their motion to stay the Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement action in favour of arbitration in Bermuda. On appeal, the Court found that the CMJ erred in law, and granted the stay of proceedings.

Blyth Cowbells Brewing Inc. v. Bellwoods Brewery Inc., 2022 FC 248

Janssen Inc. v Pharmascience Inc., 2022 FC 62

This decision dealt with a motion brought by the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) to strike three affidavits filed by Galderma Canada Inc. (Galderma) in the context of a judicial review application brought by Galderma. The judicial review was in regards to a redetermination decision of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) relating to Galderma’s drug Differin.

This lengthy decision involved a patent dispute between PSET and Google in respect of a patent for online advertising entitled “management of advertising expenses in online media,” after a 15-day trial.