Canadian Supplement Trademark Ltd. v. Petrillo, (2010) 370 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

• Judge: Mosley, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 29, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2010), 370 F.T.R. 1 (FC);2010 FC 421

Cdn. Supplement TM Ltd. v. Petrillo (2010), 370 F.T.R. 1 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.019

Canadian Supplement Trademark Ltd. (applicant) v. M. Frank Petrillo (respondent)

(T-887-08; 2010 FC 421)

Indexed As: Canadian Supplement Trademark Ltd. v. Petrillo

Federal Court

Mosley, J.

April 19, 2010.

Summary:

Canadian Supplement Trademark Ltd. (CSTL) applied to expunge Petrillo's registered trademark. Petrillo brought an action for trademark infringement against CSTL, which was stayed until determination of the expungement application. CSTL contended that Petrillo's evidence regarding the date of first use of the trademark was inconsistent with that given in the infringement action and other proceedings and that the interests of justice would be best served by having Petrillo cross-examined before a judge, who would then be in a position to assess his demeanour and weigh the evidence. CSTL offered three options for the presentation of viva voce evidence: i) conversion of the application to an action; ii) a trial on the issue of Petrillo's credibility; or, iii) allowing viva voce evidence in the context of the expungement application.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court held that none of those vehicles were available to CSTL. CSTL appealed from the Prothonotary's refusal to order that Petrillo testify.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 3087

Applications and motions - Applications - Evidence on applications - [See Practice - Topic 5209 ].

Practice - Topic 5209

Trials - General - Trial of issues directed by court - Canadian Supplement Trademark Ltd. (CSTL) applied to expunge Petrillo's registered trademark - Petrillo brought an action for trademark infringement against CSTL, which was stayed until determination of the expungement application - CSTL contended that Petrillo's evidence regarding the date of first use of the trademark was inconsistent with that given in the infringement action and other proceedings and that the interests of justice would be best served by having Petrillo cross-examined before a judge, who would then be in a position to assess his demeanour and weigh the evidence - CSTL proposed, inter alia, that there be a trial on the issue of Petrillo's credibility or that viva voce evidence be allowed in the context of the expungement application - A Prothonotary held that a trial of an issue under rule 107 of the Federal Courts Rules was not available outside the context of an action - She also held that viva voce evidence should not be permitted in the context of the expungement application pursuant to rule 316 as CSTL had not made out the "special circumstances" required by that rule - CSTL appealed - The Federal Court dismissed the appeal.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 890

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Evidence and proof - [See Practice - Topic 5209 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 4406

Trademarks - Practice - Evidence - General - [See Practice - Topic 5209 ].

Cases Noticed:

MacInnis v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [1994] 2 F.C. 464; 166 N.R. 57 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].

Canadian Private Copying Collective v. Fuzion Technology Corp. et al., [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 928; 47 C.P.R.(4th) 265; 2005 FC 1557, refd to. [para. 5].

Misquadis et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 110; 2000 CanLII 16230 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc., [2004] 2 F.C.R. 459; 315 N.R. 175 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Havana House Cigar and Tobacco Merchants Ltd. v. Worldwide Tobacco Distribution Inc. (2008), 73 C.P.R.(4th) 131 (F.C.), dist. [para. 14].

Kraft Canada Inc. v. Euro Excellence Inc. (2007), 365 N.R. 332; 2007 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 15].

Illva Saronno S.p.A. v. Privilegiata fabbrica maraschino Excelsior Girolamo Luxardo S.p.A. et al., [1999] 1 F.C. 146; 157 F.T.R. 217 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 17].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Brantford Chemicals Inc. (2004), 262 F.T.R. 147; 2004 FC 1400, refd to. [para. 17].

Apple Computer Inc. et al. v. Mackintosh Computers Ltd. et al. (No. 2), [1988] 3 F.C. 277; 91 N.R. 154 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. et al. (2009), 346 F.T.R. 78; 2009 FC 320, refd to. [para. 20].

Holland v. Canada (Attorney General), [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 860; 93 A.C.W.S.(3d) 403 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Glaxo Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare) and Apotex Inc. et al. (No. 4) (1987), 11 F.T.R. 132; 15 C.P.R.(3d) 482 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Edgar v. Kitasoo Indian Band Council (2003), 236 F.T.R. 314; 2003 FCT 815, refd to. [para. 24].

Condo v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 474; 2004 FC 885, refd to. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Courts Rules, rule 107 [para. 5]; rule 316 [para. 7].

Counsel:

Andrew Shaughnessy and Stephanie Chong, for the applicant;

Frederick Pinto, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Torys, LLP, Toronto, Ontario, and Tabrizi Law Office, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Frederick Pinto, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 29, 2010, at Toronto, Ontario, before Mosley, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on April 19, 2010.