Stiga Aktiebolag and Noma Outdoor Products Inc. v. S.L.M. Canada Inc., (1991) 43 F.T.R. 221 (TD)

• Judge: Dubé, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 14, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 43 F.T.R. 221 (TD)

Stiga Aktiebolag v. SLM Can. Inc. (1991), 43 F.T.R. 221 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Stiga Aktiebolag and Noma Outdoor Products Inc. (plaintiffs) v. S.L.M. Canada Inc. (defendant)

(T-2698-87)

Indexed As: Stiga Aktiebolag and Noma Outdoor Products Inc. v. S.L.M. Canada Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Dubé, J.

March 5, 1991.

Summary:

Stiga and Noma sued S.L.M., alleging patent and trademark infringement (T-2698-87). S.L.M. commenced a separate action against Stiga, seeking a declaration that the patent in question was invalid and S.L.M. was not infringing the patent (T-2109-87). The actions were joined for trial.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed S.L.M.'s action (T-2109-87). The court also dismissed Stiga's and Noma's trademark infringement action, but allowed their action for patent infringement (T-2698-87). Subsequently a motion was made seeking directions respecting costs in the two actions.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, gave directions accordingly.

Practice - Topic 7061

Costs - Party and party costs - Counsel fees - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "by their very nature, patent and trademark actions generate extensive work both in the preparation for and in the conduct of the trial. However, the volume of work and the inherent com­plexity of the issues involved in these actions do not automatically warrant an increase in the prescribed amounts under the tariff" - See paragraph 10 - In the patent and trademark case at bar the court however allowed reasonable increases over certain amounts in the tariff and issued directions to the taxing officer accordingly - See paragraphs 11 to 19.

Cases Noticed:

A/S Ornen v. The "Duteous", 4 A.C.W.S.(3d) 91, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 1].

Thakore v. Canada (No. 2) (1989), 23 F.T.R. 212, refd to. [para. 12, footnote 2].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, rule 344(3) [paras. 7, 8]; rule 344(6), rule 344(7) [para. 1].

Counsel:

B. Edmonds, and I. Goldsmith, Q.C., for the plaintiffs;

G. Poulin, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiffs;

Adessky Poulin, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendant.

This case was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on January 14, 1991, before, Dubé, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on March 5, 1991.