Sun Media Corp. v. Duproprio Inc. et al., 2012 FC 1028

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: August 27, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2012 FC 1028;(2012), 417 F.T.R. 143 (FC)

Sun Media Corp. v. Duproprio Inc. (2012), 417 F.T.R. 143 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.004

Corporation Sun Media (demanderesse) v. Duproprio Inc. et 9059-2114 Québec Inc. (défenderesses)

(T-1536-12; 2012 CF 1028; 2012 FC 1028)

Indexed As: Sun Media Corp. v. Duproprio Inc. et al.

Federal Court

Morneau, Prothonotary

August 29, 2012.

Summary:

The plaintiff sought declarations to the effect that its use of the trade-marks, VIA PROPRIO, VIA PROPRIO DESIGN and of the domain name, VIAPROPRIO.CA, was not contrary to the Trade-marks Act, given the rights held by the defendants. Asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, the defendants moved to strike the claim as disclosing no cause of action.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court denied the motion.

Courts - Topic 4048

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Trademarks - The plaintiff sought declarations to the effect that its use of the trade-marks, VIA PROPRIO, VIA PROPRIO DESIGN and of the domain name, VIAPROPRIO.CA, was not contrary to the Trade-marks Act, given the rights held by the defendants - Asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought because the Trade-marks Act did not contain any express provision that would bring the matter within the court's statutory jurisdiction, the defendants moved to strike the claim as disclosing no cause of action - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court denied the motion - Under s. 3 of the Act, a trademark was deemed to have been adopted by a person when that person filed an application for its registration - The plaintiff had filed an application to register the trademark, VIA PROPRIO - Regardless of their scope or number, rights under the Act very likely came to play through such a filing - Under s. 55, the court had jurisdiction to "entertain any action or proceeding for the enforcement of ... any right or remedy conferred" by the Act - Under s. 20(2), the court had "concurrent jurisdiction in all cases, other than those mentioned in subsection (1), in which a remedy is sought under the authority of an Act of Parliament or at law or in equity respecting any patent of invention, copyright, trade-mark, industrial design or topography referred to in paragraph (1)(a)" - Reading these provisions together, it was not "plain and obvious" that the court lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff's action.

Courts - Topic 4073

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Federal Court - Practice - Striking out pleadings - [See Courts - Topic 4048 ].

Practice - Topic 2241

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Lack of jurisdiction (incl. alternative remedy) - [See Courts - Topic 4048 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 4402

Trademarks - Practice - Pleadings - [See Courts - Topic 4048 ].

Cases Noticed:

Peak Innovations Inc. v. Meadowland Flowers Ltd., [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 412; 2009 FC 661, refd to. [para. 4].

Radio Corp. of America v. Philco Corp. (Delaware), [1966] S.C.R. 296, refd to. [para. 5].

Kotacka v. Cellcor Corp. of Canada Ltd., Plastistarch Corp. and Hughes (1976), 14 N.R. 204; 27 C.P.R.(2d) 68 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Liberty Net et al., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 626; 224 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 19].

Royal Doulton Tableware Ltd. v. Cassidy's Ltd./Cassidy's Ltée (1984), 1 C.P.R.(3d) 214 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Sullivan Entertainment Inc. v. Anne of Green Gables Licensing Authority Inc. et al. (2000), 195 F.T.R. 199; 9 C.P.R.(4th) 344 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Philip Morris Products S.A. et al. v. Marlboro Canada Ltd. et al. (2010), 374 F.T.R. 213; 2010 FC 1099, revd. (2012), 434 N.R. 207; 2012 FCA 201, refd to. [para. 24].

Hodgson et al. v. Ermineskin Indian Band et al. (2000), 180 F.T.R. 285 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 267 N.R. 143 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 3 [para. 18]; sect. 20(2) [para. 6]; sect. 55 [para. 16].

Counsel:

François Guay, for the plaintiff;

François Grenier, for the defendants.

Solicitors of Record:

Smart & Biggar, Montreal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

Robic LLP, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendants.

This motion was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on August 27, 2012, by Morneau, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court, who delivered the following order on August 29, 2012.