Vinod Chopra Films Private Ltd. et al. v. John Doe et al., (2010) 367 F.T.R. 10 (FC)

• Judge: Hughes, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 07, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2010), 367 F.T.R. 10 (FC);2010 FC 387

Vinod Chopra Films v. John Doe (2010), 367 F.T.R. 10 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.013

Vinod Chopra Films Private Limited and Reliance Mediaworks (USA) Inc. (plaintiffs) v. John Doe and Jane Doe and Other Persons, Names Unknown, Who Deal in Counterfeit Video Recordings, and Other Persons Listed in Schedule "A" to the Statement of Claim (defendants)

(T-91-10; 2010 FC 387)

Indexed As: Vinod Chopra Films Private Ltd. et al. v. John Doe et al.

Federal Court

Hughes, J.

April 12, 2010.

Summary:

The plaintiff Vinod Chopra Films Private Ltd. was an Indian company and owner of copyright in a motion picture film entitled "3 Idiots" . The other plaintiff, Reliance Mediaworks (USA) Inc., was a licensee under the copyright with rights to exploit the work in Canada. The plaintiffs brought an action against unknown defendants and obtained an ex parte "rolling" Anton Pillar order. Several of the parties named as defendants sought a review of the order.

The Federal Court set aside the order, granted those defendants their costs reasonably incurred on a full indemnity basis and ordered that the action against them be dismissed.

Practice - Topic 3378.9

Interim proceedings - Preservation of property - Anton Piller Order - General - The Federal Court discussed Anton Piller Orders and "rolling "Anton Piller Orders - See paragraphs 5 to 27.

Practice - Topic 3379.3

Interim proceedings - Preservation of property - Anton Piller Order - Setting aside - The plaintiff Vinod Chopra Films Private Ltd. was an Indian company and owner of copyright in a motion picture film entitled "3 Idiots" - The other plaintiff, Reliance Mediaworks (USA) Inc., was a licensee under the copyright with rights to exploit the work in Canada - The plaintiffs brought an action against unknown defendants and obtained an ex parte "rolling" Anton Pillar order - Several of the parties named as defendants sought a review of the order - The Federal Court set aside the order and ordered that the action against them be dismissed - There was insufficient evidence as to "serious damage" and no proper proof that the defendants would be likely to hide or destroy relevant documents or things - Further, since many potential defendants were known prior to the institution of the action, there was improper use of the "John Doe" process - An Anton Piller order had to be considered as an exceptional remedy to be used with caution and respect - It should not be considered as routine where so many other remedies and procedures were available, notably under the Copyright Act - Given the manner in which the ex parte order was obtained, including the insufficient, careless and misleading evidence, it was appropriate to award the defendants their reasonable costs on a full indemnity basis - See paragraphs 28 to 61.

Practice - Topic 7454

Costs - Solicitor and client costs - Entitlement to solicitor and client costs - Improper, irresponsible or unconscionable conduct - [See Practice - Topic 3379.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition Corp. et al., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 189; 352 N.R. 1; 215 O.A.C. 266; 2006 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 6].

Anton Piller K.G. v. Manufacturing Process Ltd., [1976] Ch. 55, refd to. [para. 7].

Club Monaco Inc. v. Woody World Discounts et al., [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 805; 2 C.P.R.(4th) 436 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 10].

Viacom Ha! Holding Co. et al. v. Jane Doe et al. (2000), 187 F.T.R. 305; 6 C.P.R.(4th) 36 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Adobe Systems Inc. et al. v. KLJ Computer Solutions Inc. et al., [1999] 3 F.C. 621; 166 F.T.R. 184 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 18].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rodgers et al., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. N85; 57 C.P.C.(6th) 312 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Netbored Inc. v. Avery Holdings Inc. et al., [2005] F.T.R. Uned. B02; 2005 FC 1405, refd to. [para. 24].

Chum Ltd. et al. v. Stempowicz et al. (2003), 236 F.T.R. 215; 2003 FCT 800, refd to. [para. 40].

Citifinancial Services of Canada v. 1472354 Ontario Inc., 2003 CarswellOnt 507 (Sup. Ct. Master), refd to. [para. 42].

Belmonte et al. v. Longshoremen's Union CUPE Local 375 et al., [2004] N.R. Uned. 202; 2004 FCA 141, refd to. [para. 43].

Brochner v. MacDonald et al. (1987), 83 A.R. 117; 56 Alta. L.R.(2d) 72; 22 C.P.C.(2d) 4 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 55].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Berryman, Jeff, Recent Developments in Anton Piller Orders, in Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre, Working Paper No. 4 (2001), pp. 2 [para. 12]; 13, 14, 15 [para. 13].

Bryant, Alan W., Lederman, Sidney N., and Fuerst, Michelle K., Sopinka, Lederman & Bryant: The Law of Evidence in Canada (3rd Ed. 2009), para. 6.437 [para. 21].

Counsel:

Georgina Starkman Danzig and Thomas M. Slahta, for the plaintiffs;

Kevin D. Toyne, for the defendants, 1557768 Ontario Inc. o/a Golumbia Video, Arangesan Paramsothy, 1691731 Ontario Inc. o/a Bollywood 4 U, Abulsama Jibhai, 2148409 Ontario Inc. o/a Video Station, Kulwant Kaur Singh, 215151872 Ontario Inc. o/a Singh Video Station, Mohan Singh, 2031221 Ontario Inc. o/a Old Karachi Bazar;

Simon Schneiderman, for the defendants, Royal Paan Inc., Neerad Upadhyay;

Sharanjit Padda, for the defendants, Anmol Records Inc., Rajesh Syal, 2122308 Ontario Inc. o/a Albion Audio & Video, Kulbir Singh Mokha.

Solicitors of Record:

Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus, LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiffs;

Brauti Thorning Zibarraas, LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendants, 1557768 Ontario Inc. o/a Golumbia Video, Arangesan Paramsothy, 1691731 Ontario Inc. o/a Bollywood 4 U, Abulsama Jibhai, 2148409 Ontario Inc. o/a Video Station, Kulwant Kaur Singh, 215151872 Ontario Inc. o/a Singh Video Station, Mohan Singh;

Simon Schneiderman, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendants, Royal Paan Inc., Neerad Upadhyay;

Padda Law Office, Brampton, Ontario, for the defendants, Anmol Records Inc., Rajesh Syal, 2122308 Ontario Inc. o/a Albion Audio & Video, Kulbir Singh Mokha.

This matter was heard on April 7, 2010, at Toronto, Ontario, by Hughes, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following order on April 12, 2010.