Bodum USA, Inc. v. Trudeau Corporation (1889) Inc.

Bodum USA, Inc. v. Trudeau Corporation (1889) Inc.

The defendant was the successful party on both the action and counterclaim; the dispute was not of exceptional complexity comparable to major pharmaceutical patent cases; the plaintiffs delayed abandoning an unfair competition claim which lengthened the trial; the defendant's Rule 420 offer was valid and relevant but the defendant's claimed legal fees and proposed multiplier were excessive; accordingly a lump sum award of $90,000 including disbursements and taxes was reasonable and proportionate and awarded to the defendant.

Citation
2013 FC 128
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: BODUM USA, INC.; Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: PI DESIGN AG.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: TRUDEAU CORPORATION (1889) INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Industrial Design and Unfair Competition (trade‑marks Act) / Post‑judgment Costs Determination (supplementary Reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
The plaintiffs shall pay the defendant a lump sum of $90,000 including disbursements and taxes.
Legal Topics
Infringement, Validity of Industrial Design, Costs, Rule 420 Offer to Settle, Substantial Originality, Expungement From Register
Source Language
English
Industrial Design Intellectual Property Trade‑marks Unfair Competition Civil Procedure Infringement Validity of Industrial Design Costs +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BODUM USA, INC.

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

PI DESIGN AG.

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

TRUDEAU CORPORATION (1889) INC.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Industrial Design and Unfair Competition (trade‑marks Act) / Post‑judgment Costs Determination (supplementary Reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trudeau products infringed the plaintiffs' industrial designs
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' industrial designs met the requirement of substantial originality and were valid
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's written offer under Rule 420 was valid and relevant to costs

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was the successful party on both the action and counterclaim; the dispute was not of exceptional complexity comparable to major pharmaceutical patent cases; the plaintiffs delayed abandoning an unfair competition claim which lengthened the trial; the defendant's Rule 420 offer was valid and relevant but the defendant's claimed legal fees and proposed multiplier were excessive; accordingly a lump sum award of $90,000 including disbursements and taxes was reasonable and proportionate and awarded to the defendant.

Court Disposition

The plaintiffs shall pay the defendant a lump sum of $90,000 including disbursements and taxes.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to pay defendant a lump sum of $90,000 including disbursements and taxes.