Nike International Ltd. v. Rebellion Inc.

Nike International Ltd. v. Rebellion Inc.

The court ordered that most of the plaintiffs' discovery questions be answered (with narrowly specified exceptions), replaced Rebellion's designated representative (Geisler) with a more knowledgeable officer (Kevin Woods or Buzzy Deschamps), and required Rebellion and Crow to produce separate, focused affidavits of documents addressing specified categories (indicating when categories are unavailable). The court applied the Reading & Bates relevance and balancing tests, Benisti factors for witness substitution, and Rule 227(b) for affidavits. Costs were awarded to Bauer (per Tariff B columns as specified).

Citation
2009 FC 785
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: NIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD.; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: NIKE BAUER HOCKEY INC.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: REBELLION INC.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: REBELLION CANADA LTD.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: CROW BLADE LLC
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Trademark Infringement; Civil Proceeding / Motions to Decide Objections and Discovery (pre Trial)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' motion granted in part; defendants' motion dismissed in part; replacement of Rebellion's representative ordered; separate affidavits of documents ordered; costs awarded to plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Distinctiveness and Functionality, Affidavit of Documents, Examination for Discovery, Replacement of Representative, Costs
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Trademark Law Civil Procedure Evidence Discovery Trade Mark Infringement Distinctiveness and Functionality Affidavit of Documents +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 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

NIKE BAUER HOCKEY INC.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

REBELLION INC.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

REBELLION CANADA LTD.

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

CROW BLADE LLC

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Trademark Infringement; Civil Proceeding / Motions to Decide Objections and Discovery (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants must answer specified discovery questions listed in plaintiffs' table
  2. 2 Whether Rebellion's representative in discovery should be replaced
  3. 3 Whether defendants must each produce separate and more complete affidavits of documents

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered that most of the plaintiffs' discovery questions be answered (with narrowly specified exceptions), replaced Rebellion's designated representative (Geisler) with a more knowledgeable officer (Kevin Woods or Buzzy Deschamps), and required Rebellion and Crow to produce separate, focused affidavits of documents addressing specified categories (indicating when categories are unavailable). The court applied the Reading & Bates relevance and balancing tests, Benisti factors for witness substitution, and Rule 227(b) for affidavits. Costs were awarded to Bauer (per Tariff B columns as specified).

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' motion granted in part; defendants' motion dismissed in part; replacement of Rebellion's representative ordered; separate affidavits of documents ordered; costs awarded to plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Defendants must answer all questions listed in the plaintiffs' joint table except U-5, U-6, U-7, U-12 and U-13
  • Questions U-14 to U-19 and U-25 to U-33 must be answered as specified in the plaintiffs' table (double-line indicated items)