Active Images v. Nader

Active Images v. Nader

The Court refused to strike out the Defendant's statement of defence as the remedy was disproportionate; instead the Court allowed the Plaintiffs to pursue discovery at the Defendant's costs to test the sufficiency of the May 7, 2001 affidavit of documents and awarded costs of $1,000 to the Plaintiffs for the motion.

Citation
2001 FCT 1170
Parties
Plaintiff: ACTIVE IMAGES; Plaintiff: EMIGRE INC.; Plaintiff: FSI FONTS UND SOFTWARE GMBH; Plaintiff: THE HOEFLER TYPE FOUNDRY INC.; Plaintiff: INTERNATIONAL TYPE FOUNDERS, INC.; Plaintiff: JEFFERY C. GILLEN, d.b.a. MINDCANDY; Plaintiff: RODRIGO CAVAZOS d.b.a. PSY/OPS; Plaintiff: TREACYFACES INC.; Defendant: FRED NADER; Impleaded Third Party: MARK ANDRESEN; Impleaded Third Party: BOB AUFULDISH; Impleaded Third Party: JOAN BARJAU; Impleaded Third Party: JONATHAN BARNBROOK; Impleaded Third Party: JUAN DAVILA; Impleaded Third Party: ADELA DE BARA; Impleaded Third Party: BARRY DECK; Impleaded Third Party: JENNY DOLL; Impleaded Third Party: JOHN DOWNER; Impleaded Third Party: MARIO FELICIANO; Impleaded Third Party: EDWARD FELLA; Impleaded Third Party: TOMI HAAPARANTA; Impleaded Third Party: SIBYLLE HAGMANN; Impleaded Third Party: FRANK HEIN; Impleaded Third Party: JOHN HERSEY; Impleaded Third Party: JONATHAN HOEFLER; Impleaded Third Party: IMAGE CENTRE LIMITED; Impleaded Third Party: STEVE JACKAMAN; Impleaded Third Party: ENRIC JARDI; Impleaded Third Party: JEFFERY KEEDY; Impleaded Third Party: BRIAN KELLY; Impleaded Third Party: PHILIP KRAYNA; Impleaded Third Party: ALESSIO LEONARDI; Impleaded Third Party: ZUZANA LICKO; Impleaded Third Party: LAURIE MAKELA; Impleaded Third Party: CONOR MANGAT; Impleaded Third Party: NANCY MAZZEI; Impleaded Third Party: STEVE MEHALLO; Impleaded Third Party: LUIS MENDO; Impleaded Third Party: LAURA MESEGUER; Impleaded Third Party: STEPHAN MÜLLER; Impleaded Third Party: MILES NEWLYN; Impleaded Third Party: CLAUDIO PICCININI; Impleaded Third Party: JOHN ROSHELL; Impleaded Third Party: OLE SCHÄFER; Impleaded Third Party: EVAN SORNSTEIN; Impleaded Third Party: ERIK SPIEKERMANN; Impleaded Third Party: RICHARD STARKINGS; Impleaded Third Party: JOSEPH TREACY; Impleaded Third Party: JOSE MANUEL UROS; Impleaded Third Party: RUDY VANDERLANS; Impleaded Third Party: CORNEL WINDLIN
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil (copyright) / Motion Regarding Sufficiency of Affidavit of Documents; Reasons for Order
Outcome
Motion to strike out Defence dismissed; Plaintiffs permitted to pursue discovery at Defendant's costs; costs of the motion awarded to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,000.
Legal Topics
Affidavit of Documents, Striking Out Defence, Costs, Discovery, Undertakings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Copyright Affidavit of Documents Striking Out Defence Costs Discovery Undertakings

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ACTIVE IMAGES

Plaintiff

EMIGRE INC.

Plaintiff

FSI FONTS UND SOFTWARE GMBH

Plaintiff

THE HOEFLER TYPE FOUNDRY INC.

Plaintiff

INTERNATIONAL TYPE FOUNDERS, INC.

Plaintiff

JEFFERY C. GILLEN, d.b.a. MINDCANDY

Plaintiff

RODRIGO CAVAZOS d.b.a. PSY/OPS

Plaintiff

TREACYFACES INC.

Plaintiff

FRED NADER

Defendant

MARK ANDRESEN

Impleaded Third Party

BOB AUFULDISH

Impleaded Third Party

JOAN BARJAU

Impleaded Third Party

JONATHAN BARNBROOK

Impleaded Third Party

JUAN DAVILA

Impleaded Third Party

ADELA DE BARA

Impleaded Third Party

BARRY DECK

Impleaded Third Party

JENNY DOLL

Impleaded Third Party

JOHN DOWNER

Impleaded Third Party

MARIO FELICIANO

Impleaded Third Party

EDWARD FELLA

Impleaded Third Party

TOMI HAAPARANTA

Impleaded Third Party

SIBYLLE HAGMANN

Impleaded Third Party

FRANK HEIN

Impleaded Third Party

JOHN HERSEY

Impleaded Third Party

JONATHAN HOEFLER

Impleaded Third Party

IMAGE CENTRE LIMITED

Impleaded Third Party

STEVE JACKAMAN

Impleaded Third Party

ENRIC JARDI

Impleaded Third Party

JEFFERY KEEDY

Impleaded Third Party

BRIAN KELLY

Impleaded Third Party

PHILIP KRAYNA

Impleaded Third Party

ALESSIO LEONARDI

Impleaded Third Party

ZUZANA LICKO

Impleaded Third Party

LAURIE MAKELA

Impleaded Third Party

CONOR MANGAT

Impleaded Third Party

NANCY MAZZEI

Impleaded Third Party

STEVE MEHALLO

Impleaded Third Party

LUIS MENDO

Impleaded Third Party

LAURA MESEGUER

Impleaded Third Party

STEPHAN MÜLLER

Impleaded Third Party

MILES NEWLYN

Impleaded Third Party

CLAUDIO PICCININI

Impleaded Third Party

JOHN ROSHELL

Impleaded Third Party

OLE SCHÄFER

Impleaded Third Party

EVAN SORNSTEIN

Impleaded Third Party

ERIK SPIEKERMANN

Impleaded Third Party

RICHARD STARKINGS

Impleaded Third Party

JOSEPH TREACY

Impleaded Third Party

JOSE MANUEL UROS

Impleaded Third Party

RUDY VANDERLANS

Impleaded Third Party

CORNEL WINDLIN

Impleaded Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (copyright) / Motion Regarding Sufficiency of Affidavit of Documents; Reasons for Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's affidavit of documents dated May 7, 2001 is accurate and sufficient
  2. 2 Whether striking out the Defendant's statement of defence is appropriate
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to costs on a solicitor-client basis for alleged deficient affidavit

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to strike out the Defendant's statement of defence as the remedy was disproportionate; instead the Court allowed the Plaintiffs to pursue discovery at the Defendant's costs to test the sufficiency of the May 7, 2001 affidavit of documents and awarded costs of $1,000 to the Plaintiffs for the motion.

Court Disposition

Motion to strike out Defence dismissed; Plaintiffs permitted to pursue discovery at Defendant's costs; costs of the motion awarded to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,000.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs are granted the right to pursue discovery of the Defendant, at the Defendant's costs, to probe the sufficiency of the Defendant's affidavit of documents dated May 7, 2001 and to ask proper questions relating to undertakings per the Court's separate order dated October 29, 2001.
  • Costs of this motion in the amount of $1,000 are awarded to the Plaintiffs.