Ducks Lane Ltd. v. Outfront Media LLC

Ducks Lane Ltd. v. Outfront Media LLC

Adjournment refused because Curbex failed to establish exceptional and unforeseen circumstances: the delay stemmed from its own strategic choices (late retention of co-counsel and late decision to obtain expert evidence), the proposed expert evidence was speculative and not yet produced, and granting a lengthy adjournment would prejudice the defendants and the public interest in timely litigation; accordingly the motion was dismissed and costs awarded to the defendants.

Citation
2023 FC 645
Parties
Plaintiffs/defendants by Counterclaim: Ducks Lane Ltd.; Curbex Ltd.; 8314004 Canada Inc. (DBA Curbex Supply); 9003088 Canada Corp. (DBA Curbex Media); Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim: Outfront Media LLC; Outfront Media Canada GP Co.; Outfront Media Canada LP
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Trademark Infringement Action With Counterclaim / Pre Trial Motion to Adjourn Trial (rule 36) Prior to Scheduled Trial Date
Outcome
Motion dismissed; trial to proceed as scheduled; costs awarded to Defendants in amount fixed at $10,000.
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Expert Evidence, Reverse Confusion, Costs
Source Language
English
Trademark Law Civil Procedure Adjournment Expert Evidence Reverse Confusion Costs

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ducks Lane Ltd.; Curbex Ltd.; 8314004 Canada Inc. (DBA Curbex Supply); 9003088 Canada Corp. (DBA Curbex Media)

Plaintiffs/defendants by Counterclaim

Outfront Media LLC; Outfront Media Canada GP Co.; Outfront Media Canada LP

Defendants/plaintiffs by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Trademark Infringement Action With Counterclaim / Pre Trial Motion to Adjourn Trial (rule 36) Prior to Scheduled Trial Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial date should be adjourned under Rule 36(1) of the Federal Courts Rules
  2. 2 Whether exceptional and unforeseen circumstances justify an adjournment
  3. 3 Whether the proposed expert survey evidence justifies delay

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournment refused because Curbex failed to establish exceptional and unforeseen circumstances: the delay stemmed from its own strategic choices (late retention of co-counsel and late decision to obtain expert evidence), the proposed expert evidence was speculative and not yet produced, and granting a lengthy adjournment would prejudice the defendants and the public interest in timely litigation; accordingly the motion was dismissed and costs awarded to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; trial to proceed as scheduled; costs awarded to Defendants in amount fixed at $10,000.

Orders

  • The motion is dismissed and the trial of this matter shall proceed as currently scheduled.
  • Costs of the motion are awarded to the Defendants in an amount fixed at $10,000 in any event of the cause.