Bell Canada v. L3D Distributing Inc. (INL3D)

Bell Canada v. L3D Distributing Inc. (INL3D)

Because the Respondent Defendants were properly served and failed to defend, and plaintiffs' affidavit and documentary evidence established on the balance of probabilities that plaintiffs owned or exclusively licensed the works and that respondents selected, preconfigured, marketed, sold and supported pre-loaded devices and IPTV subscriptions that made plaintiffs' works available without authorization, the court found infringement, authorization and inducement under the Copyright Act, violations of the Radiocommunication Act, and awarded declarations, a permanent injunction, statutory and punitive damages and costs.

Citation
2021 FC 832
Parties
Plaintiff: Bell Canada; Plaintiff: Bell ExpressVU Limited Partnership; Plaintiff: Bell Media Inc.; Plaintiff: Vidéotron Ltd.; Plaintiff: Groupe TVA Inc.; Plaintiff: Rogers Communications Canada Inc.; Plaintiff: Rogers Media Inc.; Respondent Defendant: L3D Distributing Inc. dba INL3D; Respondent Defendant: Morcor Computers 2000 Ltd.; Respondent Defendant: Ottawa Tek Corporation dba Ottawa Tek Communications; Respondent Defendant: Raheel Rafiq; Non Respondent Defendant: Android Bros Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Copyright and Radiocommunication Act Litigation / Default Judgment (ex Parte) Granted
Outcome
Default judgment granted in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Respondent Defendants
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Statutory Damages, Injunction, Authorization of Infringement, Inducement Liability, Director Personal Liability, Pre Loaded Set Top Boxes, IPTV Piracy
Source Language
English
Copyright Radiocommunication Law Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Broadcasting Law Default Judgment Statutory Damages Injunction +5 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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bell Canada

Plaintiff

Bell ExpressVU Limited Partnership

Plaintiff

Bell Media Inc.

Plaintiff

Vidéotron Ltd.

Plaintiff

Groupe TVA Inc.

Plaintiff

Rogers Communications Canada Inc.

Plaintiff

Rogers Media Inc.

Plaintiff

L3D Distributing Inc. dba INL3D

Respondent Defendant

Morcor Computers 2000 Ltd.

Respondent Defendant

Ottawa Tek Corporation dba Ottawa Tek Communications

Respondent Defendant

Raheel Rafiq

Respondent Defendant

Android Bros Inc.

Non Respondent Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright and Radiocommunication Act Litigation / Default Judgment (ex Parte) Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the Respondent Defendants in default?
  2. 2 Does copyright subsist in the Plaintiffs' works and do the Plaintiffs hold or exercise those rights?
  3. 3 Have the Respondent Defendants infringed the Media Plaintiffs' copyright by communicating works to the public by telecommunication?

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Respondent Defendants were properly served and failed to defend, and plaintiffs' affidavit and documentary evidence established on the balance of probabilities that plaintiffs owned or exclusively licensed the works and that respondents selected, preconfigured, marketed, sold and supported pre-loaded devices and IPTV subscriptions that made plaintiffs' works available without authorization, the court found infringement, authorization and inducement under the Copyright Act, violations of the Radiocommunication Act, and awarded declarations, a permanent injunction, statutory and punitive damages and costs.

Court Disposition

Default judgment granted in favour of the Plaintiffs against the Respondent Defendants

Orders

  • Declarations that copyright subsists in Plaintiffs' cinematographic works listed in Annex A and that Plaintiffs hold exclusive Canadian rights to communicate those works by telecommunication
  • Declarations that Respondent Defendants infringed Plaintiffs' copyright by making works available via pre-loaded set-top boxes contrary to Copyright Act ss.2.4(1.1), 3(1)(f), 27(1)