Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency v. Business Depot Ltd.

Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency v. Business Depot Ltd.

The counterclaim was properly struck because, on the assumed facts, Access Copyright and Business Depot are not competitors within the ordinary meaning required by s.7(a), and section 7(a) must be confined to false or misleading statements about a claimant's trade-mark or other intellectual property; nothing that could be pleaded would overcome these defects, so the striking without leave to amend was warranted.

Citation
2008 FC 737
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright); Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: The Business Depot Ltd.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil: Copyright and Trade Marks Dispute / Appeal From Prothonotary Order Striking Counterclaim (motion to Strike); Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Prothonotary striking out the Counterclaim without leave to amend confirmed
Legal Topics
Motion to Strike Under Rule 221(1)(a), Section 7(a) Trade Marks Act, Competitor Requirement, Constitutional Reading Down, Injunctive Relief, Damages
Source Language
English
Copyright Trade Marks Civil Procedure Defamation Motion to Strike Under Rule 221(1)(a) Section 7(a) Trade Marks Act Competitor Requirement Constitutional Reading Down +2 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright)

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

The Business Depot Ltd.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil: Copyright and Trade Marks Dispute / Appeal From Prothonotary Order Striking Counterclaim (motion to Strike); Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the test to strike a pleading under Rule 221(1)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules?
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was a "competitor" of the plaintiff within the meaning of s.7(a) of the Trade-marks Act
  3. 3 Whether s.7(a) as constitutionally restricted extends to the impugned statements absent a relation to the claimant's intellectual property

Ratio Decidendi

The counterclaim was properly struck because, on the assumed facts, Access Copyright and Business Depot are not competitors within the ordinary meaning required by s.7(a), and section 7(a) must be confined to false or misleading statements about a claimant's trade-mark or other intellectual property; nothing that could be pleaded would overcome these defects, so the striking without leave to amend was warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Prothonotary striking out the Counterclaim without leave to amend confirmed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed
  • The decision of the Prothonotary striking out the Counterclaim of the defendant without leave to amend is confirmed