Pyrrha Design Inc. v. 623735 Saskatchewan Ltd.

Pyrrha Design Inc. v. 623735 Saskatchewan Ltd.

Because the jewellery items are 'designs' applied to useful articles, more than fifty were produced, and none of the exceptions in s.64(3) apply, subsection 64(2) of the Copyright Act removes the plaintiffs' right to pursue copyright infringement; the correct forum for protecting such designs is the Industrial Design Act, which was not pleaded, and therefore there is no genuine issue for trial — summary judgment dismissing the action is warranted.

Citation
2004 FC 423
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Pyrrha Design Inc.; Plaintiff/respondent: Wade Papin; Plaintiff/respondent: Danielle Wilmore; Defendant/applicant: 623735 Saskatchewan Ltd. carrying on business as SpareParts; Defendant/applicant: Daniel Mysak
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Copyright / Industrial Design; Intellectual Property Dispute / Motion for Summary Judgment (dismissal)
Outcome
Action dismissed on summary judgment for defendants; costs awarded to defendants
Legal Topics
Section 64 Copyright Act, Useful Article, Summary Judgment, Industrial Design Registration, Dual Protection
Source Language
English
Copyright Industrial Design Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Section 64 Copyright Act Useful Article Summary Judgment Industrial Design Registration +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pyrrha Design Inc.

Plaintiff/respondent

Wade Papin

Plaintiff/respondent

Danielle Wilmore

Plaintiff/respondent

623735 Saskatchewan Ltd. carrying on business as SpareParts

Defendant/applicant

Daniel Mysak

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Copyright / Industrial Design; Intellectual Property Dispute / Motion for Summary Judgment (dismissal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether subsection 64(2) of the Copyright Act bars the plaintiffs' copyright claim
  2. 2 Whether the jewellery designs are 'designs' and 'useful articles' within the meaning of the Acts
  3. 3 Whether more than fifty articles were reproduced so that s.64(2) applies

Ratio Decidendi

Because the jewellery items are 'designs' applied to useful articles, more than fifty were produced, and none of the exceptions in s.64(3) apply, subsection 64(2) of the Copyright Act removes the plaintiffs' right to pursue copyright infringement; the correct forum for protecting such designs is the Industrial Design Act, which was not pleaded, and therefore there is no genuine issue for trial — summary judgment dismissing the action is warranted.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed on summary judgment for defendants; costs awarded to defendants

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted dismissing the plaintiffs' action
  • Action dismissed