Fieldturf (IP) Inc. v. Installations Sportives Defargo Inc.

Fieldturf (IP) Inc. v. Installations Sportives Defargo Inc.

Because the technical characteristics of the three lots in this action differ from those in docket T-491-04, the Court concluded the present action could not be struck out or stayed on that ground; accordingly the defendant's motion to dismiss or stay was dismissed, with costs, but the defendant was granted an extension until May 27, 2005 to serve and file its defence.

Citation
2005 FC 577
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): FIELDTURF (IP) INC.; Defendant (moving Party): LES INSTALLATIONS SPORTIVES DEFARGO INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation Motion to Dismiss or Stay (alternative Extension of Time) / Motion Decided (reasons for Order)
Outcome
Motion dismissed; costs in the cause; defendant granted extension to serve and file defence until May 27, 2005.
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Dismissal, Extension of Time, Consolidation, Declaratory Relief
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Stay of Proceedings Dismissal Extension of Time Consolidation Declaratory Relief

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FIELDTURF (IP) INC.

Plaintiff (respondent)

LES INSTALLATIONS SPORTIVES DEFARGO INC.

Defendant (moving Party)

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation Motion to Dismiss or Stay (alternative Extension of Time) / Motion Decided (reasons for Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action should be dismissed or stayed because of the existence of a related docket (T-491-04)
  2. 2 Whether the defendant should be granted an extension of time to serve and file its defence

Ratio Decidendi

Because the technical characteristics of the three lots in this action differ from those in docket T-491-04, the Court concluded the present action could not be struck out or stayed on that ground; accordingly the defendant's motion to dismiss or stay was dismissed, with costs, but the defendant was granted an extension until May 27, 2005 to serve and file its defence.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; costs in the cause; defendant granted extension to serve and file defence until May 27, 2005.

Orders

  • Motion by the defendant to dismiss the action or stay the proceeding is dismissed.
  • Costs: in the cause.