Orange County Choppers Design Properties LLC v. Orange County Choppers Inc.

Orange County Choppers Design Properties LLC v. Orange County Choppers Inc.

Questions 21, 24, 29 and 30 were held relevant to the issue of alleged bad faith and must be answered in writing under Rule 99(3) of the Federal Courts Rules; the document shown to the witness was created by counsel and is privileged and need not be produced; undertakings relating to distinctiveness need not be answered.

Citation
2007 FC 257
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim: Orange County Choppers Design Properties LLC; Defendant by Counterclaim: Orange County Choppers Inc.; Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Trio Selection Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Trade Mark / Motion in Writing for Determination of Examination for Discovery Questions (pre Trial Discovery)
Outcome
Motion partially allowed and otherwise dismissed; defendant largely successful and awarded costs.
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Validity, Distinctiveness, Bad Faith in Trade Mark Registration, Examination for Discovery, Solicitor Client Privilege
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Law Civil Procedure Evidence Privilege Discovery Trade Mark Validity Distinctiveness Bad Faith in Trade Mark Registration +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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Orange County Choppers Design Properties LLC

Plaintiff / Defendant by Counterclaim

Orange County Choppers Inc.

Defendant by Counterclaim

Trio Selection Inc.

Defendant / Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Trade Mark / Motion in Writing for Determination of Examination for Discovery Questions (pre Trial Discovery)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific discovery questions (nos. 21,24,29,30) are relevant and must be answered
  2. 2 Whether a document shown to the witness by counsel is privileged and must be produced
  3. 3 Whether undertakings relating to distinctiveness must be answered

Ratio Decidendi

Questions 21, 24, 29 and 30 were held relevant to the issue of alleged bad faith and must be answered in writing under Rule 99(3) of the Federal Courts Rules; the document shown to the witness was created by counsel and is privileged and need not be produced; undertakings relating to distinctiveness need not be answered.

Court Disposition

Motion partially allowed and otherwise dismissed; defendant largely successful and awarded costs.

Orders

  • Mr. Prizant shall answer questions 21, 24, 29 and 30 in writing under Rule 99(3) of the Federal Courts Rules
  • Mr. Prizant's affidavit answering those questions shall be served and filed on or before March 22, 2007