Remitbee Incorporated v. Remitly, Inc.

Remitbee Incorporated v. Remitly, Inc.

Motion to summarily dismiss denied because the issues (lawfulness of Remitbee's operations and whether third party use enured to Remitbee) are debatable, new evidence may be material and warrant de novo consideration under s.56(5), and Remitly failed to show the appeal is bereft of any possibility of success.

Citation
2024 FC 1211
Parties
Applicant/appellant (responding Party on Motion): Remitbee Incorporated; Respondent (moving Party on Motion): Remitly, Inc.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Trademark Appeal Under S.56 Trademarks Act / Motion for Summary Dismissal Under S.56 (oral Hearing Held)
Outcome
Motion denied; costs awarded to Remitbee Incorporated at the high end of Column V of Tariff B, plus reasonable disbursements, payable forthwith in any event of the cause.
Legal Topics
Use of Trademark, Registration, Bad Faith, FINTRAC / MSB Registration, Summary Dismissal, Admission of New Evidence on Appeal
Source Language
English
Trademark Law Intellectual Property Administrative Law Civil Procedure Use of Trademark Registration Bad Faith FINTRAC / MSB 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Remitbee Incorporated

Applicant/appellant (responding Party on Motion)

Remitly, Inc.

Respondent (moving Party on Motion)

Procedural Posture

Trademark Appeal Under S.56 Trademarks Act / Motion for Summary Dismissal Under S.56 (oral Hearing Held)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be summarily dismissed as doomed to fail under the Court's plenary powers
  2. 2 Whether Remitbee's alleged failure to register with FINTRAC as an MSB establishes illegality that defeats the appeal
  3. 3 Whether use of the mark by third party Thamor enures to Remitbee absent a licence

Ratio Decidendi

Motion to summarily dismiss denied because the issues (lawfulness of Remitbee's operations and whether third party use enured to Remitbee) are debatable, new evidence may be material and warrant de novo consideration under s.56(5), and Remitly failed to show the appeal is bereft of any possibility of success.

Court Disposition

Motion denied; costs awarded to Remitbee Incorporated at the high end of Column V of Tariff B, plus reasonable disbursements, payable forthwith in any event of the cause.

Orders

  • Motion by Remitly, Inc. for an order summarily dismissing the appeal brought by Remitbee Incorporated is denied.
  • Costs are awarded to Remitbee Incorporated at the high end of Column V of Tariff B, plus reasonable disbursements, payable forthwith in any event of the cause.