John H. Simpson

The plaintiff was wholly successful on an interim injunction motion and sought partial indemnity costs of $79,836.56.

The plaintiff argued costs should be awarded immediately as there might not be a trial, while the defendants argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court exercised its discretion to order costs in the cause, noting it is the preferable course for interlocutory injunctions, but allowed the parties to return for a costs determination if no trial is held within 18 months.

The court addressed three motions: the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, the plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the statement of defence and counterclaim, and the plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The court denied the plaintiff's request for an adjournment, finding a breach of diligence.

The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims, including those for defamation, domain name ownership, theft of trade secrets, corporate espionage, passing off, copyright, and trademark infringement.

The court found the plaintiff acted in bad faith regarding domain name registrations and meta-tag use.

The plaintiff's motions were dismissed.

Two companies providing online boating certification courses brought competing applications alleging breach of a settlement agreement that resolved prior trademark litigation.

One party alleged the other breached the agreement by using translated variations of prohibited trademark phrases in website metatags, while the other alleged breach through acceptance of prepaid vouchers issued by it.

The court held that the settlement agreement’s prohibition on using certain phrases extended to translations such as “boat exam” and “boating exam,” and ordered the respondent to cease using them.

However, the court found that a five‑day delay in ceasing to honour prepaid vouchers constituted performance within a reasonable time where the agreement specified no deadline.

Two companies providing online boating certification courses brought competing applications alleging breach of a settlement agreement that resolved prior trademark litigation.

One party alleged the other breached the agreement by using translated variations of prohibited trademark phrases in website metatags, while the other alleged breach through acceptance of prepaid vouchers issued by it.

The court held that the settlement agreement’s prohibition on using certain phrases extended to translations such as “boat exam” and “boating exam,” and ordered the respondent to cease using them.

However, the court found that a five‑day delay in ceasing to honour prepaid vouchers constituted performance within a reasonable time where the agreement specified no deadline.