3 total
Interlocutory injunction against documentary dissolved due to material non-disclosure and fair dealing defence.
The plaintiffs, creators of the cult film 'The Room', sought to extend an interlocutory injunction restraining the release of the defendants' documentary 'Room Full of Spoons'.
The defendants moved to dissolve the injunction, arguing material non-disclosure on the initial ex parte motion and failure to meet the test for an injunction.
The court dissolved the injunction, finding the plaintiffs failed to disclose material facts, including that the documentary's use of film excerpts likely constituted fair dealing.
The court also held that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured the defendants' right to freedom of expression.
Section 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act is constitutional, but purely functional designs cannot be trade-marks.
Kirkbi held patents for LEGO construction sets.
When the patents expired in Canada, Ritvik began manufacturing and selling interchangeable bricks.
Kirkbi claimed an unregistered trade-mark in the 'LEGO indicia' (the pattern of raised studs) and sued for passing off under s. 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act.
Ritvik challenged the constitutionality of s. 7(b).
The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 7(b) is intra vires Parliament as a valid exercise of the general trade and commerce power.
However, Kirkbi's passing-off claim was dismissed because the doctrine of functionality bars purely functional designs from being the basis of a trade-mark, whether registered or unregistered.
Motion for extension of time to file leave to appeal dismissed due to unexplained delay.
The applicants sought an extension of time to serve and file an application for leave to appeal from a Federal Court of Appeal judgment dismissing their appeal as moot.
The applicants missed the 60-day deadline and filed their application 106 days after the judgment, citing the need to consider recent Supreme Court decisions.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the motion, finding a lack of diligence and no valid reasons to explain the delay, emphasizing that time limits must be respected to ensure fairness to all parties.
