Scott Miller

The applicants sought an injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant in a settlement agreement arising from earlier patent litigation.

They alleged the respondent breached the covenant by inducing others in Canada to manufacture and sell the patented products outside Canada.

The court held the covenant unambiguously prohibited making, constructing, using, or selling the products in Canada, or inducing others to do those acts in Canada.

It rejected the broader interpretation that would prohibit inducing others in Canada to deal with the products anywhere in the world.

Finding no evidence that the products were made, used, or sold in Canada, the court concluded the respondent did not breach the agreement.

The appellant appealed a decision interpreting a settlement agreement between two internet-based boater accreditation businesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly interpreted the unambiguous wording of the agreement in accordance with sound commercial principles, particularly regarding the use of phrases to drive internet traffic.

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.

Masterpiece Inc. and Alavida Lifestyles Inc. both operate in the retirement residence industry.

Masterpiece Inc. used several unregistered trade-marks containing the word 'Masterpiece' in Alberta prior to Alavida applying to register 'Masterpiece Living' as a proposed trade-mark in Ontario.

Masterpiece Inc. applied to expunge Alavida's registration on the basis of confusion.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered the expungement of Alavida's trade-mark, holding that the location of use is irrelevant to the confusion analysis, that a proposed mark must be assessed based on all potential uses under the registration rather than actual use, and that the high cost of the services does not negate the likelihood of initial confusion.

The Court also cautioned against the unnecessary use of expert evidence in trade-mark confusion cases.