The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1) to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim, specifically targeting claims against defendant Tyulenyev, the claim for passing off, and the claim for unlawful interference with economic relations.
The court applied the "plain and obvious" test, finding that sufficient material facts were pleaded to support the claims against Tyulenyev, including personal liability for copyright infringement despite not being a directing mind of the corporation.
Regarding the passing off claim, the court acknowledged its novelty in recognizing the "style and content" of reports as a "get-up" but held that novelty alone is not a basis to strike a claim if material facts are pleaded and there is a reasonable prospect of success.
For the unlawful interference claim, the court found that an intention to injure could be inferred from the pleaded facts and that the "public" relying on the plaintiff's reports was sufficiently identified as a third party.
Consequently, the motion to strike was dismissed in its entirety.
