Federal Appeal

Industrial and Intellectual Property

No palpable and overriding error in judge’s discretionary decision to require delivery up of domain name

Plaintiffs brought trademark action. Federal Court Judge found plaintiffs established they were owners of trademarks and that defendants infringed marks. Plaintiffs were granted default judgment. Defendants appealed. Appeal dismissed. Exercise of discretion to proceed with merits of motion was reasonable. Defendants had ample notice of motion and on return of motion offered only draft statement of defence that was not filed and on which they indicated they would not rely. Corporate defendant did not retain counsel. There was no merit to argument that order was without jurisdiction. No palpable and overriding error was established in judge’s discretionary decision to require delivery up of domain name.

Michaels v. Michaels Stores Procument Co. (Mar. 15, 2016, F.C.A., Noël C.J., Stratas J.A., and Donald J. Rennie J.A., A-256-15) 264 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1019.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?