Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20010501

Docket: T-823-99

Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 417

Ottawa, Ontario, this 1st day of May 2001

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PELLETIER

BETWEEN:

NINTENDO OF AMERICA INC. and

NINTENDO OF CANADA LTD.

Plaintiffs

and

JANE DOE and JOHN DOE and OTHER PERSONS,

NAMES UNKNOWN, WHO OFFER FOR SALE, SELL, IMPORT, MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTE, ADVERTISE, OR DEAL IN UNAUTHORIZED OR COUNTERFEIT POKÉMON MERCHANDISE, AND THOSE PERSONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE "A" TO THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Defendants

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

PELLETIER J.

[1]    On January 12, 2000, Mr. Daniel Ovadia and his team attended at 354 Spadina Avenue in Toronto and served an Anton Piller Order in favour of the plaintiffs upon the defendant. A copy of the Statement of Claim in this action was served at that time as well. No defence was filed to the Statement of Claim which resulted in the present motion for default judgment.


[2]    Schedule A to the Statement of Claim shows that the defendant, Phan May Tran, was added as a defendant twice, once in relation to a business carried on under the name of Diamond & Gold Company (defendant No. 144) and once in relation to a business carried on under the name Hop Bay (defendant No. 145).

[3]    The Solicitor's comments filed in support of the motion for judgment indicates that the two trade names were in relation to the same business. As a result, there was only one business engaged in counterfeiting. Consequently, there should only be liability for one judgment.

[4]    I have already granted judgment against Phan May Tran in her capacity as defendant No. 144. The claim against her in her capacity as defendant No. 145, Phan May Tran carrying on business as Hop Bay, is therefore dismissed.

ORDER

The motion for default judgment against defendant No. 145, Phan May Tran, carrying on business as Hop Bay, is hereby dismissed.

                                                                            "J.D. Denis Pelletier"          

                                                                                                   Judge                      

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.