Advanced Search

Diageo Canada Inc. v. Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc. - 2017 FC 571 - 2017-06-12

[3] An Order dated July 16, 2015, to bifurcate the liability and damages aspects of this action [the Bifurcation Order] was issued prior to commencement of the trial, so these reasons deal only with the Liability Issues as defined and stated in the Bifurcation Order.   [...]  c) faire passer d’autres produits ou services pour ceux qui sont commandés ou demandés;   [...]  ...you must deal with the ordinary man and woman who would take ordinary care in purchasing what goods they require, and, if desiring a particular brand, would take ordinary precautions to see that they get it.

Wenzel Downhole Tools Ltd. v. National-Oilwell Canada Ltd. - 2011 FC 1323 - 2011-11-29

In the section of these Reasons dealing with obviousness (beginning at paragraph 147), I discuss the differences between a core barrel (as presented by the Defendants) and the '630 Patent bearing assembly.   [...]  [102] This conclusion is supported by Mr. Thicke’s testimony that it would be fairly straightforward to turn the 3103 assembly into the '630 Patent by flattening the shoulders.   [...]  In cross-examination, Mr. Nelson stated that the '630 design could accept a “fairly large radial load”.

Robinson v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2019 FC 876 - 2019-06-28

[23] Several preliminary matters must be addressed before dealing with the main issue in dispute in Mr. Robinson’s motion.   [...]  [101] The AGC’s response to Mr. Robinson’s allegations of harm is fairly succinct and generic.   [...]  The just and equitable resolution of his motion also requires that Mr. Robinson uses all the options at his disposal to ensure that this matter proceeds in a fair, expeditious and efficient manner.

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Canada (Health) - 2016 FC 857 - 2016-08-23

I consider Apotex’s objections neither fair nor accurate. First, Gilead management was comprised of accomplished scientists.   [...]  [86] Because I find there was no disclosure of tenofovir disoproxil in the EP 214 application, I need not deal with enablement.   [...]  The courts, however, have long held that the minimum requirements for utility under the Act are fairly forgiving.

Bear v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2001 FCT 1192 - 2001-11-01

Minister Benson also opined that it would be "very dangerous to move from determination of income as it is under the Income Tax Act", noting that "it has taken a good deal of time and jurisprudence to determine what is income under that Act." He then stated:   [...]  There are only two provisions in the Bill of Rights which are not duplicated by the Charter: subsection 1(a), the due process clause, and subsection 2(e), the guarantee of a fair hearing for the determination of rights and obligations.   [...]  The subject is a fair hearing. The Bill liveth. There is nothing particularly relevant to Ms. Bear's case in Prof.

AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex inc. - 2014 FC 638 - 2014-07-02

You don't have separate sections dealing with the promise of claims 9 to 24 or the promise of claims 25 to 29.   [...]  While new uses can be of tremendous importance (see AZT), such seemingly sparse patents would fairly raise concerns for the court when evaluating the bargain between innovators and the public.   [...]  He has large clinical practice dealing with more complex gastro oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) cases.

Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited - 2011 FC 1288 - 2011-11-10

As he said, “the problem in dealing with very small samples is there is no fair way to do it; there [are] just different ways of skewing it” (Transcript, Vol 11-AM, pp 153-4, lines 25, 1-2).   [...]  • olanzapine’s therapeutic effect appeared at fairly low doses, but not lower than flumezapine’s;   [...]  [245] There was early evidence showing that olanzapine’s prolactin liability was fairly low.

Quality Program Services Inc. v. Canada - 2018 FC 971 - 2018-10-04

(2) L’emploi d’une marque de commerce crée de la confusion avec une autre marque de commerce lorsque l’emploi des deux marques de commerce dans la même région serait susceptible de faire conclure que les produits liés à ces marques de commerce sont fabriqués, vendus, donnés à bail ou loués, ou que les services liés à ces   [...]  Section 6(3) deals with trade-mark confusion with a trade-name and 6(4) with trade-name confusion with a trade-mark.

Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (National Defence) - 2014 FC 205 - 2014-03-03

[39] The applicant also submits that the application raises issues of statutory interpretation which are appropriate for the Court to deal with.   [...]  [...] 4. (2.1) Le responsable de l’institution fédérale fait tous les efforts raisonnables, sans égard à l’identité de la personne qui fait ou s’apprête à faire une demande, pour lui prêter toute l’assistance indiquée, donner suite à sa demande de façon précise et complète et, sous réserve des règlements, lui communiquer le

Huard v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2007 FC 195 - 2007-02-20

Counsel for the applicant submitted a copy to this Court together with another article co‑signed by Dr. Cameron dealing with psychic driving, which had already been published in 1958 ("Effect of Repeated Verbal Stimulation upon a Flexor‑Extensor Relationship").   [...]   before making a final decision, that the applicant's complete medical record was provided by the hospital and that, if a complete record was not obtained, explanations were at least sought from the hospital, which does not appear to have been the case here (and this would be contrary to a rule of procedural fairness).

Mahjoub (Re) - 2013 FC 1092 - 2013-10-25

[85] ... we accept that a fair, large and liberal interpretation in accordance with international norms must be accorded to “danger to the security of Canada” in deportation legislation.   [...]  ... [89] ...while “danger to the security of Canada” must be given a fair, large and liberal interpretation, it nevertheless demands proof of a potentially serious threat.   [...]  I have invested your amount in a (business) deal which according to my previous calculations should have brought a gain of around 20%.

Truehope Nutritional Support Limited v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2013 FC 1153 - 2013-11-13

In Sam (supra), Métis National Council (supra) and Cockerill (supra), it was held that Item 10 may be allowed for CMCs dealing with the scheduling of motions.   [...]  Both Mr. Shaw and Ms. Oltean prepared and presented argument at the hearing of the judicial review equally, with Ms Oltean dealing primarily with the evidentiary issues and Mr. Shaw addressing the substantive Charter issues.   [...]  Counsel’s final submissions concerning travel are found at paragraphs 156 to 158 of the Applicants’ Memorandum and relate to a change fee for air fair on November 27, 2009 which counsel argues is not justified, a charge for airfare which they argue should have been split with another file and long distance charges for

Promotion In Motion, Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC - 2024 FC 556 - 2024-04-09

Since they were not, it is fair to say on Hershey’s concession that the Brigley Affidavit is unnecessary and similarly immaterial.   [...]  [59] However, in my view, the Opponent’s evidence demonstrates that with respect to chocolate specifically, the trademark KISSES has acquired a fairly substantial degree of distinctiveness in Canada through extensive sales and advertising over decades.   [...]  It was fair for the Board to conclude that SWISS was clearly descriptive of a geographical location known for its chocolate, was not inherently distinctive of PIM’s chocolates of Swiss origin, and lacked any acquired distinctiveness with respect to PIM’s chocolates of Swiss origin.