Since December 17, 1998, United Airlines has been using the website www.united.com, it’s brand name and logo has been used since August 2010, and the design and artwork of the website has stayed relatively the same since 2006 (para 4). United Airlines has a variety of trademarks associated with these services. Cooperstock operated www.untied.com and in 2011 he redesigned the graphics, in a manner similar to the design of the United Website, which was adjusted in 2012 to match changes made by United on their website in 2012 (though with a sad-face added on the United logo for example) (para 10). In United Airlines, Inc. v. Cooperstock, the Court found that Cooperstock infringed United’s trademarks. Trademark infringement occurs when “a trademark or a confusingly similar mark [is used], without the consent of the trademark rights holder, in association with wares or services” (para 29). This case provides an interesting decision regarding the specific element of infringement under … Read More
Court Considers Deemed Place of Contracting in Jurisdiction Analysis
In We Serve Health Care LP v. Onasanya, 2018 ONSC 1758, the Applicant was a franchisor of home health care service providers.. The Applicant had its head office in Ontario and regional offices in various jurisdictions, including one in Saskatchewan. The individual Respondent entered into a Franchise Agreement with the Applicant’s predecessor company granting her a license to operate a franchise in Saskatchewan.. She later assigned her rights under the Franchise Agreement to the corporation Respondent. The Applicant refused to renew the Franchise Agreement, resulting in a dispute. The Applicant commenced an Application in Ontario for a declaration that the Franchise Agreement had expired and for a mandatory order that the Respondents comply with their post-expiry obligations under the Franchise Agreement. The Respondents brought a motion to stay the Application on the basis that the Ontario Court did not have jurisdiction. The Applicant argued that the dispute was presumptively … Read More
Court Considers Oppression Claim by Creditors against Directors
In The Investment Administration Solutions Inc. v. Pro-Financial Asset Management Inc., 2018 ONSC 1220 (CanLII), the Ontario Superior Court considered an oppression claim under section 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act by a creditor against the directors of a debtor company. The Plaintiff company provided back office services to the Defendant Pro-Financial. Pro-Financial was an Ontario Corporation which carried on business as an investment dealer. Pro-Financial was poorly managed and did not comply with the applicable regulatory requirements. Pro-Financial’s assets were eventually sold to another dealer at the insistence of the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”). As a result of the sale, there was no money left to pay the Plaintiff’s significant outstanding accounts. The Plaintiff brought an action against, among others, directors of Pro-Financial. The Plaintiff’s claim included a claim for an oppression remedy. The Plaintiff argued that the directors of Pro-Financial had violated Pro-Financial’s reasonable expectation that the … Read More
Court of Appeal States that Placing Oneself in Position to Close Transaction not Waiver of Deficiency
In 1418885 Ontario Ltd. v. 2193139 Ontario Limited, 2018 ONCA 54, the appellant entered into an agreement of purchase and sale to buy a property from the respondent. The property included residential apartments. The appellant sought confirmation from the respondent that the residential apartments were permitted use under the existing zoning by-law. The respondent maintained that the residential apartments were “a legal non-conforming use”. However, the planning authority indicated that there was a possible problem with the residential apartments. The appellant’s lawyer advised the respondent’s lawyer that the purchase deposits had to be returned if the issue was not resolved. In spite of the residential apartments issue, the appellant and respondent moved towards the closing date by exchanging draft documentation and related material. However, on closing date, the appellant’s lawyer advised the respondent’s lawyer that the appellant would not be closing because of the residential apartments issue. The deal did … Read More
- Page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2