Dermaspark Products Inc. v. Aveena Cosmetic Clinic Inc., 2025 FC 1350
Justice Furlanetto - 2025-08-01
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
This is the second motion for default judgment brought by the Plaintiffs. In the order from the first motion (2025 FC 979), Justice Benoit Duchesne found that the Plaintiffs had established that the Defendants were in default, but as they had not provided sufficient evidence to establish ownership of the alleged trademarks asserted, the Plaintiffs had not met their burden to establish their claims. ... While the amended motion record is now sufficient to establish the Plaintiff, Pollogen, ownership to the asserted registered trademarks and certain relief arising therefrom, as set out further below, there is insufficient evidence to allow the full scope of the relief requested. The motion is therefore granted in part only. ... In this case, there is no evidence before me as to specific customer communications relating to the sale of ACCI’s products and services. As such, while I am able to conclude that there has likely been confusion in the marketplace created by ACCI’s deceptive advertising, I cannot conclude that passing off by substitution has actually occurred. ... Considering all of the jurisprudence, the evidence before me, and in view of the fact that it is unclear if the infringing activity has continued beyond February 2025, I will award damages at the lower end of the scale in this case, in a total amount of $15,000.
Decision relates to:
- T-1412-24 - DERMASPARK PRODUCTS INC ET AL. v. AVEENA COSMETIC CLINIC INC. ET AL.