Fox Restaurant Concepts LLC v 43 North Restaurant Group Inc., et al., 2022 FC 1149
Associate Justice Horne - 2022-08-02
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
The defendant has brought two motions. The first is to strike certain paragraphs of the statement of claim; the second is for a protective order. For the reasons that follow, the motion to strike will be allowed in part. The motion for a protective order will be dismissed. ... The plaintiff’s allegations of copyright infringement do not meet the requirements of Rule 174. It is not clear what five literary or artistic works are included in the definition of Fox Works. Unless there is a closed and specific list of the works that the plaintiff includes in its definition of “Fox Works”, the issues are not adequately framed for discovery and trial. ... Having reviewed the Claim as a whole, I am satisfied that sufficient material facts have been pleaded to establish goodwill or reputation in Canada, and sustain a cause of action for trademark infringement. ... I am not satisfied that the Claim includes sufficient material facts to establish what the plaintiff’s unique trade dress/restaurant concepts are. ... There is insufficient evidence on the motion to support a conclusion that the defendants’ commercial interests could reasonably be harmed by the disclosure of information to the plaintiff in the ordinary course of the discovery process.
Decision relates to:
- T-1228-21 - FOX RESTAURANT CONCEPTS LLC v. 43 NORTH RESTAURANT GROUP INC. ET AL