The Lounge Medical Spa LTD. Et Al. v. Dermaspark Products Inc. Et Al., 2026 FCA 135
Justice de Montigny; Justice Monaghan; Justice Roussel - 2026-08-06
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
This is a consolidated appeal of two unreported judgments of the Federal Court. In the first judgment... The Federal Court concluded [on summary judgment] that the appellants (defendants in the Federal Court) ... had infringed the trademark rights of DermaSpark and Pollogen and damaged their goodwill, in a manner contrary to sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Trademarks Act ... I am satisfied, upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ submissions, that the appeals should be allowed. ... I find that the Federal Court erred in law by providing inadequate reasons for its conclusions. ... In the absence of submissions on the issue and of any analysis explaining why it made a finding of liability on this basis, I fail to understand how the Federal Court could include “passing off” in its award of damages. ... Given the inconsistencies in the registered trademarks alleged or deemed to have been infringed and in the evidence regarding their ownership and exclusive authorized use, I am not persuaded that the Federal Court could conclude as it did regarding the infringement ... It is better left to the Federal Court to determine whether this matter is indeed suitable for summary trial in light of these considerations, or whether the matter should proceed to trial. In either case, the Federal Court should provide reasons that sufficiently explain its reasoning for the chosen course of action.
Decision relates to:
- A-232-25 - Roula Hamdan et al. v. Dermaspark Products Inc. et al. which is an appeal from a decision dated 2025-05-12 in T-1741-23
- A-278-25 - ROULA HAMDAN et al. v. DERMASPARK PRODUCTS INC. et al. which is an appeal from a decision dated 2025-07-28 in T-1741-23