Date: 20000308
Docket: T-2080-98
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2000
PRESENT: RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
Between:
VEUVE CLICQUOT PONSARDIN,
MAISON FONDÉE EN 1772
Applicant
AND
LES BOUTIQUES CLIQUOT LTÉE and
MADEMOISELLE CHARMANTE INC. and
3017320 CANADA INC.
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY:
[1] There are two motions before the Court for a ruling on objections raised during examinations for discovery. One is moved by the applicant will be addressed first. The other originates with the respondents and will be discussed secondly.
Motion by the applicant
[2] With regard to question 375, it need not be answered since the information that is ultimately sought may be obtained from the person being examined, Mr. Harvey Kom.
[3] As to questions 769 and 771, they must be answered since in my opinion the exercise they seek is one that is reasonable and relevant to the case. It does not seem to me that it is necessary to consider as relevant the fact of wanting to further circumscribe the potential impact of the six Cliquot shops in comparison with the respondents' other twenty-four shops. Similarly, question 117 will likewise have to be answered since, as the applicant's counsel conceded, it is solely addressed to the respondents' audited financial statements. Question 130 will be answered through the production of question 117. All of these questions should therefore be answered subject to the outcome of the motion for a reference that is to be presented by the respondents.
[4] As to question 785, Mr. Kom stated what he had to say on this aspect and I do not think the respondents should be asked to do more in this regard. The applicant will have to pursue its investigation by itself.
[5] The applicant abandoned question 791 at the hearing.
[6] Questions 799 and 800 will have to be answered since they require an exercise that is relevant and extremely simple to perform.
[7] The answers to be supplied in the context of this motion must be given by March 28, 2000. There is no adjudication as to costs on this motion since success on the motion is divided.
Motion of respondents
[8] In regard to question 155, it need not be answered since the respondents have been using their trade marks since 1995. It is therefore sufficient to know that trade mark TMA 246,008 was being used at the time the respondents began using the "Cliquot" mark.
[9] Furthermore, even taking into account the explanation added to the text of the question by counsel for the respondents, it is apparent that the language of the question remains ambiguous.
[10] As to questions 162, 174, 175 and 181, they must be answered since it must be acknowledged that the actions taken in reality by the respondents to protect its trade marks, or the failure to take such actions, are directly relevant to one of the questions that the applicant is asking this Court to decide, namely, to determine whether the applicant's trade marks merit more favourable treatment than the treatment that would normally be given to trade marks under Canadian law. These questions are therefore relevant to the case. The answers shall be supplied within the confidential context already existing between the parties.
[11] The answers to be supplied in the context of this motion must be given by March 28, 2000. The costs on this motion shall follow the event.
| Richard Morneau |
| Prothonotary |
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL.B.
| Federal Court of Canada |
| Trial Division |
| Date: 20000308 |
| Docket: T-2080-98 |
| Between: |
| VEUVE CLICQUOT PONSARDIN, |
| MAISON FONDÉE EN 1772 |
| Applicant |
| AND |
| LES BOUTIQUES CLIQUOT LTÉE and |
| MADEMOISELLE CHARMANTE INC. and |
| 3017320 CANADA INC. |
| Respondents |
| REASONS FOR ORDER |
| AND ORDER |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| DOCKET NO: T-2080-98 |
| STYLE: VEUVE CLICQUOT PONSARDIN, |
| MAISON FONDÉE EN 1772 |
Applicant
| AND |
| LES BOUTIQUES CLIQUOT LTÉE and |
| MADEMOISELLE CHARMANTE INC. and |
| 3017320 CANADA INC. |
Respondents
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: March 6, 2000 |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
DATED: March 8, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Martine Tremblay for the Applicant
Brian Riordan for the Respondents
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Léger Robic Richard for the Applicant
Montréal, Quebec
Pouliot Mercure for the Respondents
Montréal, Quebec