Ottawa, Ontario, December 5, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARRINGTON
BETWEEN:
and
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] In some Canadian city, a young man or woman is shopping for a pair of jeans. On display in the store is a pair with this label:
FABRIQUÉ POUR/MANUFACTURED FOR
[2] Would the label likely lead to the inference that this piece of clothing was manufactured or sold by or for the publishers of 
magazine ? Notice not only the four letters, but also the script. The lettering on the label and in the name of the magazine is thick or heavy. The first three letters are capitalized while the "e" is not. Notwithstanding that the "e" is in lowercase it has been enlarged and is the same size as the other three letters. In addition, the "V" is somewhat italicised in that the right arm is at a greater angle from the vertical than is the left.
[3] This is but one scenario brought to mind in this application by Vibe Ventures LLC, the publisher of Vibe magazine and owner of the Canadian trade-mark VIBE, to expunge the trade-mark VIBE Design registered to the respondent, a Canadian wholesaler and distributor of ready-to-wear clothing. The Vibe magazine script has not been registered under the Trade-marks Act, Vibe Ventures only registered the word "VIBE".
[4] Section 57 of the Act permits an interested person to move to have an entry in the trade-mark register struck out if the entry "as it appears on the register does not accurately express or define the existing rights of the person appearing to be the registered owner of the mark." Vibe Ventures alleges that the registration is invalid because both at the time when the respondent filed its application to register in 1998, and when these Court proceedings were filed in 2004, VIBE Design was confusing either with its own trade-mark VIBE or with its own Vibe script.
[5] There are a jumble of matters which must be sorted out in order to come to a decision. Had Vibe Ventures used the VIBE trade-mark, with or without a distinctive script in Canada or had it made it known in Canada before the respondent filed its application? Did Vibe Ventures' application for the VIBE trade-mark constitute a previous filing which should have barred the respondent from applying for VIBE Design? Is the trade-mark distinctive? Are the trade-marks used in association with wares? What is the respective trade of the two parties? Are Vibe magazine and the respondent's clothing of the same "general class"? How long have the trade-marks been in use? How well have they become known? What degree of resemblance is there between the trade-marks in appearance, or sound, or in the ideas suggested by them? Who has the burden of proof?
THE FACTS
[6] This matter proceeded by application, rather than by trial. As a result, evidence was by way of affidavit, and cross-examination thereon. The Court did not benefit from live testimony in open Court.
[7] Vibe Ventures called one witness, its president Kenard Gibbs, who was cross-examined. The respondent called two witnesses. Charles Bitton, its secretary and one of its directors, was cross-examined by way of written interrogatories. The respondent also called Mamon Moreau. Ms. Moreau is a paralegal in the law office of counsel for the respondent and brought to the Court's attention various public records found in the Canadian Trade-Marks Office, and the results of her internet search showing use of the word "Vibe" in trade-marks, corporate names and otherwise. She was not cross-examined.
[8] The basic facts can be set forth in the following timeline.
TIMELINE
[9] 1992: Vibe, an American magazine with international circulation, was founded by well-known music icon Quincy Jones and has been published by Vibe Ventures LCC, or its predecessors in title, Time Publishing Ventures, Inc., Time Inc. and Vibe Venture (a partnership) ever since. Mr. Gibbs describes it as "a general interest magazine relating to music, fashion, urban culture and entertainment". It has been available for purchase in Canada from its inception. Figures produced since 1996 indicate a Canadian newsstand circulation of about 60,000 copies per year. One may also subscribe by mail, but no figures were produced. The magazine from the outset has prominently used the Vibe script. Although Mr. Gibbs claims Vibe Ventures owns copyright in the script, no evidence was led, and that statement will be ignored.
[10] 1993, October 19: Vibe was registered as a trade-mark in the United States. Copy is not in the record, and so we do not know if the script was registered, or simply the word.
[11] 1996, January 3: Vibe Ventures' predecessors filed for registration of VIBE as a Canadian trade-mark.
[12] 1998, January 28: The respondent's predecessor, Request Jeans Ltd. applied to register VIBE Design.
[13] 2000, April 10: VIBE was registered in Canada as a trade-mark to be used in association with "a general interest magazine".
[14] 2001, February 28: VIBE Design was registered in Canada as a trade-mark to be used in association with the following wares: "men's, women's and children's clothing namely: coats, jackets, pants, jeans, sweaters, shorts, skirts, sweatshirts, T-shirts, tank-tops, blouses".
[15] 2004, November 23: Vibe Ventures filed this application.
[16] With his evidence in chief, Mr. Gibbs filed copies of various Vibe magazine covers over the years, a fairly current copy of the entire magazine and a breakdown of the type of advertising to be found therein. Fashion accounts for some 30% to 40%, the majority of which is for ready-to-wear clothing, including jeans.
[17] Vibe magazine does not sell its own line of clothing. Advertisements are placed by various well-known names such as Perry Ellis, Calvin Klein, Louis Vuitton, Levi's, and baby phfat.
[18] Although Vibe Ventures does not manufacture its own line of clothing, the Vibe magazine script has been used on various promotional and merchandising articles such as T-shirts, caps, sweatshirts and messenger bags. These are sometimes offered to subscribers by way of a "buck slip", which I understand is the name used for those inserts which fall out when one turns the pages of a magazine.
[19] The Vibe magazinescript is also used in connection with its website and with television shows. At the time of the respondent's application, it had a television show, called Vibe, which was available in Canada on across-the-border stations as well as on a local Toronto station. Currently, there is a "Weekend Vibe" program available on cable television as well as the annual Vibe music Awards.
[20] The respondent's predecessor, Request Jeans, advertised in Vibe magazine in three of its 1997 issues. Charles Bitton is or has been a subscriber.
[21] During cross-examination, Mr. Gibbs agreed that Vibe magazine is the voice and soul of urban music culture. Urban music is said to be music that stems from African-American music creativity. It cuts across different genres including R & B, Hip Hop, Jazz, Gospel and Reggae. Urban culture refers to lifestyle resulting from urban music incorporating fashion, language, ideology, dance and the arts. "So it is the residual lifestyle of urban music ...that emanates from urban music".
[22] In excess of 1,000,000 copies are printed monthly. There is only the American edition which comes in two versions. One goes to subscribers who are 21 years of age or older. It carries tobacco and alcohol ads. The magazine is available worldwide.
[23] The total readership is roughly 8,000,000 per month. Studies in the United States indicate that some three-fifths of the American readership is African-American, with more than one-third of the readership being Caucasian, a term which includes Hispanics. Three-quarters of the American readership is under 24 years of age.
[24] There is no sales office or sales agent in Canada. There is an office in Milan, Italy.
[25] Vibe magazine is sold in Montreal, where the respondent and Mr. Bitton are based.
[26] For his part, Mr. Bitton says that the principal activity of the respondent is to hold and administer a portfolio of diverse trade-marks. At the time Request Jeans applied for the trade-mark VIBE Design, he was a director and the president. Request Jeans was interested in developing a new line of clothes directed principally to a young clientele. He liked the sound of the word and had a graphic designer propose different lettering. He was the one who ultimately chose VIBE Design. He denies that Vibe magazine was a source of inspiration. Similarity is pure chance. He says that the VIBE Design is not identical to Vibe magazine's script, whose letters are more rounded. This distinction escapes me. As far as I am concerned, VIBE Design and the Vibe script used by Vibe magazine are identical. In the year 2000, the VIBE Design trade-mark was assigned to Buffalo Inc, a company of which Mr. Bitton is also a director and secretary. Buffalo has set up an Internet site: www.vibejeans.com.
[27] Although not a basis for Vibe Ventures' application, it suggests that VIBE Design is no longer used. Mr. Bitton agreed that sales were down, but denied it was not being used. The Court will act on the premise that the trade-mark is being used.
ANALYSIS
[28] The Trade-Marks Act R.S.C. 1985, c. T-10 deals with both registered and unregistered trade-marks, as was brought home recently by the Supreme Court in Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. 2005 SCC 65, [2005] S.C.J. No. 66 (QL). In that case, Kirkbi held patents for Lego Construction sets. When the patents expired, Ritvick began manufacturing and selling its Mega Bloks, which were interchangeable with Lego blocks. Kirkbi instituted a passing off action on the grounds that its "Lego Indicia" was a valid unregistered trade-mark and that Mega Bloks created confusion in the market place. Although Kirkbi's action was dismissed on the grounds that a mark which goes beyond distinguishing the wares of its owner and to the functional structure of the wares themselves transgresses the legitimate bounds of a trade-mark, the case nevertheless illustrates that the Act gives various recourses to the owner of a valid unregistered trade-mark against the holder of a registered trade-mark. This case does not deal with the passing off recourse or statements alledged to be disparaging, but rather whether VIBE Design should remain on the Register kept by the Registrar of Trade-Marks.
[29] Consequently, we must not only keep in mind Vibe Ventures' registered VIBE trade-mark but also its unregistered Vibe script.
[30] As aforesaid, Section 57 of the Act gives the Federal Court exclusive original jurisdiction to order that an entry in the Register be struck out or amended "on the ground that at the time of the application the entry as it appears on the Register does not accurately express or define the existing rights of the person appearing to be the registered owner of the mark". Had the Registrar given Vibe Ventures notice of Request Jeans' application, and if VIBE Design had been accepted for registration, its recourse would have been to appeal the decision of the Registrar; a recourse long since timebarred under section 56. However, no such notice was given.
[31] According to section 18(1) of the Act the registration of a trade-mark is invalid if not "registrable at the time of registration", if not distinctive at the time proceedings bringing the validity of the registration into question were commenced, or if abandoned. As mentioned above, there is no evidence of abandonment.
[32] At the time Request Jeans made its application, VIBE Design was registrable because it did not run afoul of Section 12 in that it was not confusing with a registered trade-mark. Although Vibe Ventures had applied to have Vibe registered, the application was still under consideration. However, Sections 16(3) and (4) go on to identify the persons who are entitled to register trade-marks. Request Jeans was not entitled to register if its application was confusing with a trade-mark that had been previously used in Canada or made known in Canada by any other person or a trade-mark in respect of which an application had been previously filed and was pending.
[33] A trade-mark is "Confusing" within Section 2 if "the use of which would cause confusion in the manner and circumstances described in Section 6". Finally, Sections 6(1), 6(2) and 6(5) set out circumstances of confusion which may apply in this case. They are summarized in paragraph [5] hereof and appended at the end of these reasons.
[34] Vibe magazine's unregistered trade-mark and script have been in use in Canada since 1992. Its trade-mark application was pending when Request Jeans filed its application for Vibe Design in 1998. Its registered VIBE trade-mark has been in use in Canada since the year 2000. I find no material difference in its use of and promotion of the word VIBE, and the Vibe script, between 1998 and 2004.
[35] There is nothing inherently distinctive in the word "VIBE". Mr. Gibbs is of the opinion that it is a made-up word. However, he is hardly a professional lexicologist. In Canada, "vibe" is defined in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary as a "vibration, esp. in the sense of feelings or atmosphere communicated". It may be used in different contexts such as music and young "lifestyle". The respondent has established that General Motors has a Canadian trade-mark for "vibe" used in connection with its Pontiac automobile. Although the word may have current connotations with young urban Afro-American culture, a culture with which many in Montreal, Milan and other places may wish to emulate, the genius of the English language is such that a word may mean different things to different people at different times and in different places.
[36] Although the word "vibe" definitely has youthful connotations in relation to music, clothing and lifestyle, those connotations are not necessarily urban and Afro-American. Some might think of California Dreaming and the Beach Boys' song Good Vibrations:
"I, I love the colorful clothes she wears
And the way the sunlight plays upon her hair
I hear the sound of a gentle word
On the wind that lifts her perfume through the air
I'm picking' up good vibrations
She's giving me excitations
I'm picking' up good vibrations..."
[37] Nevertheless, I am of the view that the degree of resemblance between the VIBE trade-mark and VIBE Design trade-mark in sound or in the ideas suggested by them do not create confusion. "Vibe", however the English language may be developing, is not so unique as to lend itself exclusively to a particular culture, a particular age group, particular wares such as magazines, clothing or automobiles, or services. For instance, apparently the name has been used in connection with a hairdressing salon. However, the VIBE Design trade-mark is identical in appearance with Vibe Magazine's unregistered trade-mark script, and it is this which creates confusion in the market place.
CONFUSION
[38] As already stated, a trade-mark is confusing, according to the definition in the Act if its use would cause confusion in the manner and circumstances described in Section 6 thereof. A leading case is the decision of Cattanach J. in Canadian Schenley Distilleries Ltd. v. Canada's Manitoba Distillery Ltd. (1975), 25 C.P.R. (2d) 1. He said:
To determine whether two trade marks are confusing one with the other it is the persons who are likely to buy the wares who are to be considered, that is those persons who normally comprise the market, the ultimate consumer. That does not mean a rash, careless or unobservant purchaser on the one hand, nor on the other does it mean a person of higher education, one possessed of expert qualifications. It is the probability of the average person endowed with average intelligence acting with ordinary caution being deceived that is the criterion and to measure that probability of confusion the Registrar of Trade Marks or the Judge must assess the normal attitudes and reactions of such persons.
(p. 5)
(...)
As I have indicated previously, this appeal falls to be determined on the question of the likelihood of confusion between the marks TOVARICH and TSAREVITCH in the circumstances set forth in s. 6(5)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, that is the degree of resemblance between the trade marks in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them usually called "similarity", and, indeed, two marks cannot be similar unless there is some difference, for without differences the marks would be identical. It is the effect of the marks on the minds of ordinary users generally that must be considered and ordinary users, as a rule, only have a general recollection of such things rather than a precise recollection of them.
(p. 12)
[39] The ordinary users in that case were consumers of Vodka. Mr. Justice Cattanach had the advantage of expert survey opinion. In this case, I am left to my own devices. The wares of both parties appeal, I find, a younger age bracket, who may have different tastes in fashion, clothing, music and lifestyle. The Court must take the ordinary reasonable person approach and surmise if the intended users of the respective wares would likely be confused.
[40] As Mr. Justice Cattanach noted in Canadian Schenley, above, a degree of resemblance also means there must be some degree of difference, "for without differences the marks would be identical." I find that Vibe magazine's script and VIBE Design are identical. The products are aimed at the same youthful clientele and would likely cause confusion within the meaning of Section 6 of the Act.
[41] Although delivered in the context of an interlocutory injunction, I consider the decision of Mr. Justice Teitelbaum in Coca-Cola Ltd. v. Fisher Trading Co. (1988), 21 F.T.R. 6, [1988] F.C.J. No. 510 (QL) to be most helpful. The defendant was restrained pending the action from selling and related activities pertaining to drinking glasses sold in boxes with the word Cola marked on them in script identical to Coca-Cola Ltd.'s registered trade-mark design. Coca-Cola Ltd. submitted that "the general public, on seeing defendant's packaging and because of the script and colour used on the packaging would believe the glasses were manufactured by it directly or under licensed authority" (para. 20).
[42] Mr. Justice Teitelbaum noted at para. 29:
Furthermore, counsel for plaintiff submits that the mere usage of the word Cola in plaintiff's trade mark script would cause consumers to believe it is plaintiff's or licensed or authorized by it.
[43] The case before me simply deals with registration. We are not concerned with goodwill, or unfair trading. However, Mr. Justice Teitelbaum's conclusion is most relevant. He said at para. 32-33:
As previously stated, counsel for defendant admits that the full trade mark in script form of Coca-Cola is distinctive and is world famous. He adds that the use of the word Cola alone causes the risk of confusion to be reduced.
With respect to this submission, I must disagree. The possible confusion or the likelihood of confusion may be reduced, but nevertheless, it is still present. In that the trade mark in script form is so well known and in that it is so famous, I am satisfied that a consumer upon seeing a container with the word Cola in the world famous script form of plaintiff containing nine cola glasses in the shape of Cola glasses supplied by plaintiff to its bottlers for decades and used in advertising plaintiff's beverage, would believe that the glasses were manufactured, licensed to be manufactured or authorized by plaintiff.
[44] Let it not be thought that I consider the Vibe script, replicated in VIBE Design , to be famous, in the sense of being known to the general public at large such as Coca-Cola, Pink Panther, Veuve Cliquot or Barbie (Pink Panther Beauty Corp. v. United Artists Corp. (C.A.), [1998] 3 F.C. 534, [1998] F.C.J. No. 441 (QL); Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison fondée en 1772 c. Les Boutique Cliquot Ltée, Mademoiselle Charmantes Inc. et 3017320 Canada Inc., [2004] C.S.C.R. No. 324; Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. 2005 FCA 13, (2005) 329 N.R. 259, (2005) 38 C.P.R. (4th) 214, the latter two recently argued before the Supreme Court). However, I find the Vibe Design and Vibe script are known to a significant number of young consumers.
[45] This is not the case where the two marks are confusingly similar. They are identical. As Mr. Justice Deneault said in Pernod v. Ricard v. Molson Breweries (1992) 56 F.T.R. 53, (1992) 44 C.P.R. (3d) 359, [1992] F.C.J. No. 706 (QL) at para. 34:
The test of confusion is one of first impression. The trade marks should be examined from the point of view of the average consumer having a general and not a precise recollection of the earlier mark. Consequently, the marks should not be dissected or subjected to a microscopic analysis with a view to assessing their similarities and differences. Rather, they should be looked at in their totality and assessed for their effect on the average consumer as a whole: Ultravite Laboratories Ltd. v. Whitehall Laboratories Ltd. (1965), 44 C.P.R. 189 at pp. 191-2, 53 D.L.R. (2d) 1, [1965] S.C.R. 734; Oshawa Group Ltd. v. Creative Resources Co. (1982), 61 C.P.R. (2d) 29 at p. 35, 46 N.R. 426 sub nom. Oshawa Group Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (F.C.A.); Cantine Torresella S.r.l. v. Carbo (1987), 16 C.P.R. (3d) 137 at p. 146, 14 C.I.P.R. 234 (F.C.T.D.).
In this case, it is the respondent who is inviting microscopic analysis to show that the letters in the Vibe magazine script are rounder, an invitation I have taken up, but found wanting.
[46] As stated by the Court of Appeal in Baylor Universityv. Governor & Co. of Adventures Trading into Hudson's Bay (2000) 8 C.P.R. 464, (2000) 257 N.R. 231, [2000] F.C.J. No. 984 (QL), the issue of confusion arising from the sale of wares under competing trade-marks must be determined by reference to persons who are likely to purchase them. Both the magazine and the respondent's clothing are directed to a younger clientele who wishes to emulate a certain style in fashion, clothing, music and life experience.
[47] In Pink Panther, supra, the Federal Court of Appeal was dealing with an application to register the trade-mark "Pink Panther" for proposed use in association with hair care and beauty product supplies. The respondent opposed. Its trade-mark "The Pink Panther", from the comedy films starring the late great Peter Sellers as Inspector Closeau had already been registered for use in association with the entertainment business. The Court held, McDonald J.A. dissenting, that, notwithstanding the fame associated with the trade-mark "Pink Panther", confusion was unlikely because of the differences in the nature of the wares and trades of the parties. Linden J.A., speaking for the majority, said at paragraph 54:
Furthermore, we owe the average consumer a certain amount of credit, a sufficient amount of which was not forthcoming from the Trial Judge. While the public might be confused by a product which used the name "Pink Panther" and simultaneously depicted a pink cat, the use of the words alone cannot be said to give rise to such confusion. Indeed one of the surrounding circumstances that the Trial Judge should have adverted to is the fact that much of the fame which this Court and the Court below attach to the respondent's mark stems not from the words "The Pink Panther" but from the associated music and cartoon images. In this case, words only are used. There is no accompanying design or music. It is reasonable to conclude that the average person, without being presented with these other hallmarks, would not confuse the source of the appellant's proposed mark. (emphasis added)
[48] Although I find that "Vibe" unlike Pink Panther is not a famous trade-mark, in this case we have an accompanying identical design. The average potential purchaser presented with the word "Vibe" together with the Design would likely confuse the source.
[49] In my view, even if the Supreme Court comes to a different conclusion with respect to the possibility of extending famous trade-marks to other wares and services and the consideration which should be given such famous trade-marks as "Veuve Cliquot" and "Barbie", one cannot use an identical script when targeting a specific clientele, even though one party's wares are sold at newsstands and the other's in stores.
[50] The word "vibe" itself creates no difficulty. The source of confusion is the use of an identical script in wares aimed at a certain market. One can see the consumers of the parties' wares, in all shapes and colours, walking along Ste-Catherine Street, Yonge Street, Robson Streetand Rideau Streetevery day of the week.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
[51] In summary:
a. Since the respondent's trade-mark design was registered, the burden of proving confusion lies on the applicant, in accordance with Section 17 of the Act. However, it has presented sufficient evidence to overcome that burden;
b. Vibe Ventures had used the VIBE trade-mark and had made it known in Canada before the respondent filed its application to register its trade-mark design;
c. Vibe Ventures had used the Vibe magazine script in Canada and had made it known in Canada before the respondent filed its application to register its trade-mark design;
d. The Vibe Ventures' application did not constitute a previous filing which should have barred the respondent from applying for VIBE Design. The confusion lies in the word combined with the script, not the word standing alone;
e. The VIBE trade-mark is not so distinctive as to bar respondent from using the word in association with clothing; notwithstanding resemblance in sound and ideas suggested.
f. The respective trades of the two parties, publishing a magazine and selling clothing, are not of the same "general class".
g. However, VIBE Design is confusing with Vibe Ventures LLC's unregistered Vibe magazine script, given the target audience.
[52] The applicant shall have its costs, based on Tariff B, third column, mid-range.
ORDER
The application is granted. It is directed that the Canadian Trade-mark Registration Number TMA541,721 for the trade-mark VIBE Design be expunged and struck out from the Canadian Trade-Marks Register, the whole with costs.
"Sean Harrington"
JUDGE
APPENDIX
| Trade-marks Act, R.S., c. T-10, s. 1 |
Loi sur les marques de commerces, S.R., ch. T-10, art. 1. |
| 6. (1) For the purposes of this Act, a trade-mark or trade-name is confusing with another trade-mark or trade-name if the use of the first mentioned trade-mark or trade-name would cause confusion with the last mentioned trade-mark or trade-name in the manner and circumstances described in this section. (2) The use of a trade-mark causes confusion with another trade-mark if the use of both trade-marks in the same area would be likely to lead to the inference that the wares or services associated with those trade-marks are manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by the same person, whether or not the wares or services are of the same general class. ... (5) In determining whether trade-marks or trade-names are confusing, the court or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall have regard to all the surrounding circumstances including (a) the inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks or trade-names and the extent to which they have become known; (b) the length of time the trade-marks or trade-names have been in use; © the nature of the wares, services or business; (d) the nature of the trade; and (e) the degree of resemblance between the trade-marks or trade-names in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them. R.S., c. T-10, s. 6. |
6. (1) Pour l'application de la présente loi, une marque de commerce ou un nom commercial crée de la confusion avec une autre marque de commerce ou un autre nom commercial si l'emploi de la marque de commerce ou du nom commercial en premier lieu mentionnés cause de la confusion avec la marque de commerce ou le nom commercial en dernier lieu mentionnés, de la manière et dans les circonstances décrites au présent article. (2) L'emploi d'une marque de commerce crée de la confusion avec une autre marque de commerce lorsque l'emploi des deux marques de commerce dans la même région serait susceptible de faire conclure que les marchandises liées à ces marques de commerce sont fabriquées, vendues, données à bail ou louées, ou que les services liés à ces marques sont loués ou exécutés, par la même personne, que ces marchandises ou ces services soient ou non de la même catégorie générale. ... (5) En décidant si des marques de commerce ou des noms commerciaux créent de la confusion, le tribunal ou le registraire, selon le cas, tient compte de toutes les circonstances de l'espèce, y compris : a) le caractère distinctif inhérent des marques de commerce ou noms commerciaux, et la mesure dans laquelle ils sont devenus connus; b) la période pendant laquelle les marques de commerce ou noms commerciaux ont été en usage; c) le genre de marchandises, services ou entreprises; d) la nature du commerce; e) le degré de ressemblance entre les marques de commerce ou les noms commerciaux dans la présentation ou le son, ou dans les idées qu'ils suggèrent. S.R., ch. T-10, art. 6. |
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2089-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: Vibe Ventures LLC v. 3681441 Canada Inc.
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 8, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER: HARRINGTON J.
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Tony Bortolin
|
|
| Mr. François M. Grenier
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| MacBeth & Johnson Barristers & Solicitors Toronto, Ontario
|
|
| Léger Robic Richard Barristers & Solicitors Montreal, Quebec
|