Motte et Porisse v. Chélin, docket T-557-98

                                                                                                                                  Date: 19990830

                                                                                                                              Docket: T-557-98

IN THE MATTER OF:Sections 38 and 56 of the Trade-marks Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. T-13)

IN THE MATTER OF:The opposition of MOTTE ET PORISSE and COMPTOIR TEXTILE DE ROUBAIX - OUVRAGES PETIT FAUNE to the registration by ANNIE CHÉLIN of a trade-mark "OUVRAGES PETIT FAUNE ( & design)", the subject of application TMO 669,705;

IN THE MATTER OF:A decision made for the Registrar of Trade-marks on January 29, 1998;

BETWEEN:                                         MOTTE ET PORISSE

                                                                                                                                              Appellant

                                                                          AND

                                                                ANNIE CHÉLIN

                                                                                                                                          Respondent

                                            ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

MICHELLE LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER:

[1]         This concerns an appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade-marks. On May 3, 1999, Madame Justice Tremblay-Lamer allowed the appeal and awarded party and party costs against the respondent to be assessed in accordance with the highest unit of Column III of Tariff B.

[2]         The assessment was held on August 26 in the presence of Laurent Carrière, counsel for the appellant, as the respondent was never represented by counsel in this matter.

COUNSEL FEES

[3]         The counsel fees claimed are the following:

[4]         At the hearing, Mr. Carrière amended his bill of costs to request that the preparation of written representations be assessed under item 15 of the Tariff instead of item 13(a) for the maximum number of units, namely 7 units. The appellant is awarded this amendment and the counsel fees claimed under items 1 (7 units), 13(a) (5 units), 14(a) (3 units), 25 (1 unit) and 26 (6 units). The other services are assessed as follows:

-as the Court did not award costs to the appellant for the motion for default judgment, no costs are allowed under items 4 and 6;

-as the requisition for hearing filed pursuant to Rule 314 cannot be considered a motion within the meaning of Part VII of the Federal Court Rules, the claim under item 4 is denied;

-the counsel fees claimed under item 24 are denied as the Court gave no direction to this effect. Mr. Justice Denault's decision in Sim & McBurney v. Buttino Investments Inc., F.C., No. A-234-96, November 24, 1997, is clear on this point.

[5]         In light of the above, the appellant's counsel fees total $3,335.73, or $2,900 plus taxes.

DISBURSEMENTS

[6]         At the hearing, Mr. Carrière filed the affidavit of Hugh Mansfield which established that the expenses set out in the bill of costs were in fact incurred by the appellant. Accordingly, these expenses in the amount of $1,612.24, including taxes, are allowed as claimed as well as the amount of $100 paid into the Registry of this Court pursuant to Tariff A.

[7]         The appellant's costs for this matter are accordingly set at $5,047.97. A certificate is issued for this amount.

                                                                                                                                                (signed)                     

                                                                                                                             MICHELLE LAMY       

                                                                                                                  ASSESSMENT OFFICER

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

August 30, 1999

Certified true translation

M. Iveson

                         FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                      TRIAL DIVISION

                                                                                  Date: 19990830

                                                                               Docket: T-557-98

IN THE MATTER OF:Sections 38 and 56 of the Trade-marks Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. T-13)

IN THE MATTER OF:The opposition by MOTTE ET PORISSE and COMPTOIR TEXTILE DE ROUBAIX - OUVRAGES PETIT FAUNE to the registration by ANNIE CHÉLIN of a trade-mark "OUVRAGES PETIT FAUNE ( & design)", the subject of application TMO 669,705;

IN THE MATTER OF:A decision made for the Registrar of Trade-marks on January 29, 1998;

BETWEEN:

                                    MOTTE ET PORISSE

                                                                                              Appellant

                                                  AND

                                        ANNIE CHÉLIN

                                                                                          Respondent

                    ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

                                                 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                              TRIAL DIVISION

                            NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO.:    T-557-98

STYLE OF CAUSE:              

IN THE MATTER OF:Sections 38 and 56 of the Trade-marks Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. T-13)

IN THE MATTER OF:The opposition by MOTTE ET PORISSE and COMPTOIR TEXTILE DE ROUBAIX - OUVRAGES PETIT FAUNE to the registration by ANNIE CHÉLIN of a trade-mark "OUVRAGES PETIT FAUNE ( & design)", the subject of application TMO 669,705;

IN THE MATTER OF:A decision made for the Registrar of Trade-marks on January 29, 1998;

BETWEEN:                                         MOTTE ET PORISSE

                                                                                                                                              Appellant

                                                                          AND

                                                                ANNIE CHÉLIN

                                                                                                                                          Respondent

PLACE OF ASSESSMENT:Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF ASSESSMENT:August 26, 1999

REASONS OF M. LAMY, ASSESSMENT OFFICER

DATE OF REASONS :                       August 30, 1999

APPEARANCE:

Laurent Carrière                                                                                                           For the appellant

SOLICITOR OF RECORD:

LÉGER, ROBIC, RICHARD, s.e.n.c.                                                                          For the appellant

Montréal, Quebec