Astra Aktiebolag v. Aastra Corp.
T-2560-94
Jerome A.C.J.
3/2/95
8 pp.
Appeal from order directing plaintiffs to provide particulars of certain allegations in amended statement of claim -- Astra AB owner of trade marks and registrations in Canada, used in Canada by Astra Canada under license, in association with marketing, sale of healthcare products -- Statement of claim alleging defendants using trade marks in Canada associated with biotechnology products and services and trade names associated with business that develops, manufactures markets and sells biotechnology products, to persons involved in biotechnology -- Also alleging defendants using trade marks in association with business that develops processes, products to be used in research, development of pharmaceuticals -- Alleging confusion, depreciation of value of goodwill attached to Astra trade marks -- Appeal dismissed -- Purpose of particulars to require party to clarify issues -- No answer to say matters should be within defendants' knowledge -- Where pleadings inadequate, that defendants may or must know true facts not valid objection to order for particulars -- Defendants entitled to know nature of case against them and have all facts necessary to plead intelligently -- While prayer for relief claiming injunctive relief, including declaration defendants' activities contravening Trade-marks Act, s. 7(b) and damages or accounting of profits, word "biotechnology" absent -- Alleging defendants using "biotechnology" in connection with passing off activities, committing actionable wrong or that constituting infringement -- No indication in pleadings why wrong or how connected to trade marks at issue -- Bald declaration of infringement not setting out basis for infringement, falling short of standard required by R. 408 -- Biotechnology not yet appearing to have well-defined boundaries -- In Pioneer Hi-Bred Ltd. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1623, S.C.C. in addressing issue of patentability of life form found it necessary to define type of biotechnological processes considering -- Court recognizing implicitly if going to render decision on that issue, obligation to define term's limitations -- Similarly to narrow or define issues and permit defendants to adequately plead in defence, appropriate here for plaintiffs to either leave offending material out of amended statement of claim or provide particulars of "biotechnology" each time used in accordance with order -- No error of law or misapprehension of facts in order -- Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 336(5), 407, 408, 409, 415 -- Trade-marks Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. T-13, s. 7(b).