Vinod Chopra Films Private Limited v. John Doe

Vinod Chopra Films Private Limited v. John Doe
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2010-03-09
Neutral citation
2010 FC 269
File numbers
T-91-10
Decision Content
Federal Court
Cour fédérale
Date: 20100309
Docket: T-91-10
Citation: 2010 FC 269
Toronto, Ontario, March 9, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
VINOD CHOPRA FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED
AND RELIANCE MEDIAWORKS (USA) INC.
Plaintiffs
and
JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE AND OTHER PERSONS,
NAMES UNKNOWN, WHO DEAL IN COUNTERFEIT
VIDEO RECORDINGS, AND OTHER PERSONS LISTED
IN SCHEDULE "A" TO THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Defendants
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] On Monday, March 8, 2010 the Plaintiffs brought a motion for review of an Anton Piller Order granted by the Court in this action on January 26, 2010. Among the persons whom the Plaintiffs wish to add as named Defendants are those persons described as Murad Mauji (or Mavji) otherwise known as Yeh Hai Khaike Paan Meri Jaan and Manur Samji. The Plaintiffs were represented by Counsel. Rahim Mauji spoke on his behalf and on behalf of his father Murad Mauji
with my permission. Manur Samji did not appear nor did any person appear to represent that supposed person.
[2] There is some confusion as to whether Manur Samji has been properly identified and may well be Karim Samji or Karim Mauji. I am not satisfied on the record before me that a case has been made out that would justify such a person as a named Defendant and, subject to any further evidence that the Plaintiffs may wish to adduce, I will not name that person as a Defendant.
[3] As to Murad Mauji and Rahim Mauji (or Mavji) I am satisfied on the evidence on the record that they are father and son and responsible for a store operating in Richmond Hill, Ontario, under the name Khaike Paan. There is conflicting evidence as between Murad and Rahim Mauji on the one hand and the Independent Supervising Solicitor, the two private investigators as to exactly what did or did not occur during their visits to the premises of Khaike Paan. I am satisfied however from what is in evidence on the record that:
· On about February 10, 2010 an investigator acting for the Plaintiffs made a purchase at Khaike Paan of a DVD upon which was copied the motion picture at issue “3 IDIOTS”;
· An investigator together with the Independent Supervising Solicitor returned to Khaike Paan the next day to serve the relevant documents on the proprietors. At that time no copies of DVD recordings of “3 IDIOTS” was found however an empty cassette with artwork depicting that motion picture was located in the premises;
· The proprietors of Khaike Paan were sufficiently informed as to the nature of these proceedings.
[4] On the return of this matter before me Rahim Mauji argued that there were a number of procedural irregularities. However, such argument was so mingled with evidence that he was purportedly giving in argument which evidence was not on the record that I cannot conclude that those alleged procedural irregularities were sufficiently important as would warrant a dismissal of these proceedings against the persons of concern here.
[5] Rahim Mauji also read before me from a script apparently prepared by some other person, not a lawyer, that appeared to be a mish mash possibly taken from unidentified legal sources and elsewhere. The arguments were almost incomprehensible and have failed to persuade me that these parties have established any basis for not affirming the Anton Piller Order given in this action.
Therefore, with respect to the persons and business at issue here I make the following Order:
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. Rahim Mauji, Murad Mauji (Mavji) and the business known as Khaike Paan or Yeh Hai Khaike Paan Meri Jaan are added to this action as named party Defendants;
2. The interim injunction against said Defendants shall continue as an interlocutory injunction provided that the Plaintiffs shall within 10 days hereof file the usual undertaking as to damages;
3. The interim custody of allegedly infringing goods in the hands of the Independent Supervising Solicitor shall continue subject to further Order of this Court;
4. These named Defendants shall file their Defence within 30 days hereof failing which the Plaintiffs may move for default judgment;
5. Costs are reserved until the final disposition of this action as against said Defendants.
“Roger T. Hughes”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-91-10
STYLE OF CAUSE: VINOD CHOPRA FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED AND
RELIANCE MEDIAWORKS (USA) INC. v. JOHN DOE
AND JANE DOE AND OTHER PERSONS, NAMES
UNKNOWN, WHO DEAL IN COUNTERFEIT
VIDEO RECORDINGS, AND OTHER PERSONS
LISTED IN SCHEDULE "A" TO THE STATEMENT
OF CLAIM
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 8, 2010
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: HUGHES J.
DATED: MARCH 9, 2010
APPEARANCES:
GEORGINA STARKMAN DANZIG
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
Rahim Mauji
FOR THE DEFENDANTS (Self-Represented)
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
KESTENBERG SIEGAL LIPKUS LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
N/A
FOR THE DEFENDANTS