Case Comment

Domco Industries Ltd. v.
Mannington Mills Inc.

citation(s): (1988), 23 C.P.R. (3d) 96 (F.C.T.D.)

copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis




The Decision

At p.102

"Obviously, an allegation that a defendant has infringed through the activities of others is based on different facts from those supporting a claim that a defendant had infringed directly by its own acts in Canada. The difference is not unlike that between an allegation that the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident was negligent in the maintenance of that vehicle and an allegation that the owner is vicariously liable for the negligent operation of the vehicle by his employee who was driving it in the course of his employment. I am not suggesting that he who induces, procures, or conspires in infringement activities is only vicariously liable. If such activities are properly pleaded and proven he is directly liable as a joint tortfeasor because of his own role in the infringement, but the facts necessary to establish such liability are different from those required to establish liability of a defendant for itself offering for sale or selling infringing articles within the jurisdiction."


Return to:

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index

Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page; Index

JurisDiction Home Page