Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Copyright in the audiovisual works at issue was found not to subsist or be enforceable in Canada.

• Plaintiffs failed to prove harm or a causal link between allegedly false trademark-related complaints and actual damage.

• The Defendants’ non-participation in proceedings influenced the court’s summary judgment decision.

• Declaratory relief was granted confirming the absence of enforceable copyright rights by the Defendants.

• Plaintiffs were denied permanent injunctive relief due to insufficient evidence of ongoing or future harm.

• Full costs were awarded to Plaintiffs despite partial success, acknowledging difficulties from Defendants’ procedural default.

Facts and outcome of the case

The Plaintiffs—Gold Line Telemanagement Inc., Ava Telecom Ltd., Group of Gold Line Inc., and GLWiZ Inc.—operate an IPTV platform known as GLWiZ that streams multicultural content globally. Beginning in February 2020, the Defendants—Ereele GmbH and Honar Aval Pardisan Pasargad Co.—accused the Plaintiffs of unauthorized distribution of audiovisual works allegedly copyrighted by the Defendants. These accusations were issued via takedown complaints to platforms such as Instagram, Apple, LGE, and domain registrar Directnic, alleging copyright infringement.

The Plaintiffs responded by removing the contentious material and subsequently initiated legal proceedings in July 2020. They claimed that the Defendants' complaints were based on non-existent or unenforceable copyright rights in Canada, and that such actions constituted false and misleading statements under paragraph 7(a) of the Trademarks Act. The Defendants, after initial participation, ceased engaging with the proceedings, leading to the striking of their pleadings for abuse of process.

Judicial findings on copyright enforceability

The court ruled that the Defendants failed to prove that copyright subsisted in the works listed in Schedule C, primarily due to insufficient evidence linking the works to a treaty country under section 5(1) of the Copyright Act. Iran, where many of the works originated, is not a signatory to the Berne Convention, and the Defendants provided no credible evidence showing valid publication or authorship conditions that would allow protection under Canadian law.

The court concluded that copyright in the Schedule C works is not enforceable in Canada. Accordingly, declaratory relief was granted in favor of the Plaintiffs, affirming the absence of enforceable copyright.

Rejection of trademark-based and injunctive claims

The Plaintiffs’ additional claims under paragraph 7(a) of the Trademarks Act—asserting that the Defendants’ takedown notices constituted false statements damaging the GLWiZ brand—were rejected. The court found that while the statements might be false, the Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence linking the complaints to actual reputational or commercial harm. This deficiency undermined the legal basis for awarding damages or granting injunctive relief.

Although a permanent injunction was sought to prevent future complaints, the court held that the Plaintiffs had not established an ongoing threat or significant harm justifying such a remedy.

Costs and judgment

Despite achieving only partial success, the Plaintiffs were awarded full costs in the amount of $76,601.19. This award included legal fees and disbursements, reflecting the additional effort required to proceed with litigation due to the Defendants’ default. The judgment overall favored the Plaintiffs on the primary issue of copyright enforceability, although their secondary claims were unsuccessful.