In Dragon-Obsessed World Comes The Epic Tale Of Two Dragonas

• Published date: 05 September 2022
• Subject Matter: Intellectual Property, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Trademark, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
• Author: Ms May Cheng

Family feuds are particularly complex, in large measure because of the lengthy and fraught personal histories between the parties. Our fascination with such clashes is reflected in the highly anticipated 'House of Dragons' that has the Targaryen clan in an epic battle for survival that is a prequel to the unrivalled series Game of Thrones.

While not nearly as dramatic, and hopefully devoid of bloodshed, the lengthy story of the family rivalry and struggle to monopolize the DRAGONA trademarks is set out at some length in the recent decision of Justice Russel Zinn of the Federal Court in Dragona Carpet Supplies Mississauga Inc. v. Dragona Carpet Supplies Inc. 2022 FC 1042, issued on July 14, 2022.

In addition to the dramatic backdrop of family businesses engaged in an epic battle for monopoly over the DRAGONA mark, complete with duplicitous registration and conflicting stories, the case stands out as a shining example of the use of summary trial as a quick and expeditious way to resolve disputes that would no doubt have risked financial ruin of the parties, both of which had successful flooring businesses sharing the name and mark.

Justice Zinn takes great pains to lay out the family feud in some detail, and ultimately accepts the affidavit evidence of some family members over others, including drawing an adverse inference for the failure to submit evidence from a potential corroborating source. It is a clear signal that litigants should not shy away from the use of summary trials even in the face of credibility issues and conflicting evidence. Justice Zinn examined the suitability of the case for summary trial and concluded that the case was appropriate to decide 'regardless of the complexity or conflicting evidence', citing as authority Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v. Singga Enterprises (Canada) Inc. 2011 FC 776 at para. 96.

As its core, the dispute arose between two businesses run by separate branches of an extended family, initially started with one business established by two brothers selling flooring under the DRAGONA trademark and trade name. As the business grew, one legal entity was owned by a brother named Talal and the other became owned by his two nephews, Abad and Jamal, following the death of his brother.

The success and expansion of the business led to expansion from Mississauga and Scarborough into Ottawa and North York. The opening of a North York location is what prompted litigation, as an unwritten agreement had allegedly drawn a dividing...