Explain in detail the information contained in the following case cite and annotations and explain how and why the information is relevant for the parties to the action. Who else may also find this information relevant and why? In this case, the defendant was successful at trial.
Canadian Olympic Assn./Assn Olympique Canadienne v. Olympus Optical Co. (1987), 14
C.I.P.R. 259; reversed, (1990), 31
C.P.R. (3d) 479, Fed. Ct. - Trial Division; affirmed, (1991), 38
C.P.R. (3d) 1, Fed. CA; leave to appeal to SCC refused, (1992), 41
C.P.R. (3d) 11.
The plaintiff is the Canadian Olympic Assn./Assn Olympique Canadienne. The defendant is Olympus Optical Co. The case was first decided at trial in 1987. That trial decision was reported in the 14^th volume of the Canadian Intellectual Property Reports at page 259. The unsuccessful party, the plaintiff, then appealed the case to the Federal Court - Trial Division. Therefore, the original trial could not have been heard in the Federal Court. The Federal Court - Trial Division, even though appearing to be a court of original jurisdiction, can hear appeals on matters within its jurisdiction that were decided in provincial trial courts. The plaintiff at trial became the appellant and the defendant at trial became the respondent. The Federal Court - Trial Division made its decision in 1990 and it allowed the appeal thereby reversing the trial decision. This appeal decision was reported in the 31^st volume of the third series of the Canadian Patent Reporter at page 479. The party who was unsuccessful at this appeal (the defendant at trial, respondent in the first appeal) then appealed further to the Federal Court of Appeal. So, in this further appeal, Olympus Optical Co. became the appellant and the Canadian Olympic Assn./Assn Olympique Canadienne became the respondent. In 1991 the Federal Court of Appeal affirmed or upheld the decision of the Federal Court - Trial Division in the first appeal which had reversed the trial decision. The decision of the court in this second appeal was reported in the 38^th volume of the third series of the Canadian Patent Reporter at page 1. The party who was unsuccessful at this second appeal (the defendant at trial, appellant in the second appeal) then appealed further to the Supreme Court of Canada. The right to be heard on appeal by the Supreme Court is not automatic and the Supreme Court itself will decide whether it believes there is any merit to hearing the appeal. In this case, the Supreme Court decided in 1992 that it would not hear and decide this further appeal. Its reasons for deciding in this way were reported in the 41^st volume of the third series of the Canadian Patent Reporter at page 11. Thus, the original trial outcome remains reversed meaning that the plaintiff at trial has succeeded in obtaining the relief it sought in the action. Other people for whom this would be useful information are those in similar situations trying to decide whether court action is justified or whether these decisions are sufficiently clear to define their legal rights without litigation. Legal researchers and historians will be interested in following and chronicling the decisions and reasoning to develop legal commentary on trends. A lawyer preparing a similar case will also be interested as he or she can present the case reasoning in court to the judge as a persuasive precedent to guide the judge's decision about his or her own client's matter.

Lorna Successfully Sued the Hot Stuff Restaurant Because She Was

True/False

Correct Answer:VerifiedUnlock this answer nowGet Access to more Verified Answers free of chargeAccess For Free

Correct Answer:
Verified
Unlock this answer now
Get Access to more Verified Answers free of charge