Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cwarnar

Lefevre going solo

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

You are correct. to my knowledge, it was CCM's push towards offering customization is what opened up the custom options. Without that, we still might see Premier pads with leather straps. I do believe though the "new" Lefevre understands the new markets and won't shy away from evolution moving forward. they have teased the 20 line will have rebounds than the 4 line and there were will be their take a speed sliding material (which is sorta ironic).

And yes, you concept of EFlex is correct. CCM concept to offer a softer pad at retail and work better with Price. As I have heard the story, it took a lot of saying "no" by CCM to get the EFlex to where it is and not just being a 580 with a solid core.

The reality is that it's almost impossible to protect IP in hockey. Think about many Velocity cones hit the market 15 years ago and there was never any lawsuits. If both companies want to make an EFlex style pad, I would imagine that is happens.

Regarding this part: is the material planned to be different from the white speedskin that the Lefevre factory had access to with CCM, or will it be different now that the partnership is over? The 4.1 and 12.1 lines have the option for a "fast glide" material on the sliding surface on the customizer, but it is only available in white - which leads me to think it is the same white speedskin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

You are correct. to my knowledge, it was CCM's push towards offering customization is what opened up the custom options. Without that, we still might see Premier pads with leather straps. I do believe though the "new" Lefevre understands the new markets and won't shy away from evolution moving forward. they have teased the 20 line will have rebounds than the 4 line and there were will be their take a speed sliding material (which is sorta ironic).

And yes, you concept of EFlex is correct. CCM concept to offer a softer pad at retail and work better with Price. As I have heard the story, it took a lot of saying "no" by CCM to get the EFlex to where it is and not just being a 580 with a solid core.

The reality is that it's almost impossible to protect IP in hockey. Think about many Velocity cones hit the market 15 years ago and there was never any lawsuits. If both companies want to make an EFlex style pad, I would imagine that is happens.

You have to have something very unique in order to have IP protection, and even then, there are ways around it. In cycling: Shimano patented a cassette hub that would likely never see production. Why? Because there was technology that could be used in other things, even in fishing reels. You have to get so far ahead of things in order to have protected IP. Solid core pads were really a step in the evolution. Eventually, everyone figures out their own processes to achieve similar results. 

I hope there ends up being an amicable solution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bunnyman666 said:

You have to have something very unique in order to have IP protection, and even then, there are ways around it. In cycling: Shimano patented a cassette hub that would likely never see production. Why? Because there was technology that could be used in other things, even in fishing reels. You have to get so far ahead of things in order to have protected IP. Solid core pads were really a step in the evolution. Eventually, everyone figures out their own processes to achieve similar results. 

I hope there ends up being an amicable solution. 

In cycling discussions, I remember when Colnago announced an electric drive train to shift gears but I don't recall ever seeing it available on the market, and now Shimano is vying for the pros to use their Dura Ace electrical drive train. Why wasn't the previous one acceptable or patented?

In hockey discussions, we can mention the advent of the sliding toe, the smart straps, the BOA system, the chin sling, etc etc 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RichMan said:

In cycling discussions, I remember when Colnago announced an electric drive train to shift gears but I don't recall ever seeing it available on the market, and now Shimano is vying for the pros to use their Dura Ace electrical drive train. Why wasn't the previous one acceptable or patented?

In hockey discussions, we can mention the advent of the sliding toe, the smart straps, the BOA system, the chin sling, etc etc 

We could go back to Mavic Zap for e-drive trains...

There very well be a patent on the Colnago drivetrain, but typically, designs don’t always go to production for one of a thousand reasons. It could have been literally way too expensive to produce. 

But it brings this point: so many will go in different directions to attain the same result. Shimano and Colnago on e-shifting is a great example. Yes- I got to see a Colnago being built years ago when the frames were hand-brazed.

I have noticed a lot of copy cats in the world of hockey. But it is no different than in any other sport. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Teezle said:

Regarding this part: is the material planned to be different from the white speedskin that the Lefevre factory had access to with CCM, or will it be different now that the partnership is over? The 4.1 and 12.1 lines have the option for a "fast glide" material on the sliding surface on the customizer, but it is only available in white - which leads me to think it is the same white speedskin.

Fast glide is what they are using like Speed Skin or Opti-Slide. I have not seen the material, so I cannot comment it. It if it's like Speed Skin, I don't think that would shock anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheGoalNet said:

Fast glide is what they are using like Speed Skin or Opti-Slide. I have not seen the material, so I cannot comment it. It if it's like Speed Skin, I don't think that would shock anyone.

I’ve emailed Lefevre and was told that fast-glide is comparable to speedskin.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 6:42 PM, ThatCarGuy said:

I’ve emailed Lefevre and was told that fast-glide is comparable to speedskin.

It's a different material though. I believe he means it's a fast sliding material, like saying Speed Skin and OptiSlide are a similar concept.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheGoalNet said:

It's a different material though. I believe he means it's a fast sliding material, like saying Speed Skin and OptiSlide are a similar concept.

So it's not just SpeedSkin, but under a different name, like how Brian's "Primo" and Vaughn's "QuickSlide" are the same material, just branded differently? Is there a 4th super-slide-material entering the goalie space through Lefevre (others: SpeedSkin, Primo/Quickslide, Bauer's CORtech stuff), or will it be one of the existing ones branded as "Lefevre Fast Glide Zoom Zoom (tm)!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ZeroGravitas said:

CANADA

PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

DISTRICT OF

MONTREAL

N °:

500-17-111032-200

DATE:

January 9, 2020

______________________________________________________________________

UNDER THE PRESIDENCY OF

HONORABLE

FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, JCS

______________________________________________________________________

GOAL EQUIPMENT OF GOAL MICHEL LEFEBVRE INC.

- and -

MICHEL LEFEBVRE

seekers

vs.

SPORT MASKA INC.

defendant

______________________________________________________________________

 

TRANSCRIPTION OF THE JUDGMENT HELD ON JANUARY 9, 2020

( interim interlocutory injunction )

______________________________________________________________________

               

[1]            The plaintiffs wish the Court to issue, at the provisional stage, an interlocutory injunction which would essentially have the effect of ordering the defendant to cease making use, which they consider unlawful, of confidential information belonging to them.

* * *

[2]            The applicants have been working for several years in the design and manufacture of goalkeeper equipment intended for professional and amateur hockey players. Until December 31, 2019, they were bound to the defendant by a license, manufacturing, development and technical consultation agreement [1] .

[3]            The expiration of this agreement ended a long-standing partnership in which the parties had joined forces in the manufacturing and marketing of various ranges of goalkeeper equipment.

[4]            Under this P-5 agreement, the defendant had recognized that it would have access to confidential information belonging to the claimants. This notion of confidential information is defined as follows in article 2.1.4:

" Confidential EGB Information " includes, but is not limited to i) all technical knowledge, non-patented inventions, technical drawings, secrets and processes (templates, pre-molded parts, assembly boxes, etc.) relating to the manufacture of EGB products , ii) the identity of EGB employees, their functions and their remuneration, iii) financial information relating to EGB except information which i) becomes part of the public domain without the fault of Maska or its representatives, ii ) are already known to Maska at the time of their disclosure; or iii) are provided to Maska by other persons who do not breach an obligation of confidentiality towards EGB.

[5]            The defendant had also recognized the importance - for the applicants - of this confidential information, and it undertook not to use it other than for the purposes of the agreement [2] .

[6]            Other provisions imposed on applicants similar obligations with respect to confidential information belonging to the defendant [3] .

[7]            There is also a provision in Article 11 of the agreement stating that "[e] ll secrets and manufacturing processes, and all discoveries, ideas or inventions and creations [...] designed, developed or emanating from one of the parties or its employees will be the exclusive property of said party ”.

[8]            Furthermore, it was expressly provided that all the obligations relating to confidential information would survive the termination of the agreement [4] .

* * *

[9]            The dispute arose when the applicants learned at the end of December 2019, in the middle of the World Junior Hockey Championship, that the defendant had started to market leggings which they consider practically identical to the leggings which they manufacture themselves on behalf of many professional goalkeepers. In their view, the leggings are so similar that they were necessarily manufactured by the defendant using confidential information belonging to them, and therefore in violation of Convention P-5.

[10]         It should be noted that, under the terms of the agreement, the applicants had reserved the right to continue manufacturing the most upscale equipment intended for professional goalkeepers working in certain markets, including Canada and the United States. [5] . However, as the defendant's representative - Ms. Sonya Di Biase - acknowledges in her affidavit [6] , it sometimes happened, during peak periods, that the defendant agreed to help the plaintiffs by manufacturing some of these high-end equipment for professional goalkeepers. It can therefore be deduced that the defendant had access to all the information necessary for the manufacture of this equipment.

* * *

[11]         Since this is a request for an interim interlocutory injunction, the applicants must establish [7] :

1)     an appearance of right;

2)     that the issuance of the orders sought would prevent serious or irreparable harm during the course of the proceeding;

3)     that, in the event that these orders are not issued, they would suffer greater prejudice than that which the defendant would suffer if such orders were issued;

4)     that there is an urgency to intervene before the hearing of the request at the interlocutory stage.

[12]         It is important to bear in mind that, at the provisional stage, these criteria must be applied with "much more rigor" in view of the "extremely exceptional [l] and urgen [t]" nature of the Court's intervention, and that "if there is any doubt [,] the request must be rejected" [8] .

* * *

[13]         With regard to the first criterion, that of legal appearance, it should be noted that the Court of Appeal noted in Groupe CRH Canada inc. that this criterion is "generally undemanding", which means that it is usually sufficient to find that, on the merits, the request is "neither frivolous nor vexatious" [9] .

[14]         It is clear that Convention P-5 limits the use that the defendant can make, since January 1 st , of confidential information belonging to the plaintiffs.

[15]         This finding is obviously not sufficient, in itself, to conclude that there appears to be a right capable of giving rise to the orders sought by the applicants. However, the latter must demonstrate, on the basis of information currently on the file, the apparent merits of their claim that the defendant actually made illicit use of their confidential information and that it is likely to continue to do so. do by then a possible hearing at the interlocutory stage.

[16]         This is where things get tough for applicants.

[17]         The latter did not produce any expertise in the file, which is understandable given that they have not yet had physical access to the leggings in dispute.

[18]         The main evidence they rely on is Exhibit P-12, which contains a series of photos of the new leggings that the defendant recently introduced, photos taken during the last World Junior Hockey Championship. These photos are accompanied by photos of the leggings which the defendant previously marketed and of those which the applicants currently market.

[19]         It appears from the photos produced under the symbol P-12 that the defendant's new leggings are, at least in appearance, both different from those which it marketed before and very similar - in several respects - to those marketed by the plaintiffs . However, it cannot reasonably be concluded that this fact alone is sufficient to establish a violation of Article 2.1.4 of the agreement. The reason is that this provision very clearly excludes from the concept of confidential information any information that is in the public domain, and it is precisely this kind of information that is found in Exhibit P-12: These are characteristics relating to the design and the type of materials used, characteristics which any member of the public is able to observe and which therefore have no confidential nature - whether in general or within the meaning of article 2.1. 4 of the agreement.

[20]         These photos tell us nothing about the manufacturing processes used by the defendant. They also tell us nothing about the other characteristics of the leggings that are not visible to the naked eye. Contrary to what the plaintiffs seem to claim, it cannot reasonably be inferred from the mere fact that several aspects of the leggings are apparently very similar to the naked eye any use by the defendant of "technical knowledge, [...] technical drawings [or] processes […] relating to the manufacture of EGB Products ” [10] which are not part of the public domain.

[21]         It is true that, as I pointed out above, it appears from the record that the defendant had access to all the information necessary for the manufacture of the high-end equipment usually produced by the plaintiffs on behalf of goalkeepers professionals. In addition, it can reasonably be assumed that this information was at least partly composed of confidential information within the meaning of article 2.1.4 of the P-5 agreement. However, the fact that the defendant is in possession of certain confidential information and that it has the possibility of using it unlawfully certainly does not tend to demonstrate, in itself, that it did in fact make illegal use of it. Let's not forget that good faith is presumed: article 2805 CCQ

[22]         In sum, the evidence currently on the record is not sufficient to conclude that the claimants have a reasonable chance of success. It certainly cannot be excluded that, by the interlocutory stage, they will collect additional evidence which will further support their claims. However, even a reasonable possibility that they may improve their evidence in the more or less near future is not sufficient or even relevant at this stage. Given the rigor required at the provisional stage, it is important to limit the analysis of the issue of the appearance of law in the record as it stands at the hearing, and not to extend it to the record as it may be constituted at a later stage of the proceeding.

[23]         It should however be recalled that, in the event that they do manage to improve their evidence, the claimants may resubmit their request at the interlocutory stage, which request will be examined de novo by the judge who will be seized of it [11] .

[24]         It must therefore be concluded that the request for an interlocutory injunction was rejected in the current state of the file, despite the fact that the arguments that the plaintiffs put forward with regard to serious prejudice, the preponderance of disadvantages and in the emergency seemed to me very solid.

* * *

[25]         In conclusion, allow me to remind the parties that Convention P-5 contains provisions relating to mediation and arbitration which very clearly reflect their intention to resolve any dispute arising therefrom out of court. It is obviously up to the parties to decide to invoke these clauses, but they would undoubtedly have an interest in reflecting very seriously on the advisability of availing themselves of the mechanisms they have agreed upon in order to avoid getting bogged down in complex and costly.

[26]         It should also be recalled the obligations of good faith, transparency, cooperation and loyalty which are incumbent on the parties under articles 19 and 20 CCP Yesterday afternoon, the defendant said it was open to make available to the applicants a copy of the leggings that she recently launched. We can only encourage such an exchange of information between the parties, hoping that this will allow them to quickly resolve their dispute.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[27]         REJECTS the applicants' provisional interlocutory injunction;

[28]         JUSTICE FEES to follow.

 

 

 

 

 

FRÉDÉRIC BACHAND, jcs

 

Me Jean-Luc Couture

Me Julie Banville

Therrien Couture Joli-Cœur sencrl

Plaintiffs' lawyers

 

Me Kristian Brabander

Me Amanda Gravel

McCarthy Tétrault sencrl, srl

Counsel for the defendant

 

Hearing dates:

January 8 and 9, 2019

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very, very interesting. 

In summary: while it is clear CCM had access to Lefevre information/designs, it can not be proven via photographs of goalies wearing gear that those information/designs were used to make the gear, as what is seen in photographs is just public domain information and any presumptions about the internals of the gear are just that: presumptions.  So therefore, claim rejected.

Right?

Edited by seagoal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, seagoal said:

Very, very interesting. 

In summary: while it is clear CCM had access to Lefevre information/designs, it can not be proven via photographs of goalies wearing gear that those information/designs were used to make the gear, as what is seen in photographs is just public domain information and any presumptions about the internals of the gear are just that: presumptions.  So therefore, claim rejected.

Right?

There are 2 sides to this story and it cannot get lost. Did Lefevre actually design the EFLex or did they act more as a contract manufacturer for a pad conceptualized by CCM? If scenario 2 is the case, that would be a pretty frivolous case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it seems like Lefebvre wins this one. In all honesty, can a company actually claim rights to any leg pads or whatnot? Claim to fame or originator, but that's it if you ask me.

Vaughn and CCM could of been battling at it as well for similar models. CCM should of offered Lefebvre an extension and they didn't. Lefebvre wasn't just gonna roll over and die here. He still has the hockey fever in him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheGoalNet said:

There are 2 sides to this story and it cannot get lost. Did Lefevre actually design the EFLex or did they act more as a contract manufacturer for a pad conceptualized by CCM? If scenario 2 is the case, that would be a pretty frivolous case.

Based on the court statement, it seems like the case is more about the Axis being very similar in design to the Lefevre badged Premier and Eflex. Emphasis below is mine. 

[18]         The main evidence they rely on is Exhibit P-12, which contains a series of photos of the new leggings that the defendant recently introduced, photos taken during the last World Junior Hockey Championship. These photos are accompanied by photos of the leggings which the defendant previously marketed and of those which the applicants currently market.

2 hours ago, RichMan said:

So it seems like Lefebvre wins this one. In all honesty, can a company actually claim rights to any leg pads or whatnot? Claim to fame or originator, but that's it if you ask me.

Vaughn and CCM could of been battling at it as well for similar models. CCM should of offered Lefebvre an extension and they didn't. Lefebvre wasn't just gonna roll over and die here. He still has the hockey fever in him.

I don't see how they won at all.  They were not able to get the courts to stop CCM from producing the Axis.  Emphasis is lifted from the original document.

"FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[27]         REJECTS the applicants' provisional interlocutory injunction;

[28]         JUSTICE FEES to follow."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Chenner29 said:

Based on the court statement, it seems like the case is more about the Axis being very similar in design to the Lefevre badged Premier and Eflex. Emphasis below is mine. 

[18]         The main evidence they rely on is Exhibit P-12, which contains a series of photos of the new leggings that the defendant recently introduced, photos taken during the last World Junior Hockey Championship. These photos are accompanied by photos of the leggings which the defendant previously marketed and of those which the applicants currently market.

I don't see how they won at all.  They were not able to get the courts to stop CCM from producing the Axis.  Emphasis is lifted from the original document.

"FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[27]         REJECTS the applicants' provisional interlocutory injunction;

[28]         JUSTICE FEES to follow."

From what I understand, the case is about CCM manufacturing EF4 pads for Canada's goalies at the WJC that Lefevre didn't produce - I don't think Axis is part of their argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, seagoal said:

L20.1

Looks to be rivaling Bauer.

This is probably the pad Bernier has been wearing.

I see a bindingless top.  Presumably a new core.  Extra Stiff core is available.

image.png.7e335bcec4fd781f67828a8aca0e8e89.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, motowngoalie said:

From what I understand, the case is about CCM manufacturing EF4 pads for Canada's goalies at the WJC that Lefevre didn't produce - I don't think Axis is part of their argument. 

Then why would the decision specifically discuss a new line, as opposed to an existing line that the two parties collaborated on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Chenner29 said:

This is probably the pad Bernier has been wearing.

I see a bindingless top.  Presumably a new core.  Extra Stiff core is available.

image.png.7e335bcec4fd781f67828a8aca0e8e89.png

I wish they would provide more information on exactly what the various options mean, specifically this one for the blocker:

image.png.949d04ca40f875f1071c80cc062ff937.png

The second two are (likely) bindingless faces, but I have no idea how they differ from each other or from the 585 aside from that. Are they trying to say that if you like the 590 glove you should go with the 595 blocker? Are they unrelated? Do the numbers refer to differently curved boards, or bevels, or something else? Launching a customizer without actually explaining any of your features is pretty frustrating.

Edited by Teezle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, motowngoalie said:

From what I understand, the case is about CCM manufacturing EF4 pads for Canada's goalies at the WJC that Lefevre didn't produce - I don't think Axis is part of their argument. 

In the court document it says the evidence for the infraction was photos from the WJC.  From what I can tell it didn't mention any specific lines or models, unfortunately. 

It's a good point to hopefully clarify, whether or not Axis is part of this.  It seems like it would most certainly include the EF4 (type) gear.

It's interesting to me how the issue of "public domain" came up which brings into focus the issue of originality in gear.  I mean really....how original is any gear?  They pads all have a thigh rise, a place for your knee, they roll sideways, they wrap around your shin, go over your skate, connect to your skate.  The court document basically says any resemblance gathered by photos is merely superficial....there is no original *looking* pad...and any claim of design theft with photos as evidence is speculative at best. 

So to hammer this case home, Lefevre would have to have access to internal CCM stuff right now to show design documents that prove theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RichMan said:

So it seems like Lefebvre wins this one. In all honesty, can a company actually claim rights to any leg pads or whatnot? Claim to fame or originator, but that's it if you ask me.

Vaughn and CCM could of been battling at it as well for similar models. CCM should of offered Lefebvre an extension and they didn't. Lefebvre wasn't just gonna roll over and die here. He still has the hockey fever in him.

Actually , CCM won.

Lefevre asked the court to tell CCM to stop.

The court said Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...