Chenner29

Some new pics that were posted this morning.

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

This is probably the pad Bernier has been wearing. I see a bindingless top. Presumably a new core. Extra Stiff core is available.

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."

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

3rded for Bauer 1X.

The biggest challenge for me transitioning from competitive play to beer leagues was how the teams played in front of me. I've played with all types of players in these leagues, ranging from people who have collected paychecks to play hockey all the way down to people putting on skates for the first time. I've tried for years to get people to buy in to the systems I was taught, so good luck. IMO: Both D protect the slot at all times. Never dip below the goal line. Outnumbering the opposing team in your own zone is never a bad idea, especially if the other team has an overall higher skill level. If the puck goes behind the goal line, Center can come in and apply pressure or presence there. Forwards should never be standing still when D picks up the puck. Support the puck, work to create lanes and options for the puck carrier. Getting the puck up using the boards should not be a hard rule - if the other team is decently smart, they will pick up on this really quick and block off the boards. Making a good pass to another player who is creating space should supersede everything else. Give the puck carrier two or more options at all times. D should never attack the puck or puckcarrier in any of the 3 zones. Skate backwards with the puck carrier with the intention of eliminating: time, space, or options. If they have possession but your D has neutralized their ability to shoot or pass, then they really aren't doing much. Never force a pass in any of the 3 zones. Better to have the puck stripped than to make a bad pass directly to the opposing team (easier to apply back pressure from 1 foot away vs 5 feet away). Constant movement and cycling in the offensive zone should create space and time that wasn't there before. I see way too many mid to low end beer league teams set up in a 3-2 or 1-2-2 in the offensive zone at even strength and just stand around waiting to receive a pass.

That is a triple T. It’s basically a double T backed by a single

12.1 posted today. Gloves still don't match. 4.1 here too

Very interesting for sure. Looks like they extended the heart guard/chest plate all the way down to the belly button

Just throwing this out there. With the naming convention for the L87 (as in the year 1987), I'm kind of wondering if each of the models follows suite. IE. 4.1 is their Premier style pad (came out around 2004?), 12.1 is their Eflex style pad (EF1 was 2012 or thereabouts?) and 20.1 will be their new style.

Looks like we will get a slow trickle of gear being released. Retro graphic available today Two released next Friday, I’m guessing Eflex and Premier style Final unveiling is the 20.1 on the 17th https://customizer.lefevregoalie.com

Had to do a double take, thought that was Neil Patrick Harris

Just curious, would you be willing to share what happened with No Icing? Bob has always been very blunt with his recommendations, but I have never had an issue with service.

No, they were white and navy Premier 1s.