Settlement Agreement Meaning In French

Oct 7 2021 • Posted in Uncategorized

Boatsmart, however, continued to use the phrases “BOAT EXAM” and “BOATING EXAM”, which can be translated as “BOAT EXAM”. Skipper requested that Boatsmart`s continued use of “BOAT EXAM” and “BOATING EXAM” be contrary to the agreement, as the agreement clearly limited translations of “BOAT EXAM”. In skipper Online Services (SOS) Inc. 2030564 Ontario Inc., the Ontario Supreme Court reviewed a settlement agreement preventing Boatsmart from using translated versions of certain words. Skipper and Boatsmart were competing companies that organized online training for the Pleasure Craft Operator Card, as requested by Transport Canada. The parties had a trademark dispute over the words that each party could use as metatags, which are hidden keywords that influence how the parties appear in search engine results. The two companies entered into a settlement agreement where boatsmart undertook not to use in its meta-days the following words or “inversions, spelling mistakes, translations or plurals”: BOATER EXAM; BOAT EXAMINATION; BOAT EXAMINATION; BOATEREXAM; EXAMINATIONBOAT. A recent case in Ontario is a rare example for parties seeking judicial interpretation of a brand settlement agreement. He also stresses the importance of understanding all kinds of translated meanings of a word before committing not to use translated versions, a challenge that often arises in a bilingual country. On the other hand, Boatsmart argued that the agreement was ambiguous and that the parties never intended to restrict the terms “BOAT EXAM” and “BOATING EXAM”. It argued that the word “translation” in the Agreement applied to translations into languages other than English or French, since the Agreement already contained specific terms in English and French.

Boatsmart also claimed that any other interpretation would lead to commercial absurdity and go beyond what was necessary for the purposes of the agreement. The Court found that the clear meaning of the agreement prevented Boatsmart from using the translated terms `BOAT EXAM`, including `BOAT EXAM` and `BOATING EXAM`. In addition, the General Court disputed the fact that the context of the agreement indicated the intention to allow Boatsmart to use those terms. The purpose of the agreement was to limit as much as possible the use by the parties of certain terms and phrases concerning their websites in order to influence the results of search engines. The finding that Boatsmart was prevented from using those conditions did not go beyond what was necessary for the purposes of the agreement. So the request was accepted…

Comments are closed.