2023 0720 - LC - Notice of Application - Interm Injunction - Primerica - Primerica vs. Marco Moukhaiber - [Always Marco] - 9p

  • 2023 0720 - Notice of Application - Interm Injunction - Primerica  ---  [BonkNote]  ---  9p
  • 3 - Grounds for making this application: The Parties
  • 4 - The Respondent’s Social Media Campaign against Primerica
    • [Marco earns revenue]
    • [Cease and Desist Letter, Trademark, Copyright]
    • 10. The Primerica Videos include false and misleading statements about Primerica, including that Primerica:
      • (a) engages in “crime”, “fraud”, and “illegal” activity; and
      • (b) is a “cult”, a “scam”, and an illegal “pyramid scheme”.
    • 5 - (the “April 14, 2023 Letter”). The Respondent failed to comply with the April 14, 2023 Letter. Instead, the Respondent posted a Primerica Video that day titled, “PRIMERICA is threatening to sue me”, displaying the contents of that letter.
    • 6 - 14. The Respondent did not comply with the July 16, 2023 Letter. Instead, the Respondent posted the following material to his Instagram account:
      • (a) “Wait til you see what I do next […] I’m gonna use this document to control the IG profiles of all Primerica’s top leaders.”
      • (b) “Primerica’s stock hit it’s [sic] lowest point in a week almost the exact moment my video dropped”
      • (c) “SCURRYING LIKE RATS […] I know you’re reading this so just know I have access to ALL of your telegram group chats. I see everything, you can’t hide!!!”
      • (d) “just got a second cease & desist letter from Primerica telling me it [sic] I don’t delete all Primerica-related content by tmrow at 11 am they’re suing lmao”.
    • 7 - 15. Upon learning that the Respondent intended to post a livestream video which was likely to include further content related to Primerica, Primerica sent another cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent via email on July 19, 2023 (the "July 19, 2023 Letter"). The Respondent did not comply with the July 19, 2023 Letter. Instead, the Respondent posted another Primerica Video on July 19, 2023.
  • 6-7 - Impact of the Primerica Videos
    • 16. As a result of the Primerica Videos, Primerica will suffer irreparable harm to its business reputation and goodwill.
      • 16. Further, directed removal of the blog post would undermine the public's interest in free access to accurate information...
    • 17. The Primerica Videos are defamatory. Among other things, they communicate to the public unfounded, untrue and damaging statements that Primerica is engaged in unlawful activities and is a “scam.” As result of the Respondent’s defamatory comments in the Primerica Videos, Primerica has suffered, and is likely to continue to suffer, damages in the form of loss of reputation and goodwill among its customers, employees and licensed representatives.
    • 18. The Respondent’s subscription counts on the AlwaysMarco Accounts are rising, as are the number of views of the Primerica Videos and Social Media Posts. The reach of Primerica Videos and related Social Media Posts is global in scope. The Respondent has earned revenue as a result of the Primerica Videos and the Social Media Posts.
    • 19. The Respondent has increasingly targeted Primerica’s current employees and representatives in his more recent Primerica Videos, and has admitted that much of the information obtained for the Primerica Videos was procured through deceit and other unlawful means.
    • 20. Further, the Respondent admits in the Primerica Videos and Social Media Posts that the intent of the Primerica Videos and Social Media Posts is to harm Primerica and its reputation, either expressly or by implication, and he has plans to undertake further activities with the same objective.
  • 7 - Basis for this Injunction
    • 23. Primerica seeks injunctive relief pursuant to section 53.2 of the Trademarks Act, RSC 1985, c T-13, section 34 of the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42 and the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2.
    • 24. An injunction restraining the Respondent is warranted because:
      • (a) there is a serious issue to be tried and further, and in the alternative, Primerica has a strong prima facie case against the Respondent;
      • (b) Primerica will continue to suffer substantial and irreparable harm if the Primerica Videos remain accessible and the Respondent continues to post content about Primerica; and
      • (c) the balance of convenience favours granting injunctive relief.
    • 8 - 26. An injunction restraining the Respondent is also warranted on the basis of defamation as:
      • (a) the Primerica Videos are defamatory in the sense that they lower Primerica’s reputation;
      • (b) the Primerica Videos plainly refer to Primerica;
      • (c) the Primerica Videos were communicated widely via social media channels and the internet; and
      • (d) the Respondent has no sustainable defence.