Latest news with #Vancouver-based
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Court Reserves Judgement on both Judicial Review Petition and Injunction Application Relating to Mount Polley Tailings Storage Facility
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, June 30, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Imperial Metals Corporation (TSX:III) (the 'Company' or 'Imperial') announces that, further to the Company's news release dated May 9, 2025, following a four-day hearing, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has reserved judgment on the judicial review petition and injunction application filed by the Xatśūll First Nation ('Xatśūll') that challenged two provincial decisions authorizing a four-metre raise of the tailings storage facility embankment at the Mount Polley mine (the 'TSF Raise') until the Court issues its reasons for decision, expected on August 6, 2025. MPMC is permitted to continue construction of the four-metre raise as planned and operations at the mine continue in accordance with the permits granted by the Ministry of Mining and Critical Minerals and the Environmental Assessment Office. In the interim, MPMC has provided a voluntary undertaking to refrain from depositing tailings that rely on the TSF Raise until August 7, 2025 to allow the Court time to consider the matter. The petition and injunction were heard together on June 24-27, 2025. At the hearing, counsel for Mount Polley Mining Corporation ('MPMC'), Imperial's wholly owned subsidiary, and counsel for the Province of British Columbia argued the decisions are valid and were issued through the proper process with adequate consultation. Imperial and MPMC are committed to transparent engagement with Indigenous communities and environmental responsibility. Maintaining a meaningful relationship with Xatśūll and Williams Lake First Nation is important to the Company, including supporting sustainable development through meaningful dialogue. 'We appreciate the Court taking its time to carefully consider this matter and await its decision on the interlocutory injunction application and petition. We are committed to working collaboratively with Xatśūll and other Indigenous communities to address their concerns,' stated Brian Kynoch, President of Imperial. 'Our goal is to ensure that all operations at Mount Polley mine are conducted in an environmentally responsible manner that respects the rights of Indigenous peoples.' Imperial and MPMC will continue to work with provincial regulators and Indigenous communities to ensure future actions align with regulatory requirements and community expectations. About Imperial Imperial is a Vancouver-based exploration, mine development and operating company with holdings that include the Mount Polley mine (100%), the Huckleberry mine (100%), and the Red Chris mine (30%). Imperial also holds a portfolio of 23 greenfield exploration properties in British Columbia. Imperial Contacts Brian Kynoch | President | 604.669.8959Darb S. Dhillon | Chief Financial Officer | 604.669.8959 Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements Certain information contained in this news release are not statements of historical fact and are 'forward-looking' statements. Forward-looking statements relate to future events or future performance and reflect Imperial management's expectations or beliefs regarding future events, and include, but are not limited to statements regarding: Imperial's expectations and timing with respect to the construction and operation of the tailings storage facility at the Mount Polley mine, including the four-meter lift currently under construction; the anticipated progress and outcome of any remaining or future legal or regulatory processes; the possibility that future legal or regulatory developments could result in material changes to the provincial permitting process; the Company's and MPMC's expectations regarding their relationships with Indigenous communities, including Xatśūll; expectations regarding ongoing engagement with Xatśūll and other Indigenous communities during the permitting process; and other risks outlined in statements made by Imperial from time to time in the filings made by Imperial with securities regulators. Imperial disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by applicable securities legislation. In certain cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as 'plans', 'expects' or 'does not expect', 'is expected', 'is targeted', 'targets', 'outlook', 'budget', 'scheduled', 'estimates', 'forecasts', 'intends', 'anticipates' or 'does not anticipate', or 'believes', or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results 'may', 'could', 'would', 'might' or 'will be taken', 'occur' or 'be achieved" or the negative of these terms or comparable terminology. By their very nature forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Imperial to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. In making the forward-looking statements in this news release, Imperial has applied certain factors and assumptions that are based on information currently available to Imperial as well as Imperial's current beliefs and assumptions. These factors and assumptions and beliefs and assumptions include, the risk factors detailed from time to time in Imperial's interim and annual financial statements and management's discussion and analysis of those statements, and the Company's current Annual Information Form, all of which are filed and available for review on SEDAR+ at Although Imperial has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual actions, events or results to differ materially from those described in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause actions, events or results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended, many of which are beyond Imperial's ability to control or predict. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward looking statements and all forward-looking statements in this news release are qualified by these cautionary in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Lululemon accuses Costco of selling ‘unauthorized' versions of its $128 pants
Lululemon is suing Costco, alleging that the discount wholesaler is selling knockoffs of its $128 pants and other pricey athleisure clothing. In a lawsuit filed Friday, Lululemon said Costco has 'unlawfully traded' on the athleisure brand's 'reputation, goodwill and sweat equity by selling unauthorized and unlicensed apparel employing knockoff, infringing versions' of its products. Specifically, the Vancouver-based athletic apparel maker says Costco's private-label line Kirkland is selling similar pants, hoodies and jackets at a fraction of the price. The company accuses Costco of leading customers into believing that the Kirkland-branded 'dupes are in fact manufactured by the authentic supplier of the 'original' products.' In the 49-page lawsuit filed in California, Lululemon shows the alleged design similarities of its products with Costco's, as well as the price differences. One example in the lawsuit is that Lululemon sells a Scuba hoodie for $118, while a Costco version sells for about $8. Costco didn't immediately respond to CNN's request for comment. In a statement to CNN, Lululemon said as 'an innovation-led company that invests significantly in the research, development, and design of our products, we take the responsibility of protecting and enforcing our intellectual property rights very seriously and pursue the appropriate legal action when necessary.' Lululemon said that 'one of the purposes of selling 'dupes' is to confuse consumers … into believing that the 'dupes' are (Lululemon's) authentic products when they are not.' Lululemon is seeking to 'recover fully' the financial losses by seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages as well as asking a court to demand that Costco to stop selling these products. The retailer has sued others before . In 2021, Lululemon sued Peloton for allegedly making similar-looking apparel. Two years later, the companies patched up their relationship and partnered to sell branded clothing. Lululemon recently cut its full-year guidance citing a 'dynamic macroenvironment' that includes a decline in visits to its US stores, the impact of tariffs and rising competition from other brands, such as Vuori and Alo. Shares of Lululemon (LULU) are down 37% for the year. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Insider
a day ago
- Business
- Business Insider
Lululemon is accusing Costco of ripping off its chinos and yoga jackets
Lululemon is going after Costco, saying it copied the designs of some of its most popular product lines. The Vancouver-based athleisure brand filed a lawsuit against Costco on Friday in California court, accusing it of ripping off the designs of its yoga jackets and chinos. In the 49-page filing, it spotlighted three product lines — its Scuba hoodies and sweatshirts, Define jackets, and ABC pants — saying Costco had created "confusingly similar" dupes of them. It said Costco had infringed its "trade dress," a broad trademark law that protects the look and feel of a product. In the lawsuit, Lululemon put pictures of Costco's and its products side by side in tables to emphasize design similarities. For example, it compared Costco's Kirkland men's pants, priced at $19.90, to the $128 ABC men's pants. It also compared Costco's Spyder women's yoga jacket, which retails for $21.90, to the Lululemon Define jacket, which retails for $128. "There is even a hashtag 'LululemonDupes' on social media platforms such as TikTok that social media influencers use when promoting these copycat products," Lululemon said in the filing. "The Infringing Products create an improper association with Plaintiffs' authentic products." Per the filing, Lululemon said it wanted damages from Costco in the form of lost profits and compensation for patent infringement. It also wants Costco to stop manufacturing and selling more products that are "identical or confusingly similar" to Lululemon's clothing. Costco has yet to respond to Lululemon's lawsuit. Representatives for Lululemon and Costco did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider. Lululemon has accused other companies of copyright infringement. In 2021, the brand sued exercise equipment company Peloton after it launched its clothing line. Lululemon used similar wording in that lawsuit, saying Peloton's products looked "confusingly similar" to its own Align leggings. The two companies settled the lawsuit in September 2022. In 2012, Lululemon sued Calvin Klein, saying the latter infringed design patents on its now-discontinued "Astro" yoga pants' signature waistband and design. However, it withdrew the lawsuit in the same year after the parties agreed to a confidential settlement.
Edmonton Journal
a day ago
- Business
- Edmonton Journal
Lululemon sues Costco for selling alleged dupes of its products
Article content Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. is accusing Costco Wholesale Corp. of infringing on its intellectual property by selling knockoffs of some of its most popular products. A lawsuit filed in a California court recently alleges Costco sells dupes of Lululemon's Scuba hoodies and sweatshirts, Define jackets and ABC pants. Some of the alleged fakes Vancouver-based Lululemon identified are sold under Costco's private label Kirkland, but others are made by manufacturers Danskin, Jockey and Spyder.
Hamilton Spectator
2 days ago
- Business
- Hamilton Spectator
Lululemon sues Costco for selling alleged dupes of its products
Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. is accusing Costco Wholesale Corp. of infringing on its intellectual property by selling knockoffs of some of its most popular products. A lawsuit filed in a California court recently alleges Costco sells dupes of Lululemon's Scuba hoodies and sweatshirts, Define jackets and ABC pants. Some of the alleged fakes Vancouver-based Lululemon identified are sold under Costco's private label Kirkland, but others are made by manufacturers Danskin, Jockey and Spyder. 'Some customers incorrectly believe these infringing products are authentic Lululemon apparel while still other customers specifically purchase the infringing products because they are difficult to distinguish from authentic Lululemon products, particularly for downstream purchasers or observers,' the lawsuit says. Lululemon alleges these scenarios take advantage of patents it holds, as well as the reputation and goodwill it has built with customers. In its 49-page court filing, Lululemon says it tried to address the dupes by sending Costco cease and desist letters but is now asking a court to step in. Lululemon has requested the matter be heard by a jury trial, which it wants to order Costco to cease manufacturing, importing, marketing and selling the alleged dupes. It also wants the Washington-based retailer to remove any instances where it was advertising alleged dupes online or in print and is asking the court to require Costco to cover any lost profits Lululemon incurred from the products. Costco did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It has yet to file a response to Lululemon's lawsuit. Dupes have become incredibly popular in recent years as shoppers looked to cope with inflation and a global trade war by seeking products mimicking the originals made by name brands. The phenomenon has gained traction online in particular, with social media accounts sharing the best dupes they've found. While knock-off cosmetics are especially popular, Lululemon has also become a target because it sells its athletic wear at higher prices, which some customers find unattainable. The lawsuit comes weeks after Lululemon said it would try to weather new and possibly incoming tariffs with price increases that will be 'modest in nature' and applied only to a 'small' portion of its products. The brand has been working to bounce back from a lack of newness that disappointed consumers last year and earlier this year. Newness — how fresh a brand's products and styles appear to consumers — is one of the key ways retailers draw in customers. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 29, 2025. Companies in this story: (TSX:LULU)
