Decision in Footwear Case Confirms that Interlocutory Injunctions in Trade-mark Matters Are Getting More Difficult to Obtain

1995-01-01

ROCKYROADAHEAD:DECISIONINFOOTWEARCASECONFIRMSTHAT
INTERLOCUTORYINJUNCTIONSINTRADE-MARKMATTERSAREGETTINGMORE
DIFFICULTTOOBTAIN

by
BarryGamache
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

ArecentdecisionoftheTrialDivisionoftheFederalCourtofCanadahas
confirmedwhatI.P.lawyershaveknownforsometimenow:itisbecoming
moreandmoredifficulttoobtainaninterlocutoryinjunctionintrade-mark
mattersinCanada(CaterpillarInc.v.LesChaussuresMarioModaInc.,No.T-
2981-94,July11,1995).
CaterpillarInc.(“Caterpillar”),thefamousmanufacturerofearthmoving
equipment,heavymachinesandassortedotherproducts,appliedforan
interlocutoryinjunctionenjoiningthedefendantLesChaussuresMarioModa
Inc.(“MarioModa”)fromusingagroupoftrade-marksandhang-tagsonthe
workbootsdistributedbythedefendant,allegingpassing-offandtrade-mark
infringement.Apartfromitsmainactivities,Caterpillarhadformanyyears
licenseditstrade-marksforuseonproductsunrelatedtoitscorebusiness.
Since1988,oneoftheseproductshasbeenfootwear.
Throughaseriesoftransactions,defendantMarioModabecamethe
exclusivedistributorofCaterpillarfootwearinCanadafromJanuaryto
December1993.Attheendofthatyear,thelicenseexpiredandwasnot
renewed.InOctober1994,MarioModabegansellingbootsundernames
similartothoseownedbyplaintiff:forexample,CaterpillarviewedMario
Moda’sWALKINGSTEELandPILLARTIMBERTEAMmarkstooclosetoitsown
WALKINGMACHINEandCATTIMBERTEAMtrade-marks.Moreover,distinctive
featuresoftheplaintiff’smarkssuchasatrianglesuperimposedontheletterA
alongwiththecoloursyellowandblackappearedinthedefendant’strade-
marks.ToMrs.JusticeTremblay-Lamer,themarkswere”uncannilyalike”.
However,thepartiesbootswereofdifferenttypesandtheplaintiffdidnot
objecttothebootsthemselves.
Inordertodecidethecasebeforeher,Mrs.JusticeTremblay-Lamerrecalled
thatthetestforgrantinginterlocutoryinjunctionshasevolvedfromatestthat

focusedonthemeritsofthecasetowardsonethatconcentratedonthe
interlocutorynatureoftheequitableremedy.Overtheyears,thethree-part
testspelledoutintheU.K.caseofAmericanCynamidCompanyv.Ethicom
Ltd.[1975]A.C.396at407(H.L.)hasbeenadoptedinCanada.Thus,a
preliminaryassessmentmustfirstbemadeofthecasetoensurethatthereisa
seriousissuetobetried;secondly,itmustbedeterminedwhetherthe
applicantwouldsufferirreparableharmiftheapplicationwererefused;
thirdly,anassessmentmustbemadeastowhichpartywouldsuffergreater
harmfromthegrantingorrefusaloftheremedypendingadecisiononthe
merits.
Thejudgeeasilyconcludedthattherewasaseriousissuetobetried.Onthe
issueofirreparableharm,Mrs.JusticeTremblay-Lamerwrotethattheplaintiff
mustadducefactualevidenceonthispoint:evidencespeculativeinnature
orevenevidenceofactualconfusionisinsufficienttoestablishirreparable
harm.Theremustbeactualevidenceofalossofgoodwillorreputation.
Thecourtcannotinferfromtheexistenceofconfusion,theexistenceofaloss
ofgoodwillorreputation(CentreIceInc.v.NationalHockeyLeague(1994),
53C.P.R.(3d)34(F.C.A.)(see8W.I.P.R.119,May1994).Inthecaseatbar,
therewasconsiderableevidenceofconfusionbutthatdidnotconvincethe
judgethattherewasalossofgoodwill.Mrs.JusticeTremblay-Lamerhinted
thattheoutcomemighthavebeendifferenthadtherebeenevidencethat
clientshadbeensoconfusedbytheoffendingtrade-marksthattheyrefused
tobuythefootwearorevidencethatthedefendant’sbootswereshoddy.
Thus,theevidencesubmitted,i.e.actualconfusioninthemarketplace,inthe
circumstancesdiscussedabove,wasjudgedinsufficientforafindingof
irreparableharm.Basedonherconclusions,thejudgedidnotexaminethe
balanceofconvenienceandrejectedtheplaintiff’smotion.
Thejudge’sdecisionisconsistentwithaseriesofrecentcourtdecisionswhich
havemadeiteversodifficulttoobtainaninterlocutoryinjunctionintrade-
marksmatters(seeforexampleTurboResourcesLtd.v.PetroCanadaInc.
[1989]2F.C.451(F.C.A.);SyntexInc.v.NovapharmLtd.(1991),126N.R.114
(F.C.A.)).Inthiscase,thejudgeagreedthatplaintiffhadmadeastrong
primafaciecaseofinfringementandconcededthatitwouldprobablybe
successfulatprovinginfringementattrial.Thisnewdirectionadoptedbythe
courtsinrecentyearssendsamessagetoplaintiffs:itwillbenecessaryto
conducttheproperinvestigationsanduncoverthefactsneededtoestablish
irreparableharmbeforefilingamotionforaninterlocutoryinjunction.
However,plaintiffsnowappeartohaveaneasiertimeonthequestionof
delay:thesetime-consumingactivitieswillnotbereproachedtoaplaintiffifa
fewmonthspassbybeforeamotionispresentedtothecourt.Aswrittenby
Mrs.JusticeTremblay-Lamer,thecourtwillnotforcethepartiestogather

extensiveevidenceandthenrefuseaninjunctionbecausegatheringthat
evidencehastakentime.
Publishedat(1995),8W.I.P.R.304-305underthetitleTrade-markInterlocutory
InjunctionsHardertoGet,RecentCaseConfirms.
LEGERROBICRICHARD,1995.

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD