How to force Google to globally de-index the websites of a distributor of counterfeit products? A Canadian example shows it can be done.

HowtoforceGoogletogloballyde-indexthewebsitesof
adistributorofcounterfeitproducts?
ACanadianexampleshowsitcanbedone.

MarcelNaud
ROBIC,LLP
LawyerandTrademarkAgent

OnJune28,2017,theSupremeCourtofCanada,inamajoritydecision(7outof9judges)
ruledthatGoogleInc.(“Google”)canbeordered,byaninjunction,pendingatrial,asa
non-partytothelitigation,toglobally“de-index”resultsonitssearchengineofallthe
websitesofthedefendantcompanythat,inbreachofcourtorders,isunlawfullyselling
productsthatincludetheintellectualpropertyoftheplaintiffcompany.
Inarrivingatthisdecision,theCourtdeterminedthatitwouldbejustandequitabletogrant
suchaninjunctiongivenallthecircumstances,inparticularsinceGoogle,whilenotbeing
responsiblefortheharmsufferedbytheplaintiff,playedakeyroleinallowingthisharm
tooccur.
Consideringtheconditionsthathadtobemetinordertoconcludethatthisinjunction
againstGooglewasnecessary,itseemsunlikelythatthisprecedentwouldhavea
significantrippleeffectbywhichGooglewouldfrequentlybejudiciallyobligedtode-index
websitessellingproductsorservicesthatinfringeontherightsofabusinessthat
manufacturesproductsorcarriesoutcompetingservices.
AttherootofthisdiscordisEquustekSolutionsInc.(“Equustek”),amanufacturerof
networkingdevices,deceivedby”Datalink”(adistributorthatidentifiesitselfasDatalink
TechnologyGatewaysInc.).Inre-labelinganEquustekproducttopassitoffasitsown
andgainingtradesecretsfromEquustekagainstitswilltomakeacompetingproduct,
DatalinkdrasticallycutintoEquustek’searnings.SubsequentlyDatalink,afterbeing
orderedtochangeitswebsitesbeforethetrialtoavoidinfringingonEquustek’srights,
abandoneditsdefenceintheBritishColumbiaprovincialcourt,butcontinuedsellingthe
counterfeitproductviathewebsitesofnumerousshellcompaniesinvariouscountries.
NotknowingwhereDatalinkwasoperatingfromnowon,andunabletohaveDatalink’s
websitesremovedbyitshostingserviceproviders,EquustekthenaskedGoogletode-
indexDatalink’swebsites.GooglerefusedtodosowithoutacourtorderbanningDatalink
fromInternetactivity.Equustekthenobtainedsuchanorder,withGoogle’sconsent.
However,giventhatDatalink’ssalesoftheimpugnedproductwereprimarilytobuyers
outsideofCanada,EquusteknotedthattheapproachtakenbyGoogle–tode-index

2

specificwebpages(ratherthanentirewebsites)solelybasedontheresultsofsearches
conductedonitsCanadiansite,google.ca–didnothavethenecessaryprotectiveeffect.
Asaresult,EquustekturnedtotheSupremeCourtofBritishColumbiatorequireGoogle
toremoveallpartsofDatalink’swebsitesfromitssearchresultseverywhereintheworld,
whichGooglecontested(without,however,denyingthatithadinadvertentlyfacilitatedthe
harmdoneviaitssearchengineandthatirreparableharmwouldbecausedtoEquustek
ifthisinjunctionwerenotgranted).
LikethetrialjudgeandtheCourtofAppealbeforeit,theSupremeCourtofCanada
consideredthattheinjunctionagainstGooglehadtobegranted,eventakingintoaccount
thatGooglewasathirdpartyinrelationtotheunderlyingactionandthattheinjunction
againstGoogleproducedeffectsoutsideofCanada.
Tojustifythisposition,theCourtfirstarguedthatadecisionofthiskindrequiresahigh
degreeofdeferencetothelowercourt.Second,itstatedthat,contrarytoGoogle’sclaim,
thirdpartiesmustbeabletobetreatedassubjecttoaninjunctionagainstapartyina
dispute,becausewhentheycontraveneit,theyobstructthecourseofjustice.
Moreover,consideringthatDatalinkcouldnotoperateabusinessontheInternetina
commerciallyviablemannerwithoutGoogle,theinjunctionmusthaveeffectsnotonlyin
Canada,buteverywherethatGoogleoperates,inthiscaseworldwide,sothatGoogle
mustcease,toasufficientdegree,fromfacilitatingDatalink’sviolationofcourtorders
(intendedtopreventEquustekfromsufferingirreparableharm).
Inaddition,asGoogleacknowledgedthatitregularlyde-indexedwebsitesinother
circumstances(suchaschildpornographyorhatespeechsites),thefactofalsode-
indexingDatalink’swebsitesconstitutedasignificantlylesserdisadvantagethanwhat
Equustekwouldsufferifsuchade-indexingwerenotordered.Inthiscase,concerns
regardingtheprincipleofinternationalcomitybetweenStatesandfreedomofexpression
wereconsideredsomewhattheoreticalandhavinglittleweight,giventhecontextofthe
case.
Inshort,sincethisinjunctionwastheonlywaytopreservetheveryexistenceofEquustek
untilthedisputewithDatalinkwassettled,theinjunctionsoughtwasconsidered
appropriateunderthecircumstances.
SinceGoogleisnowattemptingtoremovetheUSterritoryfromthisinjunctionbygoingto
aCaliforniacourt,itremainstobeseentowhatextentthefulleffectofthisinjunction
imposedbyourCanadiancourtscansubsist.
Reference:GoogleInc.v.EquustekSolutionsInc.,2017CSC34(CanLII),
http://canlii.ca/t/h4jg2