“Prima Facie Case” v. “Serious Question to be Tried”

1989-01-01

“PRIMAFACIECASE”v.”SERIOUSQUESTIONTOBETRIED”

by
HuguesG.Richard
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
OnJanuary18,1989theFederalCourtofCanada,appealdivision,inthe
caseofTurboResourcesLimited-and-Petro-CanadaInc.,CourtNoA-163-88,
liftedsomeoftheuncertaintiesexistingbeforethatcourtinmattersrelatingto
interlocutoryinjunctions.
TheAppelantwasanAlbertacorporationengagedinthebusinessofrefining
andmarketingpetroleumproductsinCanada,includingthemarketingof
packagedautomotiveagentlubricantswhichitoritspredecessor
commencedsellingtothepublicunderthemark”TURBO”inl967.Thesaid
trademarkwasregisteredforwaresincludingmotorandengineoil.
InthelateFallofl986,theRespondentcirculatedabrochureinwhichit
announcedanewbrand:PremiumTurboTestedMotorOil.Theexistenceof
thisbrochurecametotheAppelant’sattentioninJanuaryl987.Aceaseand
desistletterdatedJune23,l987wassentbytheAppelant’ssolicitors.The
Respondentdidmarketaonelitreblackplasticcontainerofmotoroilon
whichappearedthewords:”SuperTurboTested”.Itwouldappearthatthe
Respondentwishedtocontinueitsactivities:hencetheseproceedings.
Attrial,JusticeAddydismissedtheapplicationbyTurboResourcesLimitedfor
aninterlocutoryandinteriminjunction.Heproceededtodetermineatthe
outsetwhethertherewasanobligationontheAppellanttoestablish”astrong
primafacie
case”orwhethertheCourthadmerelytobesatisfiedthatthere
was”aseriousquestiontobetried,inthesensethattheactionwasneither
frivolousnorvexatious”.Heexplainedatsomelengthwhyhepreferredto
applytheprimafaciecasetestinthecircumstancesofthiscaseratherthan
the”seriousquestiontobetried”testofAmericanCyanamidCo.v.Ethicon
Ltd.,[1975]A.C.396(H.L.).Heacknowledgedsomescopeforgrantingan
interlocutoryinjunctionincertainrareoccurrenceseventhoughaprimafacie
casemightnotbefullyestablished,butwouldotherwiserequirethediscretion
tobeexercisedinthetraditionalmannerthatprevailedpriorto1975.

JusticeStonegivingjudgmentfortheFederalCourtofAppealdidnotagree
withthelearnedandveryexperiencedMotionsJudge.Afterreviewingthe
caselawwherethisquestionwasdiscussed,hedecidedthattheappealhe
wasdealingwithshouldbeapproachedattheoutsetonthebasisof
AmericanCyanamid
thresholdtest,i.e.whetherornotthereexistsaserious
questiontobetried.
Theobjectofaninterlocutoryinjunctionistoprotecttheplaintiffagainstinjury
byviolationofhisrightforwhichhecouldnotbeadequatelycompensated
indamagesrecoverableintheactioniftheuncertaintywereresolvedinhis
favouratthetrial.Thisneedoftheplaintiffmustbeweighedagainstthe
correspondingneedofthedefendanttobeprotectedagainstinjuryresulting
fromhishavingbeenpreventedfromexercisinghisownlegalrightsforwhich
hecouldnotbeadequatelycompensatedundertheplaintiff’sundertakings
indamagesiftheuncertaintywereresolvedinthedefendant’sfavourattrial.
Thecourtmustweighoneneedagainstanotheranddeterminewhere”the
balanceofconvenience”lies.
Inanattempttoformulatethemainfeaturesofthefactorstobetakeninto
considerationindecidingwhetherornottoissueaninterlocutoryinjunction,
JusticeStonegavethefollowinglist:
(a)Whereaplaintiff’srecoverabledamagesresultinginthecontimuanceof
thedefendant’sactivitiespendingtrialwouldbeanadequateremedythat
thedefendantwouldbefinanciallyabletopay,aninterlocutoryinjunction
shouldnotnormallybegranted;
(b)WheresuchdamageswouldnotprovidethePlaintiffanadequate
remedybutdamages(recoverableundertheplaintiff’sundertaking)would
providethedefendantwithsucharemedyfortherestrictionsonhisactivities,
therewouldbenogroundforrefusinganinterlocutoryinjunction;
(c)Wheredoubtexistsastotheadequacyoftheseremediesindamages
availabletoeitherparty,regardshouldbehadtowherethebalanceof
conveniencelies;
(d)Whereotherfactorsappeartobeevenlybalanced,itisprudenttotake
suchmeasuresaswillpreservethestatusquo;
(e)Wheretheevidenceontheapplicationissuchastoshowoneparty’s
casetobedisproportionatelystrongerthantheother’s,thisfactormaybe
permittedtotipthebalanceofconvenienceinthatparty’sfavourprovided
theuncompensatabledisadvantagetoeachpartywouldnotdifferwidely;

(f)Otherunspecifiedspecialfactorsmaypossiblybeconsideredinthe
particularcircumstancesofindividualcases.
TheCourtofAppealfollowedadifferentpathandarrivedatthesame
conclusionasdidtheTrialDivision:inbothinstancestheapplicationwas
refused.
JusticeStoneconsideredthatthereexistedaseriousquestiontobetriedand
wentontoevaluatethebalanceofconvenience.Heconcludedthatallin
allhewassatisfiedthatthebalanceofconvenienceliedinfavourofthe
Respondent.Theinterlocutoryinjunctionhadbeeninhisopinionrightly
refusedbyMr.JusticeAddy.Theappealwasthereforedismissedwithcosts.
Publishedat(1989),3W.I.P.R.148-149underthetitleCourtofAppealClarifies
IssueofGrantingInterlocutoryInjunctions.
LEGERROBICRICHARD,1989.

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