Allergan Inc. v. Bausch & Lomb Canada Inc. et al., (1992) 59 F.T.R. 186 (TD)

• Judge: Denault, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 23, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 59 F.T.R. 186 (TD)

Allergan Inc. v. Bausch & Lomb Can. (1992), 59 F.T.R. 186 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Allergan Inc. (plaintiff) v. Bausch & Lomb Canada Inc. and Bausch & Lomb Inc. (defendants)

(T-1010-92)

Indexed As: Allergan Inc. v. Bausch & Lomb Canada Inc. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Denault, J.

December 15, 1992.

Summary:

Allergan Inc. claimed that Bausch & Lomb was infringing Allergan's trademarks in regard to certain contact lens care products. Allergan sued to stop the infringement. Allergan also applied for an interlocutory injunction.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application.

Injunctions - Topic 1610

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Circumstances when injunction will not be granted - Allergan used OMNICARE and OXYSEPT as trademarks for its contact lens cleaning products - Bausch & Lomb (B & L) began to market a generic product compatible with five systems - B & L's packaging and inserts stated that the products could be used with OMNICARE and OXYSEPT - Both were identified as Allergan's trademarks - Allergan claimed B & L's user infringed its trademarks - Allergan applied for an interlocutory injunction - B & L submitted that there was no potential for irreparable harm because damages could be quantified, Allergan was strong financially and there was no evidence that B & L could not pay any potential damage award - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, declined to grant an interlocutory injunction.

Injunctions - Topic 1741

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Sufficiency of damages in lieu of injunction - General - [See Injunctions - Topic 1610 ].

Cases Noticed:

American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] A.C. 396; [1975] 1 All E.R. 504 (H.L.), appld. [para. 10].

Turbo Resources Ltd. v. Petro Canada Inc., [1989] 2 F.C. 451; 91 N.R. 341; 24 C.P.R.(3d) 1 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 10].

Syntex Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. (1991), 126 N.R. 114; 36 C.P.R.(3d) 129 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 5].

Nature Co. v. Sci-Tech Educational Inc. (1992), 141 N.R. 363; 41 C.P.R.(3d) 359 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13., footnote 5].

Nintendo of America Inc. et al. v. Camerica Corp. et al. (1991), 42 F.T.R. 12; 34 C.P.R.(3d) 193 (F.C.T.D.), affd. 127 N.R. 232 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 5].

Allergan Inc. v. Bausch & Lomb Canada Inc. et al. (1989), 31 F.T.R. 130; 28 C.P.R.(3d) 327 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Imperial Toy Canada Ltd. v. Funrise Inc. (1992), 42 C.P.R.(3d) 46 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-10, sect. 7(a), sect. 7(b), sect. 7(d), sect. 19, sect. 20 [para. 9]; sect. 22 [para. 11]; sect. 22(1) [para. 9].

Counsel:

Paul D. Blanchard and William P. Mayo, for the plaintiff;

David W. Aitken, James G. Fogo and Diane Cornish, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Osler Hoskin & Harcourt, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendant.

This application was heard on November 23, 1992, at Ottawa, Ontario before Denault, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on December 15, 1992.