Heinz (H.J.) Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Edan Foods Sales Inc., (1991) 44 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

• Judge: Cullen, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 22, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 44 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

Heinz Co. v. Edan Foods Sales Inc. (1991), 44 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

H.J. Heinz Company of Canada Ltd. (plaintiff) v. Edan Foods Sales Inc. (defendant)

(T-3228-90)

Indexed As: Heinz (H.J.) Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Edan Foods Sales Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Cullen, J.

February 13, 1991.

Summary:

H.J. Heinz Co. of Canada Ltd. (Heinz Canada) was the registered owner of the Heinz trademarks in Canada. The parent company, H.J. Heinz Co. of the United States (Heinz U.S.), was the registered owner of the trademarks within the United States. Heinz U.S. was not licensed by Heinz Canada to use the Heinz trademarks in Canada. Edan Foods Sales Inc. imported various food products including ketchup, from the United States that were manufac­tured by Heinz U.S. and which bore the Heinz trademarks. Edan relabelled the pro­ducts to show its name as the importer and to list the ingredients in French as well as English. The products continued to bear the Heinz trademark. Heinz Canada applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain Edan Foods from infringing its registered trade­mark.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, granted the injunction.

Injunctions - Topic 1600

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Respecting grant of interlocutory or interim injunction - Intel­lectual property cases - Trademarks - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that the threshold test for an inter­locutory injunc­tion in cases dealing with in­tellectual property rights was "the serious issued to be tried" standard as put forth by the House of Lords in American Cyanamid v. Ethicon - See paragraph 8 - The court also suggested other factors that could be considered in determining the other branches of the traditional test for injunctive relief, irreparable harm and balance of convenience - See paragraphs 9 and 10.

Injunctions - Topic 1609

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Circumstances when injunction will issue - Trade­marks - Heinz U.S. and Heinz Canada marketed Heinz products within their respective countries - The products did not always have the same taste - Edan Foods imported Heinz U.S. products into Canada for resale after some relabelling - The Heinz trademark remained on the imported products - Neither Heinz U.S. nor Edan was licensed to use the Heinz trademark in Canada - Heinz Canada applied for an inter­locutory injunction to restrain Edan's use of the Heinz trademark - Heinz Canada submitted that its Canadian cus­tomers would be confused by the U.S. product - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, granted the interlocutory injunction.

Injunctions - Topic 1616

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Arguable issues of law involved or serious question to be tried - Intellectual property cases - Trade­marks - [See Injunc­tions - Topic 1600 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1802

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Requirement of irreparable injury - What constitutes - Trademark in­fringement - A plaintiff applied for an interlocutory in­junction to restrain an alleged infringement of a trade­mark - In considering the matter of whether the defendant's user would cause irreparable harm to the plain­tiff, the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "[t]he in­fringement of the prop­erty right in a trademark constitutes ir­reparable harm not compensable in dam­ages" - Also, "withholding the injunction may cause irreparable harm by en­courag­ing others to enter into the field ..." - See paragraph 16.

Injunctions - Topic 6307

Particular matters - Injury to trade - Improper use of trademarks, names or designs - [See Injunctions - Topic 1609 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1803

Trademarks - Infringement - What con­stitutes - [See Injunctions - Topic 1609 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1806

Trademarks - Infringement - Test - Con­fusion with other mark or name - [See Injunctions - Topic 1609 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1819

Trademarks - Infringement - Rem­edies - Injunctions - Interlocutory - [See Injunc­tions - Topic 1600 ].

Cases Noticed:

Turbo Resources v. Petro Canada Inc. (1989), 91 N.R. 341, appld. [para. 8].

American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] A.C. 396; [1975] R.P.C. 513; [1975] 1 All E.R. 504, appld. [para. 8].

Interlego Attorney General et al. v. Irwin Toy et al. (1985), 3 C.P.R.(3d) 476, consd. [para. 9].

Remington Rand Ltd. v. Transworld Metal Co. Ltd., [1960] Ex.C.R. 463, folld. [para. 14].

Maple Leaf Mills Ltd. v. Quaker Oats Co. of Canada Ltd. (1984), 82 C.P.R.(2d) 118 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Syntex Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. (No. 2) (1989), 28 F.T.R. 124; 26 C.P.R.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 16].

Seagram (Joseph E.) and Sons Ltd. v. Andres Wines Ltd. (1987), 11 F.T.R. 139; 16 C.P.R.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 16].

IBM Corp. v. Spirales Inc. (1984), 80 C.P.R.(2d) 187 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade Marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 6(5) [para. 12]; sect. 19 [para. 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fox, Canadian Law of Trademarks and Unfair Competition (3rd Ed. 1972), p. 336 [para. 14].

Counsel:

Brian W. Gray, Edward Hore, and Christopher C. Hale, for the plaintiff;

Timothy J. Sinnott, for the defen­dant.

Solicitors of Record:

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Barrigar & Oyen, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant.

This matter was heard on January 22, 1991, by Cullen, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, in Toronto, Ontario. The decision of Cullen, J., was delivered on February 13, 1991, in Ottawa, Ontario.