Lassonde (A.) Inc. v. Island Oasis Canada Inc. et al., (2000) 273 N.R. 179 (FCA)

• Judge: Décary, Létourneau and Noël, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: December 21, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 273 N.R. 179 (FCA)

Lassonde Inc. v. Island Oasis Can. Inc. (2000), 273 N.R. 179 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. JA.048

A. Lassonde Inc. (appelante) v. Island Oasis Canada Inc. et Island Oasis Frozen Cocktail Company Inc. (intimées)

(A-102-00)

Indexed As: Lassonde (A.) Inc. v. Island Oasis Canada Inc. et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Décary, Létourneau and Noël, JJ.A.

December 21, 2000.

Summary:

Lassonde alleged that Island Oasis infringed its "Oasis" registered trademark and applied for an interlocutory injunction to stop the infringement.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 71, dismissed the application, absent proof of irreparable harm. The court ordered Lassonde to pay forthwith costs taxed at a level higher than that mentioned in rule 407 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998. Lassonde appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal respecting the injunction but allowed it respecting the costs order. The court ordered that the costs would follow.

Injunctions - Topic 1802

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Requirement of irreparable injury - What constitutes - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1819 ].

Injunctions - Topic 6307

Particular matters - Injury to trade - Improper use of trademarks, names or designs - [See Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1819 ].

Practice - Topic 7109

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Discretion to exceed scale of costs - Lassonde alleged that Island Oasis infringed its "Oasis" registered trademark and applied for an interlocutory injunction to stop the infringement - The motions judge dismissed the application and ordered, pursuant to rule 401 of the Feder­al Court Rules, 1998, that Lassonde pay costs forthwith - The judge also ordered that the costs be taxed at a level higher than that mentioned in rule 407 - Las­sonde had brought its application one year after it commenced its action on the merits, when, Lassonde argued, the risk of irrepar­able harm increased to the point where preventative action seemed neces­sary - The Federal Court of Appeal quashed the costs order and ordered that costs follow where it was not sure that the judge took into account Lassonde's expla­nation for the one year delay - See para­graphs 27 to 29.

Practice - Topic 7368

Costs - Costs of interlocutory proceedings - Interim or interlocutory injunctions - Lassonde alleged that Island Oasis infringed its "Oasis" registered trademark and applied for an interlocutory injunction to stop the infringement - The motions judge dismissed the application and ordered, pursuant to rule 401 of the Feder­al Court Rules, 1998, that Lassonde pay costs forthwith because the application should not have been brought - The Fed­eral Court of Appeal overturned the costs order where the judge erred in holding that the application should not have been brought - Lassonde's argument that in the absence of any challenge as to the validity of its registered mark an infringement constituted irrepar­able harm per se was not far-fetched and was based on several judg­ments of the Trial Division and of other courts - See paragraphs 21 to 26.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1819

Trademarks - Infringement - Remedies - Injunctions - Lassonde alleged that Island Oasis infringed its "Oasis" registered tra­demark and applied for an interlocutory injunction to stop the infringement - Las­sonde argued that the exclusivity of use conferred by s. 19 of the Trade-Marks Act and the protection offered against infringe­ment by the presumption in s. 20 meant that the infringement of a registered trade­mark the validity of which was not in dispute was irreparable harm per se - The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the argu­ment - The court held that the victim had to present clear evidence that it would suffer irreparable damage - The court affirmed the dismissal of the application, absent evidence of irreparable harm - See paragraphs 9 to 20.

Cases Noticed:

Centre Ice Ltd. v. National Hockey League et al. (1994), 166 N.R. 44; 53 C.P.R.(3d) 34 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 2].

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

Syntex Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. (1991), 126 N.R. 114; 36 C.P.R.(3d) 129 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Syntex Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (1991), 126 N.R. 122; 36 C.P.R.(3d) 139 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Anthony (Mark) Group Inc. et al. v. Vincor Inter­national Inc. (1998), 113 B.C.A.C. 280; 184 W.A.C. 280; 82 C.P.R.(3d) 541 (C.A.), consd. [para. 12].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311; 164 N.R. 1; 60 Q.A.C. 241; 54 C.P.R.(3d) 114, refd to. [para. 14].

CIBA-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al. (1994), 83 F.T.R. 161; 56 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Imax Corp. v. Showmax Inc. et al. (2000), 182 F.T.R. 180 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Thurston Hayes Developments Ltd. et al. v. Horn Abbot Ltd. et al. (1985), 5 C.P.R.(3d) 124 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 22].

Coca-Cola Ltd. et al. v. Universal Exporters et al. (1997), 134 F.T.R. 122; 75 C.P.R.(3d) 318 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Coca-Cola Ltd. et al. v. Pardhan et al. - see Coca-Cola Ltd. et al. v. Universal Exporters et al.

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. (1992), 50 F.T.R. 317 (T.D.), consd. [para. 23].

Heinz (H.J.) Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Edan Foods Sales Inc. (1991), 44 F.T.R. 1; 35 C.P.R.(3d) 213 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Jercity Franchises Ltd. v. Jersey Joe's Apparel (1990), 39 F.T.R. 315; 34 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Jercity Franchises Ltd. v. Foord - see Jercity Franchises Ltd. v. Jersey Joe's Apparel.

Pizza Pizza Ltd. v. Little Caesar Interna­tional Inc. et al. (1989), 32 F.T.R. 43; 27 C.P.R.(3d) 525 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Multi-marques v. Boulangerie Gadoua Ltée (2000), 6 C.P.R.(4th) 239 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Year 2000 Inc. v. Brisson et al. (1998), 65 O.T.C. 137; 81 C.P.R.(3d) 104 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 26].

Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (2000), 259 N.R. 221 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Reynolds v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs), [1995] F.C.J. No. 1612 (F.C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1997), 209 N.R. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Federal Court Rules, 1998, rule 401, rule 407 [para. 21].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cornish, Diane E., "Clear and Not Specu­lative" Evidence of Prospective Harm: The Conundrum of Proving Irreparable Harm, 10 R.C.P.I. 589, p. 592 [para. 26].

Counsel:

Bruno Barrette, for A. Lassonde Inc.;

Marcus Gaillie and Mitchell B. Charness, for Island Oasis Canada Inc. and Island Oasis Frozen Cocktail Co.

Solicitors of Record:

Brouillette, Charpentier, Fortin, Montreal, Quebec, for A. Lassonde Inc.;

Ridout & Maybee, Ottawa, Ontario, for Island Oasis Canada Inc. and Island Oasis Frozen Cocktail Co.

This appeal was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 6, 2000, by Décary, Létour­neau and Noël, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on December 21, 2000, by Létourneau, J.A.