Nestle Ent. Ltd. v. Edan Food Sales Inc., (1991) 50 F.T.R. 30 (TD)

• Judge: Strayer, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 31, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 50 F.T.R. 30 (TD)

Nestle Ent. Ltd. v. Edan Food Sales Inc. (1991), 50 F.T.R. 30 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Nestle Enterprises Limited (plaintiff) v. Edan Food Sales Inc. (defendant)

(T-1109-91)

Indexed As: Nestle Enterprises Ltd. v. Edan Food Sales Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Strayer, J.

August 9, 1991.

Summary:

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendant, alleging trademark infringement and various violations of the Trade Marks Act, s. 7. The plaintiff applied for an interlocutory injunction pending trial, to prevent the defendant from passing off its wares contrary to s. 7(b) of the Trade Marks Act. The defendant applied for an order of the court seeking the views of the Government of Canada on the effect on this matter of certain articles of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the plaintiff's injunction application and adjourned sine die the defendant's application.

Injunctions - Topic 1610

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Circumstances when injunction will not be granted - The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging, inter alia, passing off contrary to s. 7 of the Trade Marks Act - The plaintiff sought an interlocutory injunction to stop the alleged passing off pending trial - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused to grant the injunction because of the plaintiff's delay in seeking the injunction and because the plaintiff failed to establish irreparable harm.

Injunctions - Topic 1615

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Delay - [See Injunctions - Topic 1610 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1802

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Requirement of irreparable injury - What constitutes - [See Injunctions - Topic 1610 ].

Cases Noticed:

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.), refd to. [para. 7].

Imperial Chemical Industries PLC et al. v. Apotex Inc., [1990] 1 F.C. 221; 101 N.R. 147 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Syntex Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. (1991), 126 N.R. 114 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

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. 9].

Seagram (Joseph E.) & Sons Ltd. v. Andres Wines Ltd. (1987), 11 F.T.R. 139; 16 C.P.R.(3d) 481 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Jercity Franchises Ltd. v. Jersey Joe's Apparel (1990), 39 F.T.R. 315; 34 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

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

Heinz (H.J.) Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Edan Foods Sales Inc. (1991), 44 F.T.R. 1 (F.C.T.D.), dist. [paras. 9, 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, art. 1808 [para. 13].

Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, S.C. 1988, c. 65, sect. 2 [para. 13].

Trade Marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 7.

Counsel:

John R. Morrissey and Alistair G. Simpson, for the plaintiff;

Timothy J. Sinnott, for the defendant;

Jonathan Keene, for the Attorney General of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Smart & Biggar, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

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

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the Attorney General of Canada.

This application was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on July 31, 1991, before Strayer, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on August 9, 1991.