Novopharm Ltd. et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al., (1998) 168 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

• Judge: Tremblay-Lamer, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 22, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 168 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

Novopharm Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1998), 168 F.T.R. 1 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.067

Novopharm Limited and Apotex Inc. (applicants) v. Eli Lilly and Company and The Registrar of Trade-Marks (respondents)

(T-1102-97)

Indexed As: Novopharm Ltd. et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co. et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Tremblay-Lamer, J.

November 12, 1998.

Summary:

Eli Lilly and Co. brought an action for passing off against the defendants, Novo­pharm, Apotex and Nu-Pharm. Lilly sought an injunction to prohibit the defendants from using Prozac capsules of the same size, shape and colour as its capsules.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 130 F.T.R. 1, dismissed the action. Lilly appealed. The appeal was outstanding. Lilly applied to the Registrar of Trademarks for two trademarks regarding the Prozac capsules.

The Registrar approved the applications. Novopharm filed statements of opposition against each application. Novopharm and Apotex moved for an interim stay of pro­ceedings.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the motion. Novopharm and Apotex applied for an order prohibiting the Registrar from proceeding with the applica­tions. At issue was (1) whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to grant prohibition against the Registrar and (2) whether the matter was res judicata.

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

Administrative Law - Topic 6411

Judicial review - Prohibition - General principles - When remedy not available - Eli Lilly and Co.'s passing off action, regarding Prozac capsules, against the defendants, Novopharm, Apotex and Nu-Pharm was dismissed - Lilly's appeal was outstanding - The Registrar of Trademarks approved Lilly's two trademark applica­tions - Novopharm and Apotex applied to prohibit the Registrar from proceeding with the trademark applications, asserting that a full trial had already been conducted on the issues and to continue the applica­tion would constitute an abuse of process - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the prohibition appli­cation - The court lacked jurisdiction to prohibit the Registrar from a statutorily obligated task, when the Registrar was not acting outside of his/her jurisdiction - See paragraphs 1 to 26.

Courts - Topic 4034

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Prerogative relief, injunc­tions, etc. - [See Administrative Law - Topic 6411 ].

Estoppel - Topic 377

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - When applicable - Eli Lilly and Co.'s passing off action, regarding Prozac cap­sules, against the defendants, Novopharm, Apotex and Nu-Pharm was dismissed - Lilly's appeal was outstanding - The Reg­istrar of Trademarks approved Lilly's two trademark applications - Novopharm and Apotex moved to prohibit the Registrar from proceeding with the trademark appli­cations, asserting, inter alia, that the matter was res judicata and that until the appeal was determined an interim order should be granted - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the decision was not final pending the appeal's determina­tion and there was no res judicata - Res judicata applied to opposition boards only when pre-conditions were satisfied - See paragraphs 27 to 44.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 703.2

Trademarks - Registration - General - Application - Prohibition - [See Admini­strative Law - Topic 6411 and Estoppel -Topic 377 ].

Cases Noticed:

Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al. (1997), 130 F.T.R. 1; 73 C.P.R.(3d) 371 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 4, footnote 2].

McDonald's Corp. et al. v. Registrar of Trademarks and Gamble Foods Ltd. (1987), 10 F.T.R. 195; 15 C.P.R.(3d) 462 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 8].

Bell Canada v. Human Rights Commission (Ont.) (1971), 18 D.L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), not appld. [para. 18, footnote 10].

Cara Operations Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade­marks (1985), 3 C.P.R.(3d) 145 (F.C.T.D.), not appld. [para. 18, footnote 11].

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Commissioner of Pat­ents and Novopharm Ltd. (1993), 54 F.T.R. 86; 42 C.P.R.(3d) 34 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 15].

Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Carling O'Keefe Breweries of Canada and Registrar of Trademarks (1982), 45 N.R. 126; 69 C.P.R.(2d) 136 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 15].

Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. et al., [1997] F.T.R. Uned. 350; 74 C.P.R.(3d) 494 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 15].

Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. Friendly Ice Cream Shops Ltd. (1972), 7 C.P.R.(2d) 35 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 16].

Barwell Food Sales Inc. v. Snyder & Fils Inc. (1988), 24 C.P.R.(3d) 102 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 29, footnote 18].

Met­ropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Man­itoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241; 18 C.P.C.(2d) 273; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 25 Admin. L.R. 20, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 19].

Sunny Crunch Foods Ltd. v. Robin Hood Multifoods Inc. (1982), 70 C.P.R.(2d) 244 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 20].

Walt Disney Co. v. Fantasyland Holdings Inc. (1977), 77 C.P.R.(3d) 356 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 35, footnote 21].

Molson Companies Ltd. v. Halter (1976), 28 C.P.R.(2d) 158 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 36, footnote 22].

Canadian Shredded Wheat Co. v. Kellogg Co. of Canada, [1939] 1 D.L.R. 7 (Ex. Ct.), dist. [para. 41, footnote 28].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sidney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (1992), pp. 990, 991 [para. 28, footnote 17].

Counsel:

Keri A.F. Johnston and Richard Naiberg, for the applicants;

Anthony G. Creber and Patrick S. Smith, for the respondent, Eli Lilly and Co.;

No one appearing for the respondent, Registrar of Trademarks.

Solicitors of Record:

Malcolm Johnston & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants;

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Eli Lilly and Co.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on October 22, 1998, before Trem­blay-Lamer, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on November 12, 1998.