Smith & Nephew Inc. et al. v. Glen Oak Inc. et al., (1996) 198 N.R. 302 (FCA)

• Judge: Hugessen, Desjardins and Linden, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 04, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 198 N.R. 302 (FCA)

Smith & Nephew Inc. v. Glen Oak Inc. (1996), 198 N.R. 302 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Smith & Nephew Inc. (respondent) v. Glen Oak Inc. and Dylex Limited carrying on business as "Bi-Way" and/or "Bi-Way Stores" (appellants) and Beiersdorf AG (necessary party)

(A-683-94)

Indexed As: Smith & Nephew Inc. et al. v. Glen Oak Inc. et al.

Federal Court of Appeal

Hugessen, Desjardins and Linden, JJ.A.

June 4, 1996.

Summary:

Beiersdorf owned the Canadian registered trademark "Nivea" for use on facial cream and soap. Glen Oak Inc. and Dylex Ltd. distributed "Nivea" products in Canada which were manufactured in Mexico by a Beiersdorf subsidiary. Smith & Nephew, a "Nivea" trademark licensee, sold "Nivea" goods manufactured in the United States by another Beiersdorf subsidiary. Smith & Nephew commenced trademark litigation against Glen Oak and Dylex and applied for an interlocutory injunction to enjoin Glen Oak and Dylex from selling "Nivea" prod­ucts.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Di­vision, allowed the application without giving reasons. Glen Oak Inc. and Dylex Ltd. appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Trial Di­vision, and dismissed the injunction appli­cation.

Injunctions - Topic 1610

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Circumstances when injunction will not be granted - Beiersdorf owned the Canadian registered trademark "Nivea" for use on facial cream and soap - Glen Oak Inc. and Dylex Ltd. distributed "Nivea" prod­ucts in Canada which were manufactured in Mexico by a Beiersdorf subsidiary - Smith & Nephew, a "Nivea" trademark licensee, sold "Nivea" goods manufactured in the United States by another Beiersdorf subsidiary - Smith & Nephew sought to enjoin Glen Oak and Dylex from selling "Nivea" products, alleging trademark in­fringement and passing-off - The Federal Court of Appeal refused the injunction because there was no serious case (i.e., Smith & Nephew as Canadian licensee and importer of goods bearing Beiersdorf's trademarks could not complain of the sale in Canada of other goods which were also manufactured by or under licence from Beiersdorf with the same trademarks).

Injunctions - Topic 1616

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Serious question to be tried - [See In­junctions - Topic 1610 ].

Injunctions - Topic 6305

Injury to trade - Passing off - [See In­junctions - Topic 1610 ].

Injunctions - Topic 6307

Injury to trade - Improper use of trade­marks, names or designs - [See Injunc­tions - Topic 1610 ].

Practice - Topic 7028

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitle­ment - Successful party - Exceptions - Unfounded claims - Smith & Nephew Inc. commenced trademark litigation against Glen Oak Inc. and Dylex Ltd. and applied for an interlocutory injunction restraining Glen Oak and Dylex from using the trade­mark "Nivea" in association with facial cream and soap - The trial judge granted the injunction - Glen Oak and Dylex (the appellants) appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, but directed that the appellants costs be taxed only in accordance with column II of Part II of Tariff B because the appellants raised a number of arguments which were wholly unfounded in law or unsupportable on the factual record - See paragraphs 31, 32.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 3008

Trademarks - Infringement actions - Right of registered user or licensee to complain of infringement - [See Injunc­tions - Topic 1610 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 3071

Trademarks - Unfair competition - Right of licensee to complain of unfair compe­tition - [See Injunctions - Topic 1610 ].

Cases Noticed:

American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] 1 All E.R. 504; [1975] A.C. 396 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 6, footnote 1].

Mattel Canada Inc. v. GTS Acquisitions and Nintendo of America Inc. (1989), 27 C.P.R.(3d) 358 (T.D.), not folld. [para. 6].

Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. Bonnan, [1924] A.C. 755 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Revlon Inc. v. Cripps & Lee Ltd., [1980] F.S.R. 85 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Remington Rand Ltd. v. Transworld Metal Co. (1960), 32 C.P.R. 99 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

Heinz (H.J.) Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Edan Food Sales Inc. (1991), 44 F.T.R. 1; 35 C.P.R.(3d) 213 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Bousquet et al. v. Barmish Inc. (1993), 150 N.R. 234; 46 C.P.R.(3d) 510 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

McCabe v. Yamamoto & Co. (America) Inc. et al. (1989), 25 F.T.R. 186; 23 C.P.R.(3d) 498 (T.D.), not folld. [paras. 18, 19].

Asbjorn Horgard A/S v. Gibbs/Nortac Industries Ltd. et al. (1987), 80 N.R. 9; 14 C.P.R.(3d) 314 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Dumont Vins & Spiritueux Inc. v. Celliers du Monde Inc. (1992), 139 N.R. 357; 42 C.P.R.(3d) 197 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Consumers Distributing Co. v. Seiko Time Canada Ltd., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 583; 54 N.R. 161; 1 C.P.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 7 [para. 16]; sect. 50 [para. 8].

Counsel:

Frank Farfan and Robert Nakano, for the appellant;

D. Doak Horne and Ferne Cohen, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

MacBeth & Johnson, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on May 7 and 8, 1996, before Hugessen, Desjardins and Linden, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Hugessen, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the court on June 4, 1996.