Target Brands Inc. et al. v. Fairweather Ltd. et al., (2011) 392 F.T.R. 152 (FC)

• Judge: Mandamin, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 02, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2011), 392 F.T.R. 152 (FC);2011 FC 758

Target Brands Inc. v. Fairweather Ltd. (2011), 392 F.T.R. 152 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.033

Target Brands Inc. and Target Corporation (plaintiffs) v. Fairweather Ltd., International Clothiers Inc. and Les Ailes de la Mode Incorporees (defendants)

(T-1902-10; 2011 FC 758)

Indexed As: Target Brands Inc. et al. v. Fairweather Ltd. et al.

Federal Court

Mandamin, J.

June 23, 2011.

Summary:

The plaintiffs (Target Brands Inc. and Target Corp.) operated a large chain of retail department stores in the United States selling a wide range of merchandise. Target Corp. used trademarks owned by Target Brands, Inc. which included TARGET and a red bulls-eye design and which had been in use since 1962. Target was in the process of breaking into the Canadian marketplace. The defendants (INC) were related companies that sold private label clothing and accessories to mid-to-low income customers in Canada. INC owned the trademark TARGET APPAREL, originally registered in 1981, and had opened a chain of clothing apparel stores under the Target Apparel name. The Target plaintiffs sued INC, seeking damages and a permanent injunction preventing use of the trade name TARGET or the bull's-eye mark. The Target plaintiffs applied for an interlocutory injunction restraining INC's activities pending trial.

The Federal Court dismissed Target's application for an interlocutory injunction against INC.

Injunctions - Topic 1610

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Circumstances when injunction will not be granted - The plaintiffs (Target Brands Inc. and Target Corp.) operated a large chain of retail department stores in the United States selling a wide range of merchandise - Target had used a TARGET trademark and a red bulls-eye design since 1962 - Target was well known to many Canadians who shopped in the U.S. - Target was moving into the Canadian marketplace - INC owned the trademark TARGET APPAREL, originally registered in 1981, and had opened a Canadian niche market chain of discount clothing stores under the Target Apparel name - Target sued INC and sought an interlocutory injunction restraining INC's activities pending trial - The Federal Court held that there was a serious issue to be tried (i.e., whether confusion existed); however, Target failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that it would suffer irreparable harm - The balance of convenience favoured INC.

Injunctions - Topic 6304

Particular matters - Injury to trade - Similar trade names - [See Injunctions - Topic 1610 ].

Injunctions - Topic 6307

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

Cases Noticed:

American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] 1 All E.R. 504; [1975] A.C. 396; [1975] F.S.R. 101 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

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, refd to. [para. 20].

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. 21].

Centre Ice Ltd. v. National Hockey League et al. (1993), 71 F.T.R. 5; 53 C.P.R.(3d) 34 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

Haché et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al., [2006] N.R. Uned. 204; 2006 FCA 424, refd to. [para. 24].

Kirkbi AG et al. v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. et al., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 302; 341 N.R. 234; 2005 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 26].

Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Pestco of Canada Ltd. and Valder (1985), 10 O.A.C. 14; 5 C.P.R.(3d) 433; 50 O.R.(2d) 726 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

N.W.L. Ltd. v. Woods, [1979] 1 W.L.R. 1294 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 32].

Boutique Limité Inc. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998), 232 N.R. 190 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Boutique Limité Inc. v. Limco Investments Inc. - see Boutique Limité Inc. v. Registrar of Trademarks.

Millenium Charitable Foundation v. Minister of National Revenue (2008), 384 N.R. 119; 2008 FCA 414, refd to. [para. 41].

Mattel Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 772; 348 N.R. 340; 2006 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 46].

Imax Corp. v. Showmax Inc. et al. (2000), 182 F.T.R. 180 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 48].

BGM Holdings Ltd. v. Gauthier (Jim) Chev Cadillac Ltd. et al. (2010), 256 Man.R.(2d) 311; 2010 MBQB 213, refd to. [para. 48].

Business Depot Ltd. v. Canadian Office Depot Inc. et al. (1993), 63 F.T.R. 271; 49 C.P.R.(3d) 230 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 49].

Target Event Production Ltd. v. Cheung et al. (2010), 409 N.R. 118; 2010 FCA 255, refd to. [para. 64].

Canadian Fracmaster Ltd. v. Trojan Wellhead Services Ltd. (1992), 40 C.P.R.(3d) 402 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 66].

Hunt (David) Farms Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture), [1994] 2 F.C. 625; 167 N.R. 116 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

Carbo Ceramics v. China Ceramics Proppant Ltd. (2004), 327 N.R. 244; 2004 FCA 283, refd to. [para. 79].

Counsel:

Robert MacFarlane, Mark Robbins and Megan Langley Grainger, for the plaintiffs;

Mark Evans, Mark Biernacki and Genevieve Prevost, for the defendants, Fairweather Ltd. and Les Ailes de la Mode Incorporees;

Jeffrey Kaufman and May Cheng, for the defendant, International Clothiers Inc.

Solicitors of Record:

Bereskin & Parr, LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiffs;

Smart & Biggar, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendants, Fairweather Ltd. and Les Ailes de la Mode Incorporees;

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant, International Clothiers Inc.

This application was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on May 2, 2011, before Mandamin, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 23, 2011, in Ottawa, Ontario.