Viewpoint International Inc. v. On Par Enterprises Inc., (2001) 206 F.T.R. 109 (TD)

• Judge: Lemieux, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 22, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 206 F.T.R. 109 (TD)

Viewpoint Intl. Inc. v. On Par Ent. (2001), 206 F.T.R. 109 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.026

Viewpoint International Inc. (plaintiff) v. On Par Enterprises Inc. (defendant)

(T-1678-00; 2001 FCT 629)

Indexed As: Viewpoint International Inc. v. On Par Enterprises Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Lemieux, J.

June 8, 2001.

Summary:

On Par Enterprises operated a restaurant in British Columbia named "Tommy Bahamas Grill". Viewpoint Inc. owned the North American trademark "Tommy Bahama", which was associated in Canada with clothing and accessories. In the United States, the "Tommy Bahama" mark was also associated with a chain of restaurants. Viewpoint applied for an interlocutory injunction pending the trial of a trademark infringement and passing off action.

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

Injunctions - Topic 1607

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Requirement of strong prima facie case - On Par Enterprises operated a restaurant named "Tommy Bahamas Grill" - Viewpoint Inc. owned the American and Canadian trademark "Tommy Bahama" - Viewpoint operated restaurants under that name in the United States - Viewpoint applied for an interlocutory injunction pending the trial of a trademark infringement and passing off action - In considering whether a serious question to be tried had been raised, the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that Viewpoint was not here required to establish a strong prima facie case, rather a case that was arguable - The court was satisfied that several serious issues were raised on the evidence - See paragraphs 21 to 31.

Injunctions - Topic 1616

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - General principles - Serious question to be tried - [See Injunctions - Topic 1607 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1802

Interlocutory or interim injunctions - Requirement of irreparable injury - What constitutes - On Par Enterprises operated a restaurant named "Tommy Bahamas Grill" - Viewpoint Inc. owned the American and Canadian trademark "Tommy Bahama" - Viewpoint operated restaurants under that name in the United States - Viewpoint applied for an interlocutory injunction pending the trial of a trademark infringement and passing off action - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application - While Viewpoint had raised several serious questions to be tried, its evidence of irreparable harm did not meet the test established in Centre Ice Ltd. v. National Hockey League et al. - There was no evidence presented of detrimental impact by the loss of exclusivity in its mark, or of harm not compensable in damages - See paragraphs 62 to 76.

Injunctions - Topic 6305

Particular matters - Injury to trade - Passing off - [See Injunctions - Topic 1802 ].

Injunctions - Topic 6307

Particular matters - Injury to trade - Improper use of trademarks, names or designs - [See Injunctions - Topic 1802 ].

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1819

Trademarks - Infringement - Remedies - Injunctions - [See Injunctions - Topic 1802 ].

Cases Noticed:

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, appld. [para. 20].

Movel Restaurants Ltd. et al. v. E.A.T. At Le Marche Inc. (1994), 89 F.T.R. 72; 59 C.P.R.(3d) 73 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

688863 Ontario Ltd. v. Landover Enterprises Inc. (1991), 45 F.T.R. 75; 35 C.P.R.(3d) 399 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25].

Enterprise Car and Truck Rentals Ltd. v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. et al. (1996), 109 F.T.R. 185; 66 C.P.R.(3d) 453 (T.D.), affd. (1998), 223 N.R. 114; 79 C.P.R.(3d) 45 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

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. 32].

Lassonde (A.) Inc. v. Island Oasis Canada Inc. et al. (2000), 273 N.R. 179 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Syntex Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. (1991), 126 N.R. 114; 36 C.P.R.(3d) 129 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

Nature Co. v. Sci-Tech Educational Inc. (1992), 141 N.R. 363; 41 C.P.R.(3d) 359 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Clairol International Corp. et al. v. Thomas Supply & Equipment Co. et al. (1968), 55 C.P.R. 176 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

Trego v. Hunt, [1896] A.C. 7, refd to. [para. 58].

Effem Foods Ltd. v. Heinz (H.J.) Co. of Canada Ltd., [1997] F.T.R. Uned. 370; 75 C.P.R.(3d) 331 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 60].

Imax Corp. v. Showmax Inc. et al. (2000), 182 F.T.R. 180; 5 C.P.R.(4th) 81 (T.D.), dist. [para. 73].

Counsel:

Chris Pibus, Peter Choe, and Kevin Sartorio, for the plaintiff;

Gregory Harney, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff;

Shields Harney, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the defendant.

This application was heard on March 22, 2001, in Toronto, Ontario, by Lemieux, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on June 8, 2001.