VisionWerx Investment Properties Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc.

VisionWerx Investment Properties Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc.

Although the plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried (low threshold), it failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of irreparable harm (loss of distinctiveness or goodwill not shown and lost sales are quantifiable), therefore the interlocutory injunction could not be granted and the motion was dismissed.

Citation
2020 FC 378
Parties
Plaintiff/moving Party; Defendant by Counterclaim: VisionWerx Investment Properties, Inc.; Defendant/responding Party; Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Strong Industries, Inc.; Defendant/responding Party: Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Passing Off / Infringement of Distinguishing Guise; Interlocutory Injunction Motion Under Former Trade Marks Act / Interlocutory Injunction Motion Heard and Dismissed; Pre Trial (action Ongoing)
Outcome
Motion for interlocutory injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Distinguishing Guise, Passing Off, Interlocutory Injunction, Functionality Doctrine, Irreparable Harm, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Trademarks Equitable Remedies Civil Procedure Distinguishing Guise Passing Off Interlocutory Injunction Functionality Doctrine +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

VisionWerx Investment Properties, Inc.

Plaintiff/moving Party; Defendant by Counterclaim

Strong Industries, Inc.

Defendant/responding Party; Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.

Defendant/responding Party

Procedural Posture

Passing Off / Infringement of Distinguishing Guise; Interlocutory Injunction Motion Under Former Trade Marks Act / Interlocutory Injunction Motion Heard and Dismissed; Pre Trial (action Ongoing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Spaberry two-person hot tub distinguishing guise is protectable under the Trade-marks Act or barred by functionality
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has raised a serious issue to be tried
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff demonstrated irreparable harm that cannot be quantified in damages

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff established a serious issue to be tried (low threshold), it failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of irreparable harm (loss of distinctiveness or goodwill not shown and lost sales are quantifiable), therefore the interlocutory injunction could not be granted and the motion was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion for interlocutory injunction dismissed

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's motion for an interlocutory injunction is dismissed.
  • Parties shall advise the Court of any agreement reached regarding costs within 10 days, or each may file submissions of no more than five pages on costs within 10 days; the Court will issue a separate costs order.