S. & S. Industries Inc. v. Rowell

S. & S. Industries Inc. v. Rowell

The Trade Marks Act s.7(a), read with s.52, gives a statutory cause of action for false or misleading statements by a competitor tending to discredit the claimant without an express requirement to prove malice; the respondent fell within s.7(a) and, in any event, the evidence permitted an inference of lack of reasonable and probable cause (malice), so the award of damages and the Exchequer Court's declaration of patent invalid were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Citation
[1966] SCR 419
Parties
Defendant Appellant: S. & S. Industries Inc.; Plaintiff Respondent: Ross Frederick Rowell (Hops-Koch Products Reg'd.)
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 1966
Procedural Posture
Patent Invalidity (impeachment) With Ancillary Claim for Damages for Trade Disparagement / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Exchequer Court declaring patent invalid and awarding damages to respondent upheld.
Legal Topics
Patent Validity, Statutory Cause of Action Under Trade Marks Act S.7(a), Damages for False or Misleading Statements, Malice and Lack of Reasonable and Probable Cause, Injurious Falsehood/trade Libel
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Patent Law Trade Marks Unfair Competition Tort Law Patent Validity Statutory Cause of Action Under Trade Marks Act S.7(a) Damages for False or Misleading Statements +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. & S. Industries Inc.

Defendant Appellant

Ross Frederick Rowell (Hops-Koch Products Reg'd.)

Plaintiff Respondent

Procedural Posture

Patent Invalidity (impeachment) With Ancillary Claim for Damages for Trade Disparagement / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.7(a) of the Trade Marks Act together with s.52 creates a statutory cause of action for false or misleading statements by a competitor without requiring proof of malice
  2. 2 Whether a plaintiff suing for damages based on threats tied to an invalid patent must prove malice or lack of reasonable and probable cause
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's conduct (threat letters, publication, settlement terms) caused actionable damage to plaintiff's business and goodwill

Ratio Decidendi

The Trade Marks Act s.7(a), read with s.52, gives a statutory cause of action for false or misleading statements by a competitor tending to discredit the claimant without an express requirement to prove malice; the respondent fell within s.7(a) and, in any event, the evidence permitted an inference of lack of reasonable and probable cause (malice), so the award of damages and the Exchequer Court's declaration of patent invalid were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Exchequer Court declaring patent invalid and awarding damages to respondent upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Judgment of the Exchequer Court declaring Canadian Patent No. 525962 invalid and awarding damages to the respondent affirmed; damages to be assessed by registrar as ordered below