E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. v. Supertek Canada Inc.

E. Mishan & Sons, Inc. v. Supertek Canada Inc.

Although the court found Emson (through Mishan and Guindi) made false and misleading statements that tended to discredit Supertek’s product, Supertek failed to prove a causal link between those statements and the alleged damages; accordingly the s.7(a) claim is dismissed.

Citation
2016 FC 986
Parties
Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.; Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim): Blue Gentian, LLC; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Supertek Canada Inc.; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): International Edge, Inc.; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): Telebrands Corp.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
30 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Trade‑marks Act S.7(a) Claim (related Patent Invalidity Proceedings) / Summary Trial and Judgment on S.7(a) Claim (years 2013 2014; Canadian Tire Issue)
Outcome
Supertek’s claim under section 7(a) of the Trade‑marks Act is dismissed for failure to prove causation; no costs award.
Legal Topics
Section 7(a) Trade‑marks Act, False and Misleading Statements, Causation, Damages Quantification, Summary Trial, Evidence Assessment
Source Language
English
Intellectual Property Trademark Law Patent Law Tort Injurious Falsehood/defamatory Statements About Goods Civil Procedure Section 7(a) Trade‑marks Act False and Misleading Statements Causation +3 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. Mishan & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Blue Gentian, LLC

Plaintiff (defendant by Counterclaim)

Supertek Canada Inc.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

International Edge, Inc.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Telebrands Corp.

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Intellectual Property Trade‑marks Act S.7(a) Claim (related Patent Invalidity Proceedings) / Summary Trial and Judgment on S.7(a) Claim (years 2013 2014; Canadian Tire Issue)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendants by Counterclaim (Emson) made false and misleading statements contrary to s.7(a) in dealings with Canadian Tire in 2013-2014
  2. 2 Whether Supertek suffered damage as a result of those statements
  3. 3 If damage established, the appropriate measure of damages and causation linking statement to loss

Ratio Decidendi

Although the court found Emson (through Mishan and Guindi) made false and misleading statements that tended to discredit Supertek’s product, Supertek failed to prove a causal link between those statements and the alleged damages; accordingly the s.7(a) claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Supertek’s claim under section 7(a) of the Trade‑marks Act is dismissed for failure to prove causation; no costs award.

Orders

  • Supertek’s claim under section 7(a) of the Trade‑marks Act is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs; each party to bear its own costs.