Canada: Blocking Infringement At The Real And Virtual Border

Last Updated: July 27 2017
Article by John McKeown

The explosion of the Internet and the rapid development of online commerce encourage the sale of counterfeit goods.  In the past the distribution of counterfeit goods was primarily through street vendors or discount outlets and the like.  This had a tendency to limit the scope of the sale of counterfeit goods.

As online commerce has increased, the limitations relating to the sale of counterfeit goods have been removed.  Through the use of a website, a counterfeiter can more easily create an image of authenticity.  As a result it can be more difficult for consumers to distinguish genuine goods from counterfeit goods in this context.

Equustek Solution Inc. v. Google Inc.

The Facts

The plaintiffs operate a small technology business relating to the design, manufacture and sale of industrial network interface hardware.

The defendants distributed the plaintiffs' products at one point.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants began to relabel the plaintiffs' product and pass it off as their own.  Later the defendants were said to have unlawfully acquired confidential information and trade secrets belonging to the plaintiffs and used the information to design and manufacture a competing product.  The defendants continued to advertise the plaintiffs' product for sale but filled their orders with their own competing product.

The plaintiffs instituted an action against the defendants when the defendants were carrying on business in Vancouver. The defendants ceased to defend the action and their statement of defence was struck.

The defendants stopped operating in Vancouver but continued to offer their product through a number of websites that they controlled.  The defendants filled orders from unknown locations, apparently outside Canada. The only business address that the defendants provided were for rental mailboxes.

One of the principals of the defendants was found to be in contempt of court and a warrant for his arrest was issued.  However, the plaintiffs were unable to find any information concerning the defendants and their status and as a result could not take any further steps directly against them.

The plaintiffs obtained a Mareva injunction freezing the worldwide assets of the defendants including their product inventory.

The plaintiffs then obtained an injunction prohibiting the defendants from dealing with broad categories of intellectual property and documents and information that lies at the heart of the business carried on by the parties.  Although very broad, this order was granted since the defendants were using a series of companies and non-existing entities to breach the previous orders.

Notwithstanding these orders, the defendants continued to carry on business as an outlaw company selling their product on a series of websites to customers all over the world.

Google

The plaintiffs said that they could not take steps against the parties hosting the impugned websites because a hosting company can be changed in an hour.  The plaintiffs decided that their only realistic remaining option was to engage the assistance of Google, the dominant search engine through which the defendants' websites were made accessible to the public.  The plaintiffs said that Google operated the world's most popular search engine and controlled 70 to 75% of the global search engine market.  Because Google is the dominant search engine, no business conducted on the Internet can succeed unless it can be easily found on Google.

Google provides its search engine services through a number of different websites.  Internet users with Canadian IP addresses are by default redirected from "google.com" to "google.ca" when they perform searches.  Users, however, can override the redirection and access "google.com" or other Google websites directed at other countries.

The Interlocutory Injunction against Google

The plaintiffs sought an interlocutory injunction against Google to force it to remove a number of websites used by the defendants from its search indexes.  Google voluntarily removed some 345 urls from the search results on "google.ca" but was not willing to go further.

The plaintiffs were not satisfied with this arrangement since the defendants simply moved objectionable content to new pages within their websites to get around the voluntary de-indexing of specific pages.  The plaintiffs said that they were left in a position of playing a game of "Wack-a-Mole" in which the defendants were circumventing Google's voluntary arrangements.  In addition, the majority of the sales of the defendants' products were to purchasers in countries other than Canada.

When the matter was heard, the judge at first instance granted an order requiring that Google cease indexing or referencing a series of websites listed in schedule "A" to the order until the trial of the action or a further order of the court.  The contents of schedule "A" have been modified by subsequent orders.

The Judgment of the Court of Appeal

Google applied to the British Columbia Court of Appeal for leave to appeal and a partial stay of the order.  Leave to appeal was granted but the application for a stay was dismissed.

On appeal, Google contended that the injunction should not have been granted on the following grounds:

  1. a) the Court lacked jurisdiction;
  2. b) the injunction resulted in an inappropriate burden on an innocent non-party to the litigation;
  3. the extra-territorial reach of the injunction was inappropriate and violated the principle of comity; and
  4. the injunction should not have been granted because of its effect on the freedom of speech.

Jurisdiction

The judge found there was territorial jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal agreed with this conclusion since the facts on which the injunction application were based – facts concerning the violation of trade secrets and of intellectual property rights – have a strong connection with British Columbia.

The Court also agreed with judge's comment that Google may be subject to the jurisdiction of many courts but this occurs as a natural consequence of Google doing business on a global scale, not from a flaw in the territorial competence analysis. Territorial competence analysis will not give every state unlimited jurisdiction over Google; jurisdiction will be confined to issues closely associated with the forum in accordance with private international law.

An Inappropriate Burden on an Innocent Non-Party

The Court acknowledged that it is unusual for courts to grant remedies against persons who are not parties to an action. The reasons for this are obvious – most civil claims are concerned with the vindication of a right, and the remedial focus is on that right. Further, notions of justice demand that procedural protections be afforded to a person against whom a remedy is sought. The usual method of providing such protections is to require the claimant to bring an action against the non-party, giving the non-party the rights of a party.

In the final analysis the Court said, if a justiciable issue between the parties to the litigation exists, the granting of injunctive relief against third parties as an ancillary means of preserving the parties' rights is well-established as being within jurisdiction of the courts.

The Extra-Territorial Reach of the Injunction

Google argued that as a matter of law, the Court is not competent to regulate the activities of non-residents in foreign jurisdictions. This rule is dictated both by judicial pragmatism and considerations of comity.  However the Court said that once it is established a court has in personam jurisdiction over a person, the fact that its order may affect activities in other jurisdictions is not a bar to it making an order. For example, Mareva injunctions freezing assets are typically made on a worldwide basis.

Comity and Freedom of Expression

"Comity" in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and goodwill, on the other.  It is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience and to the rights of its own citizens or other persons who are under the protection of its laws. It is a balancing exercise and the relevant considerations are respect for a nation's acts, international duty, convenience and protection of a nation's citizens.

The Court concluded that there was no realistic assertion that the judge's order would offend the sensibilities of any other nation. The courts of France, Ireland, Germany and the E.U. have found it necessary, in the context of orders against Internet abuses, to pronounce orders that have international effect. The order made against Google was a very limited ancillary order designed to ensure that the plaintiffs' core rights are respected.

Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal form the decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal. Numerous entities intervened. Google argued that the order should be set aside for three reasons:

  1. The order is contrary to the Court's jurisprudence concerning orders that restrict freedom of expression;
  2. The courts of British Columbia erred in the nature and scope of the remedial injunction granted against a non-party; and
  3. The order is contrary to the Court's jurisprudence relating to comity.

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on June 28, 2017. The Court dismissed the appeal.

  1. The Order is Contrary to the Court's Jurisprudence Concerning Orders that Restrict Freedom of Expression

This argument was rejected.  The Court said while it is always important to pay respectful attention to freedom of expression concerns, particularly when dealing with the core values of another country, they did not see freedom of expression issues being engaged that tipped the balance of convenience towards Google.

Absent an evidentiary foundation to support the assertion, and given Google's right to seek a rectifying order if such facts arose, it would not be equitable to deny Equustek the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible. The Court was dealing with the Internet and the balance of convenience test must take full account of its inevitable extraterritorial reach when injunctive relief is being sought against an entity like Google.

This was not an order to remove speech that engaged freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites in violation of several court orders. The Court has not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods.

  1. b) The Nature and Scope of the Remedial Injunction Granted Against a Non-Party

Google argued that the injunction issued against it was unnecessary to prevent irreparable harm, and that it was not effective. It was also argued that as a non-party, it should be immune from the injunction.

Regarding the argument that non-parties should be immune the Court said it was well established injunctive relief can be ordered against someone who is not a party to the underlying lawsuit. The test for granting an interlocutory injunction in this context is not changed since injunctions may be issued in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just or convenient that the order should be made on terms and conditions the court thinks just.

The Court referred by analogy to Norwich orders and Mareva injunctions. Norwich orders can compel non-parties to disclose information or documents in their possession required by a claimant. Norwich orders have increasingly been used in the online context by plaintiffs who allege that they are being anonymously defamed or defrauded and seek orders against Internet service providers to disclose the identity of the perpetrator. Norwich disclosure may be ordered against non-parties who are not themselves guilty of wrongdoing, but who are so involved in the wrongful acts of others that they facilitate the harm.

Mareva injunctions are used to freeze assets to prevent their dissipation pending the conclusion of a trial or action. A Mareva injunction that requires a defendant not to dissipate his or her assets sometimes requires the assistance of a non-party, which in turn can result in an injunction against the non-party if it is just and equitable to do so.

Much like a Norwich order or a Mareva injunction against a non-party, the interlocutory injunction granted flowed from the necessity of Google's assistance to prevent the facilitation of the defendants' ability to defy court orders and do irreparable harm to Equustek. Without the injunctive relief, Google would continue to facilitate that ongoing harm.

The Court said that the problem was occurring online and globally. The Internet has no borders — its natural habitat is global. The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates — globally.

  1. c) The Order is Contrary to the Court's Jurisprudence relating to Comity

This argument was also not accepted. The Court said that when a court has in personam jurisdiction, and where it is necessary to ensure the injunction's effectiveness, it can grant an injunction enjoining that person's conduct anywhere in the world. For example Mareva injunctions have been granted with worldwide effect when it was necessary to ensure their effectiveness.

Google's argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would result in Google violating the laws of that jurisdiction was theoretical.

The defendants have used the services provided by Google to continue harming Equustek in defiance of several court orders. This did not make Google liable for this harm but Google is the determinative player in allowing the harm to occur. Since the interlocutory injunction was the only effective way to mitigate the harm to Equustek and to preserve it pending the resolution of the underlying action and since any countervailing harm to Google was minimal to non-existent, the interlocutory injunction was upheld.

Conclusion

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada confirms the availability of orders to block infringement against internet search engines or internet service providers. The decision clarifies that intellectual property rights holders can enforce their rights against infringers using the Internet. While the facts in the Equuestek case are relatively extreme the scope of the principles applied by the Court are not.

It remains to be seen how effective such orders will be.  The plaintiffs said having obtained an order against Google was effective.  Google said that the web pages and websites covered by the order were still publicly available and appear on search results for other search engines such as Yahoo!, BING, YANDEX, DUCKDUCKGO or BAIDU.  The impugned websites can also still be accessed through other means, such as, navigating to the site from the browsers address bar or by linking from a previous bookmark, an email, social media or other sites.

While the same issues arise in obtaining an injunction against an internet service provider, this can be problematic since there are a multitude of such providers in Canada.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
John McKeown
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.