Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions, Inc.

2017 SCC 34 (2017) 1 S.C.R. 824

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P brought an action against its distributor, Datalink (L). L was selling P’s networking devices in Canada but decided that relabeling them with L’s label and selling the product in that manner was more profitable. And if that were not good enough, L acquired P’s trade secrets and designs and then simply began manufacturing a competing device that violated P’s trade secrets. P sued L and obtained judgments and court orders but L simply ignored them and continued to sell products around the world. L had essentially disappeared and could not be found but was still doing business selling knock-offs of P’s product. P contacted D and D refused to cooperate. P sued D seeking an order for D to delist L. An injunction was issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia ordering L to cease operating or carrying on business through any website. D then delisted L on its Canada results but nowhere else. Users in Canada and around the world were still able to access foreign search results outside of Canada and find and order L’s infringing product. Between December 2012 and January 2013, D advised P that it had de‑indexed 345 specific webpages associated with L. It did not, however, de‑index all of D’s websites. De‑indexing webpages but not entire websites proved to be ineffective since L simply moved the objectionable content to new pages within its websites, circumventing the court orders. D had limited the de‑indexing to searches conducted on google.ca. P requested a world-wide ban. D refused. P obtained an interlocutory injunction to enjoin Google from displaying any part of L’s websites on any of its search results worldwide. D appealed contending the court had no authority to do a worldwide ban with extraterritorial effect. The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed D’s appeal. D appealed.