Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc.

“The internet has no borders, but the law still applies.”

SHORT DESCRIPTION

The judgment in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. is a globally significant decision that addressed the power of courts to issue worldwide injunctions against internet intermediaries. The Supreme Court of Canada examined whether a domestic court could require a global search engine to remove infringing content from its search results worldwide. This case is especially important in the context of online enforcement of intellectual property rights and the growing role of digital platforms in facilitating unlawful activities.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Equustek Solutions Inc. was a small Canadian technology company engaged in manufacturing networking equipment. A former distributor of Equustek unlawfully began selling counterfeit versions of Equustek’s products by misappropriating its trade secrets and intellectual property. Despite multiple court orders, the defendants continued their illegal activities by operating through various websites hosted outside Canada.

Equustek approached Google, whose search engine indexed and promoted the infringing websites. Although Google voluntarily removed specific URLs from its Canadian search results, the infringing websites continued to appear in search results outside Canada. Equustek therefore sought a court order requiring Google to delist the infringing websites globally.

ISSUES INVOLVED

The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether a Canadian court had the jurisdiction to issue a worldwide injunction against a non-party internet intermediary. The Court also examined whether such an order would be reasonable, enforceable, and consistent with principles of international comity and freedom of expression.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Google argued that it was a neutral intermediary and not a party to the underlying dispute. It contended that imposing a global injunction would exceed the territorial jurisdiction of Canadian courts and could conflict with the laws of other countries. Google also raised concerns regarding freedom of expression and the risk of setting a dangerous precedent.

Equustek argued that Google played a crucial role in facilitating the defendants’ unlawful conduct by directing users to infringing websites. It submitted that without a global delisting order, the court’s injunctions against the defendants would be ineffective and meaningless.

FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the global injunction against Google. The Court held that Canadian courts have the authority to issue injunctions with extraterritorial effect where necessary to prevent harm and ensure the effectiveness of their orders. It observed that Google was not a passive bystander, as its search engine materially facilitated the ongoing harm suffered by Equustek.

The Court emphasized that injunctions against intermediaries are justified when they are the only practical means of stopping unlawful activity. It further noted that concerns regarding conflicts with foreign laws could be addressed if and when such conflicts actually arise.

SUGGESTION / PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY

This judgment significantly expands the scope of online IP enforcement and places increased responsibility on digital platforms. Businesses facing cross-border online infringement can seek effective remedies against intermediaries. At the same time, platforms must be prepared to comply with court orders that go beyond national boundaries.

JUDGMENT

Year: 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the global injunction directing Google to delist infringing websites worldwide.