In Purolator v. Nickless, the court found that the plaintiff would be more inconvenienced than the defendant if the injunction were not ordered because they would suffer damage in the market-place as a result of the comparative advertising that named them specifically. The defendant, on the other hand, still had many advertising options available and would not lose very much as a result of the order. The court pointed out, at p. 396, that “the parties were competing in a very vigorous market”. It was clear to the court that the advertising brochure would affect the market share of the plaintiff based on, allegedly, false and misleading information.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.