What is the effect of a search and seizure of a trade mark in the context of the balance of convenience issue?

I would add this: I note particularly the words of Mr. Justice Cullen in the Seagram & Sons v. Andres Wine case I cited earlier where he said at p. 494 C.P.R., p. 150 F.T.R.: One more point I wish to stress: when considering the balance of convenience, it is an important factor that the defendant, with full knowledge of the plaintiff’s trade mark, “with its eyes wide open” took a calculated risk and “jumped the gun”. In my view, that is what happened here. A search was carried out in March of 1987. The trade mark of the plaintiff was found in that search. A letter from the solicitors for the plaintiff was received in June; it was ignored. The defendants went full-steam ahead with their business. They must have been aware that there was a risk involved with that business; with “their eyes wide open” they determined to take that risk. That, in my view, is a factor which may properly be taken into account on the question of the balance of convenience.