Alpha Neon (2012) Ltd. v. Ziskos, 2014 BCSC 2326
The Plaintiff applied for an interlocutory injunction to stop the personal Defendant and corporate Defendant, Alpha Neon Sign Consulting Ltd., from using their business name, “Alpha Neon”. The Defendants compete with the Plaintiff and have been using the Alpha Neon name in its competing business since 2013. The question for this Court was whether the Defendants should be enjoined from using the Alpha Neon name on the ground that they are passing themselves off as the Plaintiff’s Alpha Neon business.
The Court considered the three-part test for injunctive relief: Has the Plaintiff shown a serious question to be tried? If so, does the Defendants’ conduct cause irreparable harm, and where does the balance of convenience lie for an injunction as between the Plaintiff and the Defendants? The Defendants conceded the first point (serious question to be tried), but argued that they should succeed on the second and third parts of the test.
The Court found that irreparable harm had been shown, and that the balance of convenience rested with the Plaintiff. The injunction was granted, and the Defendants were ordered to stop any and all use of the Alpha Neon name. Costs were awarded in the cause.