LVMH filed the suit against Wynnie Lee Fashion in 2004 and obtained an Anton Pillar order authorizing it to search the shops for counterfeit goods.
Despite being caught selling hundreds of fake items, Wynnie Lee continued to operate several stores and to carry the infringing merchandise, even after entering into a settlement agreement with LVMH and paying a C$6,000 ($5,625) fine.
On June 19, Madam Justice Boyd of the British Columbia Supreme Court issued a summary trial decision ordering several of the defendants to pay C$980,000, including compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages to LVMH.
She wrote: "In my view, the evidence is clear that both before and following the commencement of this action the defendants W. Lee, W. Lee Corporation, Ngan and Tran, have acted wilfully and knowingly in violation of the plaintiffs' rights in the trademarks and copyrights ... I agree with plaintiffs' counsel's submission that an award of statutory damages at the highest end of the scale - that in the amount of $20,000 per each of the Copyrighted Works infringements, is appropriate."
Last November, Judge Judith Snider entered a default judgment in favour of Louis Vuitton against Lin Pi-Chu Yang (also known as Pi-Chu Lin, Wai Ying, Martina and Coco) and Tim Yang Wei-Kai (also known as Wei-Kai Yang), who were doing business as K2 Fashions in Richmond, British Columbia.
Snider awarded LV a total of more than C$263,000 ($264,000) including C$100,000 in punitive damages and more than C$36,000 in legal costs.
The damages for copyright and trade mark infringement took account of each instance of infringement that LV showed.
Like the most recent judgment, the decision was seen as evidence that Canadian judges are taking a tough stance against repeat counterfeiters who refuse to observe legal orders.
Commenting on both cases, Karen MacDonald of Smart & Biggar in Vancouver, who represented LVMH in the case, said in a statement released following Justice Boyd's summary decision in June: "As with the previous Louis Vuitton decision, this judgment will hopefully send another strong message to counterfeiters in Canada and provide an additional precedent for IP rights holders to seek enhanced damages against recidivist offenders. These decisions also illustrate an important consideration for IP rights holders: damage awards in these types of scenarios can be maximized by gathering evidence of repeated sales of counterfeit products over a period of time, and/or other reliable evidence of inventory turnover."
In a statement published last week, Nathalie Moulle-Berteaux, IP director of Louis Vuitton, said that the decision is indicative of a tougher stance by Canadian courts on the subject of counterfeits, despite the country's somewhat weak legal framework for the enforcement of IP rights.
"We are delighted that these important decisions reflect that both the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of British Columbia recognize the importance of protecting both trade marks and copyrights. Through these decisions, the judges have sent a strong message to counterfeiters that their illegal activities will not be tolerated by the Canadian courts," she said.
