Google Inc v. Equustek Solutions Inc.
Case Law- Country
- Country Location
خط العرض: 62.07067909300361
خط الطول: -107.72231232402085
- Country Location (مرتبط Case Law)
- Canada
- Decision Date
- 28 يونيو 2017
- Case Status
- أُغلقت / إنتهت
- Case Outcome Procedural
- Motion Denied
- Case Outcome (Disposition)
- Blocking or Filtering of Information
- اتخاذ تدابير إدارية / عقوبات إدارية تقيد من حرية التعبير
- قبول منح أمر قضائي / قرار إعدادي
- Keywords
- Intellectual Property
- ISP Regulation
- Judicial Body
- المحكمة العليا (محكمة أعلي درجة)
- Case Number
- 2017 SCC 34
- Case Summary
The Supreme Court of Canada granted an interlocutory injunction against Google to remove all of a company's websites from its worldwide search engine. Google was a third party to the underlying dispute, which concerned a claim by Equustek (plaintiff) against Datalink (defendant) over intellectual property infringement. The injunction was ordered in the interest of justice with the Supreme Court of Canada finding that de-indexing the defendant's domain from Google's search engine globally was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to Equustek. The Supreme Court was unconvinced by Google's arguments that a global de-indexing order would offend international comity, would unreasonably inconvenience the search engine, and would interfere with the right to freedom of expression. This case entered a new phase November 2, when the U.S. District Court of Northern California granted Google a temporary injunction blocking the enforceability of the Supreme Court of Canada's order in the U.S. The California Court granted the injunction on the basis that the company was protected as a neutral intermediary under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 1996. It also said that "By forcing intermediaries to remove links to third-party material, the Canadian order undermines the policy goals of Section 230 and threatens free speech on the global internet." If, as expected, Google applies to make the injunction permanent – and succeeds, it is likely to return to Canada to argue that its order violates the law of another country.
- Case Significance
The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.