Sie sind auf Seite 1von 128

$

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 422.002 Steve Patterson University of British Columbia Prof. Joost Blom Spring 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION ONE AN INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY I. Policy of Intellectual Property... II. Introduction to Copyright, Patent, and Trademark Law... SECTION TWO COPYRIGHT I. Introduction s.2, 15, 18, 21, 89, 91.. II. u!"i"tence of Copyright........... $. %uthor"hip s.2, s. , s.9, s.10, s.1! Neudorf v. Nett or! Produ"tions #td. $%999 BCSC& '. (riginality s.!, s.5........ University of #ondon Press ltd. v. University 'utorial Press #td. $%9%( U) Ch. *& CC+ Canadian #td. v. #a So"iety of Upper Canada $200, SCC&.. *. +i,ation s.2, s.!.............. Canadian -dmiral Corporation #td. v. .ediffusion /n". $%90, 12. Ct.& -. .ork" s.2, s.2.1............. %. Literary .ork" s.2.. Ni"hols v. Universal Pi"tures Corp. $%930 US Cir". Ct. of -pp.&.. Baigent v. .andom +ouse $2004 U)C-& .. 122on Corp. v. 122on /nsuran"e Consultants /nternational #td. $%952 U)C-&... Bulman 6roup #td. v. 78ne 9rite7 -""ounting Systems #td. $%952 :ed. Ct. '*& :ran"is *ay ; +unter #td. v. ' entieth<Century :o2 Corp. $%939 PC&. /. Compilation"........... 'ele<*ire"t $Publi"ations& /n". v. -meri"an Business /nformation /n". $%994 :C-& C. Collecti1e .ork" s.2, s.1!...... .obertson v. 'homson Corp. $200( SCC& 2. Computer Program" s.2, s.!... -pple Computer /n". v. =a"!intosh Computers #td. $%990 SCC& *elrina Corp. v. 'riolet Systems $%993 8nt. Ct. 6en&.. Nintendo v. Cameri"a $%99% :ed. Ct. '*& 3. 2ramatic .ork" s.2 +. Cinematographic .ork" s.2, s.11.1 4. 5u"ical .ork" s.2, s.19 6. %rti"tic .ork" s.2, s.5, s.!4.1, s. 4 Cuisenaire v. South 9est /mports #td. $%9(5 12. Ct.&.. III. ome of the 7ight" Compri"ing Copyright in a .ork. $. To 7eproduce the .ork s.!.. #adbro!e $:ootball& #td. v. 9illiam +ill $:ootball& #td. $%9(, +#& '. To Perform the .ork in Pu!lic s.2, s.2.!, s.!. Canadian -dmiral Corp. v. .ediffusion /n". $%90, 12. Ct.&.. *. To Communicate the .ork to the Pu!lic !y Telecommunication s.2, s.2.4, s.!.. S8C-N v. Canadian -ssn. of /nternet Providers $200, SCC&. Canadian 9ireless 'ele"ommuni"ations -ssn. v. S8C-N $2005 :ed. Ct. -pp&. -. To 5ake a ound 7ecording, Cinematograph or (ther Contri1ance s.! I8. 5oral 7ight" in a .ork s.14.1, s.14.2, s.28.1, s.28.2, s.!8..... Sno v. 'he 1aton Centre #td. $%952 8nt. +igh Ct.&.. 'heberge v. 6alerie *>art *u Petit Champlain /n". $2002 SCC& 8. 9eigh!ouring 7ight"................. .. $. Introduction...................... 5 6 6 # # & $) $$ $$ $' $* $$5 $5 $6 $6 $6 $# $0 $0 $& $& '$ '$ '' '''5 '5 '6 '# '0 '0 '0 '& '& *) *$ **5 *5 *6 *# *0 *0

'
'. Copyright In % Performer:" Performance s.2, s.15, s.2! *. Copyright In ound 7ecording" s.2, s.18, s.2! -. Performer and 5aker:" 7ight to 3;uita!le 7emuneration for Performance in Pu!lic of a ound 7ecording s.19, s.2!.. 5. /roadca"ter:" Copyright in a Communication ignal s.2, s.21, s.2!.. 8I. (wner"hip and %""ignment...... $. 4eneral s.1!, s.!4.1, s.5!, s.5" University of #ondon :ree Press v. University 'utorial Press $%9%( Ch. *.& '. Term and 7egi"tration s. , s.", s.9, s.10, s.11.1, s.12, s.2! 8II. Infringement.............................. $. 4enerally s.1!, s.2", s.2".1, s.42, s.45 '. Literary .ork" s.!, s.!4.1 Preston v. 20th Century :o2 Canada #td. $%990 :ed. Ct. '*&. *. 2ramatic .ork" s.!, s.!4, s.!5, s.!8.1, s.!9 .oy 12port Co. 1stablishment v. 6authier $%943 :ed. Ct. '*&.. -. 5u"ical .ork" s.!, s.!2.2 She an v. Canada $-ttorney 6eneral& $%999 8nt. SC& 5. %rti"tic .ork" s.!, s.28.2, s.!2.2.. )aff!a v. =ountain Side *evelopments #td. $%952 BCSC& 6. econdary Infringement s.2" 1uro<12"ellen"e /n". v. )raft Canada /n". $2004 SCC& #. %uthori<ing Infringement s.!, s.!0.! CC+ Canadian #td. v. #a So"iety of Upper Canada $200, SCC&. 0. +air 2ealing 3,ception s.29, s.29.1, s.29.2 University of #ondon Press #td. v. University 'utorial Press ltd. $%9%( Ch. *& . CC+ Canadian #td. v. #a So"iety of Upper Canada $200, SCC&. Produ"tions -vanti Cine<?ideo /n". v. :avreau $%999 @ue. C-&. &. Pu!lic Policy 3,ception. Beloff v. Pressdram #td. $%943 Ch. *& 8III. Collecti1e %dmini"tration of 7ight" s."0.12 I=. International %"pect" s.2, s.5.. SECTION THREE PASSING OFF I. Common Law s.11.14, s.11.18 #T$A% . 1rven 9arni"! B? v. J. 'o nend ; Sons $+ull& #td. $%949 +#&... Ciba<6iegy Canada #td. v. -pote2 /n". $%992 SCC&. 9alt *isney Produ"tions v. 'riple :ive Corp. $%99, -lta. C-& #a So"iety of BC v. Canada *omain Name 12"hange Corp. $200, BCSC&.. II. ection # of the 'rademar!s -"t s.".. )ir!bi -6 v. .itvi! +oldings #td. $2000 SCC& .. SECTION FOUR TRADE $AR&S I. 5eaning of >Trade 5ark> s.2.. $. tatutory 2efinition s.2, s.18.. '. ?"e s.4......................... Clairol /nternational Corp. v. 'homas Supply ; 1Auipment Co. $%9(5 12. Ct.&.... *. To 2i"tingui"h .are" of er1ice".. #6 Canadian Shredded 9heat Co. v. )ellogg Co. $%935 PC& 'ommy +ilfiger #i"ensing /n". v. /nternational Clothiers /n". $200, :C-&.. II. 7egi"tration of Trademark"....... $. Condition" for 7egi"tration 4eneral s.1, s.12, s.1 , s.18, s.19 '. Procedure for 7egi"tration s.1", s.2 , s.28, s.!" *. Trademark" That %re 9ot 7egi"tra!le @(ther Than /ecau"e of Confu"ion with a 7egi"tered Trade 5arkA . %. Introduction s.12, s.!8. *& -$ -' -* -* -* -5 -6 -0 -0 -& 5) 5$ 5' 5* 5* 555 56 5# 5& 5& 6) 6$ 6$ 6* 6665 65 66 6# 60 6& #) #$ #$ #* #* ###6 ## #0 #0 0) 0$ 0$

/. Primarily 5erely 9ame of urname s.12 Standard 8il Co. v. .egistrar of 'rade<=ar!s $%9(5 12. Ct. of Canada&.. 6erard +orn /nvts. #td. v. .egistrar of 'rade<=ar!s $%953 :ed. Ct. '*&. C. Clearly 2e"cripti1e or 2ecepti1ely 5i"de"cripti1e s.12. *ra"!ett Co. of Canada v. -meri"an +ome Produ"ts Corp. $%9(5 12. Ct.&.. S. C. Johnson ; Son #td. v. =ar!eting /nternational #td. $%950 SCC&. ConsorBio *el Pros"iutto *i Parma v. =aple #eaf =eats /n". $200% :ed. Ct. '*& 2. 9ame" of .are" or er1ice" s.12 3. Prohi!ited 5ark" and (fficial 5ark" s.2 s.9, s.10, s.10.1, s.11, s.12.. 8ntario -ssn. of -r"hite"ts v. -ssn. of -r"hite"tural 'e"hnologists $2002 :ed. C-& .oyal .oads University v. Canada $2003 :ed. Ct.& 8lympi" and Parolympi"s -"t +. 2i"claimer of 7ight" to 3,clu"i1e ?"e of Portion of Trademark s.!5, s.41. #a!e 8ntario Cement #td. v. .egistrar of 'rade<=ar!s $%94( :ed. Ct. '*&... -. Confu"ion s. , s.15....... =attel /n". v. 359,204 Canada /n". $200( SCC& . =olson Cos. v. John #abatt #td. $%99, :ed. C-& ="*onald>s Corp. v. Coffee +ut Stores #td. $%99, :ed. Ct. '*& 5. 2i"tincti1ene""................ Phillip =orris /n". v. /mperial 'oba""o #td. $%954 :ed. C-& .. -uld Phillips #td. v. SuBanne>s /n". $2000 :ed. C-&. III. 2i"tingui"hing 4ui"e s.2, s.1!.. *ominion #o"! Co. v. S"hlage #o"! Co. $%9(% .eg. '=&. I8. Certification 5ark" s.2, s.2!..... 8. Licen"ing and Tran"fer................ $. Licen"ing s.50............... S. C. Johnson ; Son #td. v. =ar!eting /nternational #td. $%949 SCC& '. Tran"fer s.48................. 8I. Infringement ".', s.4, s.1 , s.1", s.18, s.19, s.20.. 8II. 2epreciating 8alue of the 4oodwill %ttaching to the Trademark s.22 ?euve Cli"Auot Ponsardin v. BoutiAues CliAuot #tee $200( SCC&... 8III. 7emedie" s.5!.2..................... I=. International s.14..................... Boston PiBBa /nternational /n". v. Boston Chi"!en /n". $2003 :ed. C-&. SECTION FI'E PATENTS I. Introduction to Patent Law s.2. II. Procedure for (!taining a Patent s.10, s.2", s.28,, s.42, s.44, . 0.. III. Patenta!ility s.2, s.2", s.28.2, s.28.! $. u!Bect 5atter of the In1ention %. 4eneral Criteria s.!2. Shell 8il Co. v. Canada $Commissioner of Patents& $%952 SCC&. /. 5ere cientific Principle or %!"tract Theorem s.2". C. Profe""ional kill" or 5ethod"C cheme" or Plan".. #a son v. Commissioner of Patents $%940 12. Ct&.. 2. 5edical Treatment s."9 'ennessee 1astman Co. v. Commissioner of Patents $%942 SCC&.. 3. Information Technology S"hlumberger Canada #td. v. Commissioner of Patents $%95% :ed. C-& .e -ppli"ation for Patent of /nternational Business =a"hines Corp. $%95, P-B& . +. Li1ing 5atter.......... +arvard College v. Canada $Commissioner of Patents& $2002 SCC& =onsanto Canada /n". v. S"hmeiser $200, SCC&

0$ 0' 0* 0* 0005 06 06 00 00 0& 0& &) &$ &' &&&5 &6 &# &# &0 && && && $)) $)$ $)$ $)* $)* $)6 $)6 $)6 $)# $)0 $)& $$) $$) $$) $$$ $$' $$' $$* $$* $$$$$$5 $$5 $$6 $$&

'. 9o1elty %. 4eneral s.28.2. /. %nticipation. -pote2 /n". v. Sanofi<Synthelabo Canada /n". $2005 SCC&. C. Pre1iou" 2i"clo"ure to the Pu!lic *. 9onD(!1iou"ne"" s.28.!.. -pote2 /n". v. Sanofi<Synthelabo /n". $2005 SCC& .. I8. Con"truction of the Patent s.2" 9hirlpool Corp. v. Cam"o /n". $2000 SCC& .. 8. 2ou!le Patenting -pote2 /n". v. Sanofi<Synthelabo Canada /n". $2005 SCC& 8I. Infringement s.42, s.54. $. >5aking, Con"tructing and ?"ing the In1ention>.. =onsanto Canada /n". v. S"hmeiser $200, SCC& ..

$$& $$& $') $'$ $'' $'' $'' $'$'$'6 $'6 $'# $'# $'#

SECTION ONE AN INTRODUCTION TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY I. POLICY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY D Eue"tionF why ha1e IP law at allG Two 1iew"F aA N()*+,-( iA R(s+.,/+s /.(*+,-,+0 D +ree flow of idea" i" a good thing and IP law" re"trictHcontrol" it too much D 5ore pre1alent in copyright and patent that deal with idea" D +or "ociety to ad1ance, indi1idual" mu"t take good idea" and work on themIP re"trict" thi" D ieF to di"tri!ute copie" of an in1entionH!ook, you mu"t pay iiA P.(s(.-(s 1(s+(.2 )(3435,+,/*5 637,2*2/( D 4eopolitically, IP right" tend to !e held !y !ig companie" from the we"tern world, thu" protecting the intere"t" of rich companie"Hcountrie" D Thi" pre1ent" u"eful lifeD"a1ing knowledge from !eing a1aila!le to the poor !A P3s,+,-( iA E/3237,/s D cienti"t" "pending year" working on a drug want to !e compen"ated for their work" D Trademark" a !it different, a" it:" not a!out "timulating creati1ity, rather reward" in1e"tment D %ll area" are a tradeDoff !etween 4895,/ @free flow of idea" and ea"y acce"" to informationA and 4.,-*+( @making money off of hard workA ,2+(.(s+s, and therefore all right" are limited D ieF only recei1e right" for a period of time, a" right" are not perpetual D P*+(2+s !ecome pu!lic knowledge de"pite a monopoly D C340.,):+ limited to the life of the author plu" a certain num!er of idea" D T.*6(7*.;s run until the monopoly no longer !ecome" uni;ue D 9ote that IP 5*1s *.( +(..,+3.,*550 6(<,2(6, 93+: ,2 +:(,. *445,/*+,32 *26 ,2 +:( *-*,5*9,5,+0 3< =86,/,*5 .(/38.s( <3. +:(,. ,2<.,2)(7(2+ D y"tem of nationally di"tinct IP regime" i" coordinated !y a "et of int:l con1ention" D /a"ic idea i" that national" @loo"ely definedA of one con1ention country are entitled to >national treatment> @ieF "ame IP right" a" are enBoyed !y local" in another con1ention countryA D Policy tradeDoff argument"F aA P.,-*+( I2+(.(s+s D 7eali<ing economic 1alue of what you ha1e created D Pri1ate intere"t in !eing a!le to control how much of your product goe" on market, or the a!ility to keep it off market !A P895,/ I2+(.(s+s D 3ncourage creationHin1ention @copyright I patentA D 5oral claim" of authorHin1entorHde1i"or of the trademark D ieF >I made it, it:" mine. @pu!lic intere"t in moral principle"A D +reedom of idea" D Cheaper acce"" to technologie" D %rgument goe" that monopolie" or copyright rai"e the price of good" D TradeDoffF If product" couldn:t !e patented or copyrighted, might not !e put on the market D Companie" might do more of their 7I2 in other countrie" and not "ell in Canada D PatentF ') year", i" that enough time to get your money outG D +air competition D Poaching "ome!ody el"e:" idea i" a mean" of ripping them off D IP law" are a mean" of pre1enting unfair competition D 6ard working creator "hould not !e put at a di"ad1antage with re"pect to undignified copier" D Theoretically, law" pre1ent people from "cooping work of other" without paying them for it D 4i1e con"umer" a 1alid de"criptionieF con"umer protection D Jou want to protect con"umer" from fake"

6
D 2e"cription ena!le" con"umer" to know that they are getting real item that they paid for D Create" a new "phere of economic acti1ity D ieF new trade in intellectual property D Promote" di""emination of knowledge D >F are IP right" really >property> right" in the "trict "en"e of the termG Pro!a!ly not, !ecau"eF aA u!Bect matter of the >property right> i" not clearly delineated in the way that property u"ually i" !A 7ight to e,clude other" from >property> i" much more ;ualified than for property in the u"ual "en"e KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK II. INTRODUCTION TO COPYRIGHT, PATENT, AND TRADE$AR& LAW D There will !e three area" for thi" cour"eF aA C340.,):+ D Core idea i" you ha1e a .,):+ +3 s+34 3+:(.s <.37 8s,2) the product of your intellectual effort D It:" a "et of right" in relation to reproduction, tran"lating, performing in pu!lic, ect D Include" limited control o1er the potential moneymaking u"e" of your product D 5oral right" include the right to pre"er1e the integrity of the workieF "top mutilation of work D Length i" life of the author plu" 5) year" @#) year" for 3urope and ? %A D S87F Copyright gi1e" the creator of an original work e,clu"i1e right" for a certain time period in relation to that work, including it" pu!lication, di"tri!ution and adaptationC after which time the work i" "aid to enter the pu!lic domainit applie" to any e,pre""i!le form of an idea or information that i" "u!"tanti1e and di"creteinclude" >moral right"> of the creator of a work, "uch a" the right to !e credited for the work !A P*+(2+s D Patent" include protection o1er in1ention" D Include" the s35( .,):+ +3 7*;(, 8s(, 3. -(26 +:( ,2-(2+,32 D 31en if you in1ent fir"t, only the per"on regi"tering the per"on fir"t get" patent right" D Thu" include" the right to e,clude other", including bona fide parallel in1entor" D Length include" ') year" @I thinkA D S87F % patent i" a "et of e,clu"i1e right" granted !y a "tate to an in1entor or hi" a""ignee for a fi,ed period of time in e,change for a di"clo"ure of an in1ention cA T.*6(7*.;s D Include" right to 8s( +:( 7*.; ,2 *ss3/,*+,32 1,+: 6(<,2(6 1*.(s #*.+,/5(s <3. s*5(% 3. s(.-,/(s D Thu" it:" an e,clu"i1e right to u"e particular mark in a""ociation with a commercial acti1ity D 7egi"tration gi1e" an indi1idual e,clu"i1ity acro"" Canada D Length i" perpetual, a" long a" it:" !eing u"ed and trademark regi"try fee i" paid D S87F % trademark or trade mark, identified !y the "ym!ol" @L and MA or mark i" a di"tincti1e "ign or indicator u"ed !y an indi1idual, !u"ine"" organi<ation or other legal entity to identify that the product" andHor "er1ice" to con"umer" with which the trademark appear" originate from a uni;ue "ource of origin, and to di"tingui"h it" product" or "er1ice" from tho"e of other entitie" D N3+(F copyright, trademark" @e,cept for pa""ing offA, and patent" are all "tatutory "y"tem" D Therefore, the law i" in the "ection", not the ca"e" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK SECTION TWO ? COPYRIGHT I. INTRODUCTION D Copyright i" a creation of "tatue,, and any common law right" are nullified !y ".0& of the Copyright -"tF 89 N3 /340.,):+, (+/., (@/(4+ 90 s+*+8+( D >9o per"on i" entitled to copyright otherwi"e than under and in accordance with thi" %ct or any other %ct of Parliament, !ut nothing in thi" "ection "hall !e con"trued a" a!rogating any right or Buri"diction in re"pect of a !reach of tru"t or confidence>

D Copyright i" defined in ".' of the Copyright -"tF 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >>copyright> mean" the right" de"cri!ed in @aA s(/+,32 !, ,2 +:( /*s( 3< * 13.;, @!A "ection" $5 and '6, in the ca"e of a performerN" performance, @cA "ection $0, in the ca"e of a "ound recording, or @dA "ection '$, in the ca"e of a communication "ignal> D Thu" go to ".* of the Copyright -"t for L25% work" @@!A, @cA, and @dA aren:t a" importantA D 9ote that a right that "tem" not from the creation of a work, !ut from i""uing a work in a particular form, i" not a true copyright !ut a A2(,):938.,2) .,):+A D Thi" i" !ecau"e the actual recording i" not an arti"tic work, only a mechanical contri1ance u"ed to reproduce the actual arti"tic work D ieF making a !ootleg of a concert and di"tri!uting itdidn:t create the original audio, !ut neigh!ouring right" would pre1ent other" from making copie" of the "ong, performance, and recording D 9eigh!ouring right" include @from @@!A, @cA, and @dA of >copyright> definition in ".'A D ".$0@$A .hile photo" are true copyright !ecau"e a photograph i" it"elf an arti"tic work, /340.,):+ ,2 s3826 .(/3.6,2)s @".$0@$A i" a neigh!ouring right !ecau"e the recording i" not a work it"elfA D ".$5 Performer" ha1e .,):+s 3-(. +:(,. 4(.<3.7*2/(s, then the performer and the maker of the fi,ation ha1e neigh!ouring right" which allow them to "ell the right" to !roadca"t D ".'$ B.3*6/*s+(.s ha1e right" o1er the "ignal" they !roadca"t D ".&$ of C- note" that it i" a product of international agreement a" much a" the CanadianH?O legi"latureF 91 A6:(.(2/( +3 B(.2( *26 R37( C32-(2+,32s D >The 4o1ernor in Council "hall take "uch mea"ure" a" are nece""ary to "ecure the adherence of Canada to @aA the Con1ention for the Protection of Literary and %rti"tic .ork" concluded at B(.2( on eptem!er &, 188 , a" re1i"ed !y the P*.,s A/+ 3< 19"1C and @!A the International Con1ention for the Protection of Performer", Producer" of Phonogram" and /roadca"ting (rgani"ation", done at R37( 32 O/+39(. 2 , 19 1> D 9ote that other con1ention", "uch a" the .IP( Performance" and Phonogram" Treaty @$&&6A and the WIPO C340.,):+ T.(*+0 #199 % are pending D .IP( Copyright Treaty would "upplement the Berne Convention !y enhancing the "cope of copyright in electronic information KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK II. SUBSISTENCE OF COPYRIGHT 1% AUTHORSHIP D .hile the determination of who i" the >author> i" a factual determination, it matter" !ecau"eF aA AA8+:3.s:,4A 63(s2B+ *51*0s 7(*2 A312(.s:,4A D >%uthor> i" any!ody who produce" a L25% >work>, and can !e different than >owner"hip> D Therefore, author i" not nece""arily the fir"t owner of the copyright D 4enerally, the fir"t owner of copyright i" the author unle"" they were employed !A $3.*5 R,):+s 9(532) *51*0s *26 3250 +3 +:( *8+:3. D .hile owner of copyright can !e pa""ed off, moral right" alway" "tay with the authorHheir" D 5oral right" are intrin"ic to the per"onality of the author, "o they can:t !e a""igned D 6owe1er, C- allow" moral right" to !e wai1ed cA A8+:3. 6(+(.7,2(s +:( 5(2)+: 3< +:( /340.,):+ D 4eneral rule i" length i" life of the author plu" 5) year"

D >5aker> and >arti"tic work> i" defined in ".' of the act for film" and "ound recording"F 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >arti"tic work> include" painting", drawing", map", chart", plan", 4:3+3).*4:s, engra1ing", "culpture", work" of arti"tic craft"man"hip, architectural work", and compilation" of arti"tic work"C D >>maker> mean" @aA in relation to a /,2(7*+3).*4:,/ 13.;, the per"on !y whom the arrangement" nece""ary for the making of the work are undertaken, or @!A in relation to a s3826 .(/3.6,2), the per"on !y whom the arrangement" nece""ary for the fir"t fi,ation of the "ound" are undertaken> D >cinematographic work> include" *20 13.; (@4.(ss(6 90 *20 4.3/(ss *2*53)38s +3 /,2(7*+3).*4:0, whether or not accompanied !y a "oundtrack> @include" JouTu!e 1id"A D .ho i" the author i" u"ually Bu"t a ;ue"tion of facthowe1er, 23+( +:*+ +:( *8+:3. /*2 9( * /3.43.*+,32 1:(2 32( 3< +:( 6((7,2) 4.3-,s,32s 3< +:( CA *4450, "uch a" ".$)@'AF 10#2% A8+:3. 3< 4:3+3).*4: D >The per"on who @aA wa" the 312(. 3< +:( ,2,+,*5 2()*+,-( 3. 3+:(. 45*+( at the time when that negati1e or other plate wa" made, or i" 6((7(6 +3 9( +:( *8+:3. of the photograph and, 1:(.( +:*+ 312(. ,s * 9360 /3.43.*+(, +:( 9360 /3.43.*+( ,s 6((7(6 <3. +:( 48.43s(s 3< +:,s A/+> D Thu" photograph" are the only work that ha1e a deemed author under the Copyright -"t D 9ot nece""arily per"on who took the picture, !ut the 4(.s32 1:3 312(6 +:( <,57 +:*+Bs +:( *8+:3. D (ne of the only "ection" where the author can !e a corporation @corp can alway" !e the ownerA D .hile thi" "et" who i" the :deemed owner:, the general rule i" that, "u!Bect to the %ct, *8+:3.s:,4 ,s +:( 9*s,s <3. <,.s+ 312(.s:,4 3< +:( /340.,):+F 1!#1% O12(.s:,4 3< /340.,):+ D > u!Bect to thi" %ct, the author of a work "hall !e the fir"t owner of the copyright therein> D 6owe1er, there are e,ception" to ".$*@$A, demon"trating the 6,s+,2/+,32 9(+1((2 *8+:3.s:,4 #s.10% *26 /340.,):+ 312(.s:,4 #s.1!%C D ".$*@'A 6owe1er, for a few work", "uch (2).*-,2)s, 4:3+3).*4:s, *26 43.+.*,+s, the fir"t owner i" not the author !ut the per"on who ordered the work to !e madeHcommi""ioned D ieF freelance photographer who i" hired to take the picture and own" the filmHcamera i" the >deemed author> of the photo, !ut the employer i" the fir"t owner of the copyright"ee ".$*@*A D ".$*@*A E74530(. i" the owner if the work i" made in the cour"e of employment D Thi" general >employer rule> underlie" the more >"pecific> ".$*@'A rule for photograph"Hportrait" D N3+(F ".$) and ".$*@'A of the %ct, whichF aA Pro1ide for a deemed author if the owner of the original negati1e wa" "omeone other than the per"on who took the photograph @".$)@'AA !A Pre"ume the fir"t owner to !e not the author @deemed or otherwi"eA !ut the per"on who ordered the original to !e made @".$*@'AA cA 5odify the term of copyright if the deemed author i" a corporation @".$)@$AA D %ll of +:(s( 4.3-,s,32s 1(.( +3 9( .(4(*5(6 90 B,55 C? 1 3< 200"?08 s3 *s +3 48+ +:( 4:3+3).*4:(. 32 +:( s*7( <33+,2) *s *20 3+:(. *8+:3. @"temming from .IP(A D ".6 determine" the +(.7 3< /340.,):+ a" 5) year" after death of the authorF T(.7 3< /340.,):+ D >The term for which copyright "hall "u!"i"t "hall, e,cept a" otherwi"e e,pre""ly pro1ided !y thi" %ct, !e the life of the author, the remainder of the calendar year in which the author die", and a period of fifty year" following the end of that calendar year>

&

D 6owe1er, there i" again an e,ception for 4:3+3).*4:s *.( 9*s(6 32 +:( 6*+( 3< 7*;,2), not the life of the author @"ince it may !e a corporation and they li1e perpetuallyA 10#1% T(.7 3< /340.,):+ ,2 4:3+3).*4:s D >.here the owner referred to in "u!"ection @'A i" a corporation, the term for which copyright "u!"i"t" in a photograph "hall !e the .(7*,26(. 3< +:( 0(*. 3< +:( 7*;,2) of the initial negati1e or plate from which the photograph wa" deri1ed or, if there i" no negati1e or plate, 3< +:( ,2,+,*5 4:3+3).*4:, 458s * 4(.,36 3< <,<+0 0(*.s> D If author of the photograph i" not a corporation, fall !ack on the general rule of life of author P 5) yr" D +or cinematographic work" @ieF mo1ie"A, the -"t i" "ilent on author"hip D A8+:3. i" a "traight factual analy"i"might !e director, or organi<er8a1er "ay" >actual people re"pon"i!le for making the film> D F,.s+ 312(. of the copyright i" u"ually the director 825(ss they were working a "tudio while the mo1ie wa" !eing made *26 under a contract of employmentfollow ".$*@*A general rule" D T(.7 3< /340.,):+ ha" a "pecial rule in ".$$.$, where copyright in a /,2(7*+3).*4:,/ work without a >dramatic character> e,pire" fifty year" after fir"t pu!lication @"ame a" corporate author" for photo"A D Therefore, while >cinematographic work"> are defined in ".' a" >dramatic> work", if there i" no drama to the mo1ie @ieF "cientific recordA, copyright la"t" "imply for 5) year" D BF "ince the"e i""ue" are a me"" for mo1ie" under e,i"ting Copyright -"t, it:" !e"t to regi"ter the copyright @not re;uired, !ut make" a""ignment more "ecuredA and agree who own" the copyright D 9ote that there are other e,ception" to ".6 for certain work"F D ".6.$ to ".6.' pecial rule" for work" who"e author"hip i" 82;2312 D ".# pecial rule" for 43s+:8738s50 pu!li"hed work" D 9ote that a work of >Boint author"hip> i" po""i!le, !ut contra"t it with a >collecti1e work>F 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >/355(/+,-( 13.;> mean" @aA an (2/0/534(6,*, 6,/+,32*.0, year !ook or "imilar work, @!A a 2(1s4*4(., re1iew, maga<ine or "imilar periodical, and @cA any work written in di"tinct part" !y different author", or in which work" or part" of work" of different author" are incorporatedC D >13.; 3< =3,2+ *8+:3.s:,4> mean" a work produced !y the colla!oration of two or more author" in which /32+.,98+,32 3< 32( *8+:3. ,s 23+ 6,s+,2/+ from contri!ution of other author or author"> D %l"o, in ".&@$A, the term of Boint author"hip for the life of the author that die" la"t plu" fifty year" Neudorf v. Nettwork Productions Ltd. (1999 BCSC)CUnsu""essful attempt to "laim Doint authorship +F D 9eudorf claimed he made "ignificant contri!ution" to - "ong" on a $&00 arah 5cLachlan al!um IF D .ere the contri!ution" enough for a declaration of Boint author"hipG QF D 9o, for arah %F D Cohen Q. held that for two author" to !e held a" >Boint author">, three condition" mu"t !e pre"entF aA C32+.,98+(6 s,)2,<,/*2+50 to the original e,pre""ion !A % 78+8*5 ,2+(2+,32 that the contri!ution" !e merged into a unitary whole cA Intent !y the partie" @wouldD!e Boint author"A that thi" 4(.s32 13856 9( * =3,2+ *8+:3. D 6ere, there wa" one "ong, !a"ed on the 1ocal melody, where 9eudorf made a "ignificant contri!ution and there wa" an intention to !e merged into a "ong D 6owe1er, there wa" no intention to !e a Boint author D The other three "ong" didn:t meet :a: or :!: criteriahe wa" Bu"t a mentor 7F D T3 9( * =3,2+ *8+:3., +:(.( 78s+ 9( *2 ,2+(2+ *732) +:( 13856?9( =3,2+ *8+:3.s +:*+ +:( 13.;s 13856 9(/37( 13.;s 3< =3,2+ *8+:3.s:,4 KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

$)

2% ORIGINALITY D 9e,t material" fle"h out what con"titute" a copyrighted :work:one uni1er"al re;uirement i" >original> D .hile ".* define" >work>, ".5 i" the "ection that make" the Copyright -"t workit gi1e" copyright protection, a term for it, include" any L25% work, and if you meet certain territorial criteria D %part from neigh!ouring right" "ection", the re"t of the -"t "imply "upplement" ".5@$A D %ccording, to ".5, copyright "u!"i"t" in e1ery >original> L25% workF 5#1% C326,+,32s <3. s89s,s+(2/( 3< /340.,):+ D > u!Bect to thi" %ct, /340.,):+ s:*55 s89s,s+ ,2 C*2*6*, <3. +:( +(.7 :(.(,2*<+(. 7(2+,32(6, ,2 (-(.0 3.,),2*5 5,+(.*.0, 6.*7*+,/, 78s,/*5 *26 *.+,s+,/ 13.; if any one of the following condition" i" metF @aA in the ca"e of any work, whether pu!li"hed or unpu!li"hed, including a cinematographic work, the *8+:3. 1*s, *+ +:( 6*+( 3< +:( 7*;,2) 3< +:( 13.;, * /,+,D(2 3. s89=(/+ 3<, 3. * 4(.s32 3.6,2*.,50 .(s,6(2+ ,2, * +.(*+0 /382+.0C D Treaty country, in ".', mean" a Berne Convention country or other con1ention D Thi" fulfill" Canada:" o!ligation under Berne to gi1e author" from other countrie" the "ame right" a" Canadian author" within Canada @!A in the ca"e of a /,2(7*+3).*4:,/ 13.;, whether pu!li"hed or unpu!li"hed, the maker, at the date of the making of the cinematographic work, @iA if a corporation, had it" head;uarter" in a treaty country, or @iiA if a natural per"on, wa" a citi<en or "u!Bect of, or a per"on ordinarily re"ident in, a treaty country @cA in the ca"e of a 4895,s:(6 13.;, including a cinematographic work, @iA in relation to "u!paragraph '.'@$A@aA@iA, the fir"t pu!lication in "uch a ;uantity a" to "ati"fy the rea"ona!le demand" of the pu!lic, ha1ing regard to the nature of the work, occurred in a treaty country, or @iiA in relation to "u!paragraph '.'@$A@aA@iiA or @iiiA, the fir"t pu!lication occurred in a treaty country> D Therefore, @aA, @!A, and @cA condition" define the territorial application of the -"t D >Copyright "hall "u!"i"t> component", definition, and "cope are located in ".*if "omething i" in ".*, you ha1e the "ole right to do it, and thu" other" wi"hing to do ".* action" mu"t pay you or infringe copyrightF !#1% C340.,):+ ,2 13.;s D >+or the purpo"e" of thi" %ct, E/340.,):+F, ,2 .(5*+,32 +3 * 13.;, 7(*2s +:( s35( .,):+ +3 4.368/( 3. .(4.368/( +:( 13.; 3. *20 s89s+*2+,*5 4*.+ +:(.(3< ,2 *20 7*+(.,*5 <3.7 1:*+(-(., +3 4(.<3.7 +:( 13.; 3. *20 s89s+*2+,*5 4*.+ +:(.(3< ,2 4895,/ 3., ,< +:( 13.; ,s 824895,s:(6, +3 4895,s: +:( 13.; 3. *20 s89s+*2+,*5 4*.+ +:(.(3<, *26 ,2/586(s +:( s35( .,):+ @aA to produce, reproduce, perform or pu!li"h any +.*2s5*+,32 of the work, @!A in the ca"e of a dramatic work, to /32-(.+ ,+ ,2+3 * 23-(5 or other nonDdramatic work, @cA in the ca"e of a no1el or other nonDdramatic work, or of an arti"tic work, to /32-(.+ ,+ ,2+3 * 6.*7*+,/ 13.;, 90 1*0 3< 4(.<3.7*2/( ,2 4895,/ or otherwi"e, @dA in the ca"e of a literary, dramatic or mu"ical work, to 7*;( *20 s3826 .(/3.6,2), cinematograph film or other contri1ance !y mean" of which the work may !e mechanically reproduced or performed, @eA in the ca"e of any literary, dramatic, mu"ical or arti"tic work, to .(4.368/(, *6*4+ *26 4895,/50 4.(s(2+ +:( 13.; *s * /,2(7*+3).*4:,/ 13.;, @fA in the ca"e of any literary, dramatic, mu"ical or arti"tic work, to /37782,/*+( +:( 13.; +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32, @gA to pre"ent at a pu!lic e,hi!ition, for a purpo"e other than "ale or hire, an arti"tic work created after Qune #, $&00, other than a map, chart or plan, @hA in the ca"e of a computer program that can !e reproduced in the ordinary cour"e of it" u"e, other than !y a reproduction during it" e,ecution in conBunction with a machine, de1ice or computer, to rent out the computer program, and

$$
@iA in ca"e of a mu"ical work, to rent out a "ound recording in which the work i" em!odied, and to authori<e any "uch act"> D Thu", according to ".*, copyright in relation to a work mean" the "ole right toF aA P.368/(G.(4.368/( * 13.; 3. * s89s+*2+,*5 4*.+ +:(.(3< !A P(.<3.7 * 13.; ,2 4895,/ @at home (OA cA P895,s: *2 824895,s:(6 13.; dA A20+:,2) <.37 +:( #*% +3 #,% 5,s+ D The ne,t ca"e "et" a low "tandard for originality, where all there i" i" >the rough practical te"t that what i" worth copying i" prima fa"ie worth protecting> University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutoria Press Ltd. (191! U" C#. $) CC- E e2pression +F D ?ni1er"ity of London hired "e1eral old prof" to create math e,am "cript" and pu!li"hed old e,am" D Tutorial Pre"" got copie" of e,am paper" from "tudent", not the pu!lication, and pu!li"hed them too D ?ni1er"ity now "ue" Tutorial Pre"" for copyright infringement in re"pect of two e,am paper" produced !y two freelance mathematician" hired to produce the e,am" IF D .ere the math e,am" >original literary work"> protected !y copyrightG QF D Je", for ?ni1er"ity %F D Peter"on Q. fir"t e,amine" if the paper" were the "u!Bect of copyright D >Literary work co1er" work" which are (@4.(ss(6 ,2 4.,2+ 3. 1.,+,2), ,..(s4(/+,-( 3< 1:(+:(. +:( H8*5,+0 3. s+05( ,s :,):> D Therefore, reBect" Tutorial:" argument that crummy old math e,am" weren:t >literary work"> D If e,am" are a literary work, the court mu"t then con"ider if they are >original> D C340.,):+ 23+ /32/(.2(6 1,+: 3.,),2*5,+0 3< ,6(*s, 98+ 1,+: (@4.(ss,32 3< +:38):+ D D3(s2B+ .(H8,.( (@4.(ss,32 ,2 *2 3.,),2*5 3. 23-(5 <3.7, 98+ s,7450 78s+ 23+ 9( /34,(6 *26 s:3856 3.,),2*+( <.37 +:( *8+:3. D 6ere, e,aminer" made up the ;ue"tion", "o the work" were original D 2idn:t matter that they "pent little time on it, followed the cla"" "ylla!u" clo"ely, or that they weren:t drawn on a "pecific "tock of knowledge D %ll that matter" i" that they weren:t copied, and here, profe""or" pro1ed they had thought out the E:", made note" for future E:", and drew on tho"e note" for future E:" 7F D W:(.( * 13.; 3.,),2*+(s <.37 *2 *8+:3. *26 ,s 73.( +:*2 * 7(.( /340 3< 13.;, +:,s ,s s8<<,/,(2+ +3 9( *2 A3.,),2*5 5,+(.*.0 13.;A *26 *++.*/+ /340.,):+ 4.3+(/+,32 D +ollowing thi", "ome court" were concerned the >"weat of the !row> "tandard wa" too low D In :eist, the ? C held that copying part" of a phone !ook li"t wa" purely mechanical, and the "election of phone num!er" for the compilation wa" not original D 9o "uch thing a" copyright in fact" li"ted alpha!eticallymu"t !e "ome >creati1e "park> D The ne,t ca"e deal" with copying of headnote" and ca"e report" !y law pu!li"her" for law "tudent" and lawyer", and reDe,amine" the >"weat of the !row> approach to originality D .hile University of #ondon Press tried to make the te"t for originality not too demanding, CC+ tried to e,clude from copyright work" in the compo"ition of which no "kill or Budgment wa" in1ol1ed CC% Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of U&&er Canada ('(() SCC)C8riginal E s!ill and Dudgment +F D Law ociety, "tatutory nonDprofit corporation, maintain" and operate" 4reat Li!rary at ("goode 6all D 4reat Li!rary pro1ide" a re;ue"tD!a"ed cu"tom photocopy "er1ice for law "tudent" and lawyer" !y deli1ering reproduced legal material and maintaining "elfD"er1ice photocopier" in the li!rary D CC6 "tarted copyright infringement action" "eeking a declaration of copyright o1er $$ "pecific work", a declaration that the L infringed copyright with each "ingle reproduction, and an inBunction prohi!iting the L from continuing the "er1ice IF D .ere the ca"e!ook headnote" >original>G If "o, were they >fair dealing> under ".'&G QF D +or Law ociety, the li!rary wa" acting within the fair u"e e,emption %F D 5cLachlin CQC gi1e" "ome )(2(.*5 4.343s,+,32s 32 /340.,):+ 5*1 ,2 C*2*6* to !eginF D Copyright -"t protect" the e,pre""ion of idea" in L25% work", not the idea" them"el1e"

$'
D Therefore, the idea mu"t !e in a fi,ed material form to attract copyright protection D Copyright i" a creature of "tatute, "o -"t right" and remedie" are e,hau"ti1e D Two goal" mu"t !e !alancedF the pu!lic intere"t for di""emination and Bu"t reward for creator D ".'#@$A It:" an infringment of copyright to do anything -"t gi1e" to author without con"ent D 6owe1er, there are fair dealing e,ception" for re"earch, new", critici"m, ectin "".'& to ".'&.' D .hen con"idering whether CC6:" material" are >original work"> co1ered !y the -"t, ' e,treme"F aA AS1(*+ 3< +:( 9.31A D %" long a" the work i"n:t copied, it:" hard work and thu" protected D %uthor de"er1e" to ha1e hi" or her effort" in producing a work rewarded D >Indu"triou"ne""> "tandard of originality promoted !y University of #ondon Press D 7eBected a" departing from "pirit of Berne "ince work" that ha1e taken time, la!our, or money to produce !ut are not truly arti"ticHliterary intellectual creation" aren:t protected !A AC.(*+,-( s4*.;A D % work mu"t !e creati1e to !e >original> and thu" protected !y copyright"ee :eist D Le"" a!"olute, a" only work" produced !y "ome "u!"tantial creati1ity are protected D 6owe1er, too high a "tandard, a" implie" "omething mu"t !e no1el or nonDo!1iou" @patent"A D Conclude" that the correct CC po"ition to determining originality fall" !etween the"e two e,treme"F D 5u"t !e more than a mere copy of another work D %l"o need not !e creati1e in the "en"e of !eing no1el or uni;ue D Conclu"ion drawn from the plain meaning of >original>, the hi"tory of copyright law, recent Buri"prudence, the purpo"e of the Copyright -"t, and that the new "tandard i" worka!le and fair D In"tead, >1:*+ ,s .(H8,.(6 +3 *++.*/+ /340.,):+ 4.3+(/+,32 ,2 +:( (@4.(ss,32 3< *2 ,6(* ,s *2 (@(./,s( 3< s;,55 *26 =86)7(2+> D >S;,55> R u"e of one:" knowledge, de1eloped aptitude or practiced a!ility in producing the work D >I86)7(2+> R u"e of one:" capacity for di"cernment or e1aluating different option" D $8s+ 23+ 9( s3 +.,-,*5 +:*+ ,+ /3856 9( /:*.*/+(.,D(6 *s * 48.(50 7(/:*2,/*5 (@(./,s( D .hile creati1e work" will !e definition !e >original> and co1ered !y copyright, creati1ity i" not re;uired to make a work >original> D Thi" "afeguard" again"t the author !eing o1ercompen"ated for their work D %l"o en"ure" that there i" room for pu!lic domain to flouri"h a" other" are a!le to produce new work" !y !uilding on the idea" and information contained in the work" of other" D .hile the reported Budicial deci"ion" and indice", when properly under"tood a" a compilation of the headnote" and the accompanying edited Budicial rea"on", are >original> work" co1ered !y copyright, the =86,/,*5 .(*s32s ,2 *26 3< +:(7s(5-(s, 1,+:38+ +:( :(*623+(s, *.( 23+ A3.,),2*5A 13.;s D ince copyright protect" originality of formHe,pre""ion, compilation" are >original> !ecau"e they take e,i"ting material and ca"t it in a different formthi" take" an e,erci"e of "kill and Budgment D 6owe1er, the arranger doe" not ha1e copyright in the indi1idual component" D .hile work" were original, 4reat Li!rary:" dealing" with the work" were for the purpo"e of re"earch and were fair dealing" within the meaning of ".'& D Court note" that fair dealing i" a u"er:" righttherefore, whene1er an infringement action i" analy<ed, there mu"t !e a !alance !etween copyright owner:" right" and u"er:" right" 7F D I2 3.6(. +3 9( 3.,),2*5, * 13.; 78s+ :*-( 3.,),2*+(6 <.37 +:( *8+:3., 23+ 9( /34,(6, *26 78s+ 9( +:( 4.368/+ 3< +:( (@(./,s( 3< s;,55 *26 =86)7(2+ +:*+ ,s 73.( +:*2 +.,-,*5 D Po"tDCC+, pure mechanical compilation" without any "election proce"" may not in1ol1e "kill or Budgment D BF put in heading" or "ummarie" inD!etween original material to "how IQ for copyright protection KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK !% FIJATION D Concept of fi,ation continue" theme of copyright law where idea" aren:t protectedC e,pre""ion of idea" i" D %n ,6(* 78s+ 9( .(/3.6(6 ,2 7*+(.,*5 <3.7 to !enefit from copyright protection D ieF orally told "tory i"n:t fi,ed and therefore i"n:t eligi!leC when written down, it:" eligi!le D .hile it:" "eldom an i""ue, it:" important !ecau"e 23+ (-(.0+:,2) +:*+ ,s A3.,),2*5A ,s * 13.; 9(/*8s( ,+ ,s 23+ A<,@(6A +3 *++.*/+ /340.,):+ 4.3+(/+,32

$*

D Copyright -"t doe"n:t ha1e a fi,ation re;uirement like it" ? counterpartu"ually read in @.ediffusionA D +or thi" rea"on, there i" no copyright in un"cripted, li1e performance" D (nly pro1i"ion dealing with fi,ation i" ".*@$.$A dealing with "imultaneou" fi,ation D ?nder the Berne Convention, a fi,ation criterion i" allowed !ut not re;uired D './PS art. &.' follow" the ? tradition and ha" fi,ation a" an e,plicit re;uirement *-.$ D 9ote the definition of >dramatic work> for the following ca"eF 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >dramatic work> include" @aA any piece for recitation, choreographic work or mime, the "cenic arrangement or acting form of 1:,/: ,s <,@(6 ,2 1.,+,2) 3. 3+:(.1,s(, @li1e e1ent teleca"t" weren:t fi,edA @!A any cinematographic work, and @taped away game" ;ualified for thi"A @cA any compilation of dramatic work"C D The ne,t ca"e hold" that "omething can:t !e a work unle"" it" content i" "omehow gi1en a retrie1a!le @at lea"t for a timeA form Canadian Ad*ira Cor&oration Ltd. v. +ediffusion ,nc. (19-) ./c#e0uer Ct.)C9or! must be retrievable +F D Canadian %dmiral got e,clu"i1e right" to !roadca"t li1e home and taped away %louette" game" D 7ediffu"ion picked up P:" foot!all game" !y antenna and >rediffu"ed> them to it" own "u!"cri!er" D P didn:t get paid for thi", and "ought declaration it owned copyright in the li1e >teleca"t production"> D 2 argued no copyright "u!"i"ted in any of the teleca"t" "pon"ored !y P, and if it did, no infringement D BF a lot of the copyright law ha" changed "ince $&5-!ut pro!lem of >li1e !roadca"t> "till rele1ant IF D %re li1e !roadca"t" fi,ed work" that are protected !y copyrightG QF D 9o, for 7ediffu"ion @!ut there wa" an infringement of copyright in film"A %F D %dmiral wa" the regi"tered owner of copyright in the game" D ?nder old ".') @now ".*-.$A, there i" a "tatutory pre"umption that copyright "u!"i"t"put" the onu" on the infringer to pro1e there i" no copyright in the work D %l"o, under old ".*6 @now ".**A, a regi"tered owner of copyright "hall !e prima fa"ie e1idence that copyright "u!"i"t" in the work and that the per"on i" the regi"tered owner of the work D ".*F >/340.,):+> a" "ole right to do or authori<e, the act" there "pecified in relation to the >work> D I2<.,2)(7(2+ i" anything without the con"ent of the owner that i" the "ole right of CJ owner D Therefore, no matter how >piratical> the taking !y one per"on of the work of another may appear to !e, "uch +*;,2) /*223+ 9( *2 ,2<.,2)(7(2+ 3< +:( .,):+s 3< +:( 5*++(. 825(ss /340.,):+ (@,s+s ,2 +:*+ A13.;A under the pro1i"ion" in ".* D C340.,):+ ,s * 2()*+,-( .,):+ to pre1ent the appropriation of la!our" of an author !y another D %ll work" included in the definition" of >arti"tic work> and >literary work> mu"t !e printed, reduced to writing, or otherwi"e graphically produced or reproduced D Therefore, <3. /340.,):+ +3 s89s,s+ ,2 * A13.;A, ,+ 78s+ 9( (@4.(ss(6 +3 s37( (@+(2+ *+ 5(*s+ ,2 s37( 7*+(.,*5 <3.7, /*4*95( 3< ,6(2+,<,/*+,32, :*-,2) 73.( 3. 5(ss 4(.7*2(2+ (268.*2/( D 6ere, neither the producer nor any of hi" a""i"tant", while producing the li1e teleca"ting of )*7(s 45*0(6 ,2 $32+.(*5 had fi,ed anything in writing D Li1e teleca"t" aren:t cinematographic, aren:t arti"tic or literary eitherthey:re e1ent" D %n (-(2+ ,s 23+ * 13.; 9(/*8s( ,+Bs 23+ <,@(6 D Impo""i!le to fi, or plan anything in ad1ance of a li1e foot!all game due to unpredicta!ility D Therefore, Bu"t a" "electing doe" not create copyright !ecau"e it i" not an e,pre""ion of thought", "election of "cene" !y producer had nothing to do with what:" going on the foot!all field D 6owe1er, <,57 +(5(/*s+s 3< *1*0 )*7(s were made from cinematographic film" and were >work"> D They were fi,ed and could !e protected D 2 al"o didn:t infringe P:" copyright !y communicating the work !y radio communication 7F D N3 /340.,):+ s89s,s+s ,2 5,-( s4(/+*/5(s, *s 90 +:(,. -(.0 2*+8.( 23+:,2) /*2 9( 45*22(6 ,2 *6-*2/( 3. <,@(6 ,2 1.,+,2) 3. ,2 *20 3+:(. 7*22(. 1:*+s3(-(. +3 *++.*/+ /340.,):+ 4.3+(/+,32

$-

D BF Today, with neigh!ouring right" in "ound recording and the performer:" performance, the !roadca"ter would ha1e copyright right" under the current Copyright -"t D Therefore, if 7ediffu"ion wa" re!roadca"ting the "ignal that the C/C @not %dmiralA had, they pro!a!ly would !e infringing C/C:" copyright in the !roadca"t "ignal D 9o copyright in li1e e1ent" create" pro!lem" @ieF taping lecture"Aone "olution i" copyright protection in a performer:" performance @ieF for concert"AF 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >4(.<3.7*2/(> mean" any acou"tic or 1i"ual repre"entation of a work, 4(.<3.7(.Ks 4(.<3.7*2/(, "ound recording or communication "ignal, including a repre"entation made !y mean" of any mechanical in"trument, radio recei1ing "et or tele1i"ion recei1ing "etC D >4(.<3.7(.Ks 4(.<3.7*2/(> mean" any of the following when done !y a performerF @aA a performance of an arti"tic work, dramatic work or mu"ical work, whether or not the work wa" pre1iou"ly fi,ed in any material form, and whether or not the workN" term of copyright protection under thi" %ct ha" e,pired, @doe"n:t helpA @!A a recitation or reading of a literary work, whether or not the workN" term of copyright protection under thi" %ct ha" e,pired, or @doe"n:t help eitherA @cA *2 ,74.3-,s*+,32 3< * 6.*7*+,/ 13.;, 78s,/*5 13.; 3. 5,+(.*.0 13.;, 1:(+:(. 3. 23+ +:( ,74.3-,s(6 13.; ,s 9*s(6 32 * 4.(?(@,s+,2) 13.;C D >Impro1i"ation>, e1en though it:" not dramatic or mu"ical, can !e literary @ieF capa!le of !eing e,pre""ed in word"A and a performer:" performance D Therefore, /lom:" lecture not a work that i" fi,ed, !ut i" a performer:" performance !ecau"e it impro1i"e" a literary work that i"n:t !a"ed on a preDe,i"ting work D The"e performance "ection" protect" /lom from "tudent" taping the lecture D 9ote now that ".*@$.$A of the Copyright -"t, which deal" with fi,ation at the time of telecommunication of a work, protect" li1e teleca"t" that are recordedF !#1% C340.,):+ ,2 13.;s D >+or the purpo"e" of thi" %ct, ScopyrightT, in relation to a work, mean" the "ole .,):+ +3 4.368/( 3. .(4.368/( the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in any material form whate1er, to 4(.<3.7 the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in pu!lic or, if the work i" unpu!li"hed, to 4895,s: the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof, and ,2/586(s +:( s35( .,):+ @fA in the ca"e of any literary, dramatic, mu"ical or arti"tic work, to /37782,/*+( +:( 13.; +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32> !#1.1% S,785+*2(38s <,@,2) D >% work that i" communicated in the manner de"cri!ed in paragraph @$A@fA i" <,@(6 (-(2 ,< ,+ ,s <,@(6 s,785+*2(38s50 1,+: ,+s /37782,/*+,32 > D Therefore, !roadca"t i" fi,ed if a communicator fi,e" it a" they !roadca"t it KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 4% WOR&S D %" we:1e "een, you can ha1e >cumulati1e copyright> right"different people can ha1e different copyright in the "ame workieF "ong R performer:" performance right", literary work right, mu"ical work right", ect... D ".' define" "e1eral >work">F 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >*.+,s+,/ 13.;> include" painting", drawing", map", chart", plan", photograph", engra1ing", "culpture", work" of arti"tic craft"man"hip, architectural work", compilation" of arti"tic work"> D >/355(/+,-( 13.;> mean" @aA an encyclopaedia, dictionary, year !ook or "imilar work, @!A a new"paper, re1iew, maga<ine or "imilar periodical, and @cA any work written in di"tinct part" !y different author", or in which work" or part" of

$5
work" of different author" are incorporated> D %ccording to ".$-@'A, in a collecti1e work there can !e different author", and "o differently owned copyright", for different part" of the work D >6.*7*+,/ 13.;> include" @aA any piece for recitation, choreographic work or mime, the "cenic arrangement or acting form of which i" fi,ed in writing or otherwi"e, @!A any cinematographic work, *26 @cA any compilation of dramatic work"> D >(-(.0 3.,),2*5 5,+(.*.0, 6.*7*+,/, 78s,/*5 *26 *.+,s+,/ 13.;> include" e1ery original production in the literary, "cientific or arti"tic domain, whate1er may !e the mode or form of it" e,pre""ion, "uch a" compilation", !ook", pamphlet" and other writing", lecture", dramatic or dramaticoDmu"ical work", mu"ical work", tran"lation", illu"tration", "ketche" and pla"tic work" relati1e to geography, topography, architecture or "cience> D >5,+(.*.0 13.;> include" ta!le", computer program", and compilation" of literary work"> D >78s,/*5 13.;> mean" any work of mu"ic or mu"ical compo"ition, with or without word", and include" any compilation thereof> D >13.;> include" the title thereof when "uch title i" original and di"tincti1e> D >13.; 3< =3,2+ *8+:3.s:,4> mean" a work produced !y the colla!oration of two or more author" in which the /32+.,98+,32 3< 32( *8+:3. ,s 23+ 6,s+,2/+ <.37 +:( /32+.,98+,32 3< +:( 3+:(. *8+:3. 3. *8+:3.s> D 2on:t confu"e with >collecti1e work">, a" here, contri!ution of each author i"n:t di"tinct 2.1#1% C374,5*+,32s D >% compilation containing two or more of the categorie" of literary, dramatic, mu"ical or arti"tic work" "hall !e deemed to !e a compilation of the /*+()3.0 7*;,2) 84 +:( 73s+ s89s+*2+,*5 4*.+ 3< +:( /374,5*+,32> D 9ote that all definition" of L25% work" include compilation" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK A% LITERARY WOR&S D ee a!o1e definition" for >literary work> and >compilation> @and ".'.$A, a" well a" >computer program>F 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >/3748+(. 4.3).*7> mean" a "et of in"truction" or "tatement", e,pre""ed, fi,ed, em!odied or "tored in any manner, that i" to !e u"ed directly or indirectly in a computer in order to !ring a!out a "pecific re"ult> D The ne,t ca"e e,amine" the di"tinction !etween idea" and e,pre""ion a" it applie" to literary work" and the plot, character", etcthat they em!ody Nic#o s v. Universa Pictures Cor&. (191( US Circ. Ct of A&&.)..FCopying general features doesn>t infringe +F D P, author and copyright owner of a play, !rought a "uit again"t ?ni1er"al for copyright infringement D he alleged e""ence of her %merican "tage play had !een made into mo1ie" ?ni1er"al di"tri!uted D Tried to "how infringement !y "egregating "ome of the "cene"Hidea"Hemotion" from play and mo1ie IF D .a" the part taken >"u!"tantial> and therefore not a >fair u"e> of the copyrighted workG QF D 9o, for 2 %F D %pproach i" to !reak out into each le1el of a!"tractionieF plot, character, title D Copyright in a character or plot may !e protected if it:" wellDdefined @ieF Qame" /ondA D 6owe1er, =8s+ /340,2) <(*+8.(s 3< * /:*.*/+(. ,s2B+ ,2<.,2)(7(2+...78s+ 6.*1 * 5,2( 9*s(6 32 <*/+s 32 /340,2) ,6(* -. (@4.(ss,32 3< ,6(* D 2efendant" can !e lia!le for "tealing a plot, !ut they mu"t "teal more than Bu"t the idea D To !e lia!le for infringement, you /*2B+ s,7450 (s/*4( 90 ,77*+(.,*5 6,<<(.(2/(s D 4oal of copyright i" to protect e,pre""ion of idea", not the idea it"elf D Can make a play on the "ame popular "u!Bectit i" the 6().(( 3< 6,<<(.(2/( +:*+ ,s /.,+,/*5 D 6ere, !a"ed on fact", 2 not lia!le !y Bu"t playing on the "ame "tereotype" a" P:" play

$6
D %fter comparing the mo1ie and play, court concluded that .(s(795*2/(s 1(.( +33 )(2(.*5 D Theme", "cene", epi"ode" , and e,pre""ion of idea", while making u"e of common property @ieF Qewi"hHIri"h character", parent" oppo"ing marriage, and final reconciliationA "u!"tantially different 7F D T3 9( 5,*95( <3. /340.,):+ ,2<.,2)(7(2+, +:(.( 78s+ 9( 23 s89s+*2+,*5 6,<<(.(2/( ,2 +:( s+3/; ,6(*s 3< +:( 13.;, s8/: *s 453+, /:*.*/+(., *26 +,+5( D BF imilar law"uit in ?O a few year" ago a!out the *a ?in"i Code in the following ca"e Bai2ent v. +ando* %ouse ('((3 U"CA)CCan "opy general essen"eGideas of or! Go "opying the details +F D 2an /rown "ued !y author" of the +oly Blood and the +oly 6rail for copying their !ook a!out the Templar" hiding the "ecret of Qe"u" not dyingin"tead, hi" lineage li1ing on through hi" child IF D 2id /rown copy a >"u!"tantial part> of the !ookG QF D 9o, for 2 %F D .ife ga1e te"timony that "he read the !ook, made note", and that /rown u"ed "ome of the note" D P:" al"o pre"ented a chart comparing element"Htheme of each !ook and noting their "imilaritie" D 6owe1er, court held that the central them of +oly Blood wa"n:t central theme of *a ?in"i Code D .hile !it" and piece" of fictionalH;ua"iDhi"torical fact" and idea" were copied, it wa"n:t a "u!"tantial copying of +oly Blood to ;ualify a" copyright infringement 7F D T3 /340 * 5,+(.*.0 13.;, +:( /38.+ 1,55 /3268/+ *2 *9s+.*/+,32 (@(./,s( *26 *2*50D( 1:(+:(. +:(.( ,s * s89s+*2+,*5 5,<+,2) 3< +:( (@4.(ss,32 3< ,6(*s ,2 +:( 3.,),2*5 13.; D The ne,t ca"e hold" that there:" no copyright in a "ingle word, no matter how original or how much la!our went into in1enting it .//on Cor&. v. .//on ,nsurance Consu tants ,nternationa Ltd. (194' U"CA)CSingle ord not prot. +F D P claimed copyright in their in1ented word >3,,on>, which formed part of the corporate name" of * of the - plaintiff companie", a" !eing an >original literary work> D P wanted inBunction to re"train 2 from infringing their copyright in the word, re"train 2 from u"ing the word to pa"" off it" !u"ine"" good"H"er1ice", and an order directing 2 to change it" corporate name D Copyright o1er >3,,on> name important !ecau"e it mean" no other company may u"e it D Tort of pa""ing off i" confu"ing the pu!lic that your product actually the product of another company D 6owe1er, remedy only pre1ent" confu"ing u"e"doe"n:t protect u"e" in a nonDconfu"ing way D 2, which had no connection to the proper >3,,on>, failed to put in a defence IF D Can 3,,on Corporation or any!ody el"e ha1e a copyright o1er the in1ented word >3,,on>G QF D 9o, for 2 %F D 3,,on "ucceeded with a pa""ing off action, !ut al"o wanted the court to agree that the word >3,,on> wa" protected wa" copyright !a"ed on >"weat of the !row> approach D %rgued it wa" creati1e, uni;ue, and that they "pent a great deal of "kill and money on it D The phra"e >original literary work> wa" a compo"ite e,pre""ion to !e con"trued a" "uch and not a" three indi1idual word" D % 5,+(.*.0 13.; ,s s37(+:,2) +:*+ ,s *<<3.6(6 (,+:(. ,2<3.7*+,32, ,2s+.8/+,32 3. 45(*s8.( ,2 +:( <3.7 3< 5,+(.*.0 (2=307(2+al"o add" to the "tock of human knowledge D Pa"t Buri"prudence protected a "ecret code !ook !ecau"e people could get "omething out of it D %ll other "ucce""ful application" con1eyed informationthey weren:t meaningle"" D 6ere, the word >3,,on>, !eing "imply an artificial com!ination of four letter" of the alpha!et and s(.-,2) 3250 <3. ,6(2+,<,/*+,32 48.43s(s 1:(2 8s(6 ,2 =8@+*43s,+,32 1,+: 3+:(. 13.6s , wa" not within the definition of an >original literary work> and did not ;ualify for protection D .ord in i"olation i" meaningle"" and thu" worthle"" D Therefore, 3,,on i" trying to u"e the Copyright -"t for a purpo"e to which it i"n:t applica!le 7F D A 5,+(.*.0 13.; 78s+ 4.3-,6( ,2<3.7*+,32 3. 45(*s8.(, s37(+:,2) +:*+ *2 ,2-(2+(6 13.6 ,s 23+ ,2+(26(6 +3 63, *26 +:(.(<3.( s,2)5( 13.6s *.( 23+ *<<3.6(6 /340.,):+ 4.3+(/+,32 9(/*8s( +:(0 *.( 23+ /5*ss,<,(6 *s 5,+(.*.0 13.;s 826(. +:( Co&yri2#t Act D The ne,t two ca"e" further e,plore a"pect" of the "u!"i"tence of copyright in a literary work... D Bulman "how" the limit" on what con"titute" a >work> @not a word or "ong titleA "ometime" allow"

$#
other" to piggy!ack on the fact that you:1e made a work wellDknown Bu *an 5rou& Ltd. v. 67ne 8rite6 Accountin2 Syste*s Ltd. (194' 9ed. Ct. Tria $iv.) C:orm prote"ted +F D P "tarted action for copyright infringement for it" !u"ine"" form" u"ed in keeping accounting !ook" D >(ne .rite> "y"tem u"ed form" de"igned "o that when com!ined with related form" and car!on", record" are created in one writing, rather than in two or three "eparate repeat" in other !ook" D 2 admit" to deli!erately copying nine of the"e !u"ine"" form", !ut claim" no copyright "u!"i"t" IF D Can copyright "u!"i"t in the"e !u"ine"" form"G %re they a >literary work>G QF D Je", for P %F D 2 conceded that the form" were >original>, a" they were made !y P:" employee" D %l"o, little dou!t that the form" were >compilation"> under ".' definition of >literary work> D I""ue i" whether the compilation ha" a literary "en"e of functionally a""i"ting or guiding D P claim" that the 1alue i" in >"y"tem> of u"e, not the >form"> them"el1e"2 claim" no CJ in it D P doe"n:t claim copyright in the >"y"tem>, !ut the fact that it relie" on form" with certain in"truction" on them that they claim are copyrighta!le, P claim" the whole thing i" protected D Copyright doe"n:t protect idea", "cheme", "y"tem", or method"only e,pre""ion of them D %l"o ;uote" University where a >literary work> i" e,pre""ion in print irre"pecti1e of ;uality D >Literary> i" u"ed in the "tatute in the "en"e of written or printed matter and not in the "ome dictionary "en"e of imparting idea", information, or knowledge D 6owe1er, a 7(.( 4.,2+,2) 3. 1.,+,2) ,s 23+ s8<<,/,(2+ D +or copyright to "u!"i"t, there 78s+ 9(, ,2 * /374,5*+,32 3< +:( /377(./,*5 +04( :(.(, * 5,+(.*.0 s(2s( 3< <82/+,32*550 *ss,s+,2), )8,6,2), 3. 43,2+,2) +:( 1*0 +3 s37( (26 D BF copyright protect" all form" of e,pre""ion, no matter how !oring or how commercial D 6ere, 1ariou" heading" on form" con1ey information to the u"er a" to what he ought to record, where to record it, and the manner, in many in"tance", in which it ought to !e recorded D Pu!lication i" complete, and i" not only direction" on a toolHmachine that can:t !e "e1ered D 2 trie" to argue it:" like the card!oard cutDout ca"e, where copyright didn:t "u!"i"t in card!oard cutDout pattern" where there were no in"truction" on how to u"e them D 6owe1er, the court di"tingui"hed that ca"e here, a" the form" here contained =8s+ (238): ,2<3 32 :31 +3 8s( +:( 98s,2(ss <3.7s +3 /32s+,+8+( (@4.(ss,32 *26 +:8s )*,2 /340.,):+ 4.3+(/+,32 D C*2B+ /340 +:( <3.7s 1,+:38+ /340,2) +:( s0s+(7 and the word" that tell you how to u"e form" D 2 al"o argued that "ince they didn:t know or had rea"ona!le ground" to know that copyright "u!"i"ted in the form", that P i" only entitled to the u"ual permanent inBunction under ".'' of the -"t D 6owe1er, court reBect" thi" argument, a" 2 cho"e to take a chance that there wa" no copyright and had no rea"ona!le !a"i" to !elie1e that there wa" no copyright D Therefore, court award" damage" and co"t" in addition to the permanent inBunction 7F D F3. * /374,5*+,32 3< +:( /377(./,*5 +04( +3 9( * 5,+(.*.0 13.; *26 *++.*/+ /340.,):+ 4.3+(/+,32, ,+ 78s+ :*-( * 5,+(.*.0 s(2s( 3< <82/+,32*550 *ss,s+,2), )8,6,2), 3. 43,2+,2) +:( 1*0 +3 s37( (26 D The ne,t ca"e e,amine" the po""i!ility of copyright "u!"i"ting in a "ong title 9rancis $ay : %unter Ltd. v. Twentiet#;Century 9o/ Cor&. (1919 PC) C=ovie title is too trivial +F D P were owner" of copyright in the "ong >The 5an .ho /roke The /ank %t 5onte Carlo> D In $&*5, a mo1ie with "ame title premiered in Canadaplot didn:t corre"pond with theme of the "ong D P !rought a copyright infringement action again"t di"tri!utor" and e,hi!itor" of the film in Canada D tarted a" claim for damage" !y performance of their "ong in pu!liclater e,tended to include a claim for infringement of literary copyright and pa""ing off D 5o1ie wa" a >talkie film> !ut only the title of the "ong wa" u"edno lyric" or mu"ic IF D 2id 2 infringe P:" copyright !y only u"ing the title of the "ong in actual production and ad"G QF D 9o, for 2 %F D %""uming that the right in re"pect of literary infringement wa" dependent on the $0-' /mperial Copyright -"t and not the $&*$ Canadian Copyright -"t, the copying of the title wa" "o un"u!"tantial a matter a" to not con"titute an infringement D Canadian Copyright -"t, which added the definition of a >work>, made no change" in law

$0
D There had al"o !een no pa""ing offPC di"mi""e" pa""ing off argument a" "tupid D 6ere, copying of the title wa" not "u!"tantial reproduction D In general, a title !y it"elf i" not the proper "u!Bect matter of copyright D AW3.;A 6(<,2,+,32 ,2 s.2 ,2/586(s A+,+5(A, 98+ +:( +,+5( ,+s(5< ,s 23+ * s(4*.*+( 13.; D 2oe"n:t "ay the title i" protectedBu"t protect" the title a" part of the work D Therefore, the court held that the +,+5( *532( ,s 23+ * 5,+(.*.0 13.; 9(/*8s( ,+ ,s +33 +.,-,*5 D It doe" not ha1e enough literary ;uality or "u!"tance in order to !e a >literary work> D 5o1ie a" a whole didn:t infringe copyright either !ecau"e it didn:t "u!"tantially infringe the copyright of the "ong D imilar to Learned 6and Q.:" rea"oning, where theme" "uch a" +al"taff couldn:t !y protected 7F D W:,5( s.2 3< +:( Co&yri2#t Act ,2/586(s 4.3+(/+,32 3< * A+,+5(A, * +,+5( 32 ,+s 312 ,s 23+ * A5,+(.*.0 13.;A 9(/*8s( ,+ 63(s 23+ :*-( (238): 5,+(.*.0 H8*5,+0 3. s89s+*2/( +3 )*,2 /340.,):+ 4.3+(/+,32 D %ll of the >literary work> ca"e" "how that copyright o1erprotect" "ome thing" @"ee Bulman and !u"ine"" form", where "y"tem al"o got protectedA and underprotect" other thing" @"ee :ran"is *ayA D Confu"ion on length of a literary workhaiku" and "hort poem" are protected, !ut title" like >The 5an .ho /roke The /ank %t 5onte Carlo> don:t ha1e enough literary "u!"tance KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK B% CO$PILATIONS D The ne,t ca"e e,amine" how much can you take of another:" collection without infringing copyright D Collection" don:t gi1e protection of the original indi1idual work", only in the la!our, "kill and Budgment that were e,pended in creating the o1erall compilation it"elf D .ith infringement, the compiler:" copyright i" only infringed if o1erall compilation it"elf i" copied Te e;$irect (Pu< ications) ,nc. v. A*erican Business ,nfor*ation ,nc. (1993 9ed. CA) C*ata list not 8) +F D TeleD2irect, an affiliate of /ell Canada, pu!li"hed Jellow Page" directory that %/I copied part" of D %/I conceded that Jellow Page", when taken a" a whole, enBoy copyright protectionhowe1er, they took from the Jellow Page" info from inDcolumn li"ting" and popped them into their own directory D TeleD2irect "u!"e;uently want" copyright o1er the organi<ation of data recei1ed from /ell and the collection of additional data "uch a" fac"imile num!er" and trademark" from /ell:" cu"tomer" D TQ found copyright didn:t e,i"t in the compilation of informationnow TeleD2irect appeal" IF D 2id the compilation in1ol1e a "ufficient degree of "kill, Budgment, or la!our to !e original and thu" ;ualify for copyright protection under the Copyright -"tG QF D 9o, for %/I %F D Prior to $&&* and 9%+T%, compilation" were only protected if they were >literary work"> D Po"tD9%+T%, L25% work definition" included e,pre"" protection of >compilation"> and could !e protected, and got ".' definition of >13.;s .(s85+,2) <.37 s(5(/+,32 3. *..*2)(7(2+ 3< 6*+*> D Court conclude" in $&&* amendment", Parliament wanted to follow >creati1ity> "chool of ca"e" D Throw" out >"weat of the !row> theory and follow" ? % minimal creati1e re;uirementmu"t do "omething with the information apart from Bu"t gathering that in1ol1e" "kill and Budgment D Therefore s.2 /374,5*+,32s 4.3+(/+(6 3250 ,< +:( (26 .(s85+ ,s *2 3.,),2*5 ,2+(55(/+8*5 /.(*+,32 D TeleD2irect argue" TQ took incorrect approach !y looking at fragment", not o1erall creation D 6owe1er, court lay" out a A73.(?/3..(/+ *44.3*/:A to a""e""ing the originality of a compilation where the work "ought to !e protected i" a compilation of data which appear" within a larger compilation of data i" +3 9(),2 +:( *2*50s,s 1,+: +:( <.*)7(2+ D 6ere, compilation at i""ue !efore TQ not the directory a" a whole @main compilationA !ut fragment" of it "uch a" inDcolumn li"ting" @"u!Dcompilation"Atherefore fragment fir"t i" (O D Copyright -"t i" clearF 3250 +:3s( 13.;s 1:,/: *.( 3.,),2*5 *.( +3 9( 4.3+(/+(6 , and for a compilation of data to !e original, it mu"t !eF aA A 13.; +:*+ 1*s ,26(4(26(2+50 /.(*+(6 90 +:( *8+:3., AND !A D,s45*0 *+ 5(*s+ * 7,2,7*5 6().(( 3< s;,55, =86)7(2+, *26 5*938. ,2 ,+s 3-(.*55 s(5(/+,32 D 9ote that /32s,6(.*95( 5*938. /379,2(6 1,+: * 2()5,),95( 6().(( 3< s;,55 *26 =86)7(2+ 1,55 23+

$&
9( s8<<,/,(2+ ,2 73s+ s,+8*+,32s +3 7*;( * /374,5*+,32 3< 6*+* 3.,),2*5 D Thi" i" !ecau"e a purpo"e of copyright i" to reward the intellectual effort of the author D The word >author>, while not defined in the -"t, con1ey" a "en"e of creati1ity and ingenuity D A7382+ 3< 5*938. +:(.(<3.( ,s 23+ * 6(+(.7,2*+,-( s38./( 3< 3.,),2*5,+0 D 6ere, can:t "ay the "u!Dcompilation wa" a >new product of in1enti1e la!our> to !e protected D >S(5(/+,32> wa" Bu"t li"ting info they got from the phone company, and >*..*2)(7(2+> wa" Bu"t li"ting the info in alpha!etical orderno intellectual effort in "kill and Budgment D .hile compilation of Jellow Page" a" a whole wa" original and protected, the inDcolumn li"ting" of !u"ine"" information that were copied were not protected !ecau"e there wa" no originality D Look" to ? % deci"ion in :eist for authority to "upport the propo"ition that /(.+*,2 /374,5*+,32s 3< .38+,2( 6*+* *.( s3 7(/:*2,/*5 *s +3 9( 6(-3,6 3< * /.(*+,-( (5(7(2+ D BF 5uch like CC+, where no copyright "u!"i"t" in the rea"on" for Budgment them"el1e", and copying only the rea"on" for Budgment out of 2L7 or C7 doe"n:t infringe copyright D Therefore, whene1er you deal with compilation", you mu"t identify what i" original in the compilation, and only infringe if you copy that, not the indi1idual piece" that they took together 7F D F3. * /374,5*+,32 3< 13.; +3 9( 4.3+(/+(6 90 /340.,):+, +:(.( 78s+ 9( s37( 7,2,7*5 *7382+ 3< ,26(4(26(2+ 13.; *26 9*s,/ 3.,),2*5,+0 ,2 +:( s(5(/+,32 *26 *..*2)(7(2+ 3< 6*+* 90 +:( *8+:3. KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK C% COLLECTI'E WOR&S D >Collecti1e work>, while 1ery "imilar to a >compilation>, i" defined in the -"tF 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >collecti1e work> mean" @aA an encyclopaedia, dictionary, year !ook or "imilar work, @!A a 2(1s4*4(., re1iew, maga<ine or "imilar periodical, and @cA any work written in di"tinct part" !y different author", or in which work" or part" of work" of different author" are incorporated> D (nly difference !etween >compilation> and >collecti1e work> i" the definition", the fact that a compilation i" in the L25% definition" and include" >a work re"ulting from the "election or arrangement of data>, and ".$*@*A a!out an author:" >right to re"train the pu!lication of the work, otherwi"e than a" part of a new"paper, maga<ine or "imilar periodical> D (therwi"e, the court" treat the two term" a" interchangea!le D Therefore, while all collecti1e work" are compilation", not all compilation" are collecti1e work" D The ne,t deci"ion i" a recent CC ca"e on the owner"hip of copyright in pu!li"hed te,t" that are "tored in data!a"e", and e,plore" the competing right" of freelance author" and new"paper pu!li"her" D 9oteF ca"e only applie" when author" of the indi1idual part" of the compilation own copyright +o<ertson v. T#o*son Cor&. ('((! SCC)C:reelan"e authors "opyright infringed ith online databases +F D 7o!ert"on wrote two freelance article" for the 6lobe ; =ailcopyright not addre""ed in agreement D he "tarted cla"" action copyright infringement action for the pre"ence of her article" in two data!a"e" @6lobe (nline and CPI.EA and a C2D7(5 for repu!li"hing her freelance article" without her con"ent D 2ata!a"e" "tore 6lobe and thou"and" of other new"paper article" online !y date, page num!er, ect D C2D7(5 contain" 6lobe and other new"paper", !ut u"er" can 1iew a "ingle day:" 6lobe edition IF D 2o any of the three online data!a"e" in ;ue"tion that contain article" from the 6lobe ; =ail reproduce the new"paper" a" a whole, or merely reproduce the original article" in a new wayG D In other word", when i" a new"paper not a new"paperG .hen i" a compilation "omething newG QF D +or 7o!ert"on for 6lobe (nline and CPI.EC2D7(5 not infringement of copyright @5D- deci"ionA %F D +reelancer" own copyright in their article" !y way of ".$*@$A and ".'.$@'A D Likewi"e, pu!li"her" own copyright in the new"paper !y law of ".' >collecti1e work> and ".*@$A D (!1iou"ly, 4lo!e had right to pu!li"h the article" in the new"paper it"elfhow a!out onlineG D 6owe1er, ".*@$A include" the >"ole right to.reproduce the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof> D It follow" that a s89s+*2+,*5 4*.+ 3< * 2(1s4*4(. 7*0 /32s,s+ 3250 3< +:( 3.,),2*5 s(5(/+,32 s3

')
532) *s +:( (ss(2/( 3< +:( 2(1s4*4(. ,s 4.(s(.-(6 D EF who"e originality i" !eing reproduced when the article" are !eing put online in the data!a"eG D The ta"k of determining whether thi" e""ence ha" !een reproduced i" largely a ;ue"tion of degree !ut, at a minimum, the (6,+3.,*5 /32+(2+ 3< +:( 2(1s4*4(. L +:( +.8( (ss(2/( 3< ,+s 3.,),2*5,+0 L 78s+ 9( 4.(s(.-(6 *26 4.(s(2+(6 ,2 +:( /32+(@+ 3< +:*+ 2(1s4*4(. D Line cro""ed when article function" online way different than the way it function" in print D 6ere, 4lo!e (nline and CPI.E data!a"e" do not pre"er1e e""ence @ieF editorial contentA of the paper D 9ew"paper not !eing reproduced in a different formweren:t "earching the new"paper, !ut "earching the article" them"el1e", which no longer con1eyed the e""ence of the new"paper D T:( 2(1s4*4(. *.+,/5(s *.( A6(/32+(@+8*5,D(6A to the point that they are no longer pre"ented in a manner that maintain" their intimate connection with the re"t of that new"paper D 8iewed Sglo!allyT, the"e data!a"e" are compilation" of indi1idual article" pre"ented out"ide of the conte,t of the original collecti1e work from where they originated @"ee di""entA D 6owe1er, the C2D7(5 i" 6,s+,2)8,s:(6 90 4.(s(.-,2) 5,2;*)( +3 +:( 3.,),2*5 6*,50 2(1s4*4(. D C2-7(5" remain faithful to the e""ence of the original work !y offering u"er" a comprehen"i1e !ut !rief account of the daily new"paper edition" @di""ent agree"!oth cite >media neutrality>, where a work i" a work no matter in what form it i" em!odie"protect" paper electronicA D 9ote that the court hold" the new"paper "taff writer" "hould not ha1e !een certified a" mem!er" of the cla"" !ecau"e they ha1e no cau"e of action D Pur"uant to ". $*@*A of the %ct, the employer own" copyright in article" written in the cour"e of employment while the employee i" gi1en a right to re"train pu!lication of the work D D,ss(2+ 1.,++(2 90 $/L*/:5,2 CI with * other Budge"F the data!a"e" reproduce the paper D?nder the concept of 7(6,* 2(8+.*5,+0 reflected in ". *@$A, an authorN" e,clu"i1e right to reproduce a S"u!"tantial partT of a copyrighted work i" not limited !y change" in form or output made po""i!le !y a new medium D It i" not the phy"ical manife"tation of the work that go1ern", it i" whether the product percei1a!ly reproduce" e,erci"e of "kill and Budgment !y the pu!li"her" that went into the creation of the work D 6ere, di""ent claim", the arrangement i" lo"t with !ig online data!a"e", !ut "till know that the article appeared in the 6lobe ; =ail on a certain day D kill and Budgment in editing in putting together the article and pu!li"hing it remain D The 53ss 3< E/32+(@+F (74:*s,D(6 90 +:( 7*=3.,+0 826(.5,2(s +:( <3.7, 23+ +:( s89s+*2/(, 3< +:( 6*+*9*s(s, *26 ,s ,2/32s,s+(2+ 1,+: +:( 7(6,* 2(8+.*5 *44.3*/: 7*26*+(6 90 s. ! 7F D $*=3.,+0 :356 +:*+ 2(1s4*4(. *.+,/5(s <.37 * /374,5*+,32 *.( 6(/32+(@+8*5,D(6 1:(2 4.(s(2+(6 *s ,26,-,68*5 *.+,/5(s 38+s,6( /32+(@+ 3< +:( 3.,),2*5 /355(/+,-( 13.;M 6,ss(2+ :356s +:*+ s;,55 *26 =86)7(2+ ,2 48++,2) +3)(+:(. +:( *.+,/5(, *s 1(55 *s +:( /32/(4+ 3< A7(6,* 2(8+.*5,+0A, .(7*,2 D 9ote that .obertson touche" on Copyright -"t ".$*@-A on a""igning right", where the 4lo!e argued that e1en if they lo"t on the point of law that the online data!a"e" infringed, they had a "upplementary factual argument that they a licence to do "o from the author"F 1!#4% O12(.s:,4 3< /340.,):+ Ass,)27(2+s *26 5,/(2/(s D The owner of the copyright in any work 7*0 *ss,)2 +:( .,):+, (,+:(. 1:3550 3. 4*.+,*550, and either generally or "u!Bect to limitation" relating to territory, medium or "ector of the market or other limitation" relating to the "cope of the a""ignment, and either for the whole term of the copyright or for any other part thereof, and may grant any intere"t in the right !y licence, !ut 23 *ss,)27(2+ 3. ).*2+ ,s -*5,6 825(ss ,+ ,s ,2 1.,+,2) s,)2(6 90 +:( 312(. 3< +:( .,):+ ,2 .(s4(/+ 3< 1:,/: +:( *ss,)27(2+ 3. ).*2+ ,s 7*6(, or !y the ownerN" duly authori<ed agent> D Thu" you can a""ign copyright in whole or in partowner retain" nothing during a""ignment D 4rant i" the "ame idea a" an a""ignment @property 1. contract term"A, !ut mu"t !e in writing D .riting re;uirement applie" whene1er you grant an intere"t in the copyright D 6owe1er, thi" doe" not include a nonDe,clu"i1e licence D In .obertson, the 4lo!e argued that they had an implied licence to pu!li"h article" not a" part of the new"paper, !ut rather a" part of the data!a"e D EF wa" thi" implied licence an a""ignment or grant under ".$*@-AG 9o 1!#"% E@/58s,-( 5,/(2/( D >+or greater certainty, it i" deemed alway" to ha1e !een the law that a ).*2+ 3< *2 (@/58s,-( 5,/(2/( ,2 * /340.,):+ /32s+,+8+(s +:( ).*2+ 3< *2 ,2+(.(s+ ,2 +:( /340.,):+ 90 5,/(2/( >

'$
D tatutory interpretationF if legi"lature "pecifically include" "omething, it e,clude" the re"t D Thu" grant of e,clu"i1e intere"t con"titute" the grant of an intere"t, !ut a nonDe,clu"i1e licence !y implicaiton i" not the grant of an intere"t D ince 4lo!e relied on a nonDe,clu"i1e licence @ieF they could pu!li"h online too, a" well a" the authorA, and they argued for an implied licence that wa"n:t in writing, they failed

D % third i""ue from .obertson i" whether the "taff mem!er" from the 6lobe could properly !e included with the freelance writer" a" part of the cla""F 1!#!% O12(.s:,4 3< /340.,):+ W3.; 7*6( ,2 +:( /38.s( 3< (745307(2+ D >.here the author of a work wa" in the employment of "ome other per"on under a contract of "er1ice or apprentice"hip and the work wa" made in the cour"e of hi" employment !y that per"on, the 4(.s32 90 1:37 +:( *8+:3. 1*s (74530(6 s:*55, ,2 +:( *9s(2/( 3< *20 *).((7(2+ +3 +:( /32+.*.0, 9( +:( <,.s+ 312(. 3< +:( /340.,):+, !ut where work i" an article or other contri!ution to a new"paper, maga<ine or "imilar periodical, there "hall, in the a!"ence of any agreement to the contrary, 9( 6((7(6 +3 9( .(s(.-(6 +3 +:( *8+:3. * .,):+ +3 .(s+.*,2 +:( 4895,/*+,32 3< +:( 13.;, 3+:(.1,s( +:*2 *s 4*.+ 3< * 2(1s4*4(., 7*)*D,2( 3. s,7,5*. 4(.,36,/*5 > D The general rule i" that the employerHnew"paper get" the copyright o1er "taffDwritten article", !ut the latter part include" the ;ualification that the employee re"er1e" the right to re"train pu!lication of their work otherwi"e than in the new"paper D 6ere, no e1idence that any "taff writer" e,erci"ed the right of re"traint D Therefore, they had no cau"e of action and "houldn:t !e included a" part of the cla"" D +inally, .obertson i" the fir"t CC to deal with the idea of >7(6,* 2(8+.*5,+0> D In .obertson, copyright i" limited to the "tuff within the compilation D .hat di1ided the court wa" the tran"po"ition of the material into the electronic form had completely lo"t the "election and arrangement proce"" of the original, no longer counted a" a reproduction of the original work, and thu" the paper needed to get permi""ion to reproduce the original article" D EF to what 1alue i" the 4lo!e >milking> or getting e,tra 1alue !y chopping up the paper, "elling the piece", and perhap" lo"ing the e""ence of the compilationG D In any ca"e, the .85( i" you are not free to take a collecti1e work, !reak it up to unrecogni<a!le piece" a" far a" origin i" concerned, and "till claim you are e,erci"ing your right" to pu!li"h the indi1idual article" a" part of a compilationHnew"paper KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK D% CO$PUTER PROGRA$S D There are "ome important "ection" of the -"t for computer program"F 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >computer program> mean" a "et of in"truction" or "tatement", e,pre""ed, fi,ed, em!odied or "tored in any manner, that i" to !e u"ed directly or indirectly in a computer in order to !ring a!out a "pecific re"ult> !#1% C340.,):+ ,2 13.;s D >+or the purpo"e" of thi" %ct, ScopyrightT, in relation to a work, mean" the "ole right to produce or reproduce the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in any material form whate1er, to perform the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in pu!lic or, if the work i" unpu!li"hed, to pu!li"h the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof, and ,2/586(s +:( s35( .,):+ @hA in the ca"e of a /3748+(. 4.3).*7 +:*+ /*2 9( .(4.368/(6 ,2 +:( 3.6,2*.0 /38.s( 3< ,+s 8s(, other than !y a reproduction during it" e,ecution in conBunction with a machine, de1ice or computer, +3 .(2+ 38+ +:( /3748+(. 4.3).*7> D The ne,t ca"e i" one of the fir"t CC ca"e" on the idea of >media neutrality>, where it i" re"pected "ince the alteration of the original code onto a "ilicon chip doe" not de"troy it:" originality a" a literary work

''
A&& e Co*&uter ,nc. v. =ackintos# Co*&uters Ltd. (199( SCC)CPrograms on a "hip are "opyrightable +F D %pple hold" copyright in ( for %pple IIP computer it manufacture"5ackinto"h took apart an %pple IIP computer, !urned the ( , and copied the program" onto it" "ilicon chip" D BF Thi" action would now !e co1ered under the /ntegrated Cir"uit 'opography -"t D The ( "oftware i" clearly a literary work, a" you can write it out in )" and $", con1ey" info, ect D 5ackinto"h admit" that %pple hold" copyright in the ( @"oftwareA, !ut argue" "ince they only copied the "ilicon chip @hardwareA, and not the ( , they didn:t infringe copyright IF D 2id the literary work, in the form of a computer program written in a""em!ly language, retain it" identity a" a literary work when it i" encoded onto an integrated circuit chip and wa" it wa" reproduced !y duplication of the chipG QF D Je" and ye", for %pple at trial, C%, and CCliterary work "till pre"ent in the de"ign of the chip !ecau"e a per"on could get the ( code from the chip it"elf D 7eproduction con"tituted an infringement of copyright, "o it wa"nNt nece""ary to decide whether the copying of the chip amounted to other form" of reproduction of the literary work "uch a" tran"lation or the making of a contri1ance to perform the work %F D TQ held that 4.3).*7s (79(66(6 ,2 +:( s,5,/32 /:,4 *.( s3<+1*.(, 23+ :*.61*.( D %l"o found that the circuitry in the chip wa" !oth a tran"lation and e,act reproduction of the ( D Therefore, hold" that circuitry of the chip are protected !y ".*@$A D 5ackinto"h tried to rely on %u"tralian deci"ion that portrayed the "ilicon chip a" a dynamic >"e;uence of electrical impul"e"> that could not !e the "u!Bect of copyright D 6owe1er, ca"e doe"n:t apply in Canada D 6owe1er, Cory Q. agree" with TQ and hold" the (79(66(6 4.3).*7s ,2 +:( s,5,/32 /:,4 *.( * .(4.368/+,32 3< +:( 4.3).*7s ,2 *ss(7950 5*2)8*)( and therefore protected !y copyright in ".*@$A D Program" con"titute a form of e,pre""ion that i" conceptually and functionally uni;ue and cannot !e regarded a" a merger of idea and e,pre""ion 7F D W:,5( +:( A,6(*A 3< * /3748+(. 4.3).*7 ,s 23+ 4.3+(/+(6 90 /340.,):+, * /3748+(. 4.3).*7 ,s * 5,+(.*.0 13.; *26 .(+*,2s /340.,):+ 4.3+(/+,32 1:(2 ,+ ,s (79(66(6 32 * s,5,/32 /:,4 D N3+(F if you take "ome!ody:" work and >tran"late> it, you ha1e infringed the original author:" copyright !y tran"lating it under s.!#1%#*% A+3 4.368/(, .(4.368/(, 4(.<3.7 3. 4895,s: *20 +.*2s5*+,32 3< +:( 13.;A D Ironically, the pirated tran"lation !ecome" a new original work of it" own that i" "u!Bect to copyright D In -pple, TQ and CC held 5ackinto"h:" circuitry in their "ilicon chip wa" !oth a tran"lation and an e,act reproduction of %pple:" ( a" a re"ult, the circuitry of the "ilicon chip wa" protected !y ".*@$A D N3+(F with literary work" "uch a" !ook", protecting e,pre""ion i" no pro!lem !ecau"e the actual >work>, the !ook, perform" no function what"oe1erit "imply con1ey" information D 6owe1er, with "oftware, it i" !oth an a!"tract "et of in"truction" a" well a" a functional unit D If a court gi1e" copyright in the "oftware in it" totality, they might al"o !e gi1ing a monopoly in the function the "oftware perform", which protect" idea, not e,pre""ion @"ee *elrina for more infoA D The ne,t ca"e, a!out infringement @not whether copyright "u!"i"tedA, e,pand" on the idea that you cannot maintain a monopoly on function" or idea", only the e,pre""ion of a function or an idea, and e,pand" on the !orderline !etween copying and parallel information $e rina Cor&. v. Trio et Syste*s (1991 7nt. Ct. 5en)CCopyright prote"ts original e2pressionF not ideas +F D 2, while employed !y P, worked on the de1elopment of the P:" computer program y"1iew, a program which allowed an operator of a 6ewlett Packard computer to a""e"" efficiency of a computer D %fter lea1ing P, the indi1idual 2 de"igned the corporate 2:" computer program %""e"" with the intent that it !e functionally "imilar to y"1iew and compete directly with y"1iew D %fter e,hi!iting it at trade "how", hi" former employer" get angry and accu"e" 2 of copying D 2elrina commenced an action alleging that the %""e"" program infringed their copyright in it" y"1iew program, applied for an interlocutory inBunction to re"train Triolet from "elling or marketing the %""e"" program and from u"ing or copying any of the 2elrina:" computer program" D .hile P couldn:t pro1e it wa" an e,act copy, they tried to pro1e that it wa" a "u!"tantial reproduction of the original program that copied the e""ence of the programieF "ame interface "creen

'*
D TQ held for the defendant !a"ed on two rea"on"F aA S,7,5*.,+0 D %ccepted e1idence of 2:" e,pert witne"" that the "imilaritie" !etween the two computer program" were accounted for !y !eing the logical or only way of accompli"hing the ta"k at hand, !eing deri1ed from the pu!lic domain or !eing dictated !y the makeup of the 6ewlett Packard computer D Therefore, all the alleged "imilaritie" were dictated !y functional con"ideration" or were otherwi"e not protecta!le !y copyright !A D,62B+ /340 D TQ al"o found that the indi1idual defendant did not copy from the "ource code for the y"1iew program and drew an ad1er"e inference from the fact that P pro1ided the two program" to an e,pert to pro1ide an opinion a" to whether the %""e"" program had !een copied from the y"1iew program and the fact that P did not produce the e,pert:" report IF D 31en though it wa" a gi1en that the "oftware wa" a literary work, wa" a >"u!"tantial> part of the work reproduced !y the programmer of the original work when he went out and created a competing program on hi" ownG QF D 9o, appeal di"mi""ed, TQ wa" correctaward of U6.& million damage" plu" intere"t and "olicitor client co"t" on undertaking %F D In copyright law, /340,2) )3(s 9(0326 /340,2) s37(+:,2) 4:0s,/*550 9(<3.( +:( 4(.s32 D It ,2/586(s /340,2) <.37 7(73.0 D 6ere, TQ:" e""ential finding" were not !a"ed on an e,clu"ion of copying from memory D TQ e,plained that the functional "imilaritie" were not nece""arily e1idence of copying D TQ did not "ay that the fact that the indi1idual defendant wa" the author of !oth program" Bu"tified copyingwhat "he wa" "aying wa" that certain "imilaritie" !etween the program" could !e under"tood a" the re"ult of the programming "tyle of the indi1idual defendant without the "imilaritie" !eing pro!ati1e of copying D The 4.34(. *2*50s,s ,s +3 s+*.+ 90 .()*.6,2) +:( 3.,),2*5,+0 3< +:( 13.; *s * 1:35( D % claim" TQ made a mi"take !y !reaking the program into piece" and analy<ing the originality of each piece(nt. C%, while agreeing with principle, doe"n:t find that TQ applied thi" te"t D In"tead, TQ did a legitimate analy"i" !y !reaking the program down into piece" and comparing them to the original program to a"k if they were copied D Can:t decide "u!"i"tence of copyright elementD!yDelementC howe1er, can decide on reproduction elementD!yDelement D TQ wa" correct in "tating that law of 3.,),2*5,+0 ,s +:( 13.; 78s+ 23+ :*-( 9((2 /34,(6 90 +:( *8+:3. <.37 *23+:(. 13.;, and in e,amining the element" of %""e"" alleged to !e "imilar to element" of y"1iew to determine if tho"e element" were capa!le of copyright protection D TQ concluded that tho"e element" were not capa!le of copyright protection and that the plaintiff could not therefore rely on them to e"ta!li"h copyright infringement D %gain, general rule i" /340.,):+ 4.3+(/+s 3250 3.,),2*5 (@4.(ss,32 *26 23+ +:( 826(.50,2) ,6(* D The ideaHe,pre""ion dichotomy i" applied with greater rigour in the ?nited tate" re"ulting in a narrow "cope of copyright protection D The wider "cope of protection afforded under the 3ngli"hHC*2*6,*2 *44.3*/: ,s 9*s(6 32 s37( .(/3)2,+,32 3< +:( s;,55 *26 5*938. ,2 +:( /.(*+,32 3< +:( 13.; D C% hold" that s37( 7(+:36 78s+ 9( <3826 +3 1((6 38+ 3. .(73-( <.37 /340.,):+ 4.3+(/+,32 +:3s( 43.+,32s 1:,/: /*223+ 9( 4.3+(/+(6 D .ith "oftware, you can:t get a copyright in the particular way it function", Bu"t the e,pre""ion of the choice of particular language and in"truction" in the code it"elf D If there i" only one or a 1ery limited num!er of way" to achie1e a particular re"ult in a computer program, the idea merge" with the e,pre""ion D To hold that way or way" are protecta!le !y copyright could gi1e the copyright holder a monopoly on the idea or function it"elf D >I< *2 ,6(* /*2 9( (@4.(ss(6 ,2 3250 32( 3. ,2 * -(.0 5,7,+(6 2879(. 3< 1*0s, +:(2 /340.,):+ 3< +:*+ (@4.(ss,32 1,55 9( .(<8s(6, for it would gi1e the originator of the idea a 1irtual monopoly on the idea. In "uch a ca"e, it i" "aid that the e,pre""ion merge" with the idea and thu" i" not copyrighta!le> D 6ere, a" "oon a" one figured out what the ta"k wa", the re"ulting program would !e "imilar

'D (nce TQ "egregated what wa" original and what wa" truly functional, there wa" nothing left D TQ:" detailed can1a"" of the point" of alleged "imilaritie" "howed that the "ource of "imilarity wa" not y"1iew !ut other "ource", many !eing dictated !y the 6ewlett Packard operating "y"tem or reflecting common programming practice" D The ;ue"tion of whether a "u!"tantial part of y"1iew wa" reproduced wa" a matter of fact and degreenot for the court on appeal to em!ark on the ;ue"tion afre"h D %l"o, there wa" no palpa!le or o1erriding error in the trial Budge:" factual conclu"ion" D The alleged error !y TQ in drawing an ad1er"e inference a" a re"ult of the plaintiff:" failure to produce the e,pert:" report wa" dealt with on the ground that the ad1er"e inference had no !earing on how the trial Budge arri1ed at hi" ultimate conclu"ion 7F D A 9*s,/ <(*+8.( 3< /340.,):+ 5*1 ,s +:( (@4.(ss,32G,6(* 6,/:3+370, s3 ,< *2 ,6(* /*2 3250 9( (@4.(ss(6 ,2 32( #3. -(.0 5,7,+(6% 1*0s, +:(2 +:( (@4.(ss,32 7(.)(s 1,+: ,6(* *26 <(*+8.(s ,2(-,+*950 s,7,5*. +3 93+: 4.3).*7s *.( 23+ /*4*95( 3< /340.,):+ 4.3+(/+,32 D N3+(F in *elrina, the court de1elop" an A9s+.*/+,32 F,5+.*+,32 C374*.,s32 analy"i"F aA A9s+.*/+,32 D Identify the e""ential character of the !it" of the original D Component" include main purpo"e of the program, "y"tem architecture, 1ariou" data type", algorithm", and "ource code !A F,5+.*+,32 D (ut of the"e "mall element" from the a!"traction pha"e, identify which are truly original !y the author of the original work D 5u"t filter out anything in pu!lic domain, anything the author copied from "ome!ody el"e, and *20+:,2) 1,+: ,s ,6(* 7(.)(6 1,+: (@4.(ss,32 @ieF the only way to perform a particular functionA D Thu" if the idea can only !e e,pre""ed in one way, that e,pre""ion can:t !e protected cA C374*.,s32 D 2oe" the allege copy actually reproduce or "u!"tantially reproduce any of the e""ential part" of the original e,pre""ionG D In *elrina, the court concluded that there wa" no copying !ecau"e !oth companie" de1eloped "oftware to a""e"" the efficiency of a "ingle computer D Thu", any program performing thi" program will look "imilar !a"ed on the "ame computer D Ca"e" highlight that with computer "oftware, "ince it:" not Bu"t e,pre""ion !ut al"o a functional in"trument, you mu"t decide what original contri!ution the author made to the original work 1er"u" what any!ody would ha1e to do to produce the computer "oftware generally D imilar to Ni"hols, where detail" of the plot and character wa" copyrighta!le !ut not the general nature of the plot and idea" that wa" general "tock Nintendo v. Ca*erica (1991 9ed. Ct. T$)C/P rights not really 7property7 rights in the stri"t sense +F D Camerica put out a mod package that allowed u"er" to change the way uper 5ario /ro". wa" played D 9intendo wanted an inBunction, where 5iyamoto, the creator of the program, had their moral right" infringed and 9intendo a" owner @employerA of the copyright claimed that the audioH1i"ual output of 5ario:" image wa" a L25% work QF D 9o interlocutory inBunction @no fore"eea!le harmBu"t damage"A %F D how" that computer "oftware can gi1e ri"e to a num!er of o1erlapping copyright intere"t" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK E% DRA$ATIC WOR&S D ee the ".' definition" !elow, a" well a" the ca"e" on infringement of copyright in dramatic work"F 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >dramatic work> include" @aA any piece for recitation, choreographic @ieF dancingA work or mime, the "cenic arrangement or acting form of which i" <,@(6 ,2 1.,+,2) or otherwi"e, @!A any /,2(7*+3).*4:,/ work, and

'5
@cA any /374,5*+,32 of dramatic work"C D 5ere performance or impro1 i" not a dramatic workit mu"t !e fi,edhowe1er, if it wa" put on film !y the author of the work, copyright would "u!"i"t in that fi,ation D Therefore, any mo1ie can !e a dramatic work @e,cept >!oring> mo1ie" wHo dramatic characterA D >compilation> mean" @aA a work re"ulting from the s(5(/+,32 3. *..*2)(7(2+ 3< 5,+(.*.0, 6.*7*+,/, 78s,/*5 3. *.+,s+,/ 13.;s 3. 3< 4*.+s +:(.(3<, or @!A a work re"ulting from the "election or arrangement of data> KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK F% CINE$ATOGRAPHIC WOR&S D ee the ".' definition !elowF 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >cinematographic work> include" any work e,pre""ed !y any proce"" analogou" to cinematography, whether or not accompanied !y a "oundtrack> D +ormerly, a >cinematograph production> counted a" a dramatic work only if it had an >original character>, !ut that di"tinction i" now gone D 9ow, 1:(+:(. 3. 23+ +:(0 :*-( *2 3.,),2*5 /:*.*/+(., *55 /,2(7*+3).*4:,/ 13.;s *.( 90 6(<,2,+,32 A6.*7*+,/ 13.;sA 826(. s.2#9% 6(<,2,+,32 *93-( D 6owe1er, the -"t di"tingui"he" !etween cinematographic work" that ha1e >dramatic character> and tho"e that don:t for the purpo"e of copyright author"hipF 11.1C,2(7*+3).*4:,/ 13.;s D >E@/(4+ <3. /,2(7*+3).*4:,/ 13.;s ,2 1:,/: +:( *..*2)(7(2+ 3. */+,2) <3.7 3. +:( /379,2*+,32 3< ,2/,6(2+s .(4.(s(2+(6 ),-( +:( 13.; * 6.*7*+,/ /:*.*/+(. , copyright in a cinematographic work or a compilation of cinematographic work" "hall "u!"i"t @aA <3. +:( .(7*,26(. 3< +:( /*5(26*. 0(*. 3< +:( <,.s+ 4895,/*+,32 of the cinematographic work or of the compilation, and for a 4(.,36 3< <,<+0 0(*.s <35531,2) +:( (26 3< +:*+ /*5(26*. 0(*.C or @!A if the cinematographic work or compilation i" not pu!li"hed !efore the e,piration of fifty year" following the end of the calendar year of it" making, for the remainder of that calendar year and for a period of fifty year" following the end of that calendar year> D In other word", cinematographic work with a dramatic character ha" the "ame term a" any other dramatic worklife of the author P 5) year" D 6owe1er, if no >dramatic character>, the term i" 5) year" from the date of pu!lication D %l"o note that there i" often a layering of different copyrighta!le intere"t" in a cinematographic work, much like a "ound recording D +ilm ha" right" of the author of the cinematographic work D 5ay !e copyright in the "creenplay a" a dramatic work di"tinct from the film D 5ay !e copyright in mu"ical work" that appear on the "oundtrack KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK G% $USICAL WOR&S D ee the ".' definition" !elow and later material" on infringement of mu"ical work"F 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >mu"ical work> mean" *20 13.; 3< 78s,/ 3. 78s,/*5 /3743s,+,32, 1,+: 3. 1,+:38+ 13.6s, *26 ,2/586(s *20 /374,5*+,32 +:(.(3<> D BC no fi,ation re;uirement, !ut pro!a!ly implicit anyway" D >compilation> mean" @aA a work re"ulting from the s(5(/+,32 3. *..*2)(7(2+ 3< 5,+(.*.0, 6.*7*+,/, 78s,/*5 3. *.+,s+,/ 13.;s 3. 3< 4*.+s +:(.(3<, or @!A a work re"ulting from the "election or arrangement of data>

'6
19#1% R,):+ +3 .(782(.*+,32 D >.here a "ound recording ha" !een pu!li"hed, the performer and maker are entitled, "u!Bect to "ection '), to !e paid e;uita!le remuneration for it" performance in pu!lic or it" communication to the pu!lic !y telecommunication, e,cept for any retran"mi""ion> D %dded a!out $) year" ago for performer" and maker", "o that money they made wa" proportional to the amount of airtimeH"treaming the "ong recei1ed D .ith a mu"ical work, there i" a lot of o1erlapping copyrightF aA Compo"er @mu"ical workA !A Lyrici"t @literary workA cA %rranger @compilation of mu"ical workA dA Performer @copyright in performer:" performanceA eA 5aker of "ound recording @neigh!ouring right in "ound recording, could !e a corporationA fA Performer P maker @e;uita!le remuneration for pu!lic performance and telecommunication".$&A KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK H% ARTISTIC WOR&S D ee the ".' definition" !elowF 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >arti"tic work> include" 4*,2+,2)s, 6.*1,2)s, 7*4s, /:*.+s, 45*2s, 4:3+3).*4:s, (2).*-,2)s, s/854+8.(s, 13.;s 3< *.+,s+,/ /.*<+s7*2s:,4, *./:,+(/+8.*5 13.;s, *26 /374,5*+,32s 3< *.+,s+,/ 13.;s> D %" u"ual, thi" pro1ide" protection again"t reproduction, communication !y telecommunication, making a picture of a painting, ect D >*./:,+(/+8.*5 13.;> mean" any !uilding or "tructure or any model of a !uilding or "tructure> D >compilation> mean" @aA a work re"ulting from the s(5(/+,32 3. *..*2)(7(2+ 3< 5,+(.*.0, 6.*7*+,/, 78s,/*5 3. *.+,s+,/ 13.;s 3. 3< 4*.+s +:(.(3<, or @!A a work re"ulting from the "election or arrangement of data> 5#1% C326,+,32s <3. s89s,s+(2/( 3< /340.,):+ D > u!Bect to thi" %ct, copyright "hall "u!"i"t in Canada, for the term hereinafter mentioned, in e1ery original literary, dramatic, mu"ical and arti"tic work> D 2e"pite ".5@$A:" - categorie" of work" where copyright "u!"i"t", ".' definition of the phra"e make" thing" fu<<y, "uch a" including >e1ery original production in the "cientific domain> 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >(-(.0 3.,),2*5 5,+(.*.0, 6.*7*+,/, 78s,/*5 *26 *.+,s+,/ 13.;> ,2/586(s (-(.0 3.,),2*5 4.368/+,32 ,2 +:( 5,+(.*.0, s/,(2+,<,/ 3. *.+,s+,/ 637*,2, whate1er may !e the mode or form of it" e,pre""ion, "uch a" compilation", !ook", pamphlet" and other writing", lecture", dramatic or dramaticoDmu"ical work", mu"ical work", tran"lation", illu"tration", "ketche" and pla"tic work" relati1e to geography, topography, architecture or "cience> D Thi" e,pan"ion wa" added for Canada to comply to the Berne Convention D CuisinaireF new definition may not fit within the re"t of the Copyright -"t !4.1#1% P.(s874+,32s .(s4(/+,2) /340.,):+ *26 312(.s:,4 D >In any proceeding" for infringement of copyright in which the defendant put" in i""ue either the e,i"tence of the copyright or the title of the plaintiff thereto, @aA copyright "hall !e pre"umed, unle"" the contrary i" pro1ed, to "u!"i"t in the work, performerN" performance, "ound recording or communication "ignal, a" the ca"e may !eC and @!A the author, performer, maker or !roadca"ter, a" the ca"e may !e, "hall, unle"" the contrary i" pro1ed, !e pre"umed to !e the owner of the copyright> D In Cuisinaire, argued that it wa" up to the defendant" to argue that the no copyright "u!"i"ted in the !lock"all ".*-.$@$A doe" i" pre"ume that copyright "u!"i"t" in a work D 6owe1er, thi" doe" not put the onu" on the defendant that the o!Bect" @ieF the colored !lock"A are a workplaintiff mu"t fir"t pro1e that there i" a L25% work

'#
4#1% I2+(.4.(+*+,32 D >de"ign> mean" feature" of "hape, configuration, pattern or ornament and any com!ination of tho"e feature" that, in a fini"hed article, appeal to and are Budged "olely !y the eyeC D >u"eful article> mean" an article that ha" a utilitarian function and include" a model of any "uch article>

D The following ca"e i"n:t "o much a!out >arti"tic> work", !ut whether there i" anything el"e that i" not co1ered under a L25% work D The Court held that a work i" not a work if it can:t !e fitted into one of the four categorie" D The Court al"o held that the definition of >e1ery original, etc.> in ".' doe" not add a re"idual category Cuisenaire v. Sout# 8est ,*&orts Ltd. (19!4 ./. Ct.)C'ea"hing tools not a #*=- or! and no "opyright +F D P "ued for infringement of copyright in "et" of coloured rod" of different length" u"ed for teaching arithmetic to childrenhe wa" al"o the author of a !ook which "et out a teaching "y"tem employing "uch rod"note he:" claiming copyright in the rod", not the !ook D Claim" hi" original creation had 1alue a" a teaching tool to teach children arithmetic D In ".6-, a >de"ign> mean" feature" of "hape, configuration, pattern or ornament and any com!ination of tho"e feature" that, in a fini"hed article, *44(*5 +3 *26 *.( =86)(6 s35(50 90 +:( (0( D (nly applie" to a A8s(<85 *.+,/5(A ,2 * H8*2+,+0 3-(. 50the"e de"ign" you can regi"ter in the /ndustrial *esigns -"t and you can:t get protection under the Copyright -"t D 6ere, !lock" didn:t fit /ndustrial *esigns -"t, a" while color" on !lock" were de"igned to appeal to the eye, they:re not Budged "olely !y the eye !ut ha1e a functional purpo"e to teach kid" math D Therefore, he want" to protect the "y"tem that can !e u"ed to teach math IF D .ere the "et of coloured rod" that accompanied hi" math !ook "ufficiently arti"tic to ;ualify a" an >arti"tic work> and !e protected !y copyrightG QF D 9o, the rod" aren:t the proper "u!Bect matter for copyright in Canada %F D Court !egin" with three general propo"ition" a!out the Copyright -"tF aA The -"t protect" an original work which 78s+ 9( 3.,),2*5, not in the "en"e that it wa" not thought of !efore, !ut in the "en"e that it 3.,),2*+(6 1,+: +:( *8+:3. who mu"t, in addition, ha1e (@(./,s(6 s;,55 *26 =86)7(2+ ,2 4.368/,2) ,+ !A .ith regard to "uch "kill and la!our, the empha"i" i" upon the o!Bect of the author in creating the work rather than on the reaction of the 1iewer to the completed work, for it i" commonplace in copyright law that it i" ,77*+(.,*5 1:(+:(. +:( 13.; :*s *20 7(.,+ *+ *55 cA It i" al"o commonplace in copyright law that the protection gi1en !y the Copyright -"t i" only to the (@4.(ss,32 3< *2 ,6(* 3. *2 *.+ *26 23+ +3 +:( ,6(* 3. *.+ ,+s(5< D ince it:" not a L25% work generally, P trie" to get the rod" to fit in different "ection" of the -"t D +ir"t, P failed to try and argue copyright wa" pre"umed under ".*-.$ D 9otwith"tanding the pre"umption" in fa1our of copyright and of the author:" owner"hip thereof which ari"e under ". ')@*A @now ".*-.$A in an infringement action where the defendant di"pute" the e,i"tence of copyright or the plaintiff:" title thereto the plaintiff mu"t "till e"ta!li"h that the work i" within the definition of ". - a" further defined !y ". ' and "o "u!Bect to copyright D 9e,t, court note" that there i" nothing in the Copyright -"t !arring functionalHutilitarian tool" or indu"trial de"ign" from !eing the "u!Bect of copyright in general D till, tool" for purely functional u"e canNt !e protected with copyright. D 6owe1er, court al"o note" that there 78s+ 9( s37( 5,7,+*+,32s 32 1:*+ ,s +3 9( 4.3+(/+(6 D ieF all original "cientific in1ention" weren:t meant to recei1e life of the author plu" 5) year protection, !ut rather intended to !e patented a" in1ention" and gi1en protection for $# year" D 6ere, the .36s 1(.( 23+ *2 A*.+,s+,/ 13.;A 1,+:,2 +:( 6(<,2,+,32 3< s. 2#9% 3< +:( Co&yri2#t Act D %lthough rod" were coloured in a manner to plea"e children, they were ne1er intended primarily a" arti"tic article" !ut a" tool" for a particular purpo"e and a" "uch were not entitled to protection D Therefore, thi" >"econdary> purpo"e wa"n:t arti"tic enough to get copyright D N3. 1(.( +:(0 13.;s 3< A*.+,s+,/ /.*<+s7*2s:,4A within the meaning of ". '@!A "ince no

'0
craft"man"hip wa" in1ol1ed in their production D 9or were they A45*s+,/ 13.;s .(5*+,-( +3 s/,(2/(A 1,+:,2 +:( 7(*2,2) 3< s. 2#-% @now in ".' under Se1ery original literary, dramatic, mu"ical and arti"tic workTA "ince, !eing wood, they were not moulda!le or plia!le D The rod" were al"o 23+ s89=(/+ +3 /340.,):+ 826(. s. 2#-% *s *2 A3.,),2*5 4.368/+,32 ,2 +:( ... s/,(2+,<,/ ... 637*,2A, a" the inclu"ion of the"e word" in ". '@1A i" not to !e con"trued a" altering the am!it of copyright in any "u!"tantial way D P tried to create a re"idual category from the ".' definition of >e1ery original literary, dramatic, mu"ical and arti"tic work> include" e1ery original production in the literary, "cientific or arti"tic domain, !ut the court reBect" thi" !ecau"e Canada Bu"t added thi" due to Berne D Therefore, the work mu"t "till !e >an original literary, dramatic, mu"ical or arti"tic work> a" re;uired !y ". -@$A in the normal meaning of tho"e word" and in the light of the definition" in ". ' D BF no "upport anywhere in the act for "upport that an educational de1ice fit into any category D how" that not e1erything that i" created with hard work and ha" 1alue i" protected !y copyright D Teaching math !y u"ing !lock" of a certain "i<e i" an idea rather than e,pre""ion, which i"n:t "uppo"ed to attract copyright protection 7F D A2 *.+,s+,/ 13.; 78s+ 9( * 13.; +:*+ ,s ,2+(26(6 +3 :*-( *2 *44(*5 +3 +:( *(s+:(+,/ s(2s(s *26 23+ =8s+ *2 ,2/,6(2+*5 *44(*5 KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK III. SO$E OF THE RIGHTS CO$PRISING COPYRIGHT IN A WOR& 1% TO REPRODUCE THE WOR& D The"e ne,t ca"e" detail how an indi1idual infringe" the different right" in ".*@$A D imilar to *elrina, !ut the ne,t ca"e in1ol1e" reproduction where one company reproduced the e""ence of another:" work, and the ;ue"tion wa" whether thi" wa" >"u!"tantial> enough copyright to infringe Lad<roke (9oot<a ) Ltd. v. 8i ia* %i (9oot<a ) Ltd. (19!) %L)CCopyright in arrangement of a form +F D Lad!roke were wellDknown !ookie" who had done !u"ine"" for many year" in fi,ed odd" foot!all !etting "ending out to their client" each week during the foot!all "ea"on a fi,ed odd" foot!all coupon D The coupon wa" a "heet of paper on which were printed "i,teen li"t" of matche" to !e played each weekC each li"t wa" headed with an appropriate name and offered a 1ariety of wager" at "tated odd" and contained e,planatory note"coupon offered $-0 1arietie" of wager at widely differing odd" D .illiam 6ill, with a former employee of Lad!roke, copied !etting form" clo"e to P:" form D They copied from the re"pondent": coupon fifteen out of the "i,teen li"t" arranging them in the "ame order a" they appeared in the re"pondent": coupon, in many ca"e" with the "ame heading" and almo"t identical 1arietie" of wager, and with "imilar e,planatory note" D Though 2 admitted P had copyright in the "election of matche" and "tatement of odd" @neither of which they had copiedA, they denied copyright in the "etDup of the !etting form which they had copied D P claimed a great deal of "kill, Budgment, e,perience and work had gone into de1i"ing the coupon D P had to "elect from the 1ery great 1ariety of po""i!le wager" tho"e that would appeal to the punter while !eing profita!le to the P, and had then to arrange and de"cri!e the "elected wager" in an attracti1e way on the coupon D P claimed copyright in their coupon and alleged infringement !y the appellant" IF D 6ow can a court identify, if a literary work i" not literally copied, that there wa" a "u!"tantial copying of the literary workG 2id the P ha1e a copyright, and if "o, wa" it infringedG QF D Je", for P, copyright wa" infringed %F D 2 argued they only copied the heading" or the arrangement of the li"t", where no copyright "u!"i"ted D 6owe1er, the court held that thi" approach i" incorrect !ecau"e it ri"k" mi""ing the originality of the work a" a whole D >If a per"on doe" not copy, the H8(s+,32 1:(+:(. :( :*6 /34,(6 * s89s+*2+,*5 4*.+ 6(4(26s 78/: 73.( 32 +:( H8*5,+0 +:*2 32 +:( H8*2+,+0 3< 1:*+ :( :*s +*;(2> D >The /3..(/+ *44.3*/: ,2 6(/,6,2) ,< +:(.( ,s ,2<.,2)(7(2+ 3< /340.,):+ ,2 * 5,+(.*.0 /374,5*+,32

'&
,s <,.s+ +3 6(+(.7,2( 1:(+:(. +:( 13.; *s * 1:35( ,s (2+,+5(6 +3 /340.,):+, and, "econd, to en;uire whether the part reproduced !y the defendant i" a "u!"tantial part of the wholeC !ut it i" not the correct approach to di""ect the work into fragment" and, if the fragment" are not entitled to copyright, to deduce that the whole compilation could not !e "o entitled> D 6ere, there i" /340.,):+ ,2 +:( *..*2)(7(2+ 3< +:( <3.7 and how the li"t i" put together, which wa" key to the originality of the !etting coupon D etting of the !et" couldn:t !e "eparated from creating an attracti1e !etting coupon D %fter the work of deciding the wager" had !een done, there "till remained the further ta"k, re;uiring con"idera!le "kill, la!our and Budgment, of e,pre""ing and pre"enting the cho"en wager" for the eye of the cu"tomerC accordingly there wa" copyright in the re"pondent": coupon D (n the fact" the copying of the re"pondent": coupon !y the appellant" amounted to reproduction of a "u!"tantial part of the compilation, and accordingly there wa" infringement of the re"pondent": copyright !y the appellant" D e;uence of the heading" on the form" wa" enough for copyright infringement, !ecau"e the ;uality @not ;uantityA wa" copied a" to how the form wa" pre"ented to the general pu!lic D BF are we really protecting "omething original when pu!lic info i" put into a formG D UniversityF "omething that i" worth copying i" worth protecting D Therefore, the way "omething i" framed i" often original and therefore worth protecting 7F D W:(2 *ss(ss,2) 1:(+:(. +:(.( ,s *2 ,2<.,2)(7(2+ 3< /340.,):+ ,2 * 5,+(.*.0 /374,5*+,32, <,.s+ s(( ,< +:( 13.; ,s 3.,),2*5, +:(2 6(+(.7,2( 1:(+:(. +:( 4*.+ 038 *.( +*;,2) 13856 9( * As89s+*2+,*5 4*.+A 3< +:( 13.; KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 2% TO PERFOR$ THE WOR& IN PUBLIC D /oth the ;ue"tion what it mean" to >perform> a work, and what amount" to performing it >in pu!lic>, ha1e !een the "u!Bect of litigation, !ut the precedent" ha1e !een rendered largely o!"olete !y amendment" to the Copyright -"tF 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >4(.<3.7*2/(> mean" any acou"tic or 1i"ual repre"entation of a work, performerN" performance, "ound recording or communication "ignal, including * .(4.(s(2+*+,32 7*6( 90 7(*2s 3< *20 7(/:*2,/*5 ,2s+.87(2+, .*6,3 .(/(,-,2) s(+ 3. +(5(-,s,32 .(/(,-,2) s(+ > D >.(/(,-,2) 6(-,/(> V7epealed, $&&*, c. --, ". #&W !#1% C340.,):+ ,2 13.;s D >+or the purpo"e" of thi" %ct, ScopyrightT, ,2 .(5*+,32 +3 * 13.;, 7(*2s +:( s35( .,):+ to produce or reproduce the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in any material form whate1er, +3 4(.<3.7 +:( 13.; 3. *20 s89s+*2+,*5 4*.+ +:(.(3< ,2 4895,/ or, if the work i" unpu!li"hed, to pu!li"h the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof, and include" the "ole right of @cA in the ca"e of a no1el or other nonDdramatic work, or of an arti"tic work, to /32-(.+ ,+ ,2+3 * 6.*7*+,/ 13.;, 90 1*0 3< 4(.<3.7*2/( ,2 4895,/ or otherwi"e, @eA in the ca"e of any literary, dramatic, mu"ical or arti"tic work, to .(4.368/(, *6*4+ *26 4895,/50 4.(s(2+ +:( 13.; *s * /,2(7*+3).*4:,/ 13.;> D ieF if you were to perform 9ar and Pea"e in pu!lic @fA in the ca"e of any literary, dramatic, mu"ical or arti"tic work, to /37782,/*+( +:( 13.; +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32> D P35,/0 .*+,32*5(F for the"e, the copyright owner only lo"e" money if the work i" performed in pu!lic D In other area", any reproduction @pu!lic or pri1ateA i" infringement !ecau"e it take" away 1alue from the copyright owner unle"" you are protected !y the fair dealing e,ception" D The ne,t ca"e @pre1iou"ly in note" under fi,ation dealt with whether li1e T8 !roadca"t" were >work">A, al"o di"cu""ed whether film" of foot!all game", which were dramatic work", were performed in pu!lic D %n"wer i" that >in pu!lic> or >to the pu!lic> i" Budged mainly on the !a"i" of whether the audience wa" a pri1ate @ieF dome"ticA gathering D N3+(F !ack then, there were no telecommunication" pro1i"ion" in the Copyright -"t D N3+(F while Cameron Q. hold" li1e T8 game" at home are not >in pu!lic>, "tatute "ay" otherwi"e now

*)

Canadian Ad*ira Cor&. v. +ediffusion ,nc. (19-) ./. Ct.)C#ive '? games at home not 7in publi"7 +F D Canadian %dmiral got e,clu"i1e right" to !roadca"t li1e home and taped away %louette" game" D 7ediffu"ion picked up P:" foot!all game" !y antenna and >rediffu"ed> them to it" own "u!"cri!er" D P didn:t get paid for thi", and "ought declaration it owned copyright in the li1e >teleca"t production"> D 2 argued no copyright "u!"i"ted in any of the teleca"t" "pon"ored !y P, and if it did, no infringement IF D .a" the di"play of tele1i"ed image" in 7ediffu"ion:" "howroom a performance >in pu!lic>G QF D Je" @ca"e "u!"e;uently o1errulednow wider 1iew of >in pu!lic> include" people watching T8 at home, !ut Cameron Q.:" re1iew of pa"t ca"e law importantA %F D 5ere performance i" not enoughC in order to find that plaintiff:" right wa" infringed, the Court mu"t find that the performance wa" >in pu!lic> D Cameron Q. re1iew" pa"t authority and find" no >"ugge"tion that a performance in a pri1ate home where the performance i" gi1en, heard or "een !y only mem!er" of the immediate hou"ehold, could !e con"idered a" a performance in pu!lic> D 6owe1er, anything out"ide of the home, e1en to a "elect circle, might !e con"idered >in pu!lic> D ieF In Performing .ight So"iety, a performance in a lounge of a hotel wa" a performance in pu!lic !ecau"e it wa" open to any mem!er" of the pu!lic who cared to !e gue"t" of the hotel D ieF In *u"! v. Bates, a performance !y nur"e" in a ho"pital to "taff mem!er" wa" not in pu!lic !ecau"e it wa" of a dome"tic or ;ua"iDdome"tic nature @like a family circle or circle of friend"A D BF today, a group that !ig might !e con"idered >in pu!lic>, e"pecially if "hown to all patient" D The te"t to !e applied i" >W:*+ ,s +:( /:*.*/+(. 3< +:( *86,(2/(G> D 6ere, the pro!lem i" that the >pu!lic> i"n:t togetherpeople are recei1ing the telecommunication in different place", at home, at !ar", and "o oni" that >in pu!lic>G D 6ere, there i" no e1idence whate1er e,cept that the teleca"t" of the film" in the home" and apartment" of the "u!"cri!er" of defendant were "een !y them, pre"uma!ly only the hou"eholder" D The /:*.*/+(. 3< +:( *86,(2/( 1*s +:(.(<3.( * 48.(50 637(s+,/ 32( *26 +:( 4(.<3.7*2/( ,2 (*/: /*s( 1*s 23+ * 4(.<3.7*2/( A,2 4895,/A D Cameron Q. hold" it i" not"ince o1erruled !y !oth common law and "tatute D The s,+8*+,32, :31(-(., ,s 6,<<(.(2+ ,2 .()*.6 +3 6(<(26*2+Bs s*5(s *26 s:31.337 ,2 $32+.(*5 D It wa" open to the pu!lic and on 1ariou" occa"ion" mem!er" of that pu!lic "aw there film teleca"t" of plaintiff:" !roadca"t on tation C/+T D There wa" nothing there of a dome"tic or ;ua"iDdome"tic nature and it wa" a performance >in pu!lic> and an infringement !y defendant of plaintiff:" right in the cinematograph film" D 2amage" were !a"ed on thi" pu!lic 1iewing 7F D T:( H8(s+,32 1:(+:(. *2 (2+(.+*,27(2+ ,s ),-(2 ,2 4895,/ 3. ,2 4.,-*+( 6(4(26s s35(50 8432 +:( /:*.*/+(. 3< +:( *86,(2/( #2*..31 -,(1 3< A,2 4895,/A, s89s(H8(2+50 3-(..85(6% D The narrow 1iew of Spu!lic !roadca"tT applied in thi" ca"e ha" "ince !een o1erruled D ee ".'.-@$A@aA, where a performance to a clo"ed circle in an apartmentHhotel i" a pu!lic performance D ee Canadian Cable 'elevision -ssn. v. Canada, which held that a performance !eamed out to the pu!lic at large i" a performance in pu!lic, e1en if they all 1iewed the !roadca"t at home D Therefore, thi" i" like +(5(/37782,/*+,32 2(8+.*5,+0pro1i"ion" and the common law catch !roadca"t" whether they are 1iewed in pri1ate or in pu!lic D %l"o, there were amendment" to the Copyright -"t in $&&* to keep telecommunication of mu"ical work" under ".*@$A@fA and not under the performance rightF 2.! T(5(/37782,/*+,32 D >% per"on who communicate" a work or other "u!BectDmatter to the pu!lic !y +(5(/37782,/*+,32 63(s 23+ 90 +:*+ */+ *532( 4(.<3.7 ,+ ,2 4895,/ , nor !y that act alone i" deemed to authori<e it" performance in pu!lic> D In other word", telecommunication in pu!lic doe" not e;ual performance in pu!lic D Qu"t a hou"ekeeping pro1i"ionin"tead, put" infringement under a different pro1i"ion @GA D Therefore, the telecommunication right now em!race" mu"ical work" !ecau"e the definition of >mu"ical work> ha" !een !roadened to include all form" of "uch work", including acou"tic or electromagnetic form", not Bu"t graphical form"

*$
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK !% TO CO$$UNICATE THE WOR& TO THE PUBLIC BY TELECO$$UNICATION D ee the Copyright -"tF 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >6(5,-(.0> V7epealed, $&&#, c. '-, ". $W D >4(.<3.7*2/(> mean" any acou"tic or 1i"ual repre"entation of a work, performerN" performance, "ound recording or communication "ignal, including a repre"entation made !y mean" of any mechanical in"trument, radio recei1ing "et or tele1i"ion recei1ing "et> D >+(5(/37782,/*+,32> mean" any tran"mi""ion of "ign", "ignal", writing, image" or "ound" or intelligence of any nature !y wire, radio, 1i"ual, optical or other electromagnetic "y"tem> D S8C-NF telecommunication occur" when mu"ic i" tran"mitted from the ho"t "er1er to the end u"er 2.4#1% C37782,/*+,32 +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32 D >F3. +:( 48.43s(s 3< /37782,/*+,32 +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32 , @aA 4(.s32s 1:3 3//840 *4*.+7(2+s, :3+(5 .337s 3. 61(55,2) 82,+s s,+8*+(6 ,2 +:( s*7( 98,56,2) *.( 4*.+ 3< +:( 4895,/, *26 * /37782,/*+,32 ,2+(26(6 +3 9( .(/(,-(6 (@/58s,-(50 90 s8/: 4(.s32s ,s * /37782,/*+,32 +3 +:( 4895,/C D Thi" catche" "ituation" "uch a" in the -dmiral ca"ecan:t "ay a performance i" pri1ate !ecau"e it:" all in one !uilding or only tenant"Hoccupant" watching @!A * 4(.s32 1:3s( 3250 */+ ,2 .(s4(/+ 3< +:( /37782,/*+,32 3< * 13.; 3. 3+:(. s89=(/+? 7*++(. +3 +:( 4895,/ /32s,s+s 3< 4.3-,6,2) +:( 7(*2s 3< +(5(/37782,/*+,32 2(/(ss*.0 <3. *23+:(. 4(.s32 +3 s3 /37782,/*+( +:( 13.; 3. 3+:(. s89=(/+?7*++(. 63(s 23+ /37782,/*+( +:*+ 13.; 3. 3+:(. s89=(/+?7*++(. +3 +:( 4895,/C and D Jou are not telecommunicating a work to the pu!lic if your only act in the proce"" i" to pro1ide the mean" of telecommunication nece""ary for another to communicate @cA where a per"on, a" part of @iA a network, within the meaning of the /roadca"ting %ct, who"e operation" re"ult in the communication of work" or other "u!BectDmatter to the pu!lic, or @iiA any programming undertaking who"e operation" re"ult in the communication of work" or other "u!BectDmatter to the pu!lic, tran"mit" !y telecommunication a work or other "u!BectDmatter that i" communicated to the pu!lic !y another per"on who i" not a retran"mitter of a "ignal within the meaning of "u!"ection *$@$A, the tran"mi""ion and communication of that work or other "u!BectD matter !y tho"e per"on" con"titute a "ingle communication to the pu!lic for which tho"e per"on" are Bointly and "e1erally lia!le> !#1% C340.,):+ ,2 13.;s D >+or the purpo"e" of thi" %ct, ScopyrightT, in relation to a work, mean" the "ole right to produce or reproduce the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in any material form whate1er, to perform the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in pu!lic or, if the work i" unpu!li"hed, to pu!li"h the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof, and include" the "ole right @dA in the ca"e of a literary, dramatic or mu"ical work, to make any "ound recording, cinematograph film or other contri1ance !y mean" of which the work may !e mechanically reproduced or performed> @fA in the ca"e of any literary, dramatic, mu"ical or arti"tic work, to /37782,/*+( +:( 13.; +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32> D C340.,):+ B3*.6 le1ie" royaltie", a" defined !y tariff" !y the /oard de1elop" D (C%9 often applie" to the /oard for appro1al of particular tariff" D (nce the /oard appro1e" the tariff, it ha" the force of law, "o while the pu!lic ha" a licence to play particular mu"ical work", e1ery time "ome!ody in pu!lic doe" they mu"t pay a certain royalty D +ir"t S8C-N ca"e i" a!out tariff" for internet mu"ic downloadingC "econd i" a!out !uying ringtone" D The ne,t ca"e rai"e" the ;ue"tion of who "hould compen"ate mu"ical compo"er" and arti"t" for their Canadian copyright in mu"ic downloaded in Canada from a foreign country 1ia the Internet

*'
< S8C-N dealt with when the Canadian copyright ownerN" telecommunication right applied to Internet tran"mi""ion", and the an"wer wa" that the law applied whene1er the communication had a real and "u!"tantial connection with Canada, which i" a function of the place or origin, the place of receipt, or the ho"t "er1er, !ut i" not decided !y any of tho"e factor" e,clu"i1ely S7CAN v. Canadian Assn. of ,nternet Providers ('(() SCC)C/SPs unsu""essfully sued for helping users +F D (C%9 want" to collect royaltie" from I P" located in Canada !ecau"e, it argue", they infringe the copyright owner:" e,clu"i1e "tatutory right to communicate work to the pu!lic !y telecommunication and to authori<e "uch communication @ea"ier than collecting from foreign content pro1ider"A D +ee i" called Tariff '', and it:" to !e le1ied on indi1idual acce"" to mu"ical work" on the internet D 7oyaltie" recei1ed in the form of fee" from I P" whene1er a mu"ical work part of (C%9:" li!rary @almo"t e1ery piece of workA wa" communicated on the internet in Canada D cheme wa" to !e admini"tered !y the Copyright /oard admini"trati1e tri!unal, !ut had difficulty de1i"ing of how to frame what con"titute" internet communication in Canada D They conclude that telecommunication take" place when "ignal goe" from ho"t "er1er to end u"er D Pro!lem i" that there are often foreign uploader" and foreign downloader"conclude that !a"i" for applying Copyright -"t i" whether the telecommunicaiton originate" from a "er1er in Canada D C%IP i" a !road coalition of Canadian I P" and argue that they neither >communicate> nor >authori<e> anyone to communicate mu"ical work" !ecau"e they are merely a conduit and do not regulate the content of the Internet communication" which they tran"mit @under ".'.-@!A of the -"tA D 6owe1er, they do >caching>, which i" a copy of the file "tored on the I P" "y"tem D If one per"on u"e" a file and a copy i" cached, it" ea"ier for "u!"e;uent u"er" to ha1e acce"", thu" increa"ing "peed and reducing co"t"only "tored for a "hort period of time D +ederal Court of %ppeal found that copyright may !e impo"ed in re"pect of any telecommunication that ha" a real and "u!"tantial connection with Canada, and i" not re"tricted only to an Internet communication from a ho"t "er1er located in Canada D 6owe1er, the maBority held that where an Internet er1ice Pro1ider in Canada create" a >cache> of Internet material, e1en for purely technical rea"on", they no longer act a" a mere intermediary and thu" !ecome a participant in the copyright infringement and are lia!le IF D hould Canadian I P" !e "u!Bect to Tariff '' a" pro1iding "er1er" in CanadaG .hen can a communication !e "aid to !e Canadian if the "er1er i" out"ide the countryG 2oe" keeping a cache mo1e !eyond the protection of ".'.-@$A@!AG QF D 9ot lia!le if I P i" only a content neutral conduit ".'.-@$A@!A of the Copyright -"t D Communication can occur in Canada when there i" a real and "u!"tantial connection with Canada D o could !e communication in Canada if come" from o1er"ea" "er1er and recei1ed in Canadian home D 2i""ent "aid that "hould only !e a communication in Canada if originate" from a "er1er in Canada %F D Internet pre"ent" challenge" to national copyright law", which are typically territorial in nature D /y enacting ". '.-@$A@!A of the Copyright -"t, Parliament made a policy di"tinction !etween tho"e who u"e the Internet to "upply or o!tain content "uch a" >cheap mu"ic> and tho"e who are part of the infra"tructure of the Internet it"elf D 2ecided there i" a pu!lic intere"t in encouraging intermediarie" that make telecommunication" po""i!le to e,pand and impro1e their operation" without the threat of copyright infringement D ".'.-@$A@!A indicate" that in Parliament:" 1iew, ,2+(.2(+ ,2+(.7(6,*.,(s *.( 23+ A8s(.sA *+ *55, *+ 5(*s+ <3. 48.43s(s 3< +:( Co&yri2#t Act D %" a matter of legi"lati1e policy, Parliament doe"n:t impo"e lia!ility for infringement on intermediarie" who "upply "oftware and hardware to facilitate u"e of the internet D 6ow a!out what telecommunication mean" in the internet ageG D % telecommunication occur" when mu"ic i" tran"mitted from the ho"t "er1er to the end u"er D %n Internet communication that cro""e" one or more national !oundarie" >occur"> in more than one country, at a minimum, the country of tran"mi""ion and the country of reception D T3 3//8. ,2 C*2*6*, * /37782,/*+,32 2((6 23+ 3.,),2*+( <.37 * s(.-(. 53/*+(6 ,2 C*2*6* D 6ow a!out whether the Copyright -"t applie" to international participant"G D 2epend" on whether there i" a "ufficient connection !etween thi" country and the communication in ;ue"tion for Canada to apply it" law" con"i"tently with the principle" of order and fairne"" D %pply the pre"umption that Parliament legi"late" intraterritorially

**
D A .(*5 *26 s89s+*2+,*5 /322(/+,32 +3 C*2*6* ,s s8<<,/,(2+ +3 s8443.+ +:( *445,/*+,32 3< 38. C340.,):+ A/+ +3 ,2+(.2*+,32*5 I2+(.2(+ +.*2s7,ss,32s ,2 * 1*0 +:*+ 1,55 *//3.6 1,+: ,2+(.2*+,32*5 /37,+0 D In term" of the Internet, rele1ant connecting factor" e"ta!li"hing an ade;uate connection with Canada would include situs of the content pro1ider, ho"t "er1er, intermediarie" and the end u"er D ince a "er1er i" "imultaneou"ly happening in many countie", it:" difficult to apply D 6owe1er, they look to ? %, 3urope, and %u"tralia regime" where they ha1e regulated the I P, the place of tran"mi""ion, and the place of reception, and can:t "ay that telecommunication i" happening in one place at the e,clu"ion of another D 5ake" thing" difficult to compo"e a tariff for a Copyright /oardmu"t "imply meet the real and "u!"tantial connection re;uirement D .hat make" an I P lia!leG D % content pro1ider i" not immune from copyright lia!ility !y 1irtue only of the fact that it employ" a ho"t "er1er out"ide the countrydi"agree" with Copyright /oard holding D Con1er"ely, a ho"t "er1er doe" not attract lia!ility Bu"t !ecau"e it i" located in Canada D Lia!ility of a ho"t "er1er "hould !e 6(+(.7,2(6 90 1:(+:(. 3. 23+ +:( :3s+ s(.-(. 5,7,+s ,+s(5< +3 A* /3268,+A @or contentDneutralA function and there!y ;ualifie" for protection under ". '.-@$A@!A D .ith re"pect to mo"t tran"mi""ion", 3250 4(.s32 1:3 43s+s * 78s,/*5 13.; /37782,/*+(s ,+ D C% concluded that u"e of caching amounted to a function out"ide of ".'.-@$A@!A, !ut CC di"agree" D (C%9 argued that >caching> made the I P" "tep out"ide of the >conduit> role !y authori<ing u"er" to u"e the internet for illegitimate purpo"e" D 6owe1er, CC hold" that creation of >cache> copy i" une,pected con"e;uence of impro1ement" in Internet technology, i" content neutral, and in light of ". '.-@$A@!A of the -"t ought not to ha1e any legal !earing on the communication !etween the content pro1ider and the end u"er D AC*/:,2)A ,s 6,/+*+(6 90 +:( 2((6 +3 6(5,-(. <*s+(. *26 73.( (/3237,/ s(.-,/(, *26 s:3856 23+, 1:(2 826(.+*;(2 3250 <3. s8/: +(/:2,/*5 .(*s32s, *++.*/+ /340.,):+ 5,*9,5,+0 and therefore come" within the "helter of ". '.-@$A@!A D 2id the I P" 1iolate ".*@$A !y authori<ing a communication !y telecommunicationG 9o D imilar to CC+, where the copyright owner" a""erted that making a1aila!le a photocopier !y the Law ociety of ?pper Canada implicitly >authori<ed> copyright infringment D Parliament made clear that the mere pro1ider of a facility "hould not !e lia!le D I P:" ;2315(6)( +:*+ s37(32( 7,):+ 9( 8s,2) /32+(2+?2(8+.*5 +(/:2353)0 +3 -,35*+( /340.,):+ 23+ 2(/(ss*.,50 s8<<,/,(2+ +3 /32s+,+8+( *8+:3.,D*+,32, which re;uire" demon"tration that the defendant ga1e appro1al to, "anction, permit, fa1our, or encourage the infringing conduct D O9,+(.F notice of infringing content, and a failure to re"pond !y >taking it down>, may in "ome circum"tance" lead to a finding of >authori<ation> D Therefore, authori<ation could !e inferred in a proper ca"e, !ut all would depend on the fact" 7F D S3 532) *s *2 I2+(.2(+ ,2+(.7(6,*.0 63(s 23+ ,+s(5< (2)*)( ,2 */+s +:*+ .(5*+( +3 +:( /32+(2+ 3< +:( /37782,/*+,32, 98+ /32<,2(s ,+s(5< +3 4.3-,6,2) A* /3268,+A <3. ,2<3.7*+,32 /37782,/*+(6 90 3+:(.s 90 .(7*,2,2) A/32+(2+?2(8+.*5A, +:(2 ,+ 1,55 <*55 1,+:,2 s. 2.4#1%#9% 3< +:( Co&yri2#t Act D +ollowing thi" ca"e, Tariff '' wa" appro1ed, !ut only dealing with audio "treaming and we!a"ting D The uploading and downloading definition" were not addre""ed D Therefore, the Buri"dictional i""ue i" not dealt with in the tariff it"elf, apparently !ecau"e it:" aimed at Canadian !u"ine""e" that u"e the internet to "ell or we!ca"t mu"ic 6 "ummary point" from S8C-NF aA Internet communication R communication to pu!lic !A Communication to pu!lic deemed to ha1e occurred in Canada where it ha" a real and "u!"tantial connection to Canada cA +actor" rele1ant to applying te"tF location of ho"t "er1er, intermediary, end u"er, content pro1ider dA 9o ;ue"tion of automatic lia!ilittdecided !y !alancing factor" ca"e !y ca"e eA Caching i" an idea that i" nece""ary regarding technology and nece""ary for u"e of net !ecau"e of optimal functiontherefore not an infringement of copyright fA If I P !ecome" aware that copyrightDinfringing material, they mu"t re"trict acce"" of u"er" and there i" an o!ligation on I P to re"trict

*-

D BF S8C-N / "how" how inade;uate the current Copyright -"t i" for the modern communication age D 5u"ic downloading i" a coDordinated effort !etween uploader", downloader", and I P" D -"t doe"n:t "ay who i" lia!le for internet communication", only a general pro1i"ion for telecommunication" that doe"n:t "ay who i" doing the communicating, "o ca"e" continue to !e a!out who i" doing the communicating which get" nowhere D S8C-N refer" to foreign copyright regime" under 9/P8, which Canada "igned !ut not yet ratified D If a new -"t had a >making a1aila!le> right, it might !e ea"ier to locate where infringement happen", rather than the current telecommunication right, which in S8C-N the CC hold" i" reciprocal and happen" where the communication ha" a real and "u!"tantial connection with Canada D Currently, it:" (O to copy onto a !lank medium on which a le1y ha" !een paid D Pre1iou" !ill would ha1e e,panded telecommunication definition to include making a1aila!le of a work, thu" it i" aimed at !ringing Canada under .IP(:" .CT and .PPT treatie" D 9ote that the >making a1aila!le> right wa" a1aila!le in the /ill CD6) @'))-D)5A !ut not /ill CD6$ @'))#D)0A, pro!a!ly !ecau"e the right i" already implicit in the telecommunication right from the ca"e law, a" in the following ca"e D 5ain critici"m of /ill CD6$ i" the new right" @i.e. e,ception" to infringementA that the !ill would ha1e gi1en to u"er" are enBoyed only !y the grace of the copyright owner, "ince the owner can at any time authori<e the u"e of technological mea"ure" to defeat them D N3+(F go to the annotated "ylla!u" for more detailed note" regarding thi" D 5o"t recent ca"e law ha" focu"ed on whether electronic communication i" >to the pu!lic> e1en if the audience are all "itting at home !y their T8" or their computer" or their cellphone" D %n"wer i" !a"ically >ye"> if the recipient" are "ignificant in num!er, a" in the following ca"e D In S8C-N, didn:t matter that mem!er" of the audience might each !e recei1ing the communication at different time", or that they might acce"" the communication at time" other than when it wa" "ent D In the ne,t ca"e, (C%9 propo"ed a ringtone royalty @appro1ed !y Copyright /oardA on the tran"mi""ion of ringtone" from pro1ider to u"er D It concluded that the way that ringtone" were "ent to u"er" ;ualifie" a" communication a" telecommunication to the pu!lic, thu" any >making a1aila!le> right would fall under the telecommunication pro1i"ion Canadian 8ire ess Te eco**unications Assn. v. S7CAN ('((4 9ed. Ct. A&&) C.ingtones get levied +F D Copyright /oard made Tariff '- to collect royaltie" on the wirele"" tran"mi""ion of ringtone" from wirele"" carrier" to cellphone" at the re;ue"t of cellphone owner" D /oard held that the tran"mi""ion of a mu"ical ringtone to a cellphone in the circum"tance" "tated in Tariff '- i" a communication falling within ".*@$A@fA of the Copyright -"t D C.T% challenge" the legality of Tariff '- either !ecau"e the tran"mi""ion of a ringtone to a cellphone i" not a >communication>, or that it i" not a >communication to the pu!lic> D They al"o argue that they already paid (C%9 for the reproduction right (C%9 argue that they are collecting the royalty for performance in pu!lic of the tune" when they tran"mit the ringtone" to the cu"tomer, and the pro1ider" only paid for one of the u"e" IF D I" Tariff '- 1alidG I" there telecommunication to the pu!lic when a ringtone i" "ent to an indi1idual u"er on re;ue"tG QF D Je", for (C%9, tran"mi""ion of ringtone" !y wirele"" carrier" to their cu"tomer" on re;ue"t i" a communication to the pu!lic !y telecommunication within the meaning of ".*@$A@fA %F D C.T% make" two argument"F aA P.,7*.0 T.*2s7,ss,32 63(s 23+ (H8*5 /37782,/*+,32 D C.T% argue" that word >communication> include" only tran"mi""ion" that are intended to !e heard or percei1ed !y the recipient "imultaneou"ly with or immediately upon tran"mi""ion D 6owe1er, thi" i" +33 2*..31communication i" "imply pa""ing from one to another D The fact that the technology u"ed for the tran"mi""ion doe" not permit the cellphone owner to li"ten to the mu"ic during the tran"mi""ion doe" not mean there i" no communication D In"tead, .(/(,4+ 3< +:( +.*2s7,ss,32 /3745(+(s +:( /37782,/*+,32 @"ame a" S8C-NA

*5
!A A5+(.2*+,-( T.*2s7,ss,32s *.( 4.,-*+( /37782,/*+,32 *26 +:(.(<3.( 23+ 4895,/ D 6owe1er, !a"ed on CC+, not enough to a"k whether there i" oneDtoDone communication D Thi" i" !ecau"e a "erie" of tran"mi""ion" of the "ame mu"ical work to numerou" different recipient" may !e a communication to the pu!lic if the recipient" compri"e the pu!lic D 6ere, there are a s(.,(s 3< +.*2s7,ss,32s 3< +:( s*7( 13.;s +3 6,<<(.(2+ .(/,4,(2+s, *26 +:8s *7382+s +3 /37782,/*+,32 +3 +:( 4895,/ D .hy "hould 5D"econd recogni<a!le chunk" of a copyrighted work !e infringementG D >.hat i" worth copying i" worth protecting> D Infringement of copyright depend" on ;uality, not ;uantity 7F D O2(?32?32( +.*2s7,ss,32s /*2 9( /37782,/*+,32 +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32 9(/*8s( +:( .(/,4,(2+ ,s * 5*.)( (238): ).384 +3 /32s+,+8+( /37782,/*+,32 +3 +:( 4895,/ KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 4% TO $A&E A SOUND RECORDING, CINE$ATOGRAPH FIL$ OR OTHER CONTRI'ANCE D ee the Copyright -"t, ".*, where the right to allow another per"on to record i" one of the right" that the copyright holder ha"F !#1% C340.,):+ ,2 13.;s D >+or the purpo"e" of thi" %ct, ScopyrightT, in relation to a work, mean" the "ole right to produce or reproduce the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in any material form whate1er, to perform the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in pu!lic or, if the work i" unpu!li"hed, to pu!li"h the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof, and include" the "ole right @dA in the ca"e of a literary, dramatic or mu"ical work, to 7*;( *20 s3826 .(/3.6,2), /,2(7*+3).*4: <,57 3. 3+:(. /32+.,-*2/( 90 7(*2s 3< 1:,/: +:( 13.; 7*0 9( 7(/:*2,/*550 .(4.368/(6 3. 4(.<3.7(6> D Therefore, if you make a recording of a performance without permi""ion, you infringe owner:" copyright D If you ha1e gi1en permi""ion and e,erci"e your ".*@$A@dA, and "ome!ody ha" recorded your work, the performer ha" copyright in the performer:" performance, while the copier get" the copyright in the "ound recording it"elf D Therefore, recording a performance on a cellphone during a concert without permi""ion i" prohi!ited KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK I'. $ORAL RIGHTS IN A WOR& D 5oral right" do not !elong to the copyright ownerC they are s35(50 +:( 4.34(.+0 3< +:( /340.,):+ *8+:3. D They 7*0 9( 1*,-(6 ,2 1:35( 3. ,2 4*.+, 98+ 7*0 23+ 9( *ss,)2(6 D ource i" the Berne Convention, where article 6@!i"A protect" two right"F attri!ution and integrity D The moral right" that an author hold" include"F aA T:( .,):+ +3 +:( ,2+().,+0 3< +:( 13.; s.14.1#1% D In many countrie" thi" i" known a" the right of >reputation> D Thi" include" ".'0.'@$A preBudicing the honourHreputation of the author, which include"F iA D,s+3.+,2), 78+,5*+,2), 3. 3+:(.1,s( 736,<0,2) +:( 13.; D ".'0.'@'AF any modification to a painting @not photograph of a paintingA, "culpture, or engra1ing, any modification i" an infringement of an author:" moral right" D 6owe1er, thi" i" ;ualified !y ".'0.'@*A, where mo1ing the work, reframing the work, or good faith "tep" to con"er1e the work do not con"titute modifying the work for the purpo"e" of infringement the right to the integrity of the work iiA Us(6 ,2 *ss3/,*+,32 1,+: * 4.368/+ 3. /*8s( D ieF high art u"ed to peddle fa"t food D %"ide from painting" or "culpture", moral right" are infringed in literaryHmu"icalHdramatic work" are only infringed if modified piece" of the work preBudice the honour or reputation of the author D Integrity i" linked to the reputation of the author, "o litigant" mu"t "how that the modification i" likely to cau"e damage !A T:( .,):+ +3 9( *ss3/,*+(6 1,+: +:( 13.; 90 2*7( ,< ,+Bs .(*s32*95( s.14.1#1% D Thi" i" often referred to a" the >attri!ution>, >identification>, or the >paternali"tic> right

*6
D Therefore, the copyright author can complain if the copyright owner reproduce" without proper attri!utionHcredit to the author D ee "ection $- and "ection '0.$D'0.' of the Copyright -"t for guidanceF 14.1#1% $3.*5 .,):+s D >The *8+:3. 3< * 13.; :*s, s89=(/+ +3 s(/+,32 28.2, +:( .,):+ +3 +:( ,2+().,+0 3< +:( 13.; and, in connection with an act mentioned in "ection * @any infringement of copyrightA, the right, where rea"ona!le in the circum"tance", to !e *ss3/,*+(6 with the work a" it" author !y name or under a p"eudonym and the right to remain anonymou"> D Therefore, technically moral right" are not part of copyright !ut are a di"tinct group of right" that !elong, not to the owner of copyright, !ut to the author of a work D 6owe1er, ".'0.' on infringement limit" the moral right" a1aila!le in ".$-.$@$A 14.1#2% N3 *ss,)27(2+ 3< 73.*5 .,):+s D >$3.*5 .,):+s 7*0 23+ 9( *ss,)2(6 98+ 7*0 9( 1*,-(6 ,2 1:35( 3. ,2 4*.+> 14.1#!% N3 1*,-(. 90 *ss,)27(2+ D >%n *ss,)27(2+ 3< /340.,):+ ,2 * 13.; 63(s 23+ 90 +:*+ */+ *532( /32s+,+8+( * 1*,-(. 3< *20 73.*5 .,):+s> 14.1#4% E<<(/+ 3< 1*,-(. D >.here a wai1er of any moral right i" made in fa1our of an owner or a licen"ee of copyright, it may 9( ,2-3;(6 90 *20 4(.s32 *8+:3.,D(6 90 +:( 312(. 3. 5,/(2s(( +3 8s( +:( 13.;, unle"" there i" an indication to the contrary in the wai1er> D Thu", if a copyright owner get" a wai1er from the author, they can pa"" it on a" well 14.2#1% T(.7 D >$3.*5 .,):+s ,2 .(s4(/+ 3< * 13.; s89s,s+ <3. +:( s*7( +(.7 *s +:( /340.,):+ ,2 +:( 13.; > D Thu" term run" the "ame a" the copyright protection5) year" from the life of the author 14.2#2% S8//(ss,32 D >The moral right" in re"pect of a work pa"", on the death of it" author, to @aA the per"on to whom tho"e right" are "pecifically !e;ueathedC @!A where there i" no "pecific !e;ue"t of tho"e moral right" and the author die" te"tate in re"pect of the copyright in the work, the per"on to whom that copyright i" !e;ueathedC or @cA where there i" no per"on de"cri!ed in paragraph @aA or @!A, the per"on entitled to any other property in re"pect of which the author die" inte"tate> 28.1I2<.,2)(7(2+ )(2(.*550 D >A20 */+ 3. 37,ss,32 +:*+ ,s /32+.*.0 +3 *20 3< +:( 73.*5 .,):+s 3< +:( *8+:3. 3< * 13.; ,s, ,2 +:( *9s(2/( 3< /32s(2+ 90 +:( *8+:3., *2 ,2<.,2)(7(2+ 3< +:( 73.*5 .,):+s> D Thi" com!ine" with the two right" in ".$-.$@$A to define the nature of the right to the integrity of the work 28.2#1% N*+8.( 3< .,):+ 3< ,2+().,+0 D >The authorN" right to the ,2+().,+0 3< * 13.; ,s ,2<.,2)(6 3250 ,< +:( 13.; ,s, +3 +:( 4.(=86,/( 3< +:( :3238. 3. .(48+*+,32 3< +:( *8+:3., @aA di"torted, mutilated or otherwi"e modifiedC or @!A u"ed in a""ociation with a product, "er1ice, cau"e or in"titution> D In 'heberge, he couldn:t argue the reproduction wa" to the preBudice of hi" honour or reputation that thou"and" of copie" of hi" painting" are circulating on can1a"" 28.2#2% W:(.( 4.(=86,/( 6((7(6 D >In the ca"e of a 4*,2+,2), s/854+8.( 3. (2).*-,2), the preBudice referred to in "u!"ection @$A "hall !e 6((7(6 +3 :*-( 3//8..(6 *s * .(s85+ 3< *20 6,s+3.+,32, 78+,5*+,32 3. 3+:(. 736,<,/*+,32 3< +:( 13.;> D Thi" "ection "pecifie" when the right to the integrity of the work ha" !een infringed D In 'heberge, if thi" applied, any purcha"er of a po"ter that cut it up for per"onal u"e would !e infringing the author:" moral right" D 2ifference with ".'0.'@$A i" that with original painting", "culpture", or engra1ing", any modification preBudice" the author, !ut po"ter" are copie" anyway" 28.2#!% W:(2 13.; 23+ 6,s+3.+(6, (+/. D >+or the purpo"e" of thi" "ection, @aA a /:*2)( ,2 +:( 53/*+,32 of a work, the phy"ical mean" !y which a work i" e,po"ed or

*#
the phy"ical "tructure containing a work, or @!A s+(4s +*;(2 ,2 )336 <*,+: to re"tore or pre"er1e the work "hall not, !y that act alone, con"titute a di"tortion, mutilation or other modification of the work> D The ne,t ca"e i" a "hort ca"e regarding Chri"tma" ri!!on" around the neck of a gee"e in 3aton:" Center, and i" the only Canadian ca"e to actually hold "ome!ody lia!le for infringing moral right" Snow v. T#e .aton Centre Ltd. (194' 7nt. %i2# Ct.)C/nDun"tion granted for modifying against author +F D %rti"t commi""ioned to do a work called >In +light> for 3atonN" Center D 3atonN" placed =ma" decoration" on the "culpture, and the arti"t "ued to get decoration" remo1ed !ecau"e it offended integrity of hi" "culpture IF D 2id attachment of the ri!!on" to P:" "culpture preBudice the author:" honour or reputationG hould the application for the inBunction !e grantedG QF D Je", for P, inBunction granted !a"ed upon 1iolation of moral right" %F D 7i!!on" do modify P:" work, and P:" concern that thi" will !e preBudicial to hi" reputation i" rea"ona!le under the circum"tance" D BF now would ha1e an e1en ea"ier ride today !ecau"e preBudice to an arti"t:" honour or reputation i" now >deemed to ha1e occurred> whene1er a painting, "culpture, or engra1ing i" di"torted, mutilated or otherwi"e modified !a"ed on ".'0.'@'A D /efore the $&00 %ct, only inBunctionC after $&00 %ct, damage" would ha1e !een a1aila!le a" well 7F D P.(=86,/,2) +:( :3238. 3. .(48+*+,32 3< +:( *8+:3. ,2-35-(s s89=(/+,-( (5(7(2+ 3. =86)7(2+ 3< *8+:3. s3 532) *s ,+ ,s .(*s32*950 *..,-(6 *+ D In the ne,t ca"e, the authorHowner tried to argue that he "hould !e a!le to get a ".*0@$A remedy !a"ed on infringement of hi" moral right" !y the a""igneeF !8#1% R(/3-(.0 3< 43ss(ss,32 3< /34,(s, 45*+(s D > u!Bect to "u!"ection @'A, the owner of the copyright in a work or other "u!BectDmatter may @aA reco1er po""e""ion of all infringing copie" of that work or other "u!BectDmatter, and of all plate" u"ed or intended to !e u"ed for the production of infringing copie", and @!A take proceeding" for "ei<ure of tho"e copie" or plate" !efore Budgment if, under the law of Canada or of the pro1ince in which tho"e proceeding" are taken, a per"on i" entitled to take "uch proceeding", a" if tho"e copie" or plate" were the property of the copyright owner> D The ne,t ca"e "how" the court" reluctance to u"e economic right" for a moral right" purpo"e D It "how" the CC drawing a !alance !etween economic and moral right", and finding that the right claimed in 'heberge fell on the moral right" "ide of the line and "o wa" not included in economic right" D It al"o wa"nNt included in the moral right" !ecau"e there wa" no demon"tra!le preBudice to the honour or reputation of the arti"t !y the can1a" reproduction" of hi" work" T#e<er2e v. 5a erie $>art $u Petit C#a*& ain ,nc. ('((' SCC)CNo reprodu"tion ith different image +F D %rti"t a""igned to two po"ter manufacturer" the right to produce a limited num!er of po"ter", card" and other "tationery product" depicting the image" of "ome of the arti"t:" can1a""e" D The term" of the a""ignment included a pro1i"ion that the po"ter" could !e offered for "ale without re"triction a" to u"e, and four art gallerie" purcha"ed po"ter" lawfully manufactured under the term" of the a""ignment from the arti"t D The art gallerie" u"ed a chemical proce"" to lift the ink layer from the po"ter", lea1ing them !lank, and applied the ink layer to can1a""e" which they offered for "ale at a price le"" than the arti"t:" original can1a""e" @ieF take a po"ter and make a can1a"" with The!erge:" picture on itA D The!erge, outraged at the cheap can1a"" imitation" of hi" painting", o!tained a writ of "ei<ure and arranged to ha1e a !ailiff "ei<e the can1a"D!acked reproduction" from the art gallerie" on ground" that the can1a""e" were infringing copie" of the arti"t:" work" which the arti"t wa" entitled to reco1er under ". *0@$A of the Copyright -"t D 2uring cro""De,amination the arti"t confirmed that hi" di"pute with the art gallerie" wa" 23+ * H8(s+,32 3< 732(0N*.+,s+ s,7450 1,s:(6 +3 s+34 +:( )*55(.,(s from catering to a market for can1a"D

*0
!acked reproduction"arti"t wa" al"o unhappy that the reproduction" did not ha1e hi" name on D The!erge got an order at Eue!ec uperior Court for "ei<ure, didn:t litigate, and then the art gallerie" mo1ed to ;ua"h the "ei<urenow The!erge mu"t "how that hi" right" ha1e !een infringed D The!erge can:t find a ".*@$A right that wa" infringed, "o he claim" reproduction right in ".*@$A@aA IF D 6ad the arti"tN" economic @copyrightA right" !een infringed, i" "ei<ure allowed for !reach of moral right"G I" there reproduction of a work when a copy of a picture i" phy"ically po"ted onto a can1a""G QF D 9o, only moral right" infringed, and ".*0@$A doe"n:t allow "ei<ure when moral right" !reached D 9oteF all * +rench Budge" di""entedcommon law Budge" agree no reproduction took place %F D /innie Q. note" the Copyright -"t pro1ide" author" with economic and moral right" in their work" D The principal economic !enefit to author" under the Copyright %ct i" the right to produce or reproduce a work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in any material form D %lthough the arti"t a""igned hi" economic right" to make po"ter reproduction" of hi" can1a""e", he retained the right to !ring the action again"t the art gallerie" D The pre"ent !alance !etween the economic intere"t of the copyright holder and the proprietary intere"t of the purcha"ing pu!lic would !e "ignificantly altered to the pu!lic:" detriment if the di""ent:" conclu"ionHThe!erge:" argument would !e accepted @policy argument in fa1ourA D The moral right" e,tended to author" under the %ct are the una""igna!le right" of integrity in their work" and the right of author"hip of their work" D The 73.*5 .,):+ 3< ,2+().,+0 ,s ,2<.,2)(6 3250 ,< +:( 13.; ,s 736,<,(6 +3 +:( 4.(=86,/( 3< +:( :3238. 3. .(48+*+,32 3< +:( *8+:3. D Therefore, here the claim wa" really a!out moral right" than a!out the economic right" D %rti"t had to demon"trate a "tatutory right that o1errode the right of what the owner" of authori<ed po"ter" could otherwi"e do with their tangi!le property D The economic right" of copyright mu"t not !e read "o !roadly that they co1er the "ame ground" a" moral right", making the limitation" on moral right" impo"ed !y Parliament inoperati1e D /reach of copyright re;uire" copying, which mean" producing an additional copying D In other word", the .(4.368/+,32 .,):+ 3< /340.,):+ ,s +:( .,):+ +3 785+,450 /34,(s 3< * 13.; D 5aBority lean" again"t a !road interpretation of >reproduce>, "o that reproduction doe"n:t e,tend to economic right" rather than lea1ing it where it properly !elong" in moral right" D 31en if the new can1a" "u!"trate wa" con"idered to !e a fi,ation, the original work li1ed on in the >reDfi,ated> po"ter D There wa" no multiplication of copie" of the work and the fi,ation done wa" not an infringement of copyright D Parliament intended that the modification of a work without reproduction !e dealt with under the pro1i"ion" concerning moral right" rather than economic right" D To allow an author who o!Bected to modification of an authori<ed reproduction to rely on hi" or her economic right" would ena!le the author to "ide"tep the important re;uirement of preBudice to honour or reputation in order to e"ta!li"h infringement of the right of integrity D +urthermore, a moral right of de"tination, the right to control to a con"idera!le e,tent the u"e of authori<ed copie", would !e introduced into Canadian law without any "tatutory !a"i" D imilarly, an e,pan"i1e concept of a deri1ati1e work a" "et out in ?. . copyright legi"lation a" a work reca"t, tran"formed or adapted would al"o !e introduced into Canadian law without any "tatutory !a"i" D In ? , any!ody who tran"fer" a work into a different form infringe" copyright, e1en if they are not producing an additional form D /innie Q. worrie" that thi" i" not the role of the courtmu"t lea1e that Bo! to Parliament D BF moral right" would !e infringed if the art gallerie" left The!erge:" name off of the copy D BF di"tinction !etween common law Budge" for maBority, which "ee" copyright a" a monetary right, and the ci1il law Eue!ec Budge" in di""ent, who are more concerned with integrity right" of the author 7F D T:(.( ,s 23 .(4.368/+,32, 3250 * 7*2,485*+,32 3< *2 *8+:3.,D(6 /340, 1:(2 *2 ,7*)( ,s +.*2s<(..(6 <.37 32( 7(6,87 +3 *23+:(., *26 ,< +:( *8+:3. :*s * 4.395(7, +:(0 /*223+ *ss(.+ * 73.*5 .,):+ ,2 +:( )8,s( 3< *2 (/3237,/ .,):+ D 9ote that Canada, unlike the ? %, ha" no copyright law regarding deri1ati1e" D Therefore, when a work i" reproduced into additional copie", the only recour"e an author ha" i" either to prohi!it any reproduction in the fir"t place or argue that their moral right" ha1e !een infringed in the proce"" of putting a po"ter on can1a"" that it:" modifying that infringe" hi" honour or reputation

*&
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK '. NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS 1% INTRODUCTION D R(7(79(.F e1en after addition of .PPT right", neigh!ouring right" are a different package of right" than regular copyrighthowe1er, they:re all la!eled >copyright> "o that the remedie" in the %ct can co1er !oth regular copyright a" well a" neigh!ouring right" D 9eigh!ouring right" are important !ecau"e they are F aA $*=3. s38./( 3< .(-(28( D ieF !a"i" where collecti1e "ocietie" or Copyright /oard can impo"e Tariff" !A C32<8s,2) 3-(.5*4 D 3,ample" of o1erlapF iA C3743s(.G50.,/,s+G=3,2+ *8+:3.s D %uthor" ha1e right to control recording of a work !y any!ody D %l"o ha1e the right to control any reproductionHcommunication !y telecommunication of the work at all iiA P(.<3.7(. D +ir"t people doing performance on the recording D (nce recording i" made, they ha1e no right" @!ut will change under .PPTH/ill CD6$, which will include the right to control reproduction of the recording on the internetA D (1erlap, !ut each neigh!ouring right repre"ent"F iA % right to gi1e con"ent to what they ha1e a copyright in, and iiA % right to !e paid when they "ell their right D +our kind" of right" under the Copyright -"t "tem, not from the author:" creation of a work, !ut from "omeone other than the author ha1ing put the work into a particular form D Therefore, you )(+ .,):+s ,< 038 *.( 23+ +:( *8+:3. 98+ :*-( 48+ +:( 13.; into a particular material, li1e, or !roadca"t form D Thu" they are >2(,):938.,2) .,):+s>relate to manife"tation of the work, not the work it"elf D ieF people that record, gi1e li1e performance", or !roadca"t will ha1e copyright in addition to the original copyright owner of the work KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 2% COPYRIGHT IN A PERFOR$ERBS PERFOR$ANCE D Performer:" right" were introduced into the Copyright -"t !y the $&&- amendment" implementing the 9'8 agreemente,i"ting law !a"ed on the .ome Convention of $&6$ D PolicyF performer" gi1e 1alue to the original work....ieF if "ong wa"n:t played on radio, it:" worthle"" D 5eant to gi1e performer right to control any recording of their li1e performance of preDe,i"ting work D ".' define" what a >performer:" performance i"C ".$5 define" how the Copyright -"t protect" it D Co1er" unauthori<ed "ound recording" of their performer:" performance D 4eneral idea i" that a performer mu"t authori<e copying of a performance, !ut once they authori<e it, the reach of their copyright protection end" D 9ote /ill CD6$ tried to e,tend performer:" copyright right" and put Canada in compliance with .PPT D Copyright attache" to a >performer:" performance> a" defined in ".'F @"ee earlier "ection on fi,ation, where work" ha1e to !e fi,ed !ut performer:" performance" don:t need to !e fi,edA 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >4(.<3.7*2/(> 7(*2s *20 */38s+,/ 3. -,s8*5 .(4.(s(2+*+,32 3< * 13.;, 4(.<3.7(.Ks 4(.<3.7*2/(, "ound recording or communication "ignal, including a repre"entation made !y mean" of any mechanical in"trument, radio recei1ing "et or tele1i"ion recei1ing "etC D ieF perform a !ook !y reading it aloud in pu!lic, perform a painting !y di"playing it in

-)
pu!lic, perform a "ong !y "howing a 1ideo of it in pu!lic D %ll of the"e li"ted are the "u!Bect of copyrightthey aren:t reproduction" !ut rather pu!lic di"play" of the work D %ny >mechanical in"trument> include" putting the performance on T8, internet, ect D The"e are the original copyright in the work a" "uchne,t i" the neigh!ouring right D >4(.<3.7(.Ks 4(.<3.7*2/(> mean" any of the following when done !y a performerF @aA a performance of an arti"tic work, dramatic work or mu"ical work, 1:(+:(. 3. 23+ +:( 13.; 1*s 4.(-,38s50 <,@(6 ,2 *20 7*+(.,*5 <3.7, and whether or not the workN" term of copyright protection under thi" %ct ha" e,pired, D Thu" co1er" performance" of work" that aren:t actually fi,ed D %l"o co1er" !oth hake"peare and recent playright", a" doe"n:t matter if it:" e,pired @!A a recitation or .(*6,2) 3< * 5,+(.*.0 13.;, whether or not the workN" term of copyright protection under thi" %ct ha" e,pired, or D Include" reading" at writing fe"ti1al", audio!ook", ect @cA an ,74.3-,s*+,32 3< * 6.*7*+,/ 13.;, 78s,/*5 13.; 3. 5,+(.*.0 13.;, whether or not the impro1i"ed work i" !a"ed on a preDe,i"ting work> D ieF a law profe""or:" adDli! lecture i" included, interpreti1e dance, ect D The content of the copyright in a >performer:" performance>, and thu" the right" in a performer:" performance @which, !ecau"e it i" done !y the performer, mu"t !e done li1eA are defined !y ".$5@$AF 15#1% C340.,):+ ,2 4(.<3.7(.Ks 4(.<3.7*2/( D > u!Bect to "u!"ection @'A, a 4(.<3.7(. :*s * /340.,):+ ,2 +:( 4(.<3.7(.Ks 4(.<3.7*2/(, /32s,s+,2) 3< +:( s35( .,):+ to do the following in relation to the performerN" performance or any "u!"tantial part thereofF @aA if it i" 23+ <,@(6, @iA to /37782,/*+( ,+ +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32 , D ieF gi1e a li1e performance that i"n:t recorded !ut "tream" on internet mean" the performer mu"t con"ent to it !ecau"e it:" communicating to pu!lic !y telecom. @iiA to 4(.<3.7 ,+ ,2 4895,/, 1:(.( ,+ ,s /37782,/*+(6 +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32 3+:(.1,s( +:*2 90 /37782,/*+,32 s,)2*5, and D ".'F >/37782,/*+,32 s,)2*5> mean" radio wa1e" tran"mitted through "pace without any artificial guide, for reception !y the pu!lic @ieF ca!le tran"mi""ionA D ".$6F >9othing in "ection $5 pre1ent" the performer from entering into a contract go1erning the u"e of the performerN" performance for the purpo"e of !roadca"ting, fi,ation or retran"mi""ion> D ".$5@$A@aA@iiA aim" to catch performance" di"tri!uted electronically that wouldn:t !e caught otherwi"e in ".'.- @communication to pu!lic !y telecom.A @iiiA to <,@ ,+ ,2 *20 7*+(.,*5 <3.7, D ieF !ootleg 1ideo" of a concert infringe" performer:" performance copyright @!A if it i" <,@(6, @iA to .(4.368/( *20 <,@*+,32 +:*+ 1*s 7*6( 1,+:38+ +:( 4(.<3.7(.Ks *8+:3.,D*+,32, D ieF right to control any unauthori<edHillegal fi,ation, "uch a" "ei<ing per"onal !ootleg copie" of performance" D 9ote that the illegal !ootlegger ha" a copyright in their illegal original cinematographic work, "o they can control reproduction" of their !ootleg @!ut performer ha" right o1er all unauthori<ed fi,ation"A D 6owe1er, thi" doe"n:t include right to control further reproduction" of authori<ed fi,ation" @ieF network !roadca"t" of concert"only right to "top further u"e i" in contract, not copyright lawA @iiA 1:(.( +:( 4(.<3.7(. *8+:3.,D(6 * <,@*+,32, +3 .(4.368/( *20 .(4.368/+,32 3< +:*+ <,@*+,32, ,< +:( .(4.368/+,32 9(,2) .(4.368/(6 1*s 7*6( <3. * 48.43s( 3+:(. +:*2 +:*+ <3. 1:,/: +:( 4(.<3.7(.Ks *8+:3.,D*+,32 1*s ),-(2, and D ieF if a performer gi1e" permi""ion to a recording company to fi, a performance, and they reproduce it for "omething other than which authori<ation wa" gi1en @ieF u"e in a !ad commercialA, performer ha" a right to control it

-$
D In other word", unauthori<ed reproduction" of authori<ed production" @iiiA where a fi,ation wa" permitted under Part III or 8III, to reproduce any reproduction of that fi,ation, if the reproduction !eing reproduced wa" made for a purpo"e other than one permitted under Part III or 8III, and D BF ignore thi" one @cA to .(2+ 38+ * s3826 .(/3.6,2) 3< ,+, D 9ew right that wa"n:t in Berneintent wa" for !oth the performer and the maker to get royaltie" from the renting out of their recording" D 6owe1er, not much rental goe" on in1ol1ing "ound recording" of performance" and to authori<e any "uch act"> D In "um, performer:" right" under "ection $5F aA I< 23+ <,@(6 s.15#1%#*% R(/3.6,2)s 3< 4(.<3.7*2/(s D 7ight to control communication to pu!lic !y telecommunication D 7ight to perform in pu!lic !y nonD!roadca"t telecommunication @ieF ca!leA D 7ight to fi, in any material form !A I< <,@(6 s.15#1%#9% U2*8+:3.,D(6 .(4.368/+,32s D 7ight to reproduce unauthori<ed fi,ation, or unauthori<ed u"e" of authori<ed fi,ation D BF /ill CD6$ would e,pand the legi"lati1e "cheme "urrounding performer:" performance !y eliminating the ".$5@$A@!A@iA re"triction and e,panding the protecti1e reach of performer" !y adding the "ole right toF aA R(4.368/( *8+:3.,D(6 s3826 .(/3.6,2)s D Performer" would now ha1e the right to control any reproduction an authori<ed "ound recording fi,ing the performance D 7ight now, only performer:" control o1er what a recording company doe" with an authori<ed reproduction i" !argaining in contract @unle"" it fall" under ".$5@$A@!A@iiAA !A R,):+ +3 +(5(/37782,/*+( 4(.<3.7*2/( +3 ,26,-,68*5s #4895,/% D %l"o would ha1e added a further >making a1aila!le> right where the performer ha" the "ole right to perform to the pu!lic !y telecommunication that allow" the mem!er of the pu!lic to indi1idually acce"" it at a time and place of their choo"ing @ieF internet downloadingA cA D,s+.,98+,32 .,):+ 3< +*2),95( /34,(s D 6ighly technical, !ut meant to permit the performer to control !ootleg di"tri!ution of reproduction" of their performance" D .hy confine the performer:" right to the reproduction of unauthori<ed fi,ation" @".$5@$A@!A@iAA or reproduction" of authori<ed fi,ation" made for an improper u"e @".$5@$A@!A@iiAAG D %F once an authori<ed fi,ation i" made, it i" thought inappropriate to gi1e the performer a 1eto o1er further @properA reproduction of that fi,ation D The further reproduction of the fi,ation depend" on @a"ide, of cour"e, from the owner of the fi,ationAF aA The owner of the copyright in the work" performed, and, !A If the fi,ation i" a "ound recording, the maker who ha" copyright in the "ound recording D The performer, unlike the"e partie", ha" no right to control further reproduction of the fi,ation, e,pect if "ome reproduction i" made for a purpo"e other than the one for which the performer ga1e the original authori<ation @".$5@$A@!A@iiAA D Term of right" for a performer:" performanceF 2!#1% T(.7 3< .,):+s D > u!Bect to thi" %ct, the right" conferred !y "ection" $5, $0 and '$ terminate <,<+0 0(*.s *<+(. the end of the calendar year in which @aA in the ca"e of a performerN" performance, @iA it" <,.s+ <,@*+,32 ,2 * s3826 .(/3.6,2), or @iiA it" 4(.<3.7*2/(, ,< ,+ ,s 23+ <,@(6 in a "ound recording> D ince the right" in a performer:" performance are defined a" a copyright, the general infringement pro1i"ion" @".'#A and the 1ariou" e,ception" to infringement @"".'&D*'.'A apply to them

-'
D "".6#@$A@!A, 60.$@$AF pur"uant to the performer:" "ole right to communicate an unfi,ed performance to the pu!lic !y telecommunication, the %ct pro1ide" for royaltie" to !e paid on "uch communication of unfi,ed performer:" performance" to the collecti1e "ociety in ;ue"tion KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK !% COPYRIGHT IN SOUND RECORDINGS D Thi" i" an old right, not in a work !ut in a particular manife"tation of a workF a "ound recording D Per"on who hold" the copyright in the "ound recording i" the maker of the recording

D 2efined term"F 2 D(<,2+,32s D >s3826 .(/3.6,2)> mean" a recording, fi,ed in any material form, con"i"ting of "ound", whether or not of a performance of a work, !ut e,clude" any "oundtrack of a cinematographic work where it accompanie" the cinematographic workC D >7*;(.> mean" @!A in relation to a "ound recording, the per"on !y whom the arrangement" nece""ary for the fir"t fi,ation of the "ound" are undertaken> D The copyright in a recording of a work i" created !y "ection $0, !ut the right" of the maker of the "ound recording i" limited to * thing"F 18#1% C340.,):+ ,2 s3826 .(/3.6,2)s D > u!Bect to "u!"ection @'A, the maker of a "ound recording ha" a copyright in the "ound recording, con"i"ting of the "ole right to do the following in relation to the "ound recording or any "u!"tantial part thereofF @aA to 4895,s: ,+ <3. +:( <,.s+ +,7(, @!A to .(4.368/( ,+ ,2 *20 7*+(.,*5 <3.7, and @cA to .(2+ ,+ 38+, and to authori<e any "uch act"> D ".'*@$A@!AF term of the copyright i" 5) year" after the fir"t fi,ation of the recording D BF /ill CD6$ would gi1e the maker of the "ound recording a >making a1aila!le> right in e,actly the "ame term" a" the e;ui1alent right in a performer:" performance D Thu" it would gi1e them control o1er the making a1aila!le of a "ound recording for downloading D %l"o would gi1e di"tri!ution right to control tangi!le copie" !eing "old in Canada for the fir"t time D %gain, the"e are right" in the .PPT that Canada i" looking to adopt to comply KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 4% PERFOR$ER AND $A&ERBS RIGHT TO E>UITABLE RE$UNERATION FOR PERFOR$ANCE IN PUBLIC OF A SOUND RECORDING D Performer:" performance copyright gi1e performer" a right to control who record" their performance D 6owe1er, their copyright doe"n:t go !eyond the right to control fi,ation D Therefore, they don:t ha1e a right to get paid when !roadca"ter" play their performance on the air D ame for the makerno copyright in the telecommunication of their recording to the pu!lic D Thi" ,s2B+ .(*550 * A2(,):938.,2) .,):+AN=8s+ * 1*0 +3 )(+ 4*,6 D 5ean" the Copyright /oard ha" the right to appro1e tariff" for !roadca"ter" that play mu"ical work" D They are telecommunicating in pu!lic "ound recording", and therefore the performer:" and maker:" right to e;uita!le remuneration are triggered whene1er the "ong i" played D Thi" right wa" added in $&&# to get more money"ee "ection $&F 19#1% R,):+ +3 .(782(.*+,32

-*
D >W:(.( * s3826 .(/3.6,2) :*s 9((2 4895,s:(6, +:( 4(.<3.7(. *26 7*;(. *.( (2+,+5(6, s89=(/+ +3 s(/+,32 20, +3 9( 4*,6 (H8,+*95( .(782(.*+,32 <3. ,+s 4(.<3.7*2/( ,2 4895,/ 3. ,+s /37782,/*+,32 +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32, (@/(4+ <3. *20 .(+.*2s7,ss,32 > 19#2% R30*5+,(s D >+or the purpo"e of pro1iding the remuneration mentioned in "u!"ection @$A, a 4(.s32 1:3 4(.<3.7s * 4895,s:(6 s3826 .(/3.6,2) ,2 4895,/ 3. /37782,/*+(s ,+ +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32 ,s 5,*95( +3 4*0 .30*5+,(s @aA in the ca"e of a "ound recording of a mu"ical work, to the collecti1e "ociety authori<ed under Part 8II to collect them @u"ually (C%9AC or D ieF pay to collecti1e "ociety that repre"ent" the owner" of the right" to the recording @!A in the ca"e of a "ound recording of a literary work or dramatic work, to either the maker of the "ound recording or the performer> @@aA I @!A "imply "pecify where the royaltie" goA 19#!% D,-,s,32 3< .30*5+,(s D >The royaltie", once paid pur"uant to paragraph @'A@aA or @!A, "hall !e di1ided "o that @aA the performer or performer" recei1e in aggregate <,<+0 4(. /(2+C and @!A the maker or maker" recei1e in aggregate <,<+0 4(. /(2+> D ".'*@'AF term for the right to e;uita!le remuneration i" 5) year" from the end of the year of the fir"t fi,ation of the "ound recording KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 5% BROADCASTERBS COPYRIGHT IN A CO$$UNICATION SIGNAL D %l"o a neigh!ouring copyright in a work, like performer:" performance and copyright in "ound recording" D BF we:re not going to "pend time on thi"Bu"t know it e,i"t" D Thi" wa" al"o added in $&&#, where a !ody that tran"mit" "ignal" "olely !y ca!le i" not a !roadca"ter !ecau"e a communication "ignal e,clude" a ca!le "ignalF 2 D(<,2+,32s D >9.3*6/*s+(.> mean" a 9360 +:*+, ,2 +:( /38.s( 3< 34(.*+,2) * 9.3*6/*s+,2) 826(.+*;,2), 9.3*6/*s+s * /37782,/*+,32 s,)2*5 in accordance with the law of the country in which the !roadca"ting undertaking i" carried on, !ut e,clude" a !ody who"e primary acti1ity in relation to communication "ignal" i" their retran"mi""ion> D >/37782,/*+,32 s,)2*5> mean" .*6,3 1*-(s +.*2s7,++(6 +:.38): s4*/( 1,+:38+ *20 *.+,<,/,*5 )8,6(, for reception !y the pu!lic> D ection '$ grant" - right" to a !roadca"ter in their !roadca"t of a communication "ignalF 21 C340.,):+ ,2 /37782,/*+,32 s,)2*5s D > u!Bect to "u!"ection @'A, a !roadca"ter ha" a copyright in the communication "ignal" that it !roadca"t", con"i"ting of the s35( .,):+ +3 63 +:( <35531,2) ,2 .(5*+,32 +3 +:( /37782,/*+,32 s,)2*5 3. *20 s89s+*2+,*5 4*.+ +:(.(3< F @aA to <,@ ,+, @!A to .(4.368/( *20 <,@*+,32 3< ,+ +:*+ 1*s 7*6( 1,+:38+ +:( 9.3*6/*s+(.Ks /32s(2+, @cA to *8+:3.,D( *23+:(. 9.3*6/*s+(. +3 .(+.*2s7,+ ,+ +3 +:( 4895,/ s,785+*2(38s50 1,+: ,+s 9.3*6/*s+, and @dA ,2 +:( /*s( 3< * +(5(-,s,32 /37782,/*+,32 s,)2*5, +3 4(.<3.7 ,+ ,2 * 45*/( 34(2 +3 +:( 4895,/ 32 4*07(2+ 3< *2 (2+.*2/( <((, *26 +3 *8+:3.,D( *20 */+ 6(s/.,9(6 in paragraph @aA, @!A or @dA> D ".'*@$A@cAF term of the !roadca"ter:" copyright i" 5) year" from the end of the year in which the communication "ignal wa" !roadca"t KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 'I. OWNERSHIP AND ASSIGN$ENT 1% GENERAL

--

D Proce""F figure out who i" the fir"t owner, then trace the chain of a""ignment" D (ther than e,clu"i1e licence", they don:t ha1e to !e in writing D %l"o, in ".5#@*A, they mu"t !e regi"tered to gi1e "ecurity to a""ignee again"t "u!"e;uent a""ignee" D Copyright "y"tem trie" to create "omething to gi1e the creator @and other"A an effecti1e mean" of reali<ing the 1alue of what they:1e createdthu" it mu"t !e tran"fera!le or "old D A4*.+ <.37 73.*5 .,):+s #1:,/: 7*0 9( 1*,-(6 98+ 23+ *ss,)2(6%, /340.,):+ /*2 9( *ss,)2(6 D %""ignment in ".$*@-A i" a permanent parting of what you ha1e in copyright

D ection $* of the Copyright -"t contain" !a"ic rule" of owner"hip and what it take" to a""ign copyrightF 1!#1% O12(.s:,4 3< /340.,):+ D >S89=(/+ +3 +:,s A/+, +:( *8+:3. 3< * 13.; s:*55 9( +:( <,.s+ 312(. 3< +:( /340.,):+ therein> D Thi" author may !e a >deemed> author, a" in the ca"e of a photograph 1!#2% E2).*-,2), 4:3+3).*4: 3. 43.+.*,+ D >.here, in the ca"e of an engra1ing, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original wa" ordered !y "ome other per"on and wa" made for 1alua!le con"ideration, and the con"ideration wa" paid, in pur"uance of that order, in the a!"ence of any agreement to the contrary, the 4(.s32 90 1:37 +:( 45*+( 3. 3+:(. 3.,),2*5 1*s 3.6(.(6 s:*55 9( +:( <,.s+ 312(. 3< +:( /340.,):+ > D ".$)@'AF the >deemed> author of a photograph i" the per"on who owned the initial negati1e D 6owe1er, here, fir"t owner of copyright of a photograph i" the per"on who ordered the plate and cau"ed it to !e made for 1alua!le con"ideration 1!#!% W3.; 7*6( ,2 +:( /38.s( 3< (745307(2+ D >.here the author of a work wa" in the employment of "ome other per"on under a contract of "er1ice or apprentice"hip and the 13.; 1*s 7*6( ,2 +:( /38.s( 3< :,s (745307(2+ 90 +:*+ 4(.s32, +:( 4(.s32 90 1:37 +:( *8+:3. 1*s (74530(6 s:*55, ,2 +:( *9s(2/( 3< *20 *).((7(2+ +3 +:( /32+.*.0, 9( +:( <,.s+ 312(. 3< +:( /340.,):+, !ut where the work i" an article or other contri!ution to a new"paper, maga<ine or "imilar periodical, there "hall, in the a!"ence of any agreement to the contrary, !e deemed to !e re"er1ed to the author a right to re"train the pu!lication of the work, otherwi"e than a" part of a new"paper, maga<ine or "imilar periodical> D Thi" i" taken from the $&$* Copyright -"t D /a"ically, if the author undertook the work while in the cour"e of employment, the employer @in a!"ence of any O to the contraryA i" the fir"t owner of the copyright D In University of #ondon, 1!#4% Ass,)27(2+s *26 5,/(2/(s D >The 312(. 3< +:( /340.,):+ ,2 *20 13.; 7*0 *ss,)2 +:( .,):+, (,+:(. 1:3550 3. 4*.+,*550, *26 (,+:(. )(2(.*550 3. s89=(/+ +3 5,7,+*+,32s .(5*+,2) +3 +(..,+3.0, 7(6,87 3. s(/+3. of the market or other limitation" relating to the "cope of the a""ignment, and either for the whole term of the copyright or for any other part thereof, and 7*0 ).*2+ *20 ,2+(.(s+ ,2 +:( .,):+ 90 5,/(2/(, 98+ 23 *ss,)27(2+ 3. ).*2+ ,s -*5,6 825(ss ,+ ,s ,2 1.,+,2) s,)2(6 90 +:( 312(. 3< +:( .,):+ ,2 .(s4(/+ 3< 1:,/: +:( *ss,)27(2+ 3. ).*2+ ,s 7*6(, or !y the ownerN" duly authori<ed agent> D 9ote that you may a""ign in whole or in part, and either generally or with limitation" D Jou may a""ign in different way" @ieF one per"on get" film, another "cript, ectA D 5ay al"o grant copyright !y licence !y gi1ing the a""ignee "omething that the "ole copyright owner ha" the e,clu"i1e right to do D 6owe1er, licence grant mu"t !e in writing "igned !y owner of right @like Statute of :raudsA D 7emem!er .obertson ca"e4lo!e argued they had an implied licence, !ut CC held that the idea of an e,clu"i1e oral licence wa" not a grant of an intere"t 1!#5% O12(.s:,4 ,2 /*s( 3< 4*.+,*5 *ss,)27(2+ D >.here, under any partial a""ignment of copyright, the a""ignee !ecome" entitled to any right compri"ed in copyright, the a""ignee, with re"pect to the right" "o *ss,)2(6, *26 +:( *ss,)23., 1,+: .(s4(/+ +3 +:( .,):+s 23+ *ss,)2(6, s:*55 9( +.(*+(6 <3. +:( 48.43s(s 3< +:,s A/+ *s +:( 312(. 3< +:( /340.,):+, and thi" %ct ha" effect accordingly> D Copyright may !e a""igned @ieF an a""ignment limited to the particular right" in ".*@$A, or an

-5
a""ignment of right" limited to a portion of the term of the copyrightA 1!#"% E@/58s,-( 5,/(2/( D >+or greater certainty, it i" deemed alway" to ha1e !een the law that a grant of an e,clu"i1e licence in a copyright con"titute" the grant of an intere"t in the copyright !y licence> D In .obertson, e,clu"i1e licence R grant of an intere"t in the copyright !y licence D Therefore, nonDe,clu"i1e licence" are not a grant of an intere"t, which i" what the CC held in .obertson, "o 4lo!e couldn:t argue that they had an e,clu"i1e oral licence from the author" D Therefore, only e,clu"i1e licence" mu"t !e in writing to !e 1alid @in connection with ".$*@5AA D 7e;uiring regi"tration i" not re;uired !y the Berne Convention D 6owe1er, it pro1ide" a certain pu!lic notice of who hold the copyright in a particular work D (n regi"tration, "ee "ection" 5* and 5#F 5!#1% R(),s+(. +3 9( (-,6(2/( D >The R(),s+(. 3< C340.,):+s ,s (-,6(2/( 3< +:( 4*.+,/85*.s (2+(.(6 ,2 ,+, *26 * /340 3< *2 (2+.0 ,2 +:( R(),s+(. ,s (-,6(2/( 3< +:( 4*.+,/85*.s 3< +:( (2+.0 ,< ,+ ,s /(.+,<,(6 !y the Commi""ioner of Patent", the 7egi"trar of Copyright" or an officer, clerk or employee of the Copyright (ffice a" a true copy> 5!#2% O12(. 3< /340.,):+ D >% /(.+,<,/*+( 3< .(),s+.*+,32 3< /340.,):+ ,s (-,6(2/( +:*+ +:( /340.,):+ s89s,s+s *26 +:*+ +:( 4(.s32 .(),s+(.(6 ,s +:( 312(. 3< +:( /340.,):+>: D Therefore, regi"tration rai"e" a pre"umption that copyright "u!"i"t" in the regi"tered work and that the per"on regi"tered i" the owner D 6owe1er, in $&&#, Parliament put in 1irtually the "ame pre"umption without regi"trationF !4.1#1% P.(s874+,32s .(s4(/+,2) /340.,):+ *26 312(.s:,4 D >In any proceeding" for infringement of copyright in which the defendant put" in i""ue either the e,i"tence of the copyright or the title of the plaintiff thereto, @aA copyright "hall !e pre"umed, unle"" the contrary i" pro1ed, to "u!"i"t in the work, performerN" performance, "ound recording or communication "ignal, a" the ca"e may !eC and @!A the author, performer, maker or !roadca"ter, a" the ca"e may !e, "hall, unle"" the contrary i" pro1ed, !e pre"umed to !e the owner of the copyright> D .hile regi"tration i"n:t 1ital for pre"umption" of owner"hip, regi"tration i" 1ital for a""ignment"F 5"#!% W:(2 *ss,)27(2+ 3. 5,/(2/( ,s -3,6 D >%ny *ss,)27(2+ 3< /340.,):+, 3. *20 5,/(2/( ).*2+,2) *2 ,2+(.(s+ ,2 * /340.,):+, s:*55 9( *6=86)(6 -3,6 *)*,2s+ *20 s89s(H8(2+ *ss,)2(( 3. 5,/(2s(( <3. -*58*95( /32s,6(.*+,32 1,+:38+ */+8*5 23+,/(, 825(ss +:( 4.,3. *ss,)27(2+ 3. 5,/(2/( ,s .(),s+(.(6 in the manner pre"cri!ed !y thi" %ct !efore the regi"tering of the in"trument under which the "u!"e;uent a""ignee or licen"ee claim"> D In "um, in ".5#@*A Parliament created a regi"try re;uirement "imilar to what i" u"ed in per"onal property "ecurity, where an 82.(),s+(.(6 *ss,)27(2+ 53s(s *s *)*,2s+ * s89s(H8(2+ .(),s+(.(6 *ss,)27(2+ D ieF if you don:t regi"ter, you ri"k that the a""ignor would reDa""ign the copyright, and the old a""ignee would lo"e out to the new regi"tered a""ignee D Therefore, a" a practical manner, regi"tration for a""ignment" i" compul"ory, which mean" that an a""ignee mu"t regi"ter the copyright D 7egi"tration i" deemed notice to the whole world that a""ignee i" the owner of copyright D BF not like a land title "y"tem where regi"tration i" a guarantee of 1aliditya defendant !eing "ued for infringement !y a""ignee can argue that the a""ignor ne1er held 1alid copyright D The ne,t ca"e highlight" the i""ue" a" to the fir"t owner"hip of copyright when a work i" produced !y "ome!ody who i" !eing hired !y "ome!ody el"etwo ;ue"tion" that mu"t !e an"weredF aA .a" the author an employee @contract of "er1iceA a" di"tinct from an independent contractor @contract for "er1ice"AG

-6
!A If the author wa" an employee, wa" the work produced in the cour"e of that per"on:" employmentG University of London 9ree Press v. University Tutoria Press (191! U" C#. $iv.) CNo "ontra"t of servi"e +F D ?ni1er"ity of London hired "e1eral old prof" to create math e,am "cript" and pu!li"hed old e,am" D Tutorial Pre"" got copie" of e,am paper" from "tudent", not the pu!lication, and pu!li"hed them too D ?ni1er"ity now "ue" Tutorial Pre"" for copyright infringement in re"pect of two e,am paper" produced !y two freelance mathematician" hired to produce the e,am" D ?ni1er"ity claim" prof" were employee" and they held copyrightC Tutorial Pre"" claim" they weren:t IF D .a" copyright in the paper" owned !y P, a" an a""ignee of the uni1er"ity, or !y the indi1idual e,aminer" who had prepared themG .ere the prof" employee" or independent contractor"G QF D +or indi1idual", only e;uita!le a""ignee %F D %uthor i" the fir"t owner of copyright, "u!Bect to e,ception" in the Copyright -"t D 31ery a""ignment mu"t !e in writing, "igned !y the owner or hi" agent D Court hold" that (@*7,2(.s 1(.(2B+ 826(. U2,-(.s,+0 s(.-,/( 3. 826(. * & D 9o "ingle te"t, !ut often a /32+.35 +(s+F i" the indi1idual integrated in !u"ine"" operation"G D ?ni1er"ity i""ued in"truction to e,aminer" for the conduct of the e,am, !ut the in"truction" were only regulation" framed with a 1iew to "ecuring accuracy in the marking "y"tem D Prof" were employed with other educational e"ta!li"hment", and wa" ne1er "ugge"ted that other e,aminer" were ?ni1er"ity "taffBu"t pro1ided a "pecial "er1ice D ?ni1er"ity then argued that copyright in the paper" 1e"ted in them !ecau"e the prof" were employed on term" that the copyright "hould !elong to the ?ni1er"ityieF e;uita!le a""ignee" D 6owe1er, e,aminer wa" fir"t owner, and didn:t a""ign the copyright in writing "igned !y him or hi" agenttherefore copyright remain" with them "u!Bect to employment condition" D ?ni1er"ity got e;uita!le a""ignment, who then a""igned to P who were al"o e;uita!le a""ignee" 7F D C340.,):+ *ss,)2((s 78s+ :*-( -*5,6 *ss,)27(2+ ,2 1.,+,2) s,)2(6 90 +:( 312(. 3< +:( .,):+ ,2 .(s4(/+ 3< 1:,/: +:( *ss,)27(2+ ,s 7*6( ,2 3.6(. +3 s8( <3. /340.,):+ ,2<.,2)(7(2+ D BF "cience academic that write" a profita!le "oftware program re;uire" two E:"F aA I" the academic an employeeG !A .a" the work created in the cour"e of employmentG @ieF done onDcampu", during work hour", ectA KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 2% TER$ AND REGISTRATION D ".6 contain" the !a"ic term of copyright in a work D ieF author:" life P 5) year" D 3,ception for corporation" that own a photograph @check pro1i"ionA D 6owe1er, there are "e1eral "pecial rule" that apply to particular type" of work, includingF aA W3.;s 3< I3,2+ A8+:3.s:,4 9#1% C*s(s 3< =3,2+ *8+:3.s:,4 D >In the ca"e of a work of Boint author"hip, e,cept a" pro1ided in "ection 6.', /340.,):+ s:*55 s89s,s+ 68.,2) +:( 5,<( 3< +:( *8+:3. 1:3 6,(s 5*s+, <3. +:( .(7*,26(. 3< +:( /*5(26*. 0(*. 3< +:*+ *8+:3.Ks 6(*+:, *26 <3. * 4(.,36 3< <,<+0 0(*.s> D /a"ically, end of year of death of la"t "ur1i1ing author P 5) year" !A A2320738s *26 Ps(86320738s W3.;s .1 A2320738s *26 4s(86320738s 13.;s D >3,cept a" pro1ided in "ection 6.', where the identity of the author of a work i" unknown, copyright in the work "hall "u!"i"t for whiche1er of the following term" end" earlierF @aA a term con"i"ting of the .(7*,26(. 3< +:( /*5(26*. 0(*. 3< +:( <,.s+ 4895,/*+,32 3< +:( 13.; *26 * 4(.,36 3< <,<+0 0(*.s following the end of that calendar year, and @!A a term con"i"ting of the .(7*,26(. 3< +:( /*5(26*. 0(*. 3< +:( 7*;,2) 3< +:( 13.; *26 * 4(.,36 3< s(-(2+0?<,-( 0(*.s following the end of that calendar year, !ut where, during that term, the authorN" identity !ecome" commonly known, the term pro1ided in "ection 6 applie">

-#
D /a"ically, end of year of fir"t pu!lication P 5) year", or, if earlier, end of year of making P #5 year" @!ecau"e there i" no author to dieA cA W3.;s #(@/(4+ *.+,s+,/ 13.;s 3+:(. +:*2 (2).*-,2)s% F,.s+ P895,s:(6 P3s+:8738s50 "#1% T(.7 3< /340.,):+ ,2 43s+:8738s 13.;s D > u!Bect to "u!"ection @'A, in the ca"e of a literary, dramatic or mu"ical work, or an engra1ing, in which copyright "u!"i"t" at the date of the death of the author or, in the ca"e of a work of Boint author"hip, at or immediately !efore the date of the death of the author who die" la"t, !ut which ha" not !een pu!li"hed or, in the ca"e of a lecture or a dramatic or mu"ical work, !een performed in pu!lic or communicated to the pu!lic !y telecommunication, !efore that date, /340.,):+ s:*55 s89s,s+ 82+,5 4895,/*+,32, 3. 4(.<3.7*2/( ,2 4895,/ 3. /37782,/*+,32 +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32, 1:,/:(-(. 7*0 <,.s+ :*44(2, <3. +:( .(7*,26(. 3< +:( /*5(26*. 0(*. 3< +:( 4895,/*+,32 3. 3< +:( 4(.<3.7*2/( ,2 4895,/ 3. /37782,/*+,32 +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32, *s +:( /*s( 7*0 9(, *26 <3. * 4(.,36 3< <,<+0 0(*.s <35531,2) +:( (26 3< +:*+ /*5(26*. 0(*.> D /a"ically, end of year of fir"t pu!lication P 5) year" D N3+(F /ill CD*' amendment" to ".# would pha"e out thi" rule dA P:3+3).*4:s 10#1% T(.7 3< /340.,):+ ,2 4:3+3).*4:s D >.here the owner referred to in "u!"ection @'A i" a corporation, the term for which copyright "u!"i"t" in a photograph "hall !e the remainder of the 0(*. 3< +:( 7*;,2) 3< +:( ,2,+,*5 2()*+,-( 3. 45*+( from which the photograph wa" deri1ed or, ,< +:(.( ,s 23 2()*+,-( 3. 45*+(, 3< +:( ,2,+,*5 4:3+3).*4:, 458s * 4(.,36 3< <,<+0 0(*.s> D /a"ically, end of year of making of the initial plate P 5) year" eA S3826 R(/3.6,2)s *26 3+:(. N(,):938.,2) R,):+s 2!#1% T(.7 3< .,):+s D > u!Bect to thi" %ct, the right" conferred !y "ection" $5, $0 and '$ +(.7,2*+( <,<+0 0(*.s *<+(. +:( (26 3< +:( /*5(26*. 0(*. in which @aA in the ca"e of a performerN" performance, @iA it" fir"t fi,ation in a "ound recording, or @iiA it" performance, if it i" not fi,ed in a "ound recording, occurredC @!A in the ca"e of a "ound recording, the fir"t fi,ation occurredC or @cA in the ca"e of a communication "ignal, it wa" !roadca"t> D /a"ically, the"e are the term" for neigh!ouring right" fA C,2(7*+3).*4:,/ W3.;s W,+:38+ * D.*7*+,/ C:*.*/+(. 11.1C,2(7*+3).*4:,/ 13.;s D >E@/(4+ <3. /,2(7*+3).*4:,/ 13.;s ,2 1:,/: +:( *..*2)(7(2+ 3. */+,2) <3.7 3. +:( /379,2*+,32 3< ,2/,6(2+s .(4.(s(2+(6 ),-( +:( 13.; * 6.*7*+,/ /:*.*/+(. , copyright in a cinematographic work or a compilation of cinematographic work" "hall "u!"i"t @aA <3. +:( .(7*,26(. 3< +:( /*5(26*. 0(*. 3< +:( <,.s+ 4895,/*+,32 3< +:( /,2(7*+3).*4:,/ 13.; 3. 3< +:( /374,5*+,32, *26 <3. * 4(.,36 3< <,<+0 0(*.s following the end of that calendar year> D /a"ically, end of year of fir"t pu!lication P 5) year" gA A20 W3.; S89=(/+ T3 C.312 C340.,):+ 12 W:(.( /340.,):+ 9(532)s +3 H(. $*=(s+0 D >.ithout preBudice to any right" or pri1ilege" of the Crown, 1:(.( *20 13.; ,s, 3. :*s 9((2, 4.(4*.(6 3. 4895,s:(6 90 3. 826(. +:( 6,.(/+,32 3. /32+.35 3< H(. $*=(s+0 or any go1ernment department, the copyright in the work "hall, "u!Bect to any agreement with the author, !elong to 6er 5aBe"ty and in that ca"e "hall continue for the .(7*,26(. 3< +:( /*5(26*. 0(*. 3< +:( <,.s+ 4895,/*+,32 3< +:( 13.; *26 <3. * 4(.,36 3< <,<+0 0(*.s following the end of that calendar year> D /a"ically, end of year of fir"t pu!lication P 5) year" hA P(.<3.7(.Bs P(.<3.7*2/( 2!#1% T(.7 3< R,):+s D > u!Bect to thi" %ct, the right" conferred !y "ection" $5, $0 and '$ terminate <,<+0 0(*.s *<+(. the end of the calendar year in which @aA in the ca"e of a performerN" performance,

-0
@iA it" fir"t fi,ation in a "ound recording, or @iiA it" performance, if it i" not fi,ed in a "ound recording> D /a"ically, 5) year" after the end of the year of performance if the performance i" unfi,ed, and 5) year" after the date of fir"t fi,ation if it i" fi,ed iA B.3*6/*s+(.Bs C340.,):+ ,2 * C37782,/*+,32 S,)2*5 2!#1% T(.7 3< .,):+s D > u!Bect to thi" %ct, the right" conferred !y "ection" $5, $0 and '$ terminate <,<+0 0(*.s *<+(. the end of the calendar year in which @cA in the ca"e of a /37782,/*+,32 s,)2*5, ,+ 1*s 9.3*6/*s+> D /a"ically, 5) year" from the end of the year in which the "ignal i" !roadca"t D N3+(F we only talked a!out ".6 and ".'*@$A in cla"" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 'II. INFRINGE$ENT 1% GENERALLY D The form" of infringement are defined !y the form" of right" that are included in copyright !yF D ".*@$A copyright in a work D ".$5@$A copyright in a performer:" performance D ".$0@$A copyright in a "ound recording D ".'$@$A copyright in a communication "ignal D /a"ically, ".'#@$A make" a per"on lia!le for infringement generally, ".'#@'A make" a "econdary copier lia!le for knowing or "hould ha1e known, and ".-'@$A gi1e" criminal lia!ility for knowing D ?nder the Copyright -"t, copyright i" the "ole right to produce or reproduce a literary, dramatic, mu"ical or arti"tic work or any "u!"tantial part of it in any form whate1er, and include" the "ole right to do @li"t of right"AC copyright i" 1e"ted fir"t in the author of the work, and infringement i" deemed when any per"on without con"ent of the owner of the copyright doe" anything that only the owner ha" the right to do @"". *@$A, and @'A, $*@$A, and '#@$AF 1!#1% O12(.s:,4 3< /340.,):+ D > u!Bect to thi" %ct, the author of a work "hall !e the fir"t owner of the copyright therein> 2"#1% I2<.,2)(7(2+ )(2(.*550 D >It i" an ,2<.,2)(7(2+ 3< /340.,):+ <3. *20 4(.s32 +3 63, 1,+:38+ +:( /32s(2+ 3< +:( 312(. 3< +:( /340.,):+, *20+:,2) +:*+ 90 +:,s A/+ 3250 +:( 312(. 3< +:( /340.,):+ :*s +:( .,):+ +3 63 > D Thi" "ection i" a!out 1iolating the monopoly of the copyright owner D 9e,t "ection regard" 1ariou" thing" done when infringing copie" 2"#2% S(/326*.0 ,2<.,2)(7(2+ D >It i" an infringement of copyright for any per"on to @aA s(55 3. .(2+ out, @!A 6,s+.,98+( to "uch an e,tent a" to affect preBudicially the owner of the copyright, @cA 90 1*0 3< +.*6( di"tri!ute, e,po"e or offer for "ale or rental, or (@:,9,+ ,2 4895,/, @dA 43ss(ss <3. +:( 48.43s( 3< 63,2) *20+:,2) .(<(..(6 +3 ,2 4*.*).*4:s #*% +3 #/% , or @eA ,743.+ into Canada for the purpo"e of doing anything referred to in paragraph" @aA to @cA, a copy of a work, "ound recording or fi,ation of a performerN" performance or of a communication "ignal that +:( 4(.s32 ;231s 3. s:3856 :*-( ;2312 ,2<.,2)(s /340.,):+ 3. 13856 ,2<.,2)( /340.,):+ ,< ,+ :*6 9((2 7*6( ,2 C*2*6* 90 +:( 4(.s32 1:3 7*6( ,+> D Per"on mu"t >;231 3. s:3856 :*-( ;2312> it would infringe copyright to trigger ".'#@'A D %dditionally, add" element that a per"on i" lia!le if per"on:" action >would infringe copyright if it had !een made in Canada !y the per"on who made it> D ieF you !uy a 282 in China that:" legal there !ut would !e illegal in Canadayou mu"t not "ellHrent it out, di"tri!ute it, "how it in pu!lic, or po""e""Himport it into Canada for the"e thing" D %im of thi" "ection i" to "top people copying infringing copie" D The"e infringing action" ha1e criminal "anction" in ".-', which can catch "econdary infringer" when they >knowingly> do thi" which would mean !oth ci1il and criminal lia!ility for offender"F

-&
42#1% O<<(2/(s *26 482,s:7(2+ D >31ery per"on who knowingly @aA make" for "ale or rental an infringing copy of a work or other "u!BectDmatter in which copyright "u!"i"t", @!A "ell" or rent" out, or !y way of trade e,po"e" or offer" for "ale or rental, an infringing copy of a work or other "u!BectDmatter in which copyright "u!"i"t", @cA di"tri!ute" infringing copie" of a work or other "u!BectDmatter in which copyright "u!"i"t", either for the purpo"e of trade or to "uch an e,tent a" to affect preBudicially the owner of the copyright, @dA !y way of trade e,hi!it" in pu!lic an infringing copy of a work or other "u!BectDmatter in which copyright "u!"i"t", or @eA import" for "ale or rental into Canada any infringing copy of a work or other "u!BectD matter in which copyright "u!"i"t" i" guilty of an offence and lia!le @fA on "ummary con1iction, to a fine not e,ceeding twentyDfi1e thou"and dollar" or to impri"onment for a term not e,ceeding "i, month" or to !oth, or @gA on con1iction on indictment, to a fine not e,ceeding one million dollar" or to impri"onment for a term not e,ceeding fi1e year" or to !oth> D 6owe1er, "ince criminal penaltie" re;uire proof /%72 that the per"on wa" knowingly infringing copyright, it:" not ea"y to get a con1iction D There i" a "pecial rule a!out infringement !y way of parallel importation of !ook" where the Canadian copyright owner ha" not con"ented to the importationF 2".1#1% I743.+*+,32 3< 933;s D > u!Bect to any regulation" made under "u!"ection @6A, it i" an infringement of copyright in a !ook for any per"on to import the !ook where @aA copie" of the !ook were made with the con"ent of the owner of the copyright in the !ook in the country where the copie" were made, !ut were imported without the con"ent of the owner of the copyright in the !ook in CanadaC and @!A the 4(.s32 ;231s 3. s:3856 :*-( ;2312 +:*+ +:( 933; 13856 ,2<.,2)( /340.,):+ ,< ,+ 1*s 7*6( ,2 C*2*6* 90 +:( ,743.+(.> @the te"t for infringementA 45#1% E@/(4+,32s D >9otwith"tanding anything in thi" %ct, it i" lawful for a per"on @eA to import copie", made with the con"ent of the owner of the copyright in the country where they were made, of *20 8s(6 933;s, (@/(4+ +(@+933;s of a "cientific, technical or "cholarly nature for u"e within an educational in"titution in a cour"e of in"truction> D There i" a long li"t of mo"tly narrow e,ception" to infringement, includingF D ". '&D*'.'Xe,ception" to infringement D ". *-@$AXci1il remedie"C *5Xdamage" I profit"C *#X+ederal Court Buri"diction D . *-.$Xpre"umption that copyright "u!"i"t" and that the author, etc., i" owner of it D . *5Xdamage" and account of profit" D . *#Xconcurrent Buri"diction of +ederal Court D . *0Xright to reco1er po""e""ion of infringing copie" D . *0.$X"tatutory damage" D ". *&XinBunction only remedy when defendant unaware of copyrightC -)Xno inBunction once con"truction of !uilding ha" !een commenced D . -$X*Dyear limitation D ". -'D-*Xcriminal remedie" when work i" e,ploited for commercial purpo"e" D Too many damn "ection" to li"t hereBu"t check cour"e material" $D'$) to $D'$' KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 2% LITERARY WOR&S D ection * gi1e" the general infringement right" that are the "ole right of the copyright ownerF

5)
!#1% C340.,):+ ,2 13.;s D >+or the purpo"e" of thi" %ct, ScopyrightT, in relation to a work, mean" the "ole right to produce or reproduce the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in any material form whate1er, to perform the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in pu!lic or, if the work i" unpu!li"hed, to pu!li"h the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof, and include" the "ole right @aA to produce, reproduce, perform or pu!li"h any +.*2s5*+,32 of the work, D The >tran"lation> right @cA in the ca"e of a no1el or other nonDdramatic work, or of an arti"tic work, to /32-(.+ ,+ ,2+3 * 6.*7*+,/ 13.;, 90 1*0 3< 4(.<3.7*2/( ,2 4895,/ or otherwi"e, D The >dramati<ation> right @dA in the ca"e of a literary, dramatic or mu"ical work, to 7*;( *20 s3826 .(/3.6,2), /,2(7*+3).*4: <,57 3. 3+:(. /32+.,-*2/( !y mean" of which the work may !e mechanically reproduced or performed, D The >recording> right @eA in the ca"e of any literary, dramatic, mu"ical or arti"tic work, to .(4.368/(, *6*4+ *26 4895,/50 4.(s(2+ +:( 13.; *s * /,2(7*+3).*4:,/ 13.;, D The >film> right @fA in the ca"e of any literary, dramatic, mu"ical or arti"tic work, to /37782,/*+( +:( 13.; +3 +:( 4895,/ 90 +(5(/37782,/*+,32, D The >telecommunication> right @hA in the ca"e of a computer program that can !e reproduced in the ordinary cour"e of it" u"e, other than !y a reproduction during it" e,ecution in conBunction with a machine, de1ice or computer, to .(2+ 38+ +:( /3748+(. 4.3).*7, and D The >computer program rental right> @"ee al"o "".*@'A and ".*@*AA and to authori<e any "uch act"> D In the ne,t ca"e, in the third argument, the plaintiff tried and failed to rely on ".*-.$, arguing that there wa" a pre"umption that copyright "u!"i"ted in hi" workF !4.1#1% P.(s874+,32s .(s4(/+,2) /340.,):+ *26 312(.s:,4 D >In any proceeding" for infringement of copyright in which the defendant put" in i""ue either the e,i"tence of the copyright or the title of the plaintiff thereto, @aA copyright "hall !e pre"umed, unle"" the contrary i" pro1ed, to "u!"i"t in the work, performerN" performance, "ound recording or communication "ignal, a" the ca"e may !eC and @!A the author, performer, maker or !roadca"ter, a" the ca"e may !e, "hall, unle"" the contrary i" pro1ed, !e pre"umed to !e the owner of the copyright> D The ne,t ca"e i" a cla""ic e,ample of a work !ecoming immen"ely popular and an indi1idual coming out of the woodwork to claim that it wa" !a"ed on their original idea D It i" al"o an e,ample @like Ni"hols and Baigent, a!out 'he *a?in"i CodeA of the pro!lem" in pro1ing infringement !y "ome!ody who !oth denie" ha1ing copied, and clearly did not copy literally !ut only @at mo"tA copied element" of the original Preston v. '(t# Century 9o/ Canada Ltd. (199( 9ed. Ct. Tria . $iv)C*iffi"ult to prove infringement +F D Pre"ton, a Canadian writer, took action for infringement of copyright in hi" literary work @a "cript called > pace Pet">A and the 3wok" in the work!a"ically, they:re "uing 4eorge Luca" and Luca"film D P alleged 2:" copied 7eturn of the Qedi the T8 "erie" 3wok %d1enture and in 1ariou" other medium" D 9ow they want a declaration of copyright infringement in hi" literary work > pace Pet">, an inBunction, general damage" of a million dollar", accounting for profit" and intere"t D P claimed that he deli1ered note" to a friend, 2a1id 6urry, to produce a "cript, which included among it" character" two "mall furry animal "pecie" with primiti1e human characteri"tic", (lak" and 3wok", who li1e on a pre1iou"ly une,plored planet in "pacethey then "ent the "cript to 4eorge Luca" D 6owe1er, no reply or acknowledgement wa" recei1ed from Luca" and the "cript wa" not returned D Luca" wa" currently making The 3mpire trike" /ack, and claimed Luca"film had a policy and practice to return all un"olicited "cript" or material", other than mail that wa" deemed to !e fan mail,

5$
and to i"olate Luca" from reception of all incoming mailclaimed that there i" no record of the "cript > pace Pet"> ha1ing !een recei1ed from 6urry D /a"ically, 2:" denied copying or u"ing any work of P or that Pre"ton wa" the author of the "cript D Pre"ton didn:t claim that there had !een a copying of the plot or dialogue of the "cript in the film IF D 2id 4eorge Luca" copy the 3wok character or other "ignificant feature" from the "cript > pace Pet">G D Can copyright e,i"t in the name >3wok> and the de"cription of the character a" depicted in the "criptG D .a" Pre"ton author of the "cript > pace Pet"> "o he could claim copyright in it a" an arti"tic workG QF D 9o, for 4eorge, the action i" di"mi""edLuca"film didn:t infringe P:" copyright intere"t %F D 31idence of acce"" !y Luca" to the "cript > pace Pet"> i" not direct, !ut at !e"t i" circum"tantial D Therefore, Pre"ton will ha1e a pro!lem "howing not only whether or not Luca" actually "aw the original "cript, !ut al"o that there wa" a "u!"tantial "imilarity !etween the two D 6owe1er, *//(ss 7*0 9( ,2<(..(6 1:(.( +:( 13.; /3745*,2(6 3< *s /340,2) ,s <3826 +3 /32+*,2 s89s+*2+,*5 s,7,5*.,+0 1,+: * /340.,):+ 13.; D 9o "ugge"tion here that 2:" "imply reproduced !y film the "cript > pace Pet"> D 7ather, the claim i" that without con"ent of P they incorporated a "u!"tantial part of the "cript in 7eturn of the Qedithu" the con"ideration of "imilaritie" !etween the "cript and the film D 6ere, there:" no "u!"tantial "imilarity !etween the "cript > pace Pet"> and the film 7eturn of the Qedi D 9ame creation proce"" !y Pre"ton and Luca", a" well a" the concept of the 3wok de1eloped for, and ultimately playing a part in the film, aro"e from the team effort" of Luca" and hi" creati1e "taff with little "pecific arti"tic direction in ad1ance !y Luca" D In"tead, many of the detailed "imilaritie" can !e traced to the common "tore of folklore a!out primiti1e "pecie" with human characteri"tic" upon which Luca" wa" a" free to draw a" were Pre"ton and 6urry D 2rawing upon a common "tore of information doe" not in it"elf an"wer an infringement claim D It:" the e,pre""ion of idea", not the idea" them"el1e", that i" the "u!Bect of copyright D C*2 6.*1 8432 /37732 s+3/; 3< ,6(*sN=8s+ 23+ /340 +:( (@4.(ss,32 ,2 5,+(.*.0 3. 6.*7*+,/ <3.7 3< *23+:(. *8+:3. D ame pro!lem a" Ni"holspro1ing general "imilarity and pro1ing "u!"tantial copying of what:" original to a "creenplay are two different thing" D The +(s+ ,2 6(+(.7,2,2) 1:(+:(. +:(.( ,s * s89s+*2+,*5,+0 9(+1((2 13.;s ,s 85+,7*+(50 1:(+:(. +:( *-(.*)( 5*0 39s(.-(., *+ 5(*s+ 32( <3. 1:37 +:( 13.; ,s ,2+(26(6, 13856 .(/3)2,D( +:( *55()(6 /340 *s :*-,2) 9((2 *44.34.,*+(6 <.37 +:( /340.,):+(6 13.; D u!"tantial "imilarity i" not to !e mea"ured only !y the ;uantity of matter reproduced from a copyrighted work, though that may !e a "ignificant factor D imilarity i" claimed in relation to "etting or "cene" in1ol1ing a net trap of 1ine", the fore"t ha!itat and hou"e" of the 3wok", !ut tho"e "cene" in them"el1e" are not "u!Bect to copyright or protected !y it D They are "tandard a"pect" of production" concerning primiti1e "pecie" or primiti1e human" drawn from a common pool of folklore D .hile thi" would !e "ufficient to di"po"e of any claim that 2:" infringed any right of P:" under ".*@$A@dA, further con"ideration mu"t !e gi1en to the ;ue"tion of whether the 3wok character, a" de1eloped in > pace Pet">, i" "u!Bect to copyright andt eh author:" right to produce or reproduce the character i" protected under "".*@$A@dA or @eA, and if "o whether that character wa" "u!"tantially reproduced in 7eturn of the Qedi D .hile no copying in dialog or plot, the mo"t one could "ay i" that the name and general feature" were copied, which the +ederal Court held couldn:t amount to real copying D W:,5( )(2(.*550 +:(.( /*223+ 9( /340.,):+ ,2 * 7(.( 2*7(, 1:(.( +:( 2*7( ,6(2+,<,(s * 1(55? ;2312 /:*.*/+(., /340.,):+ 7*0 9( .(/3)2,D(6 ,2 +:( 2*7( *26 +:( *ss3/,*+(6 /:*.*/+(. D In thi" ca"e, /:*.*/+(.,s+,/s s(+ 38+ ,2 +:( s/.,4+ 63 23+ 6(5,2(*+( +:( /:*.*/+(. 3< +:( E13; s8<<,/,(2+50 3.,),2*5 +3 P.(s+32 +3 1*..*2+ .(/3)2,+,32 *s * /:*.*/+(. s89=(/+ +3 /340.,):+ D It cannot !e "aid that the 3wok character a" de1eloped in the "cript i" widely known !y rea"on of the "cript in which the plaintiff claim" copyright D Therefore, the character of the 3wok a" de1eloped in the "cript > pace Pet"> i" not it"elf "u!Bect to copyright D %fter thi" argument, analy"i" focu"e" to whether Pre"ton wa" the author of the "cript D 6ere, "ure, the character" were "imilar, !ut the plot and e1erything el"e wa" different

5'
D Like Ni"hols, pro1e" that it:" difficult to pro1e infringement when there i" no "u!"tantial copying 7F D I2 3.6(. +3 s8//(ss<85 s8( <3. /340.,):+ ,2<.,2)(7(2+, * 45*,2+,<< 78s+ 23+ 3250 4.3-( +:(.( 1*s /340,2), 98+ +:*+ +:( ,2<.,2)(. s4(/,<,/*550 /34,(6 +:( 45*,2+,<<Bs ,26(4(26(2+ /.(*+,32 KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK !% DRA$ATIC WOR&S D %gain, "ee the ".* for the >reproduction and performance right"> @generalA, >tran"lation right> @aA, >no1eli<ation right> @!A, >recording right> @dA, >film right> @eA, and telecommunication right> @fA D The ne,t ca"e illu"trate" "econdary infringement, which can impo"e lia!ility for the u"e of copie" that were perfectly legal copie" when and where they were made, !ut infringe Canadian copyright +oy ./&ort Co. .sta< is#*ent v. 5aut#ier (1931 9ed. Ct. Tria $iv.) ...Su""essful sue se"ondary infringer +F D P i" the owner of the original cinematographic work" entitled >Pay 2ay> and >The 4old 7u"h> written, directed and produced !y Charlie Chaplin !y 1irtue of regi"tration in name of 7oy D Copyright "u!"i"t" in Canada for the life of Chaplin plu" 5) year"7oy:" "till li1ing, "o P allege" he ha" the "ole and e,clu"i1e right to po""e"", di"tri!ute, and lea"e in Canada print" of the two film" D 4authier purcha"ed print" of "uch work" from a ? 1endor and lea"ed them to 1ariou" organi<ation" D 2 had no knowledge of the "u!"i"tence of copyright in the work" at the time of purcha"e and fir"t di"tri!ution of the film" !ut he continued to lea"e the work" in Canada without con"ent of the author after notice of copyright from the "olicitor" for P D P want" 2 to "top !a"ed on "econdary infringement pro1i"ion"he wa" renting out the film and he knew or ought to ha1e known he wa" renting out an infringing copy in Canada under ".'#@'A@aA D 9o dou!t of the good faith of 2he i" a film collector of old $6 mm. film" @a" oppo"ed to *5 mm. film" which are u"ed in commercial theatre"A and rent" the film" to churche", "chool", ho"pital", ect D 6owe1er, following receipt of P:" coun"el:" letter, he could no longer claim ignorance that it wa" contended that hi" u"e con"tituted an infringement of P:" copyright in Canada IF D .a" copyright infringed after 4authier recei1ed the letter of noticeG QF D Je", for P, P:" Canadian copyright in the two film" ha1e !een infringed !y the defendant. %F D >Pay 2ay> wa" made in $&'', a date !efore the coming into force of the pre"ent Copyright -"t which wa" enacted in $&'$ and came into force in $&'D The applica!ility of the pre"ent %ct to "uch work would appear to depend on circum"tance" "uch a" citi<en"hip of the author and place of fir"t pu!lication of the work D In the pre"ent ca"e, the film encompa""ed a dramatic work D The copyright in that dramatic work in the form of a cinematographic work endured for a term of the life of the author and 5) year" after hi" death D (ne of the right" of the copyright owner in the dramatic work i" the "ole right to pu!licly perform the workthi" right i" defined in ". *@$A of the Copyright -"t D In thi" ca"e the defendant authori<ed the pu!lic performance of the work and infringed that right D P i" entitled to an ,2=82/+,32 re"training further infringement of the copyright in cinematographic work" and di"tri!ution, lea"ing, offering to di"tri!ute or lea"e print" of "uch work" D P i" al"o entitled to an *//382+,2) 3< 4.3<,+s in the amount of U')), and 6(5,-(.0 84 3< *55 /34,(s 3< +:( 13.;s 312(6 3. /32+.355(6 90 3. ,2 +:( 43ss(ss,32 3< +:( 6(<(26*2+ @".*0@$AA D 6e wa" infringing, wa" renting it out with knowledge, and thi" wa" enough for ci1il lia!ility 7F D D(732s+.*+(s +:*+ s,7450 9(/*8s( *2 ,26,-,68*5 48./:*s(s *26 ,743.+s 5()*5 /34,(s /*2 9( /*8):+ 90 s(/326*.0 4.3-,s,32s 826(. +:( Co&yri2#t Act 9(/*8s( +:( .(),s+(.(6 312(. 3< +:( C*2*6,*2 /340.,):+ /*2 48.s8( *2 ,2<.,2)(7(2+ */+,32 826(. s.2"#1% D In .oy, the court granted an ,2=82/+,32 again"t any further renting out of the mo1ie", an *//382+,2) 3< 4.3<,+s to the plaintiff @e1en though they were minimalA, and an 3.6(. +3 .(/3-(. the infringing copie" D 7emedie" are located in ".*- and ".*5 of the -"tF !4#1% C340.,):+ D >.here copyright ha" !een infringed, the owner of the copyright i", "u!Bect to thi" %ct, entitled

5*
to all remedie" !y way of ,2=82/+,32, 6*7*)(s, *//382+s, 6(5,-(.0 84 *26 3+:(.1,s( +:*+ *.( 3. 7*0 9( /32<(..(6 90 5*1 <3. +:( ,2<.,2)(7(2+ 3< * .,):+> !5#1% L,*9,5,+0 <3. ,2<.,2)(7(2+ D >.here a per"on infringe" copyright, the per"on i" lia!le to pay "uch damage" to the owner of the copyright a" the owner ha" "uffered due to the infringement and, in addition to tho"e damage", "uch part of the profit" that the infringer ha" made from the infringement and that were not taken into account in calculating the damage" a" the court con"ider" Bu"t> D In "um, a complainant can claim damage" if they can pro1e them @ieF market "ale, lo"" of "ale"A, which .oy pro1e" might !e difficult D In addition, ".*0.$ allow" for "tatutory damage" for all infringement" in1ol1ed in the proceeding" in re"pect of one work or "u!Bect matterF !8.1S+*+8+3.0 6*7*)(s D > u!Bect to thi" "ection, a copyright owner may elect, at any time !efore final Budgment i" rendered, to reco1er, in"tead of damage" and profit" referred to in "u!"ection *5@$A, an award of "tatutory damage" for all infringement" in1ol1ed in the proceeding", 1,+: .(s4(/+ +3 *20 32( 13.; 3. 3+:(. s89=(/+?7*++(., for which any one infringer i" lia!le indi1idually, or for which any two or more infringer" are lia!le Bointly and "e1erally, in a s87 3< 23+ 5(ss +:*2 O500 3. 73.( +:*2 O20,000 *s +:( /38.+ /32s,6(.s =8s+> D Thi" allow" the court to fi, an ar!itrary amount !etween U5)) and U'5,))) D If a claimant will ha1e a tough time pro1ing damage" or account of profit" @or if it won:t amount to anythingA, thi" can !e an alternati1e to the regular a""e""ment of damage" D 6owe1er, in mo"t ca"e" a claimant really want" an inBunctionwhere inBunction" may !e only remedyF !9#1% I2=82/+,32 3250 .(7(60 1:(2 6(<(26*2+ 23+ *1*.( 3< /340.,):+ D > u!Bect to "u!"ection @'A, in any proceeding" for infringement of copyright, the plaintiff i" not entitled to any remedy other than an inBunction in re"pect of the infringement if the defendant pro1e" that, at the date of the infringement, the defendant wa" not aware and had no rea"ona!le ground for "u"pecting that copyright "u!"i"ted in the work or other "u!BectDmatter in ;ue"tion> !9#2% E@/(4+,32 1:(.( /340.,):+ .(),s+(.(6 D > u!"ection @$A doe" not apply if, at the date of the infringement, the copyright wa" duly regi"tered under thi" %ct> KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 4% $USICAL WOR&S D ame ".*@$A right", !ut "ee the e,ception in ".*'.'@$A@!AF !2.2#1% P(.7,++(6 */+s D >It i" not an infringement of copyright @!A for *20 4(.s32 +3 .(4.368/(, in a painting, drawing, engra1ing, photograph or cinematographic work @iA *2 *./:,+(/+8.*5 13.;, pro1ided the copy i" not in the nature of an architectural drawing or plan, or @iiA * s/854+8.( 3. 13.; 3< *.+,s+,/ /.*<+s7*2s:,4 3. * /*s+ 3. 736(5 of a "culpture or work of arti"tic craft"man"hip, that i" permanently "ituated in a pu!lic place or !uilding> D The ne,t ca"e i" an action for copyright infringement and pa""ing off where the plaintiff claimed a go1ernment "logan "u!"tantially reproduced a part of her mu"ical work D N3+(F thi" i" a good ca"e for analytical approach ;uote" S#ewan v. Canada (Attorney 5enera ) (1999 7nt. SC)CNot substantial "opying of ords in musi"al or! +F D. hewan wa" a folk "inger who li1ed in the Jukonin $&#0 "he wrote a "ong entitled >Jukon 5agic and 5y"tery>fir"t two line" were >Jukon, will you "et u" freeH.ith your 5agic and your 5y"tery> D The "ong wa" recorded and though it had no commercial relea"e, it wa" played on C/C radio in the

5Jukon occa"ionally until $&05 hewan al"o performed "ong li1e at 1ariou" fe"ti1al" from $&#0D$&0) D he "topped touring in $&0* and neither toured nor performed "ince that timeunfulfilled potential D There wa" no reference to the "ong in any of hewan:" promotional material, re"ume", or new"paper article" a!out her career, and the "ong wa" not included in rough note" prepared for a li"t of "ong" to !e included on a propo"ed al!um that wa" ne1er recordedmo1ed to (ntario in $&0D In $&0#, the 2epartment of Touri"m of the Jukon !egan to u"e the "logan Jukon the 5agic and the 5y"tery, which had !een de1eloped for the Jukon Pa1illion during 3,po 06 D hewan, while conceding the Jukon "logan i"n:t a "ong or a performance and doe" not compo"e lyric", or e1en a direct ;uote from her "ong, a""erted that it would ha1e !een impo""i!le for anyone in the Jukon to de1elop that "logan independentlyclaimed it >piggy!ack"> e""ential element" D he claimed that the word" of the "logan and the word" of her "ong were indi"tingui"ha!le, and that e1eryone in the Jukon would a""ume that "he had endor"ed or wa" "omehow connected to the "logan IF D I" there "u!"tantial reproduction of the "ong in the "loganG .a" the "logan, which didn:t contain mu"ic or lyric" from P:" "ong, really copied from PG 2id P:" "ong attain "uch prominence and wa" P "o well known that any u"age of the word" magic and my"tery would !e undou!tedly linked to PG D Could >Jukon the 5agic and 5y"tery> !e created independentlyG QF D 9o, for Canada, P wa"n:t prominent in the community and a" a con"e;uence there would not !e a connection in the mind of the pu!lic !etween hewan:" "ong and P her"elf %F D ".*@$A gi1e" the owner the "ole right to produce or reproduce the work or any "u!"tantial part in any material formC ".5@$A gi1e" copyright in e1ery L25% work D 6ere, P:" primary "u!mi""ion i" that her mu"ical copyright in her work @ieF "ongA wa" infringed D %fter gi1ing a plain and ordinary meaning to ".' definition of >mu"ical work>, /340.,):+ ,2<.,2)(7(2+ 3< * 78s,/*5 13.; .(H8,.(6 /340,2) 3< 7(5360 3. :*.7320 @ieF creating "heet mu"icA D 6ere, the "logan wa" not accompanied !y any melody or harmony D Therefore, "logan wa"n:t within the ".' definition of a mu"ical worktherefore no infringement D Copyright again doe" not protect the idea it"elf, only the e,pre""ion of idea" D P a""erted "he wa" the only per"on to ha1e linked together >5agic and 5y"tery> with the Jukon D Qudge didn:t rule out "u!"tantial copying of word" wouldn:t con"titute copyright infringement D 6owe1er, here, the 13.6s A$*),/ *26 $0s+(.0A *.( *2 ,6(*, 23+ (@4.(ss,32 ,2 * <,@(6 <3.7 D >5agic and 5y"tery> aren:t original word" @think the /eatle" >5agical 5y"tery Tour> al!umA D .hile the "ong i" copyrighta!le, the go1ernment didn:t copy the lyric", they Bu"t copied the concept that wa" pre1iou"ly articulated in her "ong D P al"o claimed that the "logan pre"ented a reproduction of a "u!"tantial part of her "ong D 6owe1er, =8s+ * <(1 13.6s <.37 +:( s32) 1,+:38+ 78s,/*5 *//374*2,7(2+ /*2B+ /32s+,+8+( * s89s+*2+,*5 4*.+ 3< +:( s32) ,2 H8(s+,32 D .ith re"pect to pa""ing off, S:(1*2 <*,5(6 +3 4.3-( +:*+ s:( :*6 * s8<<,/,(2+ .(48+*+,32 ,2 +:( /37782,+0 to e"ta!li"h a connection !etween her "ong and the "logan u"ed !y the go1ernment D %t the time the "logan wa" fir"t u"ed, her "ong wa" no longer !eing played on the radio D 6er heyday wa" around $&0)the "logan wa" u"ed for 3,po 06, when "he wa" forgotten D %" "uch, the potential confu"ion in the mind" of the pu!lic ne1er e,ceeded the thre"hold of "peculation, conBecture or argument D BF % few people li"tening to an o!"cure "ong on Jukon 9orth 7adio doe"n:t make you famou" 7F D C340,2) * 43.+,32 3< * 232?78s,/*5 .(4.368/+,32 3< * <(1 13.6s ,2 * s32) 63(s 23+ /32s+,+8+( (@4.(ss,32 <3. +:( 48.43s( 3< /340.,):+ ,2<.,2)(7(2+ KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 5% ARTISTIC WOR&S D The"e include painting", photograph", !uilding", architectural de"ign", ectand through picture", drawing", po"ter", ectthere:" a lot of way" to reproduce an arti"tic work D 9ote that a right attache" particularly to arti"tic work", a" well a" an e,ception for infringementF !#1% C340.,):+ ,2 13.;s D >+or the purpo"e" of thi" %ct, ScopyrightT, in relation to a work, mean" the "ole right to produce or reproduce the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in any material form whate1er, to perform the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in pu!lic or, if the work i" unpu!li"hed, to pu!li"h the

55
work or any "u!"tantial part thereof, and include" the "ole right @gA to pre"ent at a pu!lic e,hi!ition, for a purpo"e other than "ale or hire, an arti"tic work created after Qune #, $&00, other than a map, chart or plan> !2.2#1% P(.7,++(6 */+s D >It i" not an infringement of copyright @!A for any per"on to .(4.368/(, ,2 * 4*,2+,2), 6.*1,2), (2).*-,2), 4:3+3).*4: 3. /,2(7*+3).*4:,/ 13.; @iA *2 *./:,+(/+8.*5 13.;, pro1ided the copy i" not in the nature of an architectural drawing or plan, or D Can:t film the !lueprint"mu"t film the !uilding @iiA * s/854+8.( 3. 13.; 3< *.+,s+,/ /.*<+s7*2s:,4 3. * /*s+ 3. 736(5 3< * s/854+8.( 3. 13.; 3< *.+,s+,/ /.*<+s7*2s:,4 +:*+ ,s 4(.7*2(2+50 s,+8*+(6 ,2 4895,/ 45*/( 3. 98,56,2)> D Thi" i" "o that a per"on who take" a picture of a !uildingH"culpture doe"n:t get caught !y the %ct D 6owe1er, the e,ception i" limited"o if you take a picture of "omething el"e, might !e lia!le D 5oral right" are particularly important in connection with arti"tic work"F 28.2#2% W:(.( 4.(=86,/( 6((7(6 D >In the ca"e of a painting, "culpture or engra1ing, the preBudice referred to in "u!"ection @$A "hall !e deemed to ha1e occurred a" a re"ult of any di"tortion, mutilation or other modification of work> D +or other work", the di"tortion, mutilation, or modification mu"t !e "hown to !e preBudicial D 6owe1er, remem!er that it i" the author, not the copyright owner, who ha" the moral right" D Therefore, a copyright owner who i" not the author can:t do anything they like with the work D The ne,t ca"e deal" with copying !uilding plan" D 9ote that taking the de"ign wa" infringement e1en if the infringer did a lot to de1elop the de"ign D ieF (!ama >6ope> po"ter !a"ed on the %P photograph D %l"o note that the Budge came up with the damage award !y e"timating what Oaffka would ha1e a"ked a" a fee for the u"e of hi" de"ign, and adding on amount" to reflect other a"pect" of the wrong done to him "affka v. =ountain Side $eve o&*ents Ltd. (194' BCSC)CSubstantial "opying of or! E infringement +F D P, an architect, prepared general "chematic plan" to get municipal appro1al for the con"truction of ' duple, re"idence" on two adBoining lot" which hi" father owned D 6owe1er, rather than !uild the duple,e", P:" father "old the lot" to a corporate defendant @led !y PoltermannA after the plan" were drawn up and, a" a "peculati1e !uilder, !uilt the two duple, !uilding" D The plaintiff @ieF the "onA "ought relief for copyright infringement in that the plan" for the !uilding" were "u!"tantially copied !y the indi1idual defendant and an employee of the corporate defendant from hi" plan" which con"tituted an architectural work of art under the Copyright -"t D It wa" common ground that the plaintiff:" plan" were not of a kind to !e "uita!le a" !uilding plan" D 6owe1er, the ca"e for P i" that hi" general plan" were u"ed a" the !a"i" of the more "pecific !uilding plan" and that !oth the !uilding and the working plan" !reach the plaintiff:" copyright IF D 2id the !uilding" "u!"tantially copy from P:" !uilding de"ign", which were an arti"tic workG QF D Je", for P, 2 lia!le for damage" for !reach of copyright for U6,5)) %F D 2 fir"t make" a defence that P:" general de"ign" weren:t original D 6owe1er, the plan" prepared !y P had "ufficient originality and are entitled to !e protected D 9e,t, 2 argue" a" a defence that it ac;uired the plan" and a licence to u"e them when they purcha"ed D 6owe1er, the father of the plaintiff who "old the property to the defendant wa" not the owner of the copyright in the plan" and a 5,/(2/( /3856 23+ *.,s( from the purcha"e of the property D 9e,t, 2 argue" that if there wa" any !reach of copyright, it wa" !y the draught"man a" an independent de"igner and not the defendant "peculati1e !uilding company D 6owe1er, the 6.*8):+s7*2 1*s 23+ *2 ,26(4(26(2+ /32+.*/+3. !ut rather an employee of the defendant when the plan" were copied D %kerman, the draught"man, wa" a director and worked clo"ely with the principal of the company, Poltermann, at all "tage" of the proBect from negotiation" of the "ale to i""uance of the

56
permit D +inally, P claim" comparing plan" re1ealed >incredi!le "imilarity> >that could hardly !e accidental> D The plan" of P were u"ed !y the draught"man, who prepared the plan" for 2, a" a !a"i" for hi" working planthi" s,7,5*.,+0 ,2 +:( 45*2s 1*s 23+ *//,6(2+*5 D Therefore, +:( 45*,2+,<<Bs 45*2s 1(.(, ,2 s89s+*2/(, /34,(6 D SD*7*)(s <3. 9.(*/: 3< /340.,):+ *.( *+ 5*.)( *26 7*0 9( 6(*5+ 1,+: 9.3*650 *26 *s * 7*++(. 3< /37732 s(2s(, 1,+:38+ 4.3<(ss,2) +3 9( 7,28+(50 *//8.*+( T D In "ome ca"e", it ha" !een held that the damage" "hould not e,ceed the amount which the owner of the copyright would ha1e charged for a licence D 6ere, the e1idence e"ta!li"he" no definite amount that would ha1e !een charged. D Taking all the uncertaintie" and contingencie" into account "o far a" po""i!le, the court e"timate" the amount which would ha1e !een "ettled upon for the u"e of the "chematic" at a!out U',5)) with the defendant agreeing to gi1e pu!lic credit to the plaintiff a" de"ignerplu" e,emplary damage" D P wa" al"o entitled to damage" for u"e of the "chematic", damage" to reputation and e,emplary damage" @!ecau"e of the flagrant di"regard of the plaintiff:" right"A fi,ed in the amount of U6,5)) D 2amage" for con1er"ion mu"t !e nominal or there would !e duplicationdamage" are fi,ed at U$)) under thi" head @noteF Con1er"ion damage" ha1e !een repealedA D Ca"e not one for an account of profit" under ". ') of the Copyright %ct, !ecau"e the 2 made no profit D 9o account of profit" would !e helpful for P !ecau"e the real e"tate market wa" depre""ed 7F D A2 *.+,s+,/ 13.; 1,55 9( ,2<.,2)(6 1:(.( +:(.( ,s * s89s+*2+,*5 /340,2) 3< +:( 45*,2+,<<Bs 13.; D % current ca"e rele1ant to arti"tic work infringement @photograph po"terA i" the 7<a*a Poster Case D hepard +airey, the Lo" %ngele"D!a"ed arti"t !ehind the po"ter", u"ed a photograph taken !y an %""ociated Pre"" freelancer a" the in"piration for hi" image D La"t week, the %P accu"ed +airey of u"ing the photo without permi""ionunder threat of a law"uit, they wanted an undi"clo"ed payment and a portion of any profit" D The ;(0 5()*5 ,ss8( ,s 1:(+:(. F*,.(0Bs ).*4:,/ *.+ A+.*2s<3.7(6A +:( 3.,),2*5 4:3+3).*4: D /ut 5onday, +airey:" attorney" X The +air ?"e ProBect at tanford Law chool and a an +ranci"co law firm X !eat the %P to court and filed a law"uit for a declaration of fair dealing D The law"uit, filed in the ?. . 2i"trict Court for the outhern 2i"trict of 9ew Jork, "eek" a declaration "tating that +airey:" artwork doe" not infringe any copyright" and i" protected !y the +air ?"e 2octrine D >+air u"e> allow" limited u"e of copyrighted material without permi""ion, u"ually for parody or "atire D BF Canadian court" ha1e !een le"" ro!u"t in their defence of fair dealing than ? court" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK % SECONDARY INFRINGE$ENT D Certain dealing" with infringing copie" are defined a" infringement !y "ection '#@'A of the Copyright -"tF 2"#2% S(/326*.0 ,2<.,2)(7(2+ D >It i" an infringement of copyright for any per"on to @aA "ell or rent out, @!A di"tri!ute to "uch an e,tent a" to affect preBudicially the owner of the copyright, @cA !y way of trade di"tri!ute, e,po"e or offer for "ale or rental, or e,hi!it in pu!lic, @dA po""e"" for the purpo"e of doing anything referred to in paragraph" @aA to @cA, or @eA import into Canada for the purpo"e of doing anything referred to in paragraph" @aA to @cA, a copy of a work, "ound recording or fi,ation of a performerN" performance or of a communication "ignal that the per"on know" or "hould ha1e known infringe" copyright or would infringe copyright if it had !een made in Canada !y the per"on who made it> D The"e act" are la!eled a" s(/326*.0 ,2<.,2)(7(2+ 9(/*8s( 5,*9,5,+0 6(4(26s 8432 +:( /340 9(,2) *2 ,2<.,2),2) /340, the making of which can !e de"cri!ed a" the primary infringement D 9ote that s(/326*.0 ,2<.,2)(7(2+ .(H8,.(s ,2+(2+,32 3. 2()5,)(2/(, a" the "econd "ection "tipulate" that the alleged "econdary infringer know" or "hould ha1e known a!out the infringing copy D In the ne,t ca"e, the CC "plit four way" in a ca"e where copyright law wa" u"ed un"ucce""fully to

5#
attempt to !lock parallel import" of chocolate !ar" into Canada D OCI trie" to u"e ".'#@'A, where the o!1iou" conte,t in which thi" "ection would apply i" that if one party make" infringing copie" of a work in 3urope without licence, a "econd party who import" and "ell" tho"e copie" in Canada i" lia!le for infringement D The twi"t in the following ca"e i" that it wa" the 3uropean owner of the copyright, not an unauthori<ed party, who made the copie" in 3urope

.uro;./ce ence ,nc. v. "raft Canada ,nc. ('((3 SCC)CSho s the torture of intelle"tual property la +F D Oraft +ood" /elgium @O+/A make" CYte dN(r @and To!leroneA chocolate !ar" in /elgium, and Oraft Canada Inc. @OCIA i" the e,clu"i1e authori<ed Canadian di"tri!utor D 3uroD3,cellence !uy" the chocolate !ar" legitimately in 3urope and import" and di"tri!ute" them in Canada in competition with OCIand a" a capitali"t, OCI hate" competition and want" thi" to "top D To "top thi" unauthori<ed di"tri!ution, O+/ granted an e,clu"i1e licence in it" copyright in the CYte dN(r logo to OCI, and the logo i" clearly an arti"tic work @!o, wa" a trademark, not copyrighta!leA D OCI then !rought an action again"t 3uroD3,cellence for copyright infringement of chocolate !ar logo D 3uroD3,cellence ne1er made any copie" of the logo, a" it !ought the !ar" in their original packaging D Thu" if the !ar" had originated in Canada there would !e no i""ue of copyright infringement D 6owe1er, OCI relied on ". '#@'A of the Copyright -"t which relate" to imported work" and pro1ide" that "econdary infringement i" made out on two condition"F the per"on aA ell or di"tri!ute" a copy of a work that !A Swould infringe copyright if it had !een made in Canada !y the per"on who made it @ieF O+/AT D OCI argue" that e1en though O+/ held the 3uropean copyright, it had granted an e,clu"i1e Canadian licence to OCI D Therefore, if O+/ had made the copie" in Canada which i" the counterDfactual SifT "pecified !y ".'#@'A it would ha1e 1iolated OCI Canadian copyright, notwith"tanding that !ecau"e in fact O+/ made the copie" in 3urope, it did not infringe any 3uropean copyright law" D +ederal Court awarded an inBunction re"training 3uroD3,cellence from "elling, di"tri!uting, e,po"ing or offering for "ale any copie" of copyrighted logo"+ederal Court of %ppeal upheld the inBunction IF D Can the "econdary infringement pro1i"ion apply if the owner of the copyright made the copie"G QF D 9o, for Oraft @Budgment" "plit *D$D*D'A @# Budge" concur, two di""enter"A %F D 7idiculou"ly confu"ing BudgmentF aA R3+:s+(,2 I #B,22,( *26 D(s/:*74s II. /32/8..,2)% C*2B+ .(*6 ,2 5(),+,7*+( (/3237,/ ,2+(.(s+ ,2+3 +:( Co&yri2#t Act D Co&yri2#t Act 63(s 23+ (@(74+ ,2/,6(2+*5 13.;s <.37 +:( 4.3+(/+,32 3< /340.,):+, *26 ,+ ,s 23+ <3. +:,s C38.+ +3 /.(*+( s8/: *2 (@(74+,32 D %ll arti"tic work", including logo", recei1e the protection of copyright if they meet the re;ui"ite "tandard" of S"kill and BudgmentT, and there i" no di"pute in thi" ca"e that the logo" in ;ue"tion are legitimate "u!Bect" of copyright D %ct doe" not "upport the introduction of a new e;uita!le doctrine of Slegitimate economic intere"tT to read down the legi"lation and to e,clude logo" on wrapper" from the domain of copyright D ?nder ".6-@*A@!A, the mere fact that a trademark ha" attached to good" doe"n:t take it out of copyright protectionallow" infringement of a trademark logo, e1en if "ection e,empt" reproduction" of a de"ign on an article in amount" greater than 5) D U2+,5 P*.5,*7(2+ 4.3-,6(s 3+:(.1,s(, /38.+s *.( 93826 +3 /32/586( +:*+ * 53)3 32 * /:3/35*+( 9*. 1.*44(. /*2 .(/(,-( /32/8..(2+ +.*6(-7*.; *26 /340.,):+ 4.3+(/+,32 D Can infringe copyright in a logo if it:" put on a po"terBu"t not infringed here D Ca"e turn" on a "traightforward application of ". '#@'A@eA of the Copyright -"t D +or OCI to "ucceed, ,+ 78s+ s:31 E8.3 ,743.+(6 13.;s +:*+ 13856 :*-( ,2<.,2)(6 /340.,):+ ,< +:(0 :*6 9((2 7*6( ,2 C*2*6* 90 +:( 4(.s32s 1:3 7*6( +:(7 D 6owe1er, thi" hypothetical primary infringement cannot !e e"ta!li"hed in thi" ca"e D If OCI i" the e,clu"i1e licencee, !ut O+/ and O+ are the e,clu"i1e owner" of copyright

50
D In an a""ignment, whole property i" tran"ferred @in copyright, piece" can !e a""igned D In contra"t, e,clu"i1e licencee under ".'.# i" not the grant of a whole property intere"t D O+/ and O+ made the impugned copie" of the work" in 3urope, and would not ha1e infringed copyright if they had produced the CYte dN(r and To!lerone logo" in Canada !ecau"e they are, re"pecti1ely, the owner" of the Canadian copyright in tho"e logo" D S,2/( * /340.,):+ 312(. /*223+ 9( 5,*95( +3 ,+s (@/58s,-( 5,/(2s(( <3. ,2<.,2)(7(2+, +:(.( ,s 23 :043+:(+,/*5 ,2<.,2)(7(2+ , and thu" no 1iolation of ". '#@'A@eA !y 3uro D BF technical di"tinction !etween an e,clu"i1e licencee and an a""ignee get" way too far away from the merit" of the ca"e D ection '#@'A@eA of the %ct, read in conte,t with the definitional and lia!ility pro1i"ion", lead" to the nece""ary conclu"ion that an e,clu"i1e licen"ee may "ue third partie" for infringement, !ut not the owner-licen"or of the copyright D Therefore, OCI can:t "ue O+/ and O+ in it" own name for infringement a" the owner" of the copyright in Canada, !ut could "ue any!ody el"e D E@/58s,-( 5,/(2s((Ks 3250 .(7(60 *)*,2s+ +:( 312(.-5,/(2s3. 5,(s ,2 /32+.*/+ D BF If O+/ and O+ a""igned copyright to OCI, the hypothetical infringement would ha1e occurred and 3uro would !e lia!lenot "ure why they didn:t !A F,s: I. A).((s 1,+: R3+:s+(,2 I. 98+ 6,s*).((s 8s,2) /340.,):+ <3. +.*6( /32+.35 D %gree" with 7oth"tein Q.N" rea"on", !ut agree" with /a"tarache Q:" argument of not u"ing copyright law for a trademark claim D .ithout "o deciding, he e,pre""ed gra1e dou!t a" to whether the law go1erning the protection of intellectual property right" in Canada can !e tran"formed into an in"trument of trade control not contemplated !y the Copyright -"t, a" OCI "eek" to do cA B*s+*.*/:( I. #L(B(5 *26 C:*..32 II. /32/8..,2)% R(*6 6312 s.2"#2% +3 ,+s 5(),+,7*+( (/3237,/ ,2+(.(s+M 63(s2B+ *4450 ,< ,+Bs A7(.(50 ,2/,6(2+*5A +3 s*5(G.(2+*5 3< * /32s87(. )336 D A$(.(50 ,2/,6(2+*5A 4.(s(2/( 3< +:( /340.,):+(6 13.;s 32 1.*44(.s 3< +:( /:3/35*+( 9*.s 63(s 23+ 9.,2) +:( /:3/35*+( 9*.s 1,+:,2 +:( 4.3+(/+,32s 3<<(.(6 90 +:( A/+ D ".'#@'A of the %ct, which prohi!it" parallel importation into Canada of copyrighted work", cannot !e u"ed to pre1ent 3uro from importing genuine CYte dN(r and To!lerone chocolate !ar" into Canada for the purpo"e of "elling, renting, di"tri!uting or trading, on the !a"i" that the logo" are copyrighted D ection '#@'A i" meant to protect author" from the unauthori<ed appropriation of the gain" of their author"hip, !ut thi" protection doe" not e,tend to include any and all economic gain" claimed !y an author or copyright owner D I< +:( 13.; ,2 H8(s+,32 ,s 7(.(50 ,2/,6(2+*5 +3 *23+:(. /32s87(. )336, *26 ,+ ,s +:*+ /32s87(. )336 1:,/: ,s 9(,2) s356 3. 6,s+.,98+(6, 3. 6(*5+ 1,+: 90 1*0 3< +.*6(, s. 2"#2% /*223+ 9( ,2-3;(6 D It i" only when it i" the work it"elf which i" the "u!Bect of the "ale or other commercial dealing that the "ection applie" and it" protection !ecome" a1aila!le D The Copyright -"t ought to !e interpreted with an eye to the internal coherence of it" own "cheme and con"i"tently with the 'rademar!s -"t D Trade-mark law protect" market "hare in commercial good", wherea" copyright protect" the economic gain" re"ulting from an e,erci"e of "kill and Budgment D The 5*1 3< /340.,):+ s:3856 23+ 9( 8s(6 +3 4.3+(/+ 7*.;(+ s:*.( ,< +:*+ .(H8,.(s /32+3.+,2) ,+ 38+s,6( ,+s 23.7*5 s4:(.( 3< 34(.*+,32 where the economic intere"t at "take i" only tangentially related to the copyrighted work @BF good argumentA D ".'#@'A i" not meant to protect manufacturer" from the unauthori<ed importation of con"umer good" on the !a"i" of their ha1ing a copyrighted work affi,ed to their wrapper, thi" work !eing merely incidental to their 1alue a" con"umer good" D ieF not lia!le if an infringing in"truction !ooklet i" included in a "tereo !o, D The .,):+s +.*2s<(..(6 +3 * 5,/(2s(( 78s+ 9( 5,7,+(6 ,2 +:( s*7( 1*0 *s +:3s( 3< +:( 3.,),2*5 /.(*+3. 3< +:( 13.; +3 +:( 5(),+,7*+( (/3237,/ ,2+(.(s+s .(s85+,2) <.37 +:( (@(./,s( 3< s;,55 *26 =86)7(2+ D Therefore, condition >a> of ".'#@'A, the >"elling> or >renting>, wa" not "ati"fied D 3uro not "elling arti"tic work it"elfit:" "elling chocolate !ar" with a copy of the work D A /340.,):+(6 13.; ,s 23+ Ps356K <3. +:( 48.43s(s 3< s.2"#2% ,< +:( +.*2s<(. ,s

5&
,2/,6(2+*5 +3 +:( s*5( 3< s37( 3+:(. 13.;...that i", in common "en"e term", con"umer" are !uying the chocolate !ar, they are not !uying the CYte dN(r logo D The arti"tic work i" >merely incidental> to the "ale of the chocolate !ar D BF thi" i" a !etter Budgment than 7oth"tein Q.:" rea"oning that you can:t read into the %ct dA A9(55* I. #$/L*/:5,2 I. /32/8..,2)% E@/58s,-( 5,/(2s(( /*2 s8( 5,/(2s3. <3. ,2<.,2)(7(2+ D (n hypothetical infringement, OCI wa" the owner of a defined intere"t in copyright that had !een tran"ferred to it !y the parent companie" D Term" of licen"ing agreement and right" granted to it a" an e,clu"i1e licen"ee ga1e OCI the right to "ue the ownerDlicen"or or third partie" for copyright infringement D Therefore, copyright in the logo" would ha1e !een infringed a" again"t OCI if the logo" had !een reproduced !y the parent companie" in Canada D (n "econdary infringement, the copyrighted work @ieF the logo" on the wrapper"A were !eing >"old> or >di"tri!uted> within the meaning of the %ct D Logo" weren:t >incidental> to the chocolate !ar" D 3uro, after notified of OCI:" copyright intere"t, kept importing into Canada for "ale 7F D C32<5,/+,2) 6(/,s,32, 98+ *2 (@/58s,-( 5,/(2/(( /*2B+ s8( +:( /340.,):+ 312(. <3. ,2<.,2)(7(2+ N3+(F 7e"ult of the deci"ion can !e circum1ented !y O+/ a""igning the Canadian copyright to OCI, rather than merely granting an e,clu"i1e licence, a" it i" clear that an a""ignee can "ue the a""ignor in copyright D Thu" while 3uroD3,cellence won the !attle, all the way to the CC, it might lo"e the war KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK "% AUTHORIQING INFRINGE$ENT D o far, thi" "ection ha" dealt with infringement and all the e,ception" thereto D I2<.,2)(7(2+ i" anything that the copyright owner ha" the "ole right to do @".'#@$AA, which include" the right" in ".*, ".$5, ".$0, and ".'$ D Layered on top of thi" i" s(/326*.0 ,2<.,2)(7(2+ @".'#@'AA, which include" dealing in "ome way with infringing copie"re;uire" knowledge in "ome form, u"ually include" e,ploiting it commercially D 7ight" al"o include authori<ing infringementF !#1% C340.,):+ ,2 13.;s D >+or purpo"e" of thi" %ct, S/340.,):+T, in relation to a work, mean" the s35( .,):+ +3 4.368/( 3. .(4.368/( +:( 13.; 3. *20 s89s+*2+,*5 4*.+ +:(.(3< ,2 *20 7*+(.,*5 <3.7 1:*+(-(. , to perform the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof in pu!lic or, if the work i" unpu!li"hed, to pu!li"h the work or any "u!"tantial part thereof, and include" the "ole right @@aA to @iA li"tA *26 +3 *8+:3.,D( *20 s8/: */+s> D In the ne,t ca"e, CC6 un"ucce""fully tried to argue that the Law ociety authori<ed infringement of their copyrighted material" !y pro1iding copie" D In"tead, the CC allowed in"titution" holding copyright material" to ha1e copying de1ice" a1aila!le to u"er" without !eing taken to >authori<e> infringement !y tho"e u"er" CC% Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of U&&er Canada ('(() SCC)CSCC balan"es o ner and user rights +F D ee earlier in C%9 for full fact"ca"e concerned photocopying of law report" and legal te,t!ook" D Law pu!li"her" maintained that the Law ociety had not only infringed copyright !y it"elf making copie" of the work", !ut al"o, !y maintaining "elfD"er1ice photocopier" in the 4reat Li!rary at ("goode 6all, authori<ed infringement !y u"er" of the copie" IF D 2id the Law ociety authori<e copyright infringement !y pro1iding "elfD"er1ice photocopier"G QF D 9o, for Law ociety %F D %uthori<ation can !e inferred from act" that are le"" than direct and po"iti1e ,+Bs * > 3< <*/+ D 6owe1er, * 4(.s32 63(s 23+ *8+:3.,D( ,2<.,2)(7(2+ 90 *8+:3.,D,2) +:( 7(.( 8s( 3< (H8,47(2+ +:*+ /3856 9( 8s(6 +3 ,2<.,2)( /340.,):+ D Pre"umption that a per"on authori<e" an acti1ity only "o far a" it i" in accordance with the law D P.(s874+,32 7*0 9( .(98++(6 P s:31s +:*+ * /(.+*,2 .(5*+,32s:,4 3. 6().(( 3< /32+.35

6)
(@,s+(6 9(+1((2 *55()(6 *8+:3.,D(. *26 4(.s32s 1:3 /377,++(6 +:( /340.,):+ ,2<.,2)(7(2+ D 6ere, there wa" no e1idence that the copier" had !een u"ed in a manner that wa" not con"i"tent with copyright law for three rea"on"F aA N3 (-,6(2/( +:*+ +:( 4:3+3/34,(.s 1(.( 8s(6 +3 *98s( /340.,):+ 5*1 D 9ot an infringement of copyright to authori<e mere u"e of e;uipment !A L*1 S3/,(+0Bs 43s+(. 3< 23+,/( 6,6 23+ (@4.(ss */;2315(6)7(2+ 3< ,55()*5,+0 D Law ociety:" po"ting of a notice warning that it will not !e re"pon"i!le for any copie" made in infringement of copyright doe" not con"titute an e,pre"" acknowledgement that the copier" will !e u"ed in an illegal manner D In"tead, it wa" Bu"t a reminder that Canadian copyright law go1ern" photocopie" cA L,9.*.0 :*6 ,2s8<<,/,(2+ /32+.35 3-(. ,+s 4*+.32s D The Law ociety and 4reat Li!rary patron" are not in a ma"terD"er1ant or employerD employee relation"hip "uch that the Law ociety can !e "aid to e,erci"e control o1er the patron" who might commit infringement D Therefore, e1en if they had notice that the u"er" were infringing, the mere fact that they had knowledge didn:t impo"e a duty on the li!rary to police the infringer D Therefore, merely offering a photocopier doe"n:t a""ume infringement unle"" they are on notice that indi1idual" are infringing 7F D $(.( 8s( 3< (H8,47(2+ +:*+ /3856 9( 8s(6 +3 ,2<.,2)( /340.,):+ 63(s 23+ /32s+,+8+( *8+:3.,D,2) /340.,):+ ,2<.,2)(7(2+ 825(ss +:(.( ,s 6().(( 3< /32+.35 9(+1((2 +:( *55()(6 *8+:3.,D(. *26 +:( 4(.s32s 1:3 /377,++(6 +:( /340.,):+ ,2<.,2)(7(2+ D There i" now an e,pre"" "tatutory e,ception for educational in"titution" with in"talled machine" for u"eF !0.!#1% N3 ,2<.,2)(7(2+ 90 (68/*+,32*5 ,2s+,+8+,32, (+/. D >%n educational in"titution or a li!rary, archi1e or mu"eum doe" not infringe copyright where @aA * /340 3< * 13.; ,s 7*6( 8s,2) * 7*/:,2( <3. +:( 7*;,2), 90 .(4.3).*4:,/ .(4.368/+,32, 3< /34,(s 3< 13.;s ,2 4.,2+(6 <3.7C @!A the machine i" in"talled !y or with the appro1al of the educational in"titution, li!rary, archi1e or mu"eum on it" premi"e" for u"e !y "tudent", in"tructor" or "taff at the educational in"titution or !y per"on" u"ing the li!rary, archi1e or mu"eumC and @cA there i" affi,ed in the pre"cri!ed manner and location a notice warning of infringement of copyright> D BF %ll "tatutory e,ception" in the Copyright -"t are ;ualified !y complicated pro1i"ion" later in the "ectionhere, it only applie" ifF !0.!#2% A445,/*+,32 D > u!"ection @$A only applie" if, in re"pect of a reprographic reproduction, @aA the educational in"titution, li!rary, archi1e or mu"eum ha" (2+(.(6 ,2+3 *2 *).((7(2+ 1,+: * /355(/+,-( s3/,(+0 +:*+ ,s *8+:3.,D(6 90 /340.,):+ 312(.s +3 ).*2+ 5,/(2/(s 32 +:(,. 9(:*5<> D CC+ o1errule" ".*).*@'A e,ception, a" Law ociety of ?pper Canada didn:t enter into a deal with 3,ce"" Copyright !ut are protected anyway" !y not authori<ing D Therefore, making a copier a1aila!le need not rely on "tatutory e,ception anymore KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 8% FAIR DEALING EJCEPTION D The fair dealing e,ception" are 1irtually the 3250 (@/(4+,32s +:*+ /*2 *4450 +3 *20 4*.+0 D 5o"t other "tatutory e,ception" only apply to "pecial need" of educational in"titution", li!rarie", archi1e", and mu"eum" @BF don:t worry a!out tho"e, e,cept forF D s.!0. *5531s * 8s(. +3 7*;( 32( 9*/;84 /340 3< * /3748+(. s3<+1*.( program a" long a" you de"troy it immediately after you cea"e to !e the owner of the copy D s.!0." *5531s <3. ,2/,6(2+*5 ,2/58s,32 D There i" little ca"e law on fair dealingu"ed to !e one pro1i"ion, !roken into * pro1i"ion" in $&&# D There ,s 23 95*2;(+ .,):+ +3 6(*5 <*,.50N3250 s+*+8+3.0 (@/(4+,32s <3. /(.+*,2 48.43s(s D They protect act" that would u"ually infringe the copyright owner, "uch a" reproduction,

6$
communication !y telecommunication, tran"lating the work, ect D CC+F The"e "houldn:t !e treated a" e,emption", !ut part of u"er:" right" that are part of the !alance !etween owner and u"er:" right" D Three "ection" pro1ide fair dealing e,ception" for only * "pecific purpo"e"F 29 R(s(*./: 3. 4.,-*+( s+860 D >+air dealing for the purpo"e of re"earch or pri1ate "tudy doe" not infringe copyright> D ?nlike ".'&.$ and ".'&.', there are no condition" attached to thi" e,ception 29.1C.,+,/,s7 3. .(-,(1 D >+air dealing for the purpo"e of critici"m or re1iew doe" not infringe copyright ,< +:( <35531,2) *.( 7(2+,32(6F @aA the s38./(C and @!A if gi1en in the "ource, the 2*7( 3< +:( @iA *8+:3., in the ca"e of a work, @iiA performer, in the ca"e of a performerN" performance, @iiiA maker, in the ca"e of a "ound recording, or @i1A !roadca"ter, in the ca"e of a communication "ignal> 29.2N(1s .(43.+,2) D >+air dealing for the purpo"e of new" reporting doe" not infringe copyright ,< +:( <35531,2) *.( 7(2+,32(6F @aA the s38./(C and @!A if gi1en in the "ource, the 2*7( 3< +:( @iA *8+:3., in the ca"e of a work, @iiA performer, in the ca"e of a performerN" performance, @iiiA maker, in the ca"e of a "ound recording, or @i1A !roadca"ter, in the ca"e of a communication "ignal> D Therefore, reporting without naming the "ource i"n:t "u!Bect to the e,emption D Ca"e law determine" whether the action" taken for re"earchHpri1ate "tudy, critici"mHre1iew, or new" reporting were actually done for the purpo"e" of >fair dealing> University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutoria Press Ltd. (191! U" C#. $) CNot fair dealing +F D ?ni1er"ity hired a num!er of profe""or" to put together math e,am", then pu!li"hed the"e old e,am" D Competitor, Tutorial Pre"", came along, got "tudent" to gi1e their copie" to the tutorial "er1ice, and then pu!li"hed copie" of the e,am" D Tutorial Pre"" didn:t pu!li"h copie" of the e,am" that the uni1er"ity had it"elf pu!li"hed, !ut the competitor pu!li"hed copie" of the e,am" that it got from the "tudent" IF D Could Tutorial Pre"" rely on the fair dealing e,ception !ecau"e the e,am" were only !eing u"ed for pri1ate "tudyG QF D 9o, for ?ni1er"ity of London D Court wa" not happy that one "et of e,am paper" had !een reproduced without "olution" that undermined the !enefit of u"ing them for pri1ate "tudy D Therefore, Court "aid that the 2N" could not rely on the fair dealing e,ception D I< ,+ ,s * s+.*,):+ .(4895,/*+,32 3< *2 (@,s+,2) /340.,):+(6 13.;, +:(2 /*223+ .(*550 s*0 +:*+ ,+ ,s <3. 4.,-*+( s+860 <3. +:( 48.43s( 3< <*,. 6(*5,2) D ieF why not Bu"t u"e the original 1er"ion if it i" the "ameG D 6ere, the minor change" that the 2N" made to "ome of the paper" in term" of adding heading" etc. wa" not "ignificant D Court held that e1en repu!li"hing the ;ue"tion" with an"wer" attached would not !e accepta!le D BF If you enter the market for the purpo"e" of competing with the original copy, it will !e 1ery difficult to argue it i" for the purpo"e of fair dealing @pri1ate "tudent 1. commercial pu!li"herA 7F D A55 */+,32s 632( <3. +:( 48.43s( 3< .(s(*./: 3< 4.,-*+( s+860 1,55 23+ *++.*/+ +:( <*,. 6(*5,2) (@/(4+,32, (s4(/,*550 ,< +:(0 *.( 632( <3. * /377(./,*5 48.43s(

6'

CC% Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of U&&er Canada ('(() SCC)C#ibrary prote"ted by fair dealing +F D ince $&5-, Law ociety of ?pper Canada offered re;ue"tD!a"ed, nonDprofit photocopying "er1ice" to "tudent", mem!er", Budiciary, and authori<ed re"earcher" at >4reat Li!rary> in ("goode 6all D The Law ociety pro1ided copie" of legal article", "tatute", and deci"ion" to tho"e who re;ue"ted D The Law ociety argued that the "er1ice they offer i" nece""ary to pro1iding e;ual acce"" the li!raryN" collection of legal material"many of the material" are nonDcirculating which make" acce"" to the original copie" difficult to tho"e who do not work nearD!y. D Three of the large"t pu!li"her" of legal "ource", CC6 Canadian Limited, Car"well Thom"on Profe""ional Pu!li"hing and Canada Law /ook Inc., "ued the Law ociety for copyright infringement D 6ere, focu" wa" on the Li!rary making photocopie" of copyrighta!le work" for lawyer" on re;ue"t D 4reat Li!rary put re"triction" on the cu"tom photocopy "er1ice, and therefore argued that making photocopie" for the lawyer" were fair dealing for the purpo"e" of re"earch or pri1ate "tudy IF D .a" any po""i!le infringement protected !y the fair dealing e,ception when a party i" not the party doing the actual re"earch @ieF only an a""i"tantAG .a" the lawyer:" re"earch fair dealingG QF D Je", for Law ociety %F D ?nder ". '& of the Copyright -"t, fair dealing for the purpo"e of re"earch or pri1ate "tudy doe" not infringe copyright D F*,. 6(*5,2) ,s 73.( +:*2 s,7450 * 6(<(2/(, ,+ ,s * 8s(.Bs .,):+ D >R(s(*./:> mu"t !e gi1en a large and li!eral interpretation in order to en"ure that u"er": right" are not unduly con"trained, and i" not limited to nonDcommercial or pri1ate conte,t" D In order to "how that a dealing wa" fair under ". '& of the Copyright -"t, a defendant mu"t pro1e aA That the 6(*5,2) 1*s <3. +:( 48.43s( 3< (,+:(. .(s(*./: 3. 4.,-*+( s+860, *26 !A That it wa" <*,. D Euoted Lord 2enningit i" ,743ss,95( +3 6(<,2( 1:*+ ,s A<*,. 6(*5,2)A D >It mu"t !e a ;ue"tion of 6().((. Jou mu"t con"ider fir"t the 2879(. *26 (@+(2+ of the ;uotation" and e,tract". %re they altogether too many and too long to !e fairG Then you mu"t con"ider the u"e made of them. If they are u"ed a" a !a"i" for comment, critici"m or re1iew, that may !e a fair dealing. If they are u"ed to con1ey the "ame information a" the author, for a ri1al purpo"e, that may !e unfair. 9e,t, you mu"t con"ider the 4.343.+,32s. To take long e,tract" and attach "hort comment" may !e unfair. /ut, "hort e,tract" and long comment" may !e fair. (ther con"ideration" may come to mind al"o. /ut, *<+(. *55 ,s s*,6 *26 632(, ,+ 78s+ 9( * 7*++(. 3< ,74.(ss,32> D %lthough the"e con"ideration" will not all ari"e in e1ery ca"e of fair dealing, thi" 5,s+ 3< <*/+3.s 4.3-,6(s * 8s(<85 *2*50+,/*5 <.*7(13.; +3 )3-(.2 6(+(.7,2*+,32s 3< <*,.2(ss in future ca"e"F aA The 48.43s( 3< +:( 6(*5,2) @ieF re"earch and pri1ate "tudyGA !A The /:*.*/+(. 3< +:( 6(*5,2) @ieF "tudent" or companyGA cA The *7382+ 3< +:( 6(*5,2) @ieF a lot or a littleGA dA A5+(.2*+,-(s +3 +:( 6(*5,2) @ieF any other practical way to get rele1ant materialGA eA T:( 2*+8.( 3< +:( 13.; @ieF doe" it competeAC and fA T:( (<<(/+ 3< +:( 6(*5,2) 32 +:( 13.; @ieF commercially competing with the workGA D BF /alance u"er" and owner" right", and a"kF i" thi" "omething u"er" "hould !e allowed to doG D 2onNt analy<e tran"action !y tran"actionit:" a E of whether the entire "y"tem met the "tandard D 2on:t need to pro1e e1ery indi1idual copied without infringinga"k an o1erall ;ue"tion D +or the purpo"e of re"earch or pri1ate "tudy, it may !e e""ential to copy an entire academic article or an entire Budicial deci"ion D 6owe1er, if a work of literature i" copied for the purpo"e of critici"m, it will not likely !e fair to include a full copy of the work in the criti;ue D If the work in ;ue"tion wa" confidential, thi" may tip the "cale" toward" finding that the dealing wa" unfair D Lawyer" carrying on !u"ine"" of law for profit are conducting re"earch within the meaning of ". '& D 6ere, the L*1 S3/,(+0Bs 6(*5,2)s 1,+: +:( 4895,s:(.sB 13.;s +:.38): ,+s /8s+37 4:3+3/340 s(.-,/( 1(.( .(s(*./:?9*s(6 *26 <*,. D The acce"" policy place" appropriate limit" on the type of copying that the Law ociety will do D If a re;ue"t doe" not appear to !e for the purpo"e of re"earch, critici"m, re1iew or pri1ate "tudy,

6*
the copy will not !e made D If a ;ue"tion ari"e" a" to whether the "tated purpo"e i" legitimate, the reference li!rarian will re1iew the matter D The acce"" policy limit" the amount of work that will !e copied, and the reference li!rarian re1iew" re;ue"t" that e,ceed what might typically !e con"idered rea"ona!le and ha" the right to refu"e to fulfil a re;ue"t D %lthough the dealing" might not !e fair if a "pecific patron of the 4reat Li!rary "u!mitted numerou" re;ue"t" for multiple reported Budicial deci"ion" from the "ame reported "erie" o1er a "hort period of time, there i" no e1idence that thi" ha" occurred D In thi" ca"e the "er1ice i" 1ery 1alua!le, e"pecially to lawyer" in rural area" D If a copyright owner were allowed to licen"e people to u"e it" work and then point to a per"on:" deci"ion not to o!tain a licence a" proof that hi" or her dealing" were not fair, thi" would e,tend the "cope of the owner:" monopoly o1er the u"e of hi" or her work in a manner that would not !e con"i"tent with the Copyright -"t:" !alance !etween owner:" right" and u"er:" intere"t" 7F D T:( 7(.( <*/+ +:*+ .(s(*./: 1*s 632( <3. * /377(./,*5 48.43s( 63(s2B+ +*;( ,+ 38+ 3< <*,. 6(*5,2) *s 532) *s +:( (2+,.( s/:(7( 7(+ +:( s+*26*.6 <3. <*,. 6(*5,2) #s(( +:( <*/+3.s% Productions Avanti Cine;?ideo ,nc. v. 9avreau (1999 @ue. CA)CParody "opied a substantial part +F D % @%1antiA wa" the e,clu"i1e owner of the T8 "erie" entitled >La Petite 8ie> @>the "u!ur!an life>A D The "how ;ualified a" a "itcom de"cri!ing "u!ur!an e,i"tence, and >La Petite 8ie> wa" watched !y nearly ' out of * +rench "peaking Eue!ecer"%1anti hold" title to copyright on "aid tele1i"ion "erie" D 7 @+a1reauA produced and offer for "ale a pornographic 1ideo entitled >La Petite 8ite> @a >;uickie>A D The porno reproduce" the "ame character", mu"ical theme and decor a" pre"ented in >La Petite 8ie> D %t trial, %1anti e""entially applied forF @$A a declaration ratifying the "ei<ure !efore Budgement of re"pondent": 1ideo", and @'A a permanent inBunction re"training the re"pondent" from producing, di"tri!uting and marketing >La Petite 8ite> a" well a" ordering the de"truction of all copie" D TQ ruled in fa1our of +a1reau, concluding that there wa" no infringement of copyright !ecau"e the re"pondent": reproduction of the character" of >La Petite 8ie> did not con"titute a "u!"tantial reproduction of %1anti:" work D Two pro!lem" for copyright ownerF porno didn:t "u!"tantially copy the T8 "erie" @idea 1. e,pre""ionA, and TQ didn:t con"ider parody defence de"pite "ignificant reference made to Buri"prudence IF D .a" >La Petite 8ite> a "u!"tantial reproduction of >La Petite 8ie>G If "o, could the producer" of >La Petite 8ite> u"e the defence of fair u"e for the purpo"e of parodyG QF D 9o, for %1anti %F D %" a general rule, there i" 1iolation of the right" of an author of a protected work if a per"on reproduce" a work in whole or reproduce" a "u!"tantial part thereof a" defined under ".* D 6ere, C% held AL* P(+,+( ',(A 1*s * 13.; *s 6(<,2(6 826(. +:( A/+ *26 s89=(/+ +3 4.3+(/+,32 D Therefore, the central i""ue wa" what con"titute" a "u!"tantial part of a dramatic work and whether or not the re"pondent" mi"appropriated a "u!"tantial part of >La Petite 8ie> DThe notion >"u!"tantial part of a work> e""entially mean" that copyright "u!"i"t" on one of the multiple part" of a work !ecau"e "aid part i" "ufficiently original and important D (ne mu"t therefore refer to the meaning of originality in order to determine what i" in fact a "u!"tantial part of a work D To determine whether a ficti1e character i" "ufficiently original "o a" to con"titute a "u!"tantial part of a dramatic work, one mu"t e1aluate whether "aid character i" "ufficiently de1eloped D In other word", the importance that the character play" in the o1erall pre"entation of the work D +or e,ample, i" the character "ufficiently di"tincti1e "o a" to permit the pu!lic to a""ociate the character with the workG D The originality of a ficti1e character i" a ;ue"tion of fact and degree, namely, whether there i" enough work, la!our and "kill in1ol1ed in the de1elopment of "aid character D 6ere, CA .85(6 +:*+ AL* P(+,+( ',(A 1*s * :,):50 6(-(534(6 6.*7*+,/ 13.; 1:,/: :*6 *++*,2(6 824.(/(6(2+(6 s8//(ss *26 43485*.,+0 D The character" were original !ecau"e they were highly de1eloped per"onalitie" in a" much a" their appearance, a" their !eha1iour, language and manneri"m" D 3ach of the character" in >La Petite 8ie> i" Bu"t a" well de1eloped a" the character" in Tintin,

6%"teri, or 4arfieldall character" were in"tantly recogni<a!le D ?nderlining thi" point i" the fact that %1anti wa" "olicited !y corporation" in order to o!tain permi""ion to u"e "ome of the per"onalitie" within >La Petite 8ie> for ad1erti"ing campaign" D 3ach of the character" from >La Petite 8ie> were perfectly recogni<a!le in the parody porno >La Petite 8ite>+:(.(<3.( CA /32/586(6 +:*+ +:( .(s4326(2+s ,2<.,2)(6 AL* P(+,+( ',(A D BF "how" that ripping off character" in a dramatic work can !e infringement if you follow the original clo"ely enough D The re"pondent" al"o .*,s(6 +:( <*,. 8s( 6(<(2/( *s 4.3-,6(6 <3. 826(. s(/+,32 29 of the %ct and alleged that their reproduction con"tituted fair u"e !ecau"e it wa" a parody of %1anti:" work D IntentF it:" good for "ociety that people can make fun of and "atiri<e thing" D In thi" regard, the Court held that >La Petite 8ite> wa" 23+ * 4*.360 9(/*8s( ,+s 48.43s( 1*s 23+ +3 4*.360 AL* P(+,+( ',(A, 98+ .*+:(., s,7450 +3 (@453,+ +:( 43485*.,+0 of the tele1i"ion "erie" !y appropriating it" character", co"tume" and decor for the re"pondent": porno D The Court 6,s+,2)8,s:(6 9(+1((2 4*.360 *26 * 95*+*2+ *44.34.,*+,32 ,2 *23+:(.Bs 13.; D C% held that parody normally in1ol1e" the humorou" imitation of the work of another, often e,aggerated, for the purpo"e of critici"m or comment D In"tead, >La Petite 8ite> con"tituted a cra"" attempt to gain in"tant pu!lic recognition without ha1ing to create the character", co"tume" or dZcorieF a !latant ripoff without any effort D The Court concluded there wa" no parody, critici"m or originality in >La Petite 8ite> D 7ather, it merely con"tituted the appropriation of %1anti:" work to e,ploit it" popular "ucce"" for commercial opportuni"m D Thi" ca"e doe"nNt e,clude the po""i!ility of a parody not !eing a "u!"tantial reproduction of a work 7F D S,7450 *66,2) 43.23).*4:,/ */+,-,+0 *s * s+3.0 5,2( <3. /:*.*/+(.s +:*+ :*-( 9((2 *44.34.,*+(6 <.37 *23+:(.Bs 13.; 63(s 23+ /32s+,+8+( 4*.360 3. <*,. 8s( KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 9% PUBLIC POLICY EJCEPTION D Thi" i" an argument made occa"ionally to "ay that an indi1idual "houldn:t !e lia!le for infringement if the copy wa" made for a good cau"e or in the pu!lic intere"t D In the ne,t ca"e, the alleged infringement dealt with thi" i""ue Be off v. Pressdra* Ltd. (1931 U" C#. $.)C=agaBine unsu""essfully argued publi" interest defen"e +F D P i" a new"paper writer who got in a "pat with another Bournali"t, + D P had written an internal memo, which + got hold of and then pu!li"hed in it" entirety D PN" employer a""igned the copyright in the memo to P, and then P "ued + alleging !reach of copyright IF D Could 2:" reproduction of the memo !e Bu"tified on the ground of the >fair dealing> e,ception or on the ground of pu!lic intere"tG QF D Je", for 2 %F D 2 would ha1e had no 1alid defence on the ground that pu!lication wa" in the pu!lic intere"t D The pu!lic intere"t defence only Bu"tified di"clo"ure of matter" carried out or contemplated in !reach of the country:" "ecurity, or in !reach of law, including "tatutory duty, fraud or matter" otherwi"e de"tructi1e of the country or it" people, including matter" medically dangerou" to the pu!lic, and other mi"deed" of "imilar gra1ity D ieF to re1eal a con"piracy again"t the "tate or a co1erup of an epidemic, pu!lic intere"t might !e a defence, !ut the"e fact" don:t come clo"e to the"e e,treme "ituation" D Pu!lic intere"t, a" a defence in law, operate" to o1erride the right" of the indi1idual @including copyrightA which would otherwi"e pre1ail and which the law i" al"o concerned to protect D uch pu!lic intere"t, a" now recogni"ed !y the law, 63(s 23+ (@+(26 9(0326 7,s6((6s 3< * s(.,38s 2*+8.( *26 ,743.+*2/( +3 +:( /382+.0 D 6ere, he 4895,/*+,32 90 +:( 6(<(26*2+s 3< +:( 45*,2+,<<Bs 7(73.*2687 <*,5(6 +3 6,s/53s( *20 ,2,H8,+0 3. 7,s6((6 3< +:*+ ;,26 D SIn the cour"e of thi" ca"e, the defence of pu!lic intere"t ha" !een interwo1en with fair dealing. They are, howe1er, "eparate defence" and ha1e rightly !een "eparately pleaded. They are go1erned !y "eparate con"ideration". F*,. 6(*5,2) ,s * s+*+8+3.0 6(<(2/( 5,7,+(6 +3 ,2<.,2)(7(2+ 3< /340.,):+

65
3250. B8+ 4895,/ ,2+(.(s+ ,s * 6(<(2/( 38+s,6( *26 ,26(4(26(2+ 3< s+*+8+(s, ,s 23+ 5,7,+(6 +3 /340.,):+ /*s(s *26 ,s 9*s(6 32 * )(2(.*5 4.,2/,45( 3< /37732 5*1> D %dditionally, 2:" would ha1e had no defence to the claim on the ground of :fair dealing: for the purpo"e" of critici"m or re1iew D The leak of the memo to 2:" wa" a :dealing: with the work in which copyright "u!"i"ted at the time of the leak D Pu!lication of information known to ha1e !een leaked, and which, without the leak, could not ha1e !een pu!li"hed, wa" 82=8s+,<,*95( <3. +:( *8+:3.,s(6 48.43s(s 3< /.,+,/,s7 3. .(-,(1 *26 /32s+,+8+(6 6(*5,2) 1:,/: 1*s 23+ B<*,.B 1,+:,2 s #2% D S+air dealing i" a ;ue"tion of fact and of impre""ion, to which factor" that are rele1ant include the e,tent of the ;uotation and it" proportion to comment @which may !e Bu"tifia!le although the ;uotation i" of the whole workAC whether the work i" unpu!li"hedC and the e,tent to which the work ha" !een circulari"ed, although not pu!li"hed to the pu!lic within the meaning of the Copyright %ct $&56> 7F D T:( 4895,/ ,2+(.(s+ 6(<(2/( 1,55 3250 =8s+,<0 6,s/53s8.( 3< 7*++(.s +:*+ s*-( +:( 4895,/ <.37 * s,)2,<,/*2+ 6*2)(.38s +:.(*+ KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 'III. COLLECTI'E AD$INISTRATION OF RIGHTS D 5echanic" of copyright are enforced through collecti1e "ocietie", "uch a" (C%9 D The way that the"e collecti1e "ocietie" can operate and get re1enue" a" agent" for their copyright owner" i" through either direct deal" or through impo"ition of tariff" D The"e two method" are codified in the Copyright -"tF "0.12 T*.,<< 3. *).((7(2+ D >% collecti1e "ociety may, for the purpo"e of "etting out !y licence the royaltie" and term" and condition" relating to cla""e" of u"e", @aA <,5( * 4.343s(6 +*.,<< 1,+: +:( B3*.6M 3. @!A (2+(. ,2+3 *).((7(2+s 1,+: 8s(.s> KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK IJ. INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS D S8C-N dealt with territorial infringement "tandard"copyright "u!"i"t" if you meet the territorial condition" in ".5, and you infringe if you do it connected to Canada D Three important "ection" in the Copyright -"tF 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >>+.(*+0 /382+.0> mean" a /erne Con1ention country, ?CC country or .T( 5em!er> D >>R37( C32-(2+,32 /382+.0> mean" a country that i" a party to the International Con1ention for the Protection of Performer", Producer" of Phonogram" and /roadca"ting (rgani"ation", done at 7ome on (cto!er '6, $&6$> D >>UCC /382+.0> mean" a country that i" a party to the ?ni1er"al Copyright Con1ention, adopted on eptem!er 6, $&5' in 4ene1a, wit<erland, or to that Con1ention a" re1i"ed in Pari", +rance on Quly '-, $&#$> D >>WTO $(79(.> mean" a 5em!er of the .orld Trade (rgani<ation a" defined in "u!"ection '@$A of the .orld Trade (rgani<ation %greement Implementation %ct> 5#1% C326,+,32s <3. s89s,s+(2/( 3< /340.,):+ D > u!Bect to thi" %ct, copyright "hall "u!"i"t in Canada, for the term hereinafter mentioned, in e1ery original literary, dramatic, mu"ical and arti"tic work if any one of the following condition" i" metF @aA in the ca"e of any work, whether pu!li"hed or unpu!li"hed, including a cinematographic work, the author wa", at the date of the making of the work, a citi<en or "u!Bect of, 3. * 4(.s32 3.6,2*.,50 .(s,6(2+ ,2, * G+.(*+0 /382+.0C @!A in the ca"e of a cinematographic work, whether pu!li"hed or unpu!li"hed, the maker, at the date of the making of the cinematographic work,

66
@iA if a corporation, had it" head;uarter" in a treaty country, or @iiA ,< * 2*+8.*5 4(.s32, 1*s * /,+,D(2 3. s89=(/+ 3<, 3. * 4(.s32 3.6,2*.,50 .(s,6(2+ ,2, * +.(*+0 /382+.0C or @cA in the ca"e of a pu!li"hed work, including a cinematographic work, @iA in relation to "u!paragraph '.'@$A@aA@iA, the <,.s+ 4895,/*+,32 ,2 s8/: * H8*2+,+0 *s +3 s*+,s<0 +:( .(*s32*95( 6(7*26s 3< +:( 4895,/, :*-,2) .()*.6 +3 +:( 2*+8.( 3< +:( 13.;, 3//8..(6 ,2 * +.(*+0 /382+.0, or @iiA ,2 .(5*+,32 +3 s894*.*).*4: 2.2#1%#*%#,,% 3. #,,,%, +:( <,.s+ 4895,/*+,32 3//8..(6 ,2 * +.(*+0 /382+.0> KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK SECTION THREE PASSING OFF I. CO$$ON LAW D .hile copyright i" more a!out culture, the law of trademark" i" commercialD!a"ed D ince culture i" !randD!a"ed, trademark" really matter and law allow" partie" to protect their !rand D (ften people !uy more for the !rand than the ingredient" in the product it"elf @ieF alcohol in 9arnin!A D The tort of pa""ing off in1ol1e" 7*;,2) s37( <*5s( .(4.(s(2+*+,32 5,;(50 +3 ,268/( * 4(.s32 +3 9(5,(-( +:*+ +:( )336s 3. s(.-,/(s *.( +:3s( 3< *23+:(. D It i" a relati1ely new tort that de1eloped in the $&th century when !rand" !ecame important D The actiona!le party i"n:t party !eing decei1ed @ieF the cu"tomerA !ut the company getting ripped off D 7ecogni<e" that a !u"ine"" ha" a commercial intere"t in it" reputation D In pa""ing off, the 4895,/Bs ,74.(ss,32 i" criticalF doe" a "u!"tantial amount of the pu!lic a""ociate a product with a "pecific trader "o that it ac;uire" a s(/326*.0 7(*2,2) that indicate" it" "ourceG D If "o, it take" an action out of the realm of mi"repre"entation and into the tort of pa""ing off where a company mi"u"e" !rand name" that ha1e come to !e a""ociated with a particular !u"ine"" D Lord 2iplock in 9arnin! on pa""ing offF >% mi"repre"entation made !y a trader in the cour"e of trade to pro"pecti1e cu"tomer" of hi" or ultimate con"umer" of good" or "er1ice" "upplied !y him, which i" calculated to inBure the !u"ine"" or goodwill of another trader @in the "en"e that thi" i" a rea"ona!ly fore"eea!le con"e;uenceA and which cau"e" actual damage to a !u"ine"" or goodwill of the trader !y whom the action i" !rought or will pro!a!ly do "o.> D /y $&$5, there were * element" for the tort of pa""ing offF aA G3361,55 D In a name, appearance, or "omething that the pu!lic a""ociate" with a !u"ine"": productH"er1ice !A $,s.(4.(s(2+*+,32 D 2efendant mu"t mi"repre"ent their good" or "er1ice" "o a" to inBure the plaintiff:" goodwill cA D*7*)( D 2on:t ha1e to pro1e any "pecial damage"enough to "how inBury to commercial intere"t D ?ntil the $&6)", pa""ing off wa" limited to when the goodwill wa" only one per"on:" goodwill D 6owe1er, "u!"e;uent ca"e" included the Champagne, herry, and cotch .hi"ky ca"e" D In the Champagne ca"e, $5) wine maker" wanted to pre1ent other" from "aying they were "elling champagne when in fact it did not come from that regioninBunction wa" granted !ecau"e harm wa" !eing done to the goodwill hard earned !y the wine maker" in that area D BF a "imilar champagne ca"e failed in Canada !ecau"e Canada didn:t ha1e a de1eloped Canadian champagne region, "o the pu!lic wouldn:t !e decei1ed when it purcha"ed Canadian champagne that it came from the Champagne region of +rance D In the S"ot"h 9his!y ca"e, could only call it that if you !lend had e,clu"i1ely whi"kie" di"tilled in cotland, !ut the !lending could !e done anywhere in the world

6#
D Tho"e ca"e" dealt with geographical location", !ut in 9arnin! the 6L think" that the principle "hould !e e,tended to the nature of the ingredient" irre"pecti1e of it" origin D BF new .T( pro1i"ion" protect geographical location" and ha1e !een imported into 'rademar!s -"t, which o1errule the common law po"ition a" far a" wine" and "pirit" are concernedF 11.14#1% P.3:,9,+(6 *634+,32 3< ,26,/*+,32 <3. 1,2(s D >9o per"on "hall adopt in connection with a !u"ine"", a" a tradeDmark or otherwi"e, @aA * 4.3+(/+(6 )(3).*4:,/*5 ,26,/*+,32 ,6(2+,<0,2) * 1,2( ,2 .(s4(/+ 3< * 1,2( 23+ 3.,),2*+,2) ,2 +:( +(..,+3.0 ,26,/*+(6 90 +:( 4.3+(/+(6 )(3).*4:,/*5 ,26,/*+,32C or @!A a tran"lation in any language of the geographical indication in re"pect of that wine> 11.18#!% E@/(4+,32 <3. )(2(.,/ 2*7(s <3. 1,2(s D >9otwith"tanding "ection" $$.$- and $$.$5 and paragraph" $'@$A@gA and @hA, nothing in any of tho"e pro1i"ion" pre1ent" the adoption, u"e or regi"tration a" a tradeDmark or otherwi"e, in connection with a !u"ine"", of the following indication" in re"pect of wine"F @aA ChampagneC @!A PortC @cA PortoC @dA herryC @eA Cha!li"> @fA to @1A repealed due to negotiation" with +rench go1:t @ieF /urgandyA D @aA to @eA are (O to u"e for another 5 year", !ut !y ')$* they will !e repealed a" well D .hile trademark law protect" a name in"ofar a" it indicate" the "ource of the right"H"er1ice", 4*ss,2) 3<< (@+(26s +3 4.3+(/+ 23+ 3250 +:( 9.*26 98+ * )(2(.,/ 2*7( *-*,5*95( +3 * s4(/,<,(6 ).384 3< +.*6(.s D There:" group 1alueHgoodwill a""ociated with the generic name, "uch a" with >%d1ocaat> .rven 8arnink B? v. A. Townend : Sons (%u ) Ltd. (1939 %L)C#iable for passing off name of al"ohol +F D .arnink produce" and di"tri!ute" >%d1ocaat> in the ?O, an egg and "pirit alcoholic drink D Townend made >Oeeling:" (ld 3ngli"h %d1ocaat> with egg and fortified wine to a1oid paying dutie" D ince >3gg +lip> contained "herry rather than "pirit", le"" duty wa" paya!le on it and it could therefore !e "old at a lower price than 2utch %d1ocaat in the 3ngli"h market D .hile not pa""ing off in the cla""ic "en"e, .arnink "ue" !ecau"e they claim the general pu!lic wa" mi"led in !uying di"gu"ting 3gg +lip a" 2utch %d1ocaat, which cau"ed damage in trade and goodwill D C% ruled for Oeeling, a" they held the Champagne, herry, and cotch .hi"ky ca"e" were tied to a particular geographic region and the name %d1ocaat wa" not di"tincti1e IF D .a" Oeeling lia!le for pa""ing off egg flip for %d1ocaatG .a" there enough goodwill in the name %d1ocaat to ha1e the "ame market "ignificance a" that of Champagne, herry or cotch in that mi"repre"enting di"gu"ting 3gg +lip a" deliciou" %d1ocaat would cau"e damageG QF D Je", for .arnink, pu!lic would !e confu"ed %F D Pa""ing off action" "tarted a" an action sui generis which lay for damage "u"tained or threatened in con"e;uence of a mi"repre"entation of a particular kind D Later e,tended from trade to >goodwill> D >G3361,55> i" >the !enefit and ad1antage of the good name, reputation and connection of a !u"ine"". It i" the attracti1e force which !ring" in cu"tom.> D 4oodwill of a manufacturer:" !u"ine"" may !e inBured !y "omeone el"e who "ell" good" which are correctly de"cri!ed a" !eing made !y that manufacturer !ut !eing of an inferior cla"" or ;uality are mi"repre"ented a" good" of a manufacture of a "uperior cla"" or ;uality D >F doe" the name ha1e enough market "ignificance to make it di"tincti1eG D Lord 2iplock identifie" fi1e characteri"tic" that mu"t !e pre"ent to create a 1alid C(% for pa""ing offF aA % 7,s.(4.(s(2+*+,32 !A 5ade !y a trader ,2 +:( /38.s( 3< +.*6( cA To pro"pecti1e cu"tomer" of hi" or 85+,7*+( /32s87(.s of good" or "er1ice" "upplied !y him dA .hich i" /*5/85*+(6 +3 ,2=8.( +:( 98s,2(ss 3. )3361,55 of another trader @in the "en"e that thi" i" a rea"ona!ly fore"eea!le con"e;uenceA, and

60
eA .hich /*8s(s */+8*5 6*7*)( to a !u"ine"" or goodwill of the trader !y whom the action i" !rought or @in a Auia timet actionA will pro!a!ly do "o D BF people ha1en:t picked up on the"e 5 characteri"tic", "o 632B+ 8s( +:(7"tick with * element" D 6ere, type of product that ha" gained for the name >%d1ocaat> i" defined !y reference to the nature of it" ingredient" irre"pecti1e of their origin D Cla"" of trader" "upply the 3ngli"h market with an egg and "pirit drink in !road conformity with an identifia!le recipe, and are ea"ily identified D 6ere, A6-3/**+ 2*7( ,26,/*+(s *2 ())Gs4,.,+ /3793 1,+: * 9.,):+ 0(5531 /3538., 1:,/: 1*s (238): +3 *++*/: )3361,55 +3 +:( 2*7( D There wa" *5s3 7,s.(4.(s(2+*+,32 ,2 +:( 4.368/+ +:( 4895,/ 1*s .(/(,-,2) D Pu!lic wa" !eing mi"led in purcha"ing 3gg +lip and thinking they were getting %d1ocaat D 9ote that the circum"tance" of mi"leading the pu!lic can change @ieF moron in a hurry "tandardA D 6ere, there wa" e1idence of alcohol purcha"er !uying %d1ocaat without reading the la!el D %l"o, didn:t need to pro1e all the pu!lic wa" !eing decei1edonly a "election "o that .arnink could protect their turf from ero"ion 7F D P*ss,2) 3<< /*2 4.3+(/+ *2 (2+,.( ,268s+.0 ,2 ,+s ,2+(.(s+ +3 4.3+(/+ ,+s 7*.;(+ *44(*5 <3. * /:*.*/+(.,s+,/ #,(C +:( 2*7( 3< * 6.,2;% +:*+ ,+ 8s(s +3 s(55 * 4*.+,/85*. 4.368/+ 3. s(.-,/( D 9oteF +:( 73.( <*738s 038 *.(, +:( 73.( .,):+s 038 )(+ 826(. +:( +3.+ 3< 4*ss,2) 3<< D BF >5i"" 9ude ?ni1er"e ? %> wa" "ued !y >5i"" ?ni1er"e ? %> for pa""ing offfailed at trial !ecau"e >nude> contained "uch a "ignificance that pu!lic couldn:t !e mi"taken, !ut C% o1erturned !ecau"e pa""ing off protect" not only a product !ut al"o a !u"ine"": reputation, and here their reputation might !e harmed if pu!lic percei1ed >5i"" ?ni1er"e> pageant a" "pon"oring the nude conte"t D The ne,t leading CC ca"e deal" with goodwill in the "hape and colour of a pill, and the di"tinction !etween what i" generic and what i" di"tincti1e of a particular "ource D The i""ue !oiled down to whether the coloured pill" were Bu"t thought of a" a particular drug or whether they were thought of a" a particular drug from a particular company D In the end, the Court com!ined the pri1ate intere"t @protection of commercial enterpri"e" from unfair competitionA and the pu!lic intere"t @protection of the pu!lic from !eing confu"ed or mi"led a!out what they:re choo"ing to !uyA element" in pa""ing off Ci<a;5ie2y Canada Ltd. v. A&ote/ ,nc. (199' SCC)CCustomers for pharma"euti"als in"ludes patients +F D Ci!a made and "old a pharmaceutical known generically a" 5etoprolol in a ta!let ha1ing a particular "i<e, "hape and colour @ieF a >getDupA D 5etoprolol i" a pre"cription drug that can:t !e "old o1er the counter D In (ntario, metoprolol i" an interchangea!le pharmaceutical product D %pote, wa" a generic drug company who hold compul"ory licence" under the appellant:" patent for metoprolol, and "old their pill" in the "ame "i<e, "hape and colour a" tho"e of Ci!a D Ci!a "tarted a pa""ingDoff action relating to the >getDup> relied upon !y the %pote, D 2idn:t claim pa""ingDoff of their !rand name, !ut in the appearance of the pill D They claimed u"er of the medicine a" a con"umer "hould al"o !e included, and that the likelihood of confu"ion "hould !e not !e confined to phy"ician", denti"t" and pharmaci"t" D %pote, claimed that the pu!lic wa"n:t !eing mi"led !ecau"e they had no choice D elector" of the drug, the phy"ician", wa"n:t confu"ed !y the appearance of the pill D TQ agreed, limiting market con"ideration to phy"ician", denti"t" and pharmaci"t"C% agreed IF D hould patient" !e included in the cla"" for which the potential for confu"ion i" a""e""edG D 2id Ci!a ha1e any >goodwill> in the "i<e, "hape, and colour @ieF the >getDupA in their pill in that it ac;uired a "econdary meaningG QF D Je", for Ci!a, the >ultimate con"umer> include" the patient" and pill had a "econdary meaning %F D CC recon"ider" Lord 2iplock:" 5 re;uirement" for pa""ing off D 6old" that today do not need intent to decei1e, "o re;uirement [- a!o1e not nece""arily re;uired D In"tead, the CC reformulated the te"t a" follow" @"ee element" of the tort a!o1eAF aA T:( (@,s+(2/( 3< )3361,55 !A D(/(4+,32 3< +:( 4895,/ 68( +3 7,s.(4.(s(2+*+,32 , and

6&
D +ocu" here i" the effect, not the intent cA A/+8*5 3. 43+(2+,*5 6*7*)( +3 +:( 45*,2+,<< D If :a: and :!: are ye", :c: i" u"ually automatic a" lo"" of market control lead" to damage D %nd further1:(.( 4*ss,2)?3<< ,s 9*s(6 32 +:( )(+?84 3< * 4.368/+ +:( )(+?84 78s+ 9( s:312 +3 :*-( *2 */H8,.(6 6,s+,2/+,-(2(ss 90 +:( (s+*95,s:7(2+ 3< * s(/326*.0 7(*2,2) D S(/326*.0 7(*2,2)F look of a productH"er1ice i" a""ociated with a particular manufacturer D BF tricky when a manufacturer ha" a monopoly o1er production of "omething, lo"e" it" monopoly, then claim" it ha" a de fa"to monopoly after !ecau"e it:" product ac;uired a "econdary meaning in the eye" of the pu!lic o1er the year" D P35,/0F "hould a company !e the only party allowed to u"e the ordinary de"cription of the productG 9omu"t di"tingui"h !Ht ordinary product name and !rand name @ieF Shredded 9heatA D >F who i" con"idered the rele1ant pu!lic to decide whether there i" mi"repre"entation that will mi"lead or confu"e the pu!lic @,2 (<<(/+, 23+ ,2 ,2+(2+AG D In con"idering the marketing of pre"cription drug", a plaintiff in an action for pa""ingDoff of a pre"cription drug mu"t e"ta!li"h that the conduct complained of i" likely to re"ult in confu"ion of phy"ician", denti"t", pharmaci"t" or patient"Hcu"tomer" in choo"ing whether to pre"cri!e, di"pen"e or re;ue"t either of the plaintiff:" or the defendant:" product D The <,2*5 /32s87(. 3< * 4.368/+ mu"t !e taken into account in determining whether the tort of pa""ingDoff ha" !een committed D 6ere, the ultimate con"umer went !eyond the medical profe""ion and included the cu"tomer D In the field of pre"cription drug", the /8s+37(.s 3< 4:*.7*/(8+,/*5 5*93.*+3.,(s ,2/586( 4:0s,/,*2s, 4:*.7*/,s+s, 6(2+,s+s *26 4*+,(2+s D Thi" i" in harmony with the pu!lic intere"t purpo"e of the tort of keeping marketing pure D BF 2on:t want to treat the patient a" the >witle"" pawn> in thi" game of e,pert", "o the CC >"trike" a !low for the people> and hold" that the patient doe" matter\ D Patient" can tell doctor" if they prefer a !randDname drug o1er a generic drug, e1en if there are re"triction" on drug ad1erti"ing in Canada that doe"n:t e,i"t in the ? % 7F D S84.(7( C38.+ .(<,2(s L3.6 D,453/;Bs <,-(?s+(4 *2*50s,s <3. 4*ss,2) 3<< ,2+3 * +:.((?4*.+ +(s+, *26 6(/,6(s +:*+ +:( +3.+ ,2-35-(s 4.3+(/+,2) +:( 4895,/ <.37 /32<8s,32 *26 7,s5(*6,2) 7*.;(+,2) 9(/*8s( :(.( +:( 4895,/ 1*s ,2-35-(6 ,2 *2 */+,-( /:3,/( <3. +:(,. 4.(s/.,4+,32 7(6,/,2( D In the ne,t ca"e, there i" no regi"tered trademark for >+anta"yland> in Canada a" there:" no 2i"neyland in Canada, "o 2i"ney "tarted an action for pa""ing off D Pa""ing off i" a !roader cau"e of action, and can protect goodwill for foreign !u"ine""e" 8a t $isney Productions v. Tri& e 9ive Cor&. (199) A ta. CA)C#o standard for publi" "onfusion +F D .e"t 3dmonton 5all opened a theme park >+anta"yland> and marketed it a" >an indoor 2i"neyland> D 2i"ney took offence and wrote a cea"eDandDde"i"t letterit wa" ignored, "o they "ued for pa""ing off D .hile all 2i"neyland park" were in other countrie", 2i"ney argued it had goodwill !ecau"e e1en %l!ertan" a""ociated +anta"yland with 2i"ney theme park" IF D Can a !u"ine"" not located in Canada "ue for pa""ing off if "ome!ody in Canada i" u"ing it" nameG QF D Je", for 2i"ney %F D Court noted that the law of pa""ingDoff and the law of regi"tered trademark" deal with o1erlapping factual "ituation", !ut in different way" and from different "tandpoint" D ieF a pure pa""ingDoff "ituation in1ol1e" no recognition that a name, tradeDmark or getDup con"titute property in their own right D %l"o, a plaintiff doe" not ha1e to !e in direct competition with the defendant to "uffer inBury from the u"e of it" trade name !y the defendant D If the plaintiff:" trade name ha" a reputation in the defendant:" Buri"diction, "uch that the pu!lic a""ociate" it with "er1ice" pro1ided !y the plaintiff, then the defendant:" u"e of it mean" that the plaintiff ha" lo"t control o1er the impact of it" trade name in the defendant:" Buri"diction D Court not con1inced that the defendant": le,icographic e1idence "howed that the word >+anta"yland> i" "imply a compound 3ngli"h noun de1oid of any "econdary @i.e. 2i"neyDrelatedA meaning D (n the other hand, the e1idence "u!mitted at trial !y the plaintiff, which e1idence pertained to the promotion of it" theme park +%9T% JL%92, wa" "u!"tantial and wide"pread from $&55

#)
onwardC >million" of Canadian"> had !een to the plaintiff:" theme park" located in California and +lorida, including >thou"and" of %l!ertan">, which Qu"tice 2ea con"idered "ignificant in "howing the goodwill attached to the plaintiff:" theme park", including +%9T% JL%92 D The a!"ence of a regi"tration for the tradeDmark +%9T% JL%92 in Canada in the plaintiff:" name wa" not con"idered material D BF really no pro!lem to pro1e that >fanta"yland> had local goodwill D R(*5 ,ss8(F did any!ody really confu"e the name", and a""ociate the .e"t 3dmonton mall:" >fanta"yland> with 2i"ney:" 1er"ionG D Qu"tice 2ea wa" of the opinion that while the pu!lic may u"e the word >fanta"yland> to de"cri!e thing" that are not connected with the plaintiff, the s8.-(0 (-,6(2/( s:31(6 that >when the word i" u"ed !y it"elf without any leading conte,t, a" in the ender" report, the pu!lic e1erywhere @e,cept 3dmontonA a""ociated +anta"yland with 2i"neyland, the theme amu"ement park.> D ur1ey e1idence wa" rele1ant and admi""i!le, not in e"ta!li"hing goodwill !ut in e"ta!li"hing there might !e "ome confu"ion that 2i"ney wa" a""ociated with the mall:" theme park D In effect, >V!Wy com!ining the common noun" >fanta"y> and >land> into >+anta"yland> the plaintiff did more than create a further common noun for the 3ngli"h language. The plaintiff created a new word for a kind of theme amu"ement park operated !y and connected with the plaintiff. Thi" wa" a different kind of amu"ement park V...W.> D S+*26*.6 /38.+ 8s(s ,s +:( A73.32 ,2 * :8..0A s+*26*.6 D 8ery low "tandardcould the ordinary per"on might think the mall i" 2i"neyDrelatedG D If the likelihood of confu"ion e,ceeded the de minimus "tandard, there:" confu"ion D 6ere, e1ery!ody know" the difference !etween .e"t 3dmonton 5all and 2i"neyland D 6owe1er, the .(5(-*2+ /32<8s,32 ,s +:*+ s37( 4.343.+,32 3< +:( 4895,/ 9(5,(-(s +:*+ D,s2(0 *8+:3.,D(6 ,+s 8s( ,2 +:( 7*55Bs 4*.;, and thi" alone i" "ufficient confu"ion D If anything !ad would happen in the mall, they would !lame 2i"ney for it D $,s.(4.(s(2+*+,32 took place when the defendant" !egan to u"e the name +%9T% JL%92 for their own amu"ement park in 3dmonton and there!y mi"appropriated the plaintiff:" property and mi"repre"ented that they had the right to u"e the name D %" of %ugu"t $&0*, the defendant" knew that the plaintiff o!Bected to their u"e of the word and that, regardle"" of thi", they continued to u"e the name +% T% JL%92 for their theme park D In and of it"elf, the defendant": mi"repre"entation created a likelihood of confu"ionC +%9T% JL%92 wa", in $&0*, part of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff and it" u"e !y the defendant" wa" ;uite likely to improperly attract a large !ody of trade D W:(.( )3361,55 *26 7,s.(4.(s(2+*+,32 *.( 4.3-(2, 6*7*)(s *.( 4.(s87(6 D 2i"ney lo"t control o1er their !rand name, "o there:" damage D 2on:t need to pro1e that .e"t 3dmonton 5all di""uaded cu"tomer" from going to 2i"neyland D (nly need to pro1e that in the longDrun, their !rand would !ecome le"" 1alua!le D 6owe1er, .alt 2i"ney Production" a!andoned it" claim for compen"atory damage", there!y limiting it" re;ue"t to an inBunction, which wa" granted 7F D I< * .(5(-*2+ 4.343.+,32 3< +:( 4895,/ ,s /32<8s(6 *938+ +:( 8s( 3< * 9.*26 2*7( 9(0326 * de *ini*us s+*26*.6, ,+Bs s8<<,/,(2+ <3. * 4*ss,2) 3<< */+,32 (-(2 ,< +:( 98s,2(ss ,s 23+ 53/*+(6 ,2 +:( =8.,s6,/+,32 *s +:(.(Bs * .,s; 3< )(2(.*5 6(+(.,3.*+,32 3< * 9.*26 2*7( +:*+ 78s+ 9( 4.3+(/+(6 D BF The pu!lic would not think a hotel i" >fanta"yland> relatedonly theme park" D There aren:t many ca"e" on domain name", !ut the ne,t ca"e i" one of them Law Society of BC v. Canada $o*ain Na*e ./c#an2e Cor&. ('(() BCSC)CProte"tion of domain name +F D Thi" wa" an application !y the Law ociety of /riti"h Colum!ia for a permanent inBunction prohi!iting the defendant, Canada 2omain 9ame 3,change @C293A, from u"ing certain domain name" that were "imilar to tho"e of the "ociety @ieF l"!c.ca 1. l"!c.orgA D C293 wa" in the !u"ine"" of regi"tering and then "elling or lea"ing domain name" mainly to lawyer" D .a"n:t competing in any way the Law ociety of /CBu"t tarni"hing their name through di1er"ion D The Law ociety claimed that C293 wa" pa""ing off and u"ing the name" in ;ue"tion to di1ert internet u"er" "earching for the Law ociety to porn and /C 5ariBuana party we!"ite"

#$
IF D hould a permanent inBunction !e granted a" a remedy for pa""ing offG D Can a domain name, which operate" mechanically, operate in the "ame way a" a !rand nameG QF D Je", for Law ociety, tort of pa""ing off compri"ed a mi"repre"entation that created a pu!lic !elief that the partie" were a""ociated, with re"ulting damage to the reputation of the complaining party %F D * element" needed for pa""ing offF aA G3361,55 D Law ociety had "u!"tantial goodwill in the name Law ociety of /riti"h Colum!ia, !uilt o1er $*) year" with the goal of protecting the pu!lic intere"t in the admini"tration of Bu"tice D That goodwill wa" not dimini"hed !y the e,i"tence of other law "ocietie" D %l"o didn:t matter that it:" not commercial @ieF churche" and nonDprofit "ocietie"A D Therefore, *20 3.)*2,D*+,32 +:*+ 6(4(26s 8432 4895,/ s8443.+ :*s .(5(-*2+ )3361,55 !A $,s.(4.(s(2+*+,32 D ?"e of the name >law"ocietyof!c> without other word" or ;ualification" wa" a mi"repre"entation and hiBacking of people looking for the Law ociety:" we!"ite D 9ote there wa" al"o intent, a" C293:" goal wa" to regi"ter domain name" "imilar to other organi<ation", "care them, and force them to !uy him out D 6owe1er, the 7,s.(4.(s(2+*+,32 6,6 23+ :*-( +3 9( 6(5,9(.*+( 23. 1*s ,2+(2+ 2(/(ss*.0 D %" well, proof of actual confu"ion wa" not re;uired D The e,planation a" to what >l"!c> "tood for @ieF >law "ociety and !arri"ter:" categorie"A wa" >concocted and ludicrou"> D In"tead, ,+s 8s( +3 6,-(.+ +.*<<,/ +3 +:( 3+:(. 2*7( *7382+(6 +3 4*ss,2) 3<< cA D*7*)( D Potential damage re"ulting from lo"" of control o1er reputation wa" pre"umed D 4i1en the Law ociety:" "tature a" a profe""ional organi<ation of it" nature, any percei1ed link to adult "ite" or political partie" effecti1ely or potentially led to lo"" of it" goodwill D %dditionally, ,2+(2+ 1*s .(5(-*2+ :(.( <3. +:( /*5/85*+,32 3< 6*7*)(s D C293:" action" were potentially harmful and Bu"tified a permanent inBunction D ince the Law ociety had not pro1ed damage", general damage" of U-,))) were awarded D Puniti1e damage" were not appropriate !ut could apply in future if the inBunction wa" not o!eyed 7F D W:,5( /*s( 63(s2B+ 6,s/8ss ,< +:,s ,s /5*ss,/ A4*ss,2) 3<<A, ,+Bs *938+ 4.3+(/+,2) 038. )3361,55 <.37 * /374(+,+3., *26 :(.(, ,+Bs 4.3+(/+,2) <.37 (.3s,32 +:.38): * 637*,2 2*7( +:*+ 6,-(.+s +3 s37(+:,2) (5s( KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK II. SECTION " OF THE T+A$.;=A+"S ACT D 6ere i" the rele1ant "ection under >U2<*,. C374(+,+,32 *26 P.3:,9,+(6 $*.;s>F " P.3:,9,+,32s D >9o per"on "hall @aA make a fal"e or mi"leading "tatement tending to di"credit the !u"ine"", ware" or "er1ice" of a competitorC @!A direct pu!lic attention to hi" ware", "er1ice" or !u"ine"" in "uch a way a" to cau"e or !e likely to cau"e confu"ion in Canada, at the time he commenced "o to direct attention to them, !etween hi" ware", "er1ice" or !u"ine"" and the ware", "er1ice" or !u"ine"" of anotherC @cA pa"" off other ware" or "er1ice" a" and for tho"e ordered or re;ue"tedC @dA make u"e, in a""ociation with ware" or "er1ice", of any de"cription that i" fal"e in a material re"pect and likely to mi"lead the pu!lic a" to @iA the character, ;uality, ;uantity or compo"ition, @iiA the geographical origin, or @iiiA the mode of the manufacture, production or performance of the ware" or "er1ice"C or @eA do any other act or adopt any other !u"ine"" practice contrary to hone"t indu"trial or commercial u"age in Canada>

#'
D The ne,t ca"e, popularly known a" the >L()3 C*s(>, i" a CC where the Court upheld the con"titutionality of ".#@!A of the 'rade<mar!s -"t which prohi!it" the u"e of confu"ing mark" D It al"o wa" important !ecau"e it affirmed the federal power to regulate tradeDmark", unregi"tered a" well a" regi"tered, and from the point of 1iew of pa""ingDoff and IP generally D It i" a deci"ion on what ;ualifie" a" an unregi"tered tradeDmark for the purpo"e" of T5% ". #@!A and an identifier for the purpo"e" of the common law of pa""ingDoff D %t the "ame time itN" a more !roadly !a"ed deci"ion on the need to keep tradeDmark law @including pa""ingDoffA from u"urping the function of patent law and pro1iding more protection for the product it"elf than the patentee i" entitled to "irk<i A5 v. +itvik %o din2s Ltd. ('((- SCC)C:ederal po er to regulate trademar!s affirmed by SCC +F D Oirk!i held the patent" for L34( con"truction "et" D .hen the patent" e,pired in Canada, 7it1ik, a Canadian toy manufacturer, !egan manufacturing and "elling !rick" interchangea!le with L34( D O tried to a""ert a trade-mark in the SL34( indiciaTF the upper "urface of the !lock with eight "tud" di"tri!uted in a regular geometric pattern D .hen the 7egi"trar of Trade-mark" refu"ed regi"tration, O claimed the L34( indicia a" an unregi"tered mark and "ought a declaration that it had !een infringed !y 7 pur"uant to ". #@!A of the 'rade<mar!s -"t and the common law doctrine of pa""ing off D 7e;ue"ted permanent inBunction to pre1ent 7 from marketing infringing product" and damage" D TQ found that purely functional feature", "uch a" the L34( indicia, could not !ecome the !a"i" of a trade-mark, whether regi"tered and unregi"teredmaBority of C% upheld the deci"ion D 7it1ik now challenged the con"titutionality of ". #@!A, arguing that the pro1i"ion i" ultra vires the legi"lati1e competence of Parliament under ". &$@'A IF D .a" ".# con"titutionalG QF D Je", for 7it1ik @although Oirk!i:" pa""ing off claim under ".# wa" di"mi""edA %F D ".#@!A of the 'rade- mar!s -"t, which /.(*+(s * /,-,5 /*8s( 3< */+,32 (ss(2+,*550 /36,<0,2) +:( /37732 5*1 +3.+ 3< 4*ss,2) 3<<, ,s ,2+.* -,.(s P*.5,*7(2+ for "e1eral rea"on"F aA $,2,7*5 ,2+.8s,32 D +ir"t, although the creation of ci1il cau"e" of action i" generally a matter of property or ci1il right" in the pro1ince, the intru"ion of ". #@!A into pro1incial Buri"diction i" minimal D ection #@!A i" remedial and i" limited in it" application !y the pro1i"ion" of the %ct D It doe" not e,pand the federal Buri"diction in relation to trade-mark" and trade-name", !ut merely round" out an otherwi"e incomplete trade-mark "cheme !A '*5,6 (@(./,s( 3< <(6(.*5 /377(./( 431(. 826(. s.91#2% D econd, the 'rade- mar!s -"t i" a 1alid e,erci"e of ParliamentN" general trade and commerce power under ". &$@'A of the Con"titution %ct, $06# D The 'rade- mar!s -"t e"ta!li"he" a regulatory "cheme for !oth regi"tered and unregi"tered trade-mark" and i" clearly concerned with trade a" a whole, acro"" and !etween indu"trie" in different pro1ince" D ince there i" no ;ue"tion that trade-mark" apply acro"" and !etween indu"trie" in different pro1ince", di1ided pro1incial and federal Buri"diction could lead to une1en protection D Lack of a ci1il remedy integrated into the "cheme of the %ct and applica!le to regi"tered and unregi"tered mark" could lead to duplicati1e, conflicting, inefficient enforcement procedure" cA S8<<,/,(2+ ,2+().*+,32 3< 4.3-,s,32 ,2+3 +:( A/+ D Third, ". #@!A i" "ufficiently integrated into the Trade-mark" %ct D %" the encroachment into pro1incial power i" minimal, a Sfunctional relation"hipT, "uch a" i" pre"ent here, i" "ufficient to "u"tain the con"titutionality of the pro1i"ion D The pa""ing-off action play" a clear role in the federal "cheme D In it" pith and "u!"tance, ". #@!A i" directly connected to the enforcement of trade -mark" and trade-name" in Canada, and the ci1il remedy it create" protect" the goodwill a""ociated with trade-mark" and i" directed to a1oiding con"umer confu"ion D .ithout thi" pro1i"ion there would !e a gap in the legi"lati1e protection of trade -mark" D 6owe1er, Oirk!i:" pa""ing-off claim under ". #@!A of the 'rade- mar!s -"t mu"t !e di"mi""ed

#*
D It" /5*,7, 1:,/: ,s 9*s(6 32 +:( (@,s+(2/( 3< * +.*6(-7*.;, ,s 9*..(6 90 +:( *445,/*+,32 3< +:( 63/+.,2( 3< <82/+,32*5,+0 D 6ere, O claimed an unregi"tered trade-mark con"i"ting "olely of the technical or functional characteri"tic" of the L34( !rick", formerly protected !y ON" patent" D 6owe1er, a purely functional de"ign cannot !e the !a"i" of a trade-mark and trade-mark law "hould not !e u"ed to perpetuate monopoly right" enBoyed under now-e,pired patent" D T:( 63/+.,2( 3< <82/+,32*5,+0 (s+*95,s:(s +:*+ * 7*.; 1:,/: )3(s 9(0326 6,s+,2)8,s:,2) +:( 1*.(s 3< ,+s 312(. +3 <82/+,32*5 s+.8/+8.( 3< +:( 1*.(s +:(7s(5-(s +.*2s).(ss(s 5(),+,7*+( 93826s 3< * +.*6(7*.; D The doctrine reflect" the purpo"e of a trade-mark, which i" the protection of the di"tincti1ene"" of the product, and applie" e;ually to regi"tered and unregi"tered mark" D 7egi"tration doe" not change the nature of a markC it merely grant" more effecti1e right" again"t third partie" D 5ark", regi"tered or not, "hare common legal attri!ute" and grant e,clu"i1e right" to the u"e of a di"tincti1e de"ignation or gui"e D In any e1ent, under the modern law of pa""ing off, three element" mu"t !e e"ta!li"hed in order to "ucceed in a pa""ing-off action !a"ed on "tatute law or common lawF the e,i"tence of goodwill, deception of the pu!lic due to a mi"repre"entation and actual or potential damage to the plaintiff D In thi" ca"e, &Ks /5*,7 1*s 93826 +3 <*,5 9(/*8s( ,+ 13856 23+ :*-( 7(+ +:( <,.s+ /326,+,32 3< +:( */+,32 3< 4*ss,2) 3<<C (@,s+(2/( 3< )3361,55 D The alleged di"tincti1ene"" of the product con"i"ted preci"ely of the proce"" and techni;ue" which were now common to the trade 7F D T:( C38.+ s+*+(s +:( 2((6 +3 ;((4 +.*6(?7*.; 5*1 #,2/586,2) 4*ss,2)?3<<% <.37 8s8.4,2) +:( <82/+,32 3< 4*+(2+ 5*1 *26 4.3-,6,2) 73.( 4.3+(/+,32 <3. +:( 4.368/+ ,+s(5< +:*2 +:( 4*+(2+(( ,s (2+,+5(6 +3 KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK SECTION FOUR TRADE $AR&S I. $EANING OF ATRADE $AR&A 1% STATUTORY DEFINITIONS D The ultimate o!Bect i" that a .(),s+(.(6 +.*6(7*.; ),-(s +:( 312(. +:( (@/58s,-( .,):+ +3 8s( #*s 6(<,2(6% +:( +.*6(7*.; ,2 *ss3/,*+,32 1,+: +:( 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s s4(/,<,(6 ,2 ,+s .(),s+.*+,32 D In order to en"ure order in the market, the regi"tration proce"" i" de"igned to addre"" i""ue" a!out whether the trademark i" going to do the Bo! and not take away from trademark" @regi"tered or notA that are already out there D ome definition" of common term" in the 'rademar!s -"tF 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >>+.*6(?7*.;> mean" @aA * 7*.; +:*+ ,s 8s(6 90 * 4(.s32 <3. +:( 48.43s( 3< 6,s+,2)8,s:,2) 3. s3 *s +3 6,s+,2)8,s: 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s 7*28<*/+8.(6, s356, 5(*s(6, :,.(6 3. 4(.<3.7(6 90 :,7 <.37 +:3s( 7*28<*/+8.(6, s356, 5(*s(6, :,.(6 3. 4(.<3.7(6 90 3+:(.s , @!A * /(.+,<,/*+,32 7*.;, @cA * 6,s+,2)8,s:,2) )8,s(, or @dA * 4.343s(6 +.*6(?7*.;C D >>8s(> , in relation to a tradeDmark, mean" any u"e that !y "ection - i" deemed to !e a u"e in a""ociation with ware" or "er1ice"> D >>1*.(s> include" printed pu!lication"> D >>/(.+,<,/*+,32 7*.;> mean" a mark that i" u"ed for the purpo"e of di"tingui"hing or "o a" to di"tingui"h ware" or "er1ice" that are of a defined "tandard with re"pect to @aA the character or ;uality of the ware" or "er1ice", @!A the working condition" under which the ware" ha1e !een produced or the "er1ice"

#performed, @cA the cla"" of per"on" !y whom the ware" ha1e !een produced or the "er1ice" performed, or @dA the area within which the ware" ha1e !een produced or the "er1ice" performed, from ware" or "er1ice" that are not of that defined "tandard> D >>6,s+,2)8,s:,2) )8,s(> mean" @aA a "haping of ware" or their container", or @!A a mode of wrapping or packaging ware" the appearance of which i" u"ed !y a per"on for the purpo"e of di"tingui"hing or "o a" to di"tingui"h ware" or "er1ice" manufactured, "old, lea"ed, hired or performed !y him from tho"e manufactured, "old, lea"ed, hired or performed !y other"> D >>4.343s(6 +.*6(?7*.;> mean" a mark that i" propo"ed to !e u"ed !y a per"on for the purpo"e of di"tingui"hing or "o a" to di"tingui"h ware" or "er1ice" manufactured, "old, lea"ed, hired or performed !y him from tho"e manufactured, "old, lea"ed, hired or performed !y other">

D A +.*6(7*.; 78s+ 9(F @fle"h out with reading"you mi""ed cla"" for thi" due to "now dayno internetA aA % trademark that i" 6(<,2(6, that i" !A R(),s+(.*95( @not confu"ing with another regi"tered trademarkA cA D,s+,2/+,-( @"ee definition of Trademark in the %ctA dA The applicant for regi"tration mu"t !e the 4(.s32 (2+,+5(6 +3 .(),s+(. ,+ @other work" out thereA D Thi" i" where other u"er" of the "ame, or a confu"ingly "imilar, trademark, come in D The application notice oppo"ition regi"tration "y"tem i" the proce"" u"ed to "ee that the"e re;uirement" are o!"er1ed D 6owe1er, e1en if trademark" are regi"tered, the 1alidity of a trademark may !e challenged under ".$0 D Challenge" regi"tra!ility, di"tincti1ene"", and a!andonment D Jou mu"t u"e a trademark or el"e you will ha1e !een deemed to ha1e a!andoned it"ee ".$0 KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 2% USE D (ne idea of trademark law i" that trademark" are to !e >u"ed> D 6owe1er, what >u"e> mean" in ".- i" the "u!Bect of the ca"e law D (ne of the only right" a trademark gi1e" you i" e,clu"i1e right to u"e it, and you mu"t u"e the trademark or el"e you will ha1e deemed to ha1e a!andoned it D In addition to the definition of >u"e> in ".' of the 'rademar!s -"t, there are additional "tatutory definition" in the %ct a" !eing deemed u"e of a trade markF 4#1% W:(2 6((7(6 +3 9( 8s(6 D >A +.*6(?7*.; ,s 6((7(6 +3 9( 8s(6 ,2 *ss3/,*+,32 1,+: 1*.(s ,<, *+ +:( +,7( 3< +:( +.*2s<(. 3< +:( 4.34(.+0 ,2 3. 43ss(ss,32 3< +:( 1*.(s, ,2 +:( 23.7*5 /38.s( 3< +.*6(, ,+ ,s 7*.;(6 32 +:( 1*.(s +:(7s(5-(s 3. 32 +:( 4*/;*)(s ,2 1:,/: +:(0 *.( 6,s+.,98+(6 3. ,+ ,s ,2 *20 3+:(. 7*22(. s3 *ss3/,*+(6 1,+: +:( 1*.(s +:*+ 23+,/( 3< +:( *ss3/,*+,32 ,s +:(2 ),-(2 +3 +:( 4(.s32 +3 1:37 +:( 4.34(.+0 3. 43ss(ss,32 ,s +.*2s<(..(6 > D ?"e of a trademark in a""ociation with ware" when it i" !rought to the attention of the !uyer D /rought to the attention of the !uyer when property i" tran"ferred D 6owe1er, mere ad1erti"ing of ware" i" not u"e of the trademark @ClairolA 4#2% I6(7 D >A +.*6(?7*.; ,s 6((7(6 +3 9( 8s(6 ,2 *ss3/,*+,32 1,+: s(.-,/(s ,< ,+ ,s 8s(6 3. 6,s45*0(6 ,2 +:( 4(.<3.7*2/( 3. *6-(.+,s,2) 3< +:3s( s(.-,/(s> D /roader than with phy"ical item"the trademark i" u"ed in a""ociation with "er1ice" if it i" u"ed in ad1erti"ing D In the ne,t ca"e, Clairol:" competitor" marketed hair colouring product" under the trade mark" 7e1lon and

#5
Color"ilk, employing ad1erti"ing !rochure" and package" which contained colour compari"on chart" of defendant": and competiti1e product" in which plaintiff": product" were identified !y their regi"tered trade mark" 5i"" Clairol and 6air Color /ath D Clairol claimed 7e1lon:" u"e wa" an infringing u"e a" well a" a depreciating u"e "o a" to depreciate 1alue of goodwill D BF all language a!out >regi"tered u"er "y"tem> in the ne,t ca"e i" dead lawdon:t worry a!out it C airo ,nternationa Cor&. v. T#o*as Su&& y : .0ui&*ent Co. Ltd. (19!4 ./. Ct. Canada) Cs.22 +F D Clairol wa" the regi"tered owner of the trade mark 5I CL%I7(L a" it applied to the "ale of hair tinting and colouring preparation"the"e were u"ed in colour compari"on chart" !y the 2:" D %nother P, a Canadian "u!"idiary of the 9ew JorkD!a"ed Clairol, wa" the regi"tered owner of the trade mark 6%I7 C(L(7 /%T6 a" it applied to hair tinting and colouring preparation" D 2:" are P:" competitor" in Canada in re"pect of hair colouring preparation" and market their ware" under the trade mark 738L(9 D The fir"t 2 prepared and u"ed package" and !rochure" relating to their ware" which were then "old to the "econd 2 for re"ale to !eauty "alon" and dealer" "uch a" drug "tore" and department "tore" D The"e package" and !rochure" u"ed 2:" trade mark" 738L(9 and C(L(?7 ILOhowe1er, in addition, the package" and !rochure" included colour compari"on chart" in which !oth of P:" trade mark" 5I CL%I7(L and 6%I7 C(L(7 /%T6 appeared D The trade mark 5I CL%I7(L had !een e,ten"i1ely ad1erti"ed in Canada in a""ociation with the P:" product" and it wa" admittedly a wellDknown mark for hair colouring prep throughout Canada D The trade mark 738L(9 wa" al"o an admittedly wellDknown trade mark throughout Canada for a line of co"metic product"howe1er, there wa" no e1idence that it wa" a wellDknown trade mark in re"pect of hair colouring preparation" prior to when the complained offence" took place IF D 2id 7e1lon infringe Clairol:" trademark" and therefore infringe their right of e,clu"i1e u"eG QF D Je", for ClairolP:" entitled to damage" and an inBunction re"training 2:" from u"ing the trademark" 5I CL%I7(L or 6%I7 C(L(7 /%T6 on either of their package" D 2:" were not in 1iolation of "".. -@$A, #, or $& of the 'rade =ar!s -"t !ut were in 1iolation of ". '' %F D There were "e1eral i""ue" that Thurlow Q. ruled onF aA W*s +:(.( 8s( 1,+:,2 s.4#1% *26 +:(.(<3.( ,2<.,2)(7(2+ 3< +:( .,):+ 3< (@/58s,-( 8s(R D The placement of the PN" mark on 2N" package" wa" a u"e !y 2:" of PN" mark within ".-@$A D 6ere, 7e1lon were putting Clairol:" trademark on their package", !ut wa"n:t putting it there to infringe the trademark...weren:t trying to mi"lead the pu!lic D Therefore, it:" only infringement if you:re u"ing the other trademark a" a trademark D Thi" compari"on chart only compared colour" and wa" clearly "elling 7e1lon product" D ".-@$A of the 'rademar!s -"t doe" not con"ider the rea"on for putting the mark there, it will !e a u"e merely !ecau"e it i" there D 6owe1er, there wa" no u"e when the 2 put it on the !rochure" !ecau"e they are not ware" and were not 1iewed at the time of tran"fer !A W*s +:(.( * -,35*+,32 3< s.22 90 R(-532Bs 4*/;*)(sR D 2eception i" not the te"t pre"cri!ed !y ". '', rather the te"t i" the likelihood of depreciating the 1alue of the goodwill attaching to the trade mark, a re"ult which would not nece""arily flow from deception and which might re"ult without deception !eing pre"ent D G3361,55 ,s +:( 9(2(<,+ *26 *6-*2+*)( 3< +:( )336 2*7(, .(48+*+,32, *26 /322(/+,32 3< * 98s,2(ss!a"ically, it i" the attracti1e force which !ring" in cu"tom D In other word", goodwill i" the one thing which di"tingui"he" an oldDe"ta!li"hed !u"ine"" from a new !u"ine"" at it" fir"t "tart D To >depreciate the 1alue> of goodwill mean" "imply to reduce in "ome way the ad1antage of the reputation and connection D The u"e !y 7e1lon of the regi"tered trademark" of Clairol on package" of 7e1lon wa" contrary to ". '' of the 'rade =ar!s -"t in that "uch u"e depreciate" the 1alue of the goodwill a""ociated with "uch regi"tered trademark" D BF whole idea of u"ing Clairol:" trademark" wa" to per"uade cu"tomer" to 7e1lon D BF odd Budgmentcan:t u"e competitor" trademark @ieF in comparati1e ad1erti"ingA without 1iolating ".'' according to Thurlow Q.

#6
D A 4(.s32 7*0 23+ 8s( :,s /374(+,+3.Bs +.*6( 7*.; <3. +:( 48.43s( 3< *44(*5,2) +3 :,s /374(+,+3.Bs /8s+37(.s in an effort to weaken their ha!it of !uying what they !ought !efore or the likelihood that they would !uy hi" competitor:" good" or whate1er !ind" them to hi" competitor:" good" "o a" to "ecure the cu"tomer for him"elf D Thi" i" not only calculated to depreciate and de"troy hi" competitor:" goodwill !ut it i" u"ing hi" competitor:" trade mark for thi" purpo"e cA ',35*+,32 3< s." 90 +:( 4*/;*)(s 3< +:( D D ".# of the 'rade =ar!s -"t wa" not applica!le to the u"e !y the defendant" of the colour compari"on chart" on package" thi" i" not co1ered in the ca"e !ook D Therefore, the defendant": repre"entation" did not fal"ely de"cri!e defendant": product" in a material re"pect and "o 1iolate ". #@dA D BF ".#@eA "u!"e;uently declared uncon"titutionaldon:t worry a!out it D BF ".#@dA on mi"leading the pu!lic upheld in )ir!bi !ut not applica!le herenothing fal"e dA ',35*+,32 3< s.19 90 +:( 4*/;*)(s 3< +:( D D ".$& of the 'rade =ar!s -"t wa" not applica!le to the u"e !y the defendant" of the colour compari"on chart" on package" !ecau"e although it wa" a u"e, it wa" not a u"e for the purpo"e of di"tingui"hing the ware" made !y the 2 D ieF it wa" not !eing u"ed Sin re"pect of tho"e ware"T Vmade !y the 2W a" re;uired !y the clo"ing word" of ".$& D 2 wa" not u"ing the mark" to di"tingui"h the origin of the good", !ut to pro1ide a compari"on of different hair colour" 7F D T:8.531 I. :356s +:*+ s(/+,32 22 1*s -,35*+(6 90 R(-532 8s,2) C5*,.35Bs +.*6(7*.; 32 *2 *6-(.+,s,2) 4*/;*)( s3 *s +3 +.0 *26 4(.s8*6( C5*,.35 /8s+37(.s +3 s1,+/: +3 8s,2) R(-532Bs 4.368/+s, +:8s 6*7*),2) +:( /374(+,+3.Bs )3361,55M :31(-(., 8s,2) 32 +:( 9.3/:8.(s 1*s O& D BF %u"tralian ca"e @$&&- C%A where /anana recording company put out a pa"t recording of a 7olling tone concert, and packaging made it clear it wa" an unauthori<ed recording7 manager" claim that it wa" an unauthori<ed u"e of the 7olling tone" regi"tered trademark+ederal C% "plit 'D$2i""ent held that putting >7olling tone> on packaging acted a" a magnet for purcha"er and thu" wa" infringing 5aBority held that they weren:t u"ing 7olling tone to indicate the "ource of the trademark, !ut rather the clarification >unauthori<ed recording> made it clear it wa"n:t authori<ed !y the 7olling tone" D Therefore, +:( 7(.( <*/+ 3< 48++,2) +:( 2*7( 32 +:( 4*/;*)( ,s 23+ s8<<,/,(2+ *s 532) *s 038 7*;( ,+ /5(*. ,+ ,s 23+ /37,2) <.37 +:( 312(. 3< +:( +.*6(7*.;N=8s+ /5*.,<0,2) 1:*+ 038 *.( s(55,2) @".-@$AA D It 3250 ,2<.,2)(s ,< ,+ 6(4.(/,*+(s +:( -*58( 3< +:( )3361,55 3< +:( +.*6(7*.; 312(. @".''A KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK !% TO DISTINGUISH WARES OR SER'ICES D >F what doe" it mean in the %ct to >di"tingui"h ware" or "er1ice">G D The ne,t ca"e turned on the "ame i""ue a" )ir!bi wa" decided uponF the relation"hip !etween patent protection and trademark protection D It i" an e,ample of where the 1alidity of the trademark and the 1alidity of the regi"tration i" challenged year" after it wa" in place Canadian S#redded 8#eat Co. v. "e o22 Co. (1914 PC)C*es"riptive name not distin"tive unregistrable +F D Canadian hredded .heat @>C .>A, for o1er *) year", manufactured and "old >"hredded wheat>, and, until $&$-, when the patent e,pired, were the "ole 1endor" of the article in Canada D The apparatu" for the manufacture of the product wa" al"o protected !y patent, which e,pired in $&$&, when the appellant": monopoly cea"ed D In $&'0, Oellogg" regi"tered in $&'0 the word" >"hredded wheat> a" their trademark to !e applied to the "ale of !i"cuit" and cracker", and in $&'& the "ame word" were regi"tered a" their trade mark to !e applied to the "ale of cereal food" D 6owe1er, in $&*-, Oellogg "tarted to "ell !i"cuit" of "hredded wheat in Canada made !y "u!"tantially

##
the "ame proce""!i"cuit wa" of the "ame "hape a", !ut "maller, and the carton in which the !i"cuit" were contained wa" ;uite different D C . claimed an inBunction to re"train Oellogg from infringing their regi"tered trademark >"hredded wheat,> and, alternati1ely, an inBunction to re"train re"pondent" from, !y a u"e of the "ame word" or any word" only coloura!ly differing therefrom, pa""ing off their !i"cuit" a" C .:" !i"cuit" D Oellogg", howe1er, claimed the trademark wa" not 1alid !ecau"e the mark wa"n:t di"tingui"ha!le IF D .a" the trademark 1alidG QF D 9o, for Oellogg" %F D C . were in no way u"ing the word" >"hredded wheat> a" indicati1e of the origin of the good" contained in their carton, !ut 3250 *s 6(s/.,4+,-( 3< +:3s( )336s D The word", which were !oth the name of, and de"cripti1e of, the in1ented product, had not ac;uired the "econdary meaning of !eing di"tincti1e of good" manufactured e,clu"i1ely !y C . D BF it:" an e,act de"cription of the productit:" how it look"in order for it to !e di"tincti1e, it would ha1e to con1ey to the pu!lic not Bu"t how it look" !ut who made it D 6ere, the 7*.; :*62B+ 9((2 8s(6 +3 6,s+,2)8,s: +:( 1*.(s <.37 +:(,. /374(+,+3.s D C 7 tried to pro1e that the pu!lic knew that >"hredded wheat> wa" a""ociated with them D 6owe1er, it wa" clear from the u"e made of them !y the company in their carton" and ad1erti"ement" that >"hredded wheat> wa" not a""ociated with them D ieF word" >original "hredded wheat> in ad" implied there could !e >nonDoriginal "hredded wheat> D 5ark wa" de"cripti1e only and ne1er ac;uired a "econdary meaning with the pu!lic, a" what C 7 didn:t do anything to gi1e the name >"hredded wheat> a "econdary meaning D PC "ugge"ted that while C 7 had the patent, they "hould:1e gi1en >"hredded wheat> "ome unu"ual name, and keep calling it that when the patent e,pired D In"tead, can:t Bu"t u"e a de"cripti1eHgeneric name while holding a patent, wait for it to e,pire, and try to protect the generic nameieF >miracle wheat> might ha1e !uilt up goodwill for that !rand D Therefore, "ince C 7 couldn:t pro1e the trademark had ac;uired the di"tincti1e ;uality of a !rand o1er time, .(H8,s,+( s(/326*.0 7(*2,2) 3< (@/58s,-( 6,s+,2/+,-(2(ss :*6 23+ 9((2 (s+*95,s:(6 D The regi"tration of the appellant company:" trade mark >"hredded wheat> wa" in1alid !ecau"e it wa"n:t di"ticti1e, and therefore action for infringement failed D (nce it wa" e"ta!li"hed, a" here, that the word" >"hredded wheat> were !oth the name of a product and de"cripti1e of it, an */+,32 <3. 4*ss,2) 3<< +:.38): +:( 8s( 3< +:3s( 13.6s <*,5(6 *s 1(55 D If the pu!lic doe"n:t think of >"hredded wheat> a" di"tincti1e of C 7:" product, it ha" no goodwill in the name a" indicating C 7:" product, and therefore there:" no action for pa""ing off D N3+(F the circum"tance" of thi" ca"e are e,ceptional in trademark and pa""ing off ca"e" D The company "eeking e,clu"i1e right" had originally manufactured under patent" granted in re"pect of the article it"elf and in re"pect of the machinery u"ed in it" manufacture D They had therefore enBoyed a monopoly which had e,pired, and thi" fact would nece""arily limit their right after the e,piry of their patent to regi"ter a trade mark which would 1irtually e,tend their monopoly D BF the i""ue of generic name" i" u"ually made at the time of regi"tration, a" one of the regi"tra!ility rule" i" the name can:t !e de"cripti1eunu"ual ca"e !ecau"e >"hredded wheat> got pa"t the regi"trar 7F D D,s+,2/+,-(2(ss ,s 8s8*550 1:(.( -*5,6,+0 3< +:( +.*6(7*.; +8.2s, *26 1:(.( * +.*6(7*.; ,s /*4*95( 3< 9(,2) s,7450 * 6,s+,2/+,-( 2*7(, ,+ ,s 23+ * -*5,6 +.*6(7*.; D The ne,t ca"e wa" an appeal from a deci"ion of the +ederal Court di"mi""ing Tommy 6ilfiger:" claim for infringement of their regi"tered Cre"t 2e"ign tradeDmark", which were u"ed in a""ociation with clothing for men and !oy" To**y %i fi2er Licensin2 ,nc. v. ,nternationa C ot#iers ,nc. ('(() 9CA)C8verall effe"t over intent +F D In 9o1em!er $&&-, International Clothier" @>IC>A , a clothing retailer operating clothing "tore", purcha"ed cheap knockDoff Tommy "hirt" featuring 6ilfiger:" Cre"t 2e"ign from a "upplier in Paki"tan D The "hirt" were "old through IC:" "tore" !etween +e!ruary or 5arch and eptem!er $&&5 e1en though IC wa"n:t licen"ed to "ell the appellant": ware" or ware" a""ociated with T6:" Cre"t 2e"ign D T6 "tarted legal action" in the ? % in eptem!er $&&5, and in the +ederal Court of Canada in $&&0 D %fter the Canadian legal proceeding" "tarted, IC purcha"ed from a "upplier in California !oy": "hort"

#0
"et" featuring a cre"t "imilar to that of 6ilfiger:" Cre"t 2e"ign D The"e "hort" "et" were "old !y IC through it" "tore" !efore midD$&&0 D TQ concluded that 6ilfiger had not u"ed it" cre"t de"ign a" a tradeDmark "o a" to di"tingui"h it" ware" from tho"e of other", and that IC did not intend to u"e the cre"t de"ign a" a trademark D Intent could not !e inferred on the !a"i" only of the purcha"e" D Con"e;uently, TQ concluded that 6ilfiger:" tradeDmark" had not !een infringed D 6owe1er, TQ went on to determine, on a""umption that he wa" in error, that the u"e of 6ilfiger:" cre"t de"ign a" a tradeDmark would likely cau"e confu"ion, and thu" IC wa" lia!le for pa""ing off D Tommy now challenge" TQ:" di"mi""al of their claim for trademark infringement D IC claim" that the la!el on the !ack of the "hirt i" an IC la!el, not Tommy:", and the Tommy Cre"t i" "imply decorati1eno "ugge"tion it:" !eing u"ed a" a trademark !ecau"e it:" clear it:" an IC "hirt IF D .hat i" the meaning of the word" >u"ed ... for the purpo"e of di"tingui"hing or "o a" to di"tingui"h> found in the definition of the word >tradeDmark> in "ection ' of the 'rademar!s -"tG To what e,tent i" intent rele1ant when di"tingui"hing ware" or "er1ice"G QF D +or Tommy 6ilfiger, IC lia!le !oth for pa""ing off and for infringing u"e of the trademark %F D C% held that the TQ erred in concluding that IC had not u"ed it" cre"t de"ign mark a" a tradeDmark D 6e erred in adopting an interpretation of the 'rademar!s -"t which re;uired proof that the u"er had intended to u"e hi" mark for the purpo"e of di"tingui"hing hi" ware" from tho"e of other" D Learned author" ha1e opined that the word" u"ed in ".' to define >tradeDmark> do not lead to the conclu"ion that a "howing of intent i" nece""ary to a finding that a mark ha" !een u"ed a" a tradeDmark D The 8s(.Bs ,2+(2+,32 *26 4895,/ .(/3)2,+,32 *.( .(5(-*2+ /32s,6(.*+,32s, *26 32( 3. +:( 3+:(. 7*0 9( s8<<,/,(2+ +3 6(732s+.*+( +:*+ +:( 7*.; :*s 9((2 8s(6 *s * +.*6(?7*.; D The fact that the mark may ha1e !een affi,ed to the ware" for the purpo"e of ornamentation i" not a !ar to a finding that the mark wa" u"ed a" a tradeDmark D H(.(, ICBs /.(s+ 6(s,)2 s(.-(6 48.43s( 3< ,26,/*+,2) +:( 3.,),2 3< T3770 H,5<,)(. *26, +:(.(<3.(, 1*s 8s(6 *s * +.*6(7*.; D IC:" Cre"t 2e"ign tradeDmark" had ac;uired di"tincti1ene"" and con"e;uently "er1ed to indicate that Tommy 6ilfiger were the "ource or origin of the article" of clothing with which the mark" were a""ociated D Two factor" why the cre"t de"ign generated confu"ion in the mind" of the pu!licF aA IC:" cre"t de"ign wa" 1ery "imilar to that of Tommy:" !A The de"ign wa" placed in the "ame po"ition on the !rea"t" of "hirt" where the Cre"t 2e"ign tradeDmark" were placed D The"e factor" led the TQ to conclude that IC:" mark" were confu"ing in that the con"umer would con"ider that the "ource of IC:" ware" wa" Tommy:" and hence, the re"pondent:" cre"t >"er1ed the purpo"e of indicating origin> D W:(+:(. IC ,2+(26(6 +3 8s( ,+s 7*.; <3. +:( 48.43s( 3< ,26,/*+,2) 3.,),2 1*s ,..(5(-*2+ s,2/(, ,2 <*/+, +:( 6(s,)2 s(.-(6 +:*+ 48.43s( D BF policy of the %ct i" that infringement action" aren:t Bu"t a product of intent, !ut al"o of effect D Like pa""ing offif "ome "ection of the pu!lic a""ume" that the IC "hirt" are actually Tommy 6ilfiger "hirt", IC i" u"ing Tommy:" trademark improperly and are lia!le for infringement D 'rademar! -"t protect" your right to u"e your regi"tered trademark only to product" you want "o that your mark doe"n:t get dilutedHeroded !y other companie" u"ing the mark on inferior product" D In 1iew of the TQ:" conclu"ion that IC:" u"e of it" cre"t de"ign a" a trademark would likely cau"e confu"ion, Tommy "ucceeded in demon"trating that their e,clu"i1e u"e of the Cre"t 2e"ign tradeD mark" wa" infringed 7F D I2<.,2)(7(2+ 3< +.*6(7*.;s ,s 6(<,2(6 90 1:(+:(. +:( 7*.; ,s 8s(6 +3 ,26,/*+( +:( s38./( 3< +:( )336s, *26 *2*50s,s ,s /32/(2+.*+(6 32 +:( (<<(/+ 3< +:( 8s(, 23+ +:( ,2+(2+ D BF the U$5 Loui" 8uitton hand!ag i" "till infringement, a" while e1ery!ody know" it not a real !ag, it:" clear it:" !eing u"ed for the purpo"e of indicating origin D If thi" u"e wa"n:t protected, Loui" 8uitton would lo"e all control o1er it" !rand D 9ot pa""ing off here, a" mu"t "how confu"ion in mind" of the pu!lic D 6owe1er, 8s( 3< * +.*6(7*.; 23+ 6(<,2(6 90 /32<8s,32N,+Bs 6(<,2(6 90 8s( 3< +:( +.*6(7*.; +3 ,26,/*+( +:( s38./( 3< +:( )336s, "uch a" with knockoff good" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

#&

II. REGISTRATION OF TRADE$AR&S 1% CONDITIONS FOR REGISTRATION GENERAL D P35,/0F to "et up a harmoniou" "et of trademark" that pro1ide" to 1alid trademark owner" a monopoly on their trademark throughout Canada D Thi" ),-(s -*5,6 +.*6(7*.; 312(.s * .,):+ 3< (@/58s,-( 8s( +:.38):38+ C*2*6* in a""ociation with the ware" or "er1ice" "pecified in it" regi"tration D Thi" al"o gi1e" owner" the right to ha1e a monopoly o1er a mark in a""ociation with "pecific kind" of ware" and "er1ice", and 7*,2+*,2 ,+s 6,s+,2/+,-(2(ss 90 435,/,2) 82*8+:3.,D(6 8s( ,2 C*2*6* D It al"o gi1e" reciprocal right" in other countrie" to get the mark regi"tered internationally D To o!tain thi" purpo"e, certain mark" are prohi!ited @".&A and mu"t maintain di"tincti1e, !oth at the time of regi"tration and afterward"

D The right" conferred !y regi"tration are defined !y ".$& of the %ctF 19 R,):+s /32<(..(6 90 .(),s+.*+,32 D > u!Bect to "ection" '$, *' and 6#, the regi"tration of a tradeDmark in re"pect of any ware" or "er1ice", unle"" "hown to !e in1alid, gi1e" to the owner of the tradeDmark the e,clu"i1e right to the u"e throughout Canada of the tradeDmark in re"pect of tho"e ware" or "er1ice"> D In general, a trademark mu"t !eF aA % trademark a" defined, that i" !A 7egi"tra!le, and cA 2i"tincti1e, and dA The applicant for regi"tration mu"t !e the per"on entitled to regi"ter it D To regi"ter a trademark @other than a certification mark or a di"tingui"hing gui"eA, a num!er of condition" mu"t !e "ati"fied, including the main regi"tration "ection in ".$'F aA T:( 7*.; 78s+ 9( * trade*ark *s 6(<,2(6 ,2 s.1 D Thi" mean", among other thing", that it 78s+ */+8*550 9( 8s(6 #23+ 2(/(ss*.,50 ,2 C*2*6*% +3 6,s+,2)8,s: +:( *445,/*2+Bs 1*.(s *26 s(.-,/(s from the ware" and "er1ice" of other" D %lternati1ely, if the application i" for a propo"ed trademark, it mu"t !e propo"ed "o to !e u"ed D 2etail" of the actual u"e and the propo"ed u"e mu"t !e gi1en in the application @"ee ".*)@!A and @eAA, including the "pecific ware" or "er1ice" in a""ociation with which the mark ha" !een or i" propo"ed to !e u"ed !A T:( 7*.; 78s+ 9( re2istra< e 1,+:,2 +:( 7(*2,2) 3< s.12#1% D /a"ically, it mu"t not fall into one of the cla""e" of unregi"tra!le mark" li"ted in ".$'@$AF 12#1% W:(2 +.*6(?7*.; .(),s+.*95( D > u!Bect to "ection $*, a tradeDmark i" regi"tra!le if it i" not @aA * 13.6 +:*+ ,s 4.,7*.,50 7(.(50 +:( 2*7( 3. +:( s8.2*7( 3< *2 ,26,-,68*5 1:3 ,s 5,-,2) 3. :*s 6,(6 1,+:,2 +:( 4.(/(6,2) +:,.+0 0(*.s C D ee ca"e" for the >primarily merely> te"t @!A whether depicted, written or "ounded, either clearly de"cripti1e or decepti1ely mi"de"cripti1e in the 3ngli"h or +rench language of the character or ;uality of the ware" or "er1ice" in a""ociation with which it i" u"ed or propo"ed to !e u"ed or of the condition" of or the per"on" employed in their production or of their place of originC @cA the name in any language of any of the ware" or "er1ice" in connection with which it i" u"ed or propo"ed to !e u"edC @dA confu"ing with a regi"tered tradeDmarkC @eA a 7*.; 3< 1:,/: +:( *634+,32 ,s 4.3:,9,+(6 90 s(/+,32 9 or $)C D N3+(F ".& i" a li"t of prohi!ited mark", including the S"candalou", o!"cene or immoralT one in para. &@$A@BA. Then ". $' refer" to ". &, a" well a" other

0)
pro1i"ion", in li"ting what i" not regi"tra!le. The pro1i"ion that allow" you to regi"ter e1en a de"cripti1e name, if it ha" ac;uired di"tincti1ene"" @i.e. the kind of S"econdary meaningT that 6732232 .63%T did not ha1eA at the time of filing the application, i" ". $'@'A. @fA a denomination the adoption of which i" prohi!ited !y "ection $).$C @gA in whole or in part a protected geographical indication, where the tradeDmark i" to !e regi"tered in a""ociation with a wine not originating in a territory indicated !y the geographical indicationC @hA in whole or in part a protected geographical indication, where the tradeDmark i" to !e regi"tered in a""ociation with a "pirit not originating in a territory indicated !y the geographical indicationC and @iA "u!Bect to "u!"ection *@*A and paragraph *@-A@aA of the (lympic and Paralympic 5ark" %ct, a mark adoption of which i" prohi!ited !y "u!"ection *@$A of that %ct> 12#2% E@/(4+,32 <3. +.*6(7*.;s 8s(6 90 +:( *445,/*2+ s3 *s +3 :*-( 9(/37( 6,s+,2/+,-( D >% tradeDmark that i" not regi"tra!le !y rea"on of paragraph @$A@aA or @!A i" regi"tra!le if it ha" !een "o u"ed in Canada !y the applicant or hi" predece""or in title a" to ha1e !ecome di"tincti1e at the date of filing an application for it" regi"tration> cA T:( *445,/*2+ 78s+ 9( +:( &erson entit ed to re2istration *s 4.3-,6(6 90 s.1 1 #1% R(),s+.*+,32 3< 7*.;s 8s(6 3. 7*6( ;2312 ,2 C*2*6* D >%ny applicant who ha" filed an application in accordance with "ection *) for regi"tration of a tradeDmark that i" regi"tra!le and that he or hi" predece""or in title ha" u"ed in Canada or made known in Canada in a""ociation with ware" or "er1ice" i" entitled, "u!Bect to "ection *0, to "ecure it" regi"tration in re"pect of tho"e ware" or "er1ice", unle"" at the date on which he or hi" predece""or in title fir"t "o u"ed it or made it known it wa" confu"ing with @aA a tradeDmark that had !een pre1iou"ly u"ed in Canada or made known in Canada !y any other per"onC @!A a tradeDmark in re"pect of which an application for regi"tration had !een pre1iou"ly filed in Canada !y any other per"onC or @cA a tradeDname that had !een pre1iou"ly u"ed in Canada !y any other per"on> dA E-(2 ,< .(),s+.*+,32 +*;(s 45*/(, ,+ 7*0 9( ,2-*5,6 826(. s.18 18#1% W:(2 .(),s+.*+,32 ,2-*5,6 D >The regi"tration of a tradeDmark i" in1alid if @aA the tradeDmark wa" not regi"tra!le at the date of regi"tration, @!A the tradeDmark i" not di"tincti1e at the time proceeding" !ringing the 1alidity of the regi"tration into ;ue"tion are commenced, or @cA the tradeDmark ha" !een a!andoned, and "u!Bect to "ection $#, it i" in1alid if the applicant for regi"tration wa" not the per"on entitled to "ecure the regi"tration> KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 2% PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION D BF Oey point here i" the application proce"" D The maBor "tep" in1ol1ed in regi"tration areF aA C:33s,2) +:( +.*6(7*.; !A C3268/+,2) * s(*./: 3< +:( .(),s+(. 3< +.*6( 7*.;s D ee ".'6 @regi"ter of trade mark"A and ".'0 @inde,e" to the regi"terA cA F,5,2) *2 *445,/*+,32 D ee content" "et out in ".*) @Bu"t "et" out all thing" that mu"t !e filed with the 7egi"trarA dA E@*7,2*+,32 3< +:( *445,/*+,32 90 +:( R(),s+.*. 3< T.*6(7*.;s eA R(),s+(. 7*0 .(<8s( !"#1% W:(2 *445,/*+,32s +3 9( .(<8s(6 D >The 7egi"trar "hall refu"e an application for the regi"tration of a tradeDmark if he i" "ati"fied that

0$
@aA the *445,/*+,32 63(s 23+ /32<3.7 +3 +:( .(H8,.(7(2+s 3< s(/+,32 !0, @!A the +.*6(?7*.; ,s 23+ .(),s+.*95(, or D ee ca"e"ieF mark i" >primarily merely> a "urname @cA the *445,/*2+ ,s 23+ +:( 4(.s32 (2+,+5(6 +3 .(),s+.*+,32 3< +:( +.*6(?7*.; 9(/*8s( ,+ ,s /32<8s,2) 1,+: *23+:(. +.*6(?7*.; <3. +:( .(),s+.*+,32 3< 1:,/: *2 *445,/*+,32 ,s 4(26,2), D ieF another application for "ame or confu"ingly "imilar mark i" "till pending, "o getting application to the 7egi"tar i" !eneficial and where the 7egi"trar i" not "o "ati"fied, he "hall cau"e the application to !e ad1erti"ed in the manner pre"cri!ed> fA R(),s+.*. *6-(.+,s(s +:( *445,/*+,32 D 4oe" onto the Canada 6aBette or the internet gA O4432(2+s /*2 /:*55(2)( +.*6(7*.; 1"#1% E<<(/+ 3< .(),s+.*+,32 ,2 .(5*+,32 +3 4.(-,38s 8s(, (+/. D >9o application for regi"tration of a tradeDmark that ha" !een ad1erti"ed in accordance with "ection *# "hall !e refu"ed and no regi"tration of a tradeDmark "hall !e e,punged or amended or held in1alid on the ground of any pre1iou" u"e or making known of a confu"ing tradeDmark or tradeDname !y a per"on other than the applicant for that regi"tration or hi" predece""or in title, e,cept at the in"tance of that other per"on or hi" "ucce""or in title, and the !urden lie" on that other per"on or hi" "ucce""or to e"ta!li"h that he had not a!andoned the confu"ing tradeD mark or tradeDname at the date of ad1erti"ement of the applicantN" application> D They may rai"e defect" in documentation, pro!lem" with regi"tration, or whether the indi1idual i" entitled to regi"ter the mark D ieF protection for unregi"tered trademark if a company ha" !een u"ing a name hA B3*.6 :(*.s /*s(, *26 /*2 *44(*5 +3 F(6(.*5 C38.+ iA O28s 32 *445,/*2+ +3 s:31 ,+ 7((+s .(),s+.*+,32 .(H8,.(7(2+s D (pponent" can "imply rai"e regi"tra!ility i""ue", and then applicant mu"t di"charge onu" BA R(/(,-( /(.+,<,/*+( 3< +.*6(7*.; D 5u"t u"e it within * year" D ee ".$#@$A, a" 34432(2+ ,s .(s+.,/+(6 +3 4(.s32s 1:3 :*-( * /32<8s,2)50 s,7,5*. 7*.; 68( +3 /32<5,/+ 1,+: * 4*.+,/85*. 7*.; D H31(-(., *209360 /*2 /:*55(2)( +:( 6,s+,2/+,-(2(ss of the mark !ecau"e there:" no capacity in the mark to di"tingui"h it from the ware"H"er1ice" of other" D The"e argument", while different i""ue" @"ee ConBorBioA, are "ometime" confu"ed D %l"o note that regi"tra!ility @confu"ingly "imilarA i" determined at the time of regi"tration D 6owe1er, mark" that are properly regi"tered may face di"tincti1ene"" challenge" po"tDregi"tration if it ac;uire" ;ualitie" that make it lo"e it" di"tincti1ene"" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK !% TRADE $AR&S THAT ARE NOT REGISTRABLE #OTHER THAN BECAUSE OF CONFUSION WITH A REGISTERED TRADE $AR&% A% INTRODUCTION D B3+: +:( A4.,7*.,50 7(.(50A *26 A6(/(4+,-(50 7,s6(s/.,4+,-(A 4.3:,9,+,32s *.( s89=(/+ +3 +:( (@/(4+,32 ,2 s.12#2%, where if a party can pro1e that a mark ha" ac;uired di"tincti1ene"" @ieF a "econdary meaningA in the pu!lic:" mind, it can !e regi"tra!le D Therefore, a mark that i"n:t regi"tra!le at fir"t in"tance can later !ecome regi"tra!le !ecau"e it ha" ac;uired di"tincti1ene"" through u"e in the marketplace D 6owe1er, thi" doe" not apply to a mark that i" "imply the name of the ware" or "er1ice" @"ection 2A D %dditionally, 826(. s.!8, R(),s+.*. 78s+ 5,7,+ .(),s+.*+,32 +3 1*.(s *26 )(3).*4:,/ *.(* +3 1:,/: ,+ :*s 9((2 .(),s+(.(6 D Therefore, maker" won:t get their ware" regi"tered o1er an area that i" !roader than the area of which

0'
it ha" ac;uired di"tincti1ene"" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK B% PRI$ARILY $ERELY NA$E OR SURNA$E D The 435,/0 of the >primarily merely> rule i" to 4.(-(2+ +:( 4.(?(74+,32 3< 4(.s32*5 2*7(s D ee thi" "ection of the 'rademar!s -"tF 12#1% W:(2 +.*6(?7*.; .(),s+.*95( D > u!Bect to "ection $*, a tradeDmark i" regi"tra!le if it i" not @aA * 13.6 +:*+ ,s 4.,7*.,50 7(.(50 +:( 2*7( 3. +:( s8.2*7( 3< *2 ,26,-,68*5 1:3 ,s 5,-,2) 3. :*s 6,(6 1,+:,2 +:( 4.(/(6,2) +:,.+0 0(*.sC D Thi" prohi!ition applie", irre"pecti1e of whether the name or "urname the applicant want" to regi"ter a" a trade mark i" the applicant:" own D BF *) year" ha" no hi"torical "ignificanceBu"t while there:" a li1ing memory of "ome!ody

12#2% $*.; *5.(*60 6,s+,2/+,-( 1:(2 *445,/*+,32 ,s <,5(6 D >A +.*6(?7*.; +:*+ ,s 23+ .(),s+.*95( 90 .(*s32 3< 4*.*).*4: #1%#*% 3. #9% ,s .(),s+.*95( ,< ,+ :*s 9((2 s3 8s(6 ,2 C*2*6* 90 +:( *445,/*2+ 3. :,s 4.(6(/(ss3. ,2 +,+5( *s +3 :*-( 9(/37( 6,s+,2/+,-( *+ +:( 6*+( 3< <,5,2) *2 *445,/*+,32 <3. ,+s .(),s+.*+,32 > D In other word", if the applicant can "how that the name or "urname ha" in fact !een u"ed a" a trade mark and a" a re"ult ha" !ecome di"tincti1e of the applicant:" ware" or "er1ice" at the date of filing the applicant, the mark i" regi"tra!le D If thi" "ection applie", the 7egi"ter mu"t re"trict the regi"tration to the ware" or "er1ice" in a""ociation with which the trade mark i" "hown to ha1e !een u"ed "o a" to !ecome di"tincti1e D BF e,ample" include Tommy 6ilfiger, J1e" t. Laurent, 7alph Lauren, ect D BF for new name", they ha1e to !e on the market for a while to get di"tincti1e, "o can:t preD empti1ely regi"ter name", "o differ" from other mark" where a propo"ed mark can !e regi"tered that ha"n:t captured the mind of the pu!lic yet D BF can regi"ter name" that would otherwi"e !e unregi"tra!le if it:" included in a de"ign howe1er, ha1e to di"claim the name and only u"e it in the de"ign it"elf D N3+(F The 3,che;uer Court of Canada wa" the predece""or to the +ederal Court of Canada D In the ne,t ca"e, the 7egi"trar of Trade 5ark" refu"ed an application for regi"tration of the mark >+I(7> a" a propo"ed trade mark for u"e on ware" de"cri!ed a" direct reduction iron ore Standard 7i Co. v. +e2istrar of Trade;=arks (19!4 ./. Ct. of Canada)C-"ronym as surname registered +F D .hile +I(7 i" a madeDup name @think >3,,on>A, it wa" an acronym for direct reduction iron ore D 6owe1er, the 7egi"trar refu"ed regi"tration on the ground that "ince the word ha" no dictionary meaning !ut appear" in directorie" in Toronto and 5ontreal a" a "urname, it i" con"idered to !e >primarily merely> a "urname and unregi"tra!le !y 1irtue of ". $'@$A@aA of the 'rade<=ar!s -"t D tandard (il argue" that +I(7 i" not >a word> where it appear" at the !eginning of ".$'@$A@aA, or alternati1ely the fact that +I(7 appear" in the directorie" of certain Canadian citie" a" a "urname i" not a proper e1identiary !a"i" for concluding that it i" the "urname of an indi1idual D In other word", tandard (il argue" that +I(7 i" not >primarily merely> a "urname IF D hould the word !e regi"tered a" a trademarkG I" +I(7 >primarily merely> the name or "urname of an indi1idualG QF D Je", for tandard (il, >+I(7> get" regi"tered and i"n:t >primarily merely> the name of a per"on %F D (n the fir"t argument, it wa" open for 7egi"trar to conclude that "ince +I(7 appeared in directorie" in Canada, the !alance of pro!a!ility i" that there are indi1idual" in Canada who"e "urname i" +I(7 D (n the "econd argument, on the e1idence, +I(7 i" a word that i" the "urname of an indi1idual who i" li1ing in Canada;ue"tion i" >whether +I(7 i" :primarily merely: "uch a word

0*
D The A4.,7*.,50 7(.(50A +(s+ 3< .(),s+.*9,5,+0 826(. s. 12#1%#*% 3< +:( Trade =arks Act ,sF D >W:*+, ,2 +:( 34,2,32 3< +:( R(),s+.*. 3. +:( C38.+ *s +:( /*s( 7*0 9(, 13856 9( +:( .(s432s( 3< +:( )(2(.*5 4895,/ 3< C*2*6* +3 +:( 13.6 s38):+ +3 9( .(),s+(.(6 > D 6ere, a per"on in Canada of ordinary intelligence and education in 3ngli"h or +rench would !e Bu"t a" likely, if not 73.( 5,;(50, +3 +:,2; 3< +:( 13.6 FIOR *s * 9.*26 3. 7*.; 3< s37( 98s,2(ss *s +3 .(s4326 +3 ,+ 90 +:,2;,2) 3< s37( <*7,50 3< 4(345( D +I(7 i" pro!a!ly not primarily a word that i" a "urname of an indi1idual !ut i" certainly not primarily merely "uch a wordieF it doe" not "ati"fy the Sprimarily merelyT "tandard in ".$'@$A@aA D P35,/0F court can:t !elie1e that ".$'@$A@aA wa" intended 1irtually to eliminate the creation of new word" for purpo"e" of propo"ed trade mark" 7F D T:( +(s+ <3. .(),s+.*9,5,+0 826(. s.12#1%#*% ,s 1:*+, ,2 +:( 34,2,32 3< +:( R(),s+.*. 3< T.*6(7*.;s 3. +:( C38.+, *s +:( /*s( 7*0 9(, 13856 9( +:( .(s432s( 3< +:( )(2(.*5 4895,/ 3< C*2*6* +3 +:( 13.6

D In the ne,t ca"e, another "urname wa" under de!ate for regi"tra!ility 5erard %orn ,nvts. Ltd. v. +e2istrar of Trade;=arks (1941 9ed. Ct. T$) CCan register fi"titious names +F D %pplicant applied to regi"ter the word" >5arco Pecci> a" a trade mark in a""ociation with ladie" wearing apparelmade up to "hare in acclaim accorded to foreign de"igner" and ha1e market appeal D 7egi"trar reBected it under ".$'@$A@aA, claiming the mark wa" primarily merely the name of indi1idual D ".$'@$A@aA impede" regi"tration of a fictitiou" name a" trade mark that coincide" with a name !orne !y "omeone now li1ing or !orne !y "omeone who ha" died within the la"t *) name" D 4erard 6orn admit" that >5arco Pecci> i" a namehowe1er, argued that they made it up for !u"ine"" IF D I" the >5arco Pecci>, which i" clearly a name, regi"tra!le a" a trademarkG QF D Je", for 4erard 6orn %F D ' "tep" in a ".$'@$A@aA >primarily merely> te"t analy"i"F aA D(+(.7,2( 1:(+:(. +:( 13.6 3. 13.6s s38):+ +3 9( .(),s+(.(6 ,2 +:( 2*7( ,s +:( 2*7( or "urname of a li1ing indi1idual, or an indi1idual who ha" recently died !A W:(2 +:,s /326,+,32 4.(/(6(2+ ,s s*+,s<,(6, *26 3250 +:(2, /32s,6(. +:( H8(s+,32 whether the trademark applied for i" >primarily merely> a name or "urname rather than "omething el"e D 6ere, without any indication what"oe1er that e1idence other" had the name >5arco Pecci>, the e,aminer went to "tep :!: and applied the >primarily merely> te"t D %fter the fact, there wa" e1idence of at lea"t two li1ing per"on" in Canada with Pecci "urname D 6owe1er, the trademark "ought to !e regi"tered i" not Pecci, it:" 5%7C( P3CCI D Therefore, 1:,5( +:( 2*7( $*./3 P(//, ,s A4.,7*.,50 7(.(50A * s8.2*7(, ,+ /*223+ 9( +:( 2*7( 3< *2 ,26,-,68*5 ,< +:(.( ,s 23 (-,6(2/( 3< s8/: * 4(.s32 7F D I+ ,s 23+ (238): +:*+ * <,/+,+,38s 2*7( 7*0 .(s(795( +:( 2*7( +:*+ /3856 9( 93.2( 90 *2 */+8*5 4(.s32 3. 7,):+ 9( +:38): 90 +:( 4895,/ +3 9( 2*7(s 3. s8.2*7(sM +:*+ +:38):+ 3250 9(/37(s 7*+(.,*5 1:(2 ,+ ,s (s+*95,s:(6 90 (-,6(2/( +:*+ +:(.( ,s * 5,-,2) 4(.s32 3< +:( 2*7( 3. s8.2*7( D BF difficult ca"e where there i" a fictitiou" name and "ome people ha1e it...while it:" >primarily merely> a "urname, would ha1e to argue there:" no e1idence with li1ing per"on" of that name D ieF >7onald 5c2onald> not regi"tered, a" referenced in 6erard +orn D P35,/0F don:t want indi1idual" taking name" of famou" per"on" and attaching it to ware" @unle"" dead o1er *) year"A or indi1idual" monopoli<ing their own name" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK C% CLEARLY DESCRIPTI'E OR DECEPTI'ELY $ISDESCRIPTI'E D Thi" i" a !igger i""ue than the >primarily merely> i""ue, !ecau"e while that i""ue can only pop up at the

0time of regi"tration, 6,s+,2/+,-(2(ss ,ss8(s /*2 *.,s( (,+:(. *+ +,7( 3< .(),s+.*+,32 3. 43s+?.(),s+.*+,32 D P35,/0F "houldn:t allow indi1idual" to regi"ter a" trademark" word" and getting a monopoly o1er regular word", and the %ct "hould police the authenticity of what i" ad1erti"ed and pre1ent deception of pu!lic D ee the 'rademar!s -"tF 12#1% W:(2 +.*6(?7*.; .(),s+.*95( D > u!Bect to "ection $*, a tradeDmark i" regi"tra!le if it i" not @!A whether depicted, written or "ounded, either /5(*.50 6(s/.,4+,-( 3. 6(/(4+,-(50 7,s6(s/.,4+,-( ,2 +:( E2)5,s: 3. F.(2/: 5*2)8*)( 3< +:( /:*.*/+(. 3. H8*5,+0 3< +:( 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s ,2 *ss3/,*+,32 1,+: 1:,/: ,+ ,s 8s(6 3. 4.343s(6 +3 9( 8s(6 3. 3< +:( /326,+,32s 3< 3. +:( 4(.s32s (74530(6 ,2 +:(,. 4.368/+,32 3. 3< +:(,. 45*/( 3< 3.,),2 > D %" market a""umed to operate only in 3ngli"h and +rench, pro!lem" don:t ari"e with other language" like Italian, pani"h, Chine"e, Qapane"e, ect D >C5(*.50 6(s/.,4+,-(> R o!1iou"ly de"cripti1e term D >D(/(4+,-(50 7,s6(s/.,4+,-(> R prohi!it term" pu!lic might take "eriou"ly 12#2% E@/(4+,32 D >% tradeDmark that i" not regi"tra!le !y rea"on of paragraph @$A@aA or @!A i" regi"tra!le ,< ,+ :*s 9((2 s3 8s(6 ,2 C*2*6* 90 +:( *445,/*2+ 3. :,s 4.(6(/(ss3. ,2 +,+5( *s +3 :*-( 9(/37( 6,s+,2/+,-( *+ +:( 6*+( 3< <,5,2) *2 *445,/*+,32 <3. ,+s .(),s+.*+,32 > D 4eneral rule i" that a de"cripti1e term can:t !e di"tincti1e unle"" it ha" ac;uired a "econdary meaning @ieF > hredded .heat> !randA D 6owe1er, under ".$'@'A, thi" general rule can !e o1ercome if an indi1idual can pro1e that the term ha" !ecome de"cripti1e of their ware" D ".$'@$A doe"n:t allow an indi1idual to regi"ter a" a trademark the word >lantern> when manufacturing >lantern">, a" it:" >/5(*.50 6(s/.,4+,-(> D It al"o protect" con"umer" from mi"leading !rand" from trademark" that are >6(/(4+,-(50 7,s6(s/.,4+,-(>ieF >true gold> trademark for fake gold product" i" prohi!ited D 6owe1er, >wonderful pet food> i" accepta!le !ecau"e general pu!lic wouldn:t take it "eriou"ly $rackett Co. of Canada v. A*erican %o*e Products Cor&. (19!4 ./. Ct. of Canada)C-d slogan not 8) +F D %merican 6ome Product" filed an application for propo"ed mark (9C3D%D.33O in a""ociation with floor cleaner" D The appellantHopponent, 2rackett, oppo"ed the application on the ground that the mark i" clearly de"cripti1e of the ;uality or character of the ware" and that it wa" nonDdi"tincti1e D Claimed pu!lic would confu"e >(9C3D%D.33O> with "logan for their 2rano floor cleaner D /rackett wa" a!le to regi"ter their ad1erti"ing "logan in Canada @allowed in ? %A, !ut prohi!ited in Canada unle"" it wa" put on the package !eing u"ed in a""ociation with their ware" or "er1ice" D The 7egi"trar of Trade 5ark" reBected oppo"ition and regi"tered the mark2rackett now appeal" IF D hould the mark !e regi"teredG I" the mark >(9C3D%D.33O> purely de"cripti1eG QF D 9o, for /rackettthe mark i" de"cripti1e of the ;uality of the ware" !ecau"e it indicate" to the con"umer that >(9C3D%D.33O> i" "o good that it will keep floor" clean for an entire week %F D %" a matter of fir"t impre""ion, the mark (9C3D%D.33O i" clearly de"cripti1e of the character or ;uality of the ware" on which it i" propo"ed to !e u"ed, namely, a floor cleaner D % per"on faced with a floor cleaner de"cri!ed a" (9C3D%D.33O would a""ume that the product need only !e u"ed weekly and would endure for that period of time D Therefore, thi" i" an *++.,98+( 3. 4.34(.+0 +:*+ :*s * 6,.(/+ .(<(.(2/( +3 +:( 68.*95( *26 (@/(55(2+ H8*5,+0 3< +:( 4.368/+ D The propo"ed mark clearly implie" that the product with which the mark i" a""ociated i" to !e u"ed weekly and thi" i" a direct reference to it" character D The Court "hould not "u!"titute it" opinion for that of the 7egi"trar D The 7egi"trar mu"t, howe1er, in e,erci"ing hi" di"cretion act Budicially D 6owe1er, here, the 7egi"trar acted on a wrong principle in reBecting the oppo"ition D 9o per"on properly addre""ing him"elf to the ;ue"tion to !e decided could come to any conclu"ion

05
with reference to the e,pre""ion (9C3D%D.33O u"ed in a""ociation with a floor cleaner e,cept that it i" /5(*.50 6(s/.,4+,-( 1,+:,2 +:( 7(*2,2) 3< s. 12#1%#9% 3< +:( Trade =arks Act D N3+(F .hen the Court con"ider" that a tri!unal property addre""ing it"elf to the i""ue could not ha1e reached the re"ult it reached, it will conclude that the tri!unal, whether admini"trati1e, ;ua"iDBudicial, or Budicial, mu"t ha1e acted on a wrong principle and therefore nonDBudicially 7F D A 13.6 /*2 9( 48.(50 6(s/.,4+,-( *26 +:8s 23+ .(),s+.*95( ,< ,+ s,7450 ,745,(s +:*+ +:( 4.368/+ 1,+: 1:,/: +:( 7*.; ,s *ss3/,*+(6 ,s +3 9( 8s(6 ,2 * 4*.+,/85*. 1*0 *26 +:8s 7*;(s * 6,.(/+ .(<(.(2/( +3 ,+s /:*.*/+(. S. C. Ao#nson : Son Ltd. v. =arketin2 ,nternationa Ltd. (194( SCC)CCommon terms not registrable +F D The plaintiff", . C. Qohn"on I on, in an action for trade mark infringement, relied upon a regi"tration for the mark (++\ a" applied to a per"onal in"ect repellent D The mark had !een e,ten"i1ely u"ed in Canada from $&5#C it wa" the leading !rand of in"ect repellent D In the ad1erti"ing of the plaintiff a direct or an o!li;ue reference to !ug" appeared D The defendant u"ed the trade mark /?44 (++ a" applied to a preDtreated in"ect repellent cloth IF D .a" the mark not regi"tra!le !ecau"e it wa"n:t de"cipti1eG QF D Je", (++ not regi"tra!le %F D There wa" no apprecia!le difference !etween S/?4](++T and S/?44 (++T, and in"ecticide" and in"ect repellent" are not in different categorie" of ware""ince the trade mark" are confu"ing, the plaintiff" are entitled to "ucceed D (++\ i" a mark adapted to di"tingui"h D % wellDknown word in the 3ngli"h 1oca!ulary may con"titute a 1alid trade mark D The ware" are "old through identical outlet" D The ware" are identical D The idea" "ugge"ted !y the mark" are identical. D The word >off> "tanding alone i" a word without meaningderi1e" it" meaning from it" conte,t 7F D I< * +(.7 /32-(0s +3 +:( 4895,/ * 48.(50 6(s/.,4+,-( 7(*2,2), 3. 8s(s * /37732 13.6 +:*+ ,s +33 /53s( +3 +:( 4.368/+, ,+ ,s 23+ .(),s+.*95( D N3+(F after thi" ca"e, the company u"ed a de"ign with >(++> around it, which wa" regi"teredo1er time, a" the pu!lic !ecame aware of >(++>, they were a!le to "ucce""fully regi"ter the term >(++> under ".' a" it had ac;uired "ufficient di"tincti1ene"" o1er time and wa" u"ed in a""ociation with certain ware" D In the ne,t ca"e, Parma producer" @like >%d1ocaat> producer"A were trying to protect a geographical location for their pro"cuitto chee"e !y claiming Canadian chee"e wa" >decepti1ely mi"de"cripti1e> ConsorBio $e Prosciutto $i Par*a v. =a& e Leaf =eats ,nc. ('((1 9ed. Ct. T$)CParma suffi"ient +F D %pplication !y Con<or<io to e,punge 5aple Leaf:" tradeDmark >Parma> from regi"ter of tradeDmark" D The >Parma> tradeDmark wa" regi"tered in $&#$ for u"e in a""ociation with 1ariou" meat product" D 5aple Leaf, the re"pondent, continued to u"e the packaging u"ed !y the pre1iou" owner, which featured red, white and green colour" and word" taken from the Italian language D Con<or<io, an a""ociation of pro"ciutto producer" located in Parma, Italy wa" founded in $&6* and e"ta!li"hed a mark for mem!er" to di"play in a""ociation with their pro"ciutto which con"i"ted of the word >Parma> within a crown de"ign D ince $&#), Italy ha" had law" which adopted the Con"or<io:" production, ;uality control and marking rule", and "ince $&#0 the Con"or<io ha" !een re"pon"i!le under Italian law for regulating the production of pro"ciutto di parma and the u"e of the pro"ciutto di parma mark"howe1er, Con"or<io didn:t "tart to conduct !u"ine"" in Canada until $&&# D /y then, they claimed market awarene"" had changed and the di"tincti1ene"" had !een lo"t IF D .a" the mark wa" decepti1ely mi"de"cripti1e at the time it wa" regi"tered in $&#$G D %t the date that the"e proceeding" "tarted in '))), wa" there wa" any mea"ura!le a""ociation among"t mem!er" of the Canadian pu!lic !etween the word >Parma> and !oth a region in Italy and meat product", thu" rendering the tradeDmark in1alid for lack of di"tincti1ene""G QF D 9o, for 5aple Leaf, application di"mi""ed %F D (n fir"t i""ue, +(s+ <3. 1:(+:(. AP*.7*A +.*6(?7*.; 1*s 6(/(4+,-(50 7,s6(s/.,4+,-( in $&#$ wa"F

06
D >W:(+:(. +:( )(2(.*5 4895,/ ,2 C*2*6* 13856 9( 7,s5(6 ,2+3 +:( 9(5,(< +:*+ +:( 4.368/+ 1,+: 1:,/: +:( +.*6(?7*.; 1*s *ss3/,*+(6 :*6 ,+s 3.,),2 ,2 +:( 45*/( 3< * )(3).*4:,/ 2*7( ,2 +:( +.*6(7*.;> D 6ere, a con"umer of ordinary intelligence and education in $&#$ would not ha1e a""umed that pro"ciutto !earing the >Parma> mark originated from Parma, Italy, and wa" produced according to the "tandard" regulated !y the Con"or<io D 4i1en thi" finding, the Court di"regarded the argument that >Parma> "hould !e e,punged !ecau"e geographical name" are con"idered >common property> and that >Parma> i" pro!a!ly a word that other trader" would choo"e to u"e in a""ociation with the "ale of meat product" D ince Con"or<io couldn:t pro1e deception among the general pu!lic, their fir"t claim failed D BF a lot of Canadian" would:1e known that Parma wa" in Italy in $&#$!ut whate1er D P35,/0F although protecting the con"umer from deception a" to the "ource andHor ;uality of ware" i" one of the aim" of the legi"lation, "o too i" protecting tradeDmark owner" from unfair competition D Thi" 435,/0 ,s 4*.+ 3< +:( 5*.)(. )3*5 3< (2s8.,2) s+*9,5,+0 ,2 +:( 7*.;(+45*/(, *5531,2) +:( 312(.s 3< .(),s+(.(6 +.*6(?7*.;s +3 ,2-(s+ ,2 98,56,2) 84 )3361,55 s8..3826,2) +:(,. -*5,6 *26 .(),s+(.(6 +.*6(?7*.; " D Thi" i" particularly important in a ca"e "uch a" thi" where the re"pondent and it" predece""or" in title ha1e !een u"ing the tradeDmark for o1er '6 year" D (n the "econd i""ue, the +(s+ <3. 6,s+,2/+,-(2(ss in '))) wa"F D >W:(+:(. 3. 23+ +:( 3.6,2*.0 /32s87(. ,2 +:( 7*.;(+ <3. +:*+ +04( 3< 4.368/+ 13856 5,;(50 9( 6(/(,-(6 *s +3 +:( s38./( 3< +:( 4.368/+> D 6ere, 5aple Leaf:" tradeDmark carried a pre"umption of 1alidity, and the onu" wa" on Con<or<io to "how that the mark wa" not di"tincti1e @e1entually failed to di"charge it" onu"A D D,s+,2/+,-(2(ss 78s+ 9( 7(*s8.(6 ,2 +:( C*2*6,*2 7*.;(+45*/( *532( D ur1ey e1idence regarding the di"tincti1ene"" of a tradeDmark "hould u"ually mea"ure the recognition of that mark !y the general con"umer and not !y "peciali<ed con"ultant" D 5uch of the applicant:" e1idence came from people with a "pecial knowledge of the Italian food indu"try in Canada and in Italy D 6owe1er, "uch e1idence wa" not repre"entati1e of the knowledge held !y the typical Canadian con"umer of a1erage intelligence and education D %l"o, Con<or<io:" "tudie" were done to demon"trate that the >Parma> tradeDmark wa" decepti1ely mi"de"cripti1etherefore, "uch e1idence had no !earing on the i""ue of di"tincti1ene"" D ince no e1idence that 5aple Leaf:" Parma !rand had lo"t it" di"tincti1ene"" in the mind" of the Canadian pu!lic, Con<or<io failed to di"charge it" onu" D %dditionally, the .(4(*+(6 *ss,)27(2+ 3< +:( 7*.; 6,6 23+ 5(ss(2 $*45( L(*<Bs .,):+s D The tradeDmark wa" ac;uired !y 5aple Leaf and 1ariou" predece""or" in title through a 1alid proce"" of "ucce""ion which trace" the owner"hip of the tradeDmark !ack to it" original owner D Con<or<io failed to demon"trate that the tradeDmark wa" e1er "eparated from it" goodwill a" a re"ult of any of the"e ac;ui"ition" and there!y failed to "how that the tradeDmark lo"t it" di"tincti1ene"" through thi" "ucce""ion of owner"hip D +inally, Con<or<io al"o tried to argue that the re"pondent:" >fau,DItalian> packaging, which wa" u"ed in a""ociation with the >Parma> tradeDmark, eroded the di"tincti1ene"" of the mark D The >getDup> a""ociated with a tradeDmark i" irrele1ant where an applicant "eek" e,pungement D The u"e of packaging @ieF the >fau,DItalian> getDupA i" rele1ant only with re"pect to the ;ue"tion of decepti1e mi"de"cripti1ene"", not to the ;ue"tion of di"tincti1ene"" of the tradeDmark 7F D D(/(4+,-(50 7,s6(s/.,4+,-( *26 6,s+,2/+,-((2ss *.( +13 6,<<(.(2+ ,ss8(s, +:( <3.7(. 3< 1:,/: /*2 3250 9( .*,s(6 *+ +:( +,7( 3< .(),s+.*+,32 *26 +:( 5*++(. /*2 9( .*,s(6 *+ *20 +,7( KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK D% NA$ES OF WARES OR SER'ICES D ee the 'rademar!s -"tF 12#1% W:(2 +.*6(?7*.; .(),s+.*95( D > u!Bect to "ection $*, a tradeDmark i" regi"tra!le if it i" not @cA +:( 2*7( ,2 *20 5*2)8*)( 3< *20 3< +:( 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s ,2 /322(/+,32 1,+: 1:,/: ,+ ,s 8s(6 3. 4.343s(6 +3 9( 8s(6>

0#
D ieF can:t regi"ter trademark tag from trademark product", "uch a" >re"taurant> D 9ote that thi" i" not "u!Bect to the e,ception in ".$'@'Adi"tincti1ene"" from u"e o1er time doe"n:t apply KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK E% PROHIBITED $AR&S AND OFFICIAL $AR&S D ee the 'rademar!s -"tF 9#1% P.3:,9,+(6 $*.;s D >N3 4(.s32 s:*55 *634+ ,2 /322(/+,32 1,+: * 98s,2(ss, *s * +.*6(?7*.; 3. 3+:(.1,s(, *20 7*.; /32s,s+,2) 3<, 3. s3 2(*.50 .(s(795,2) *s +3 9( 5,;(50 +3 9( 7,s+*;(2 <3.>... D ee long li"t of prohi!ited mark" in ".&@$A, mo"t of which ha1e to do with go1ernment D ieF 7oyal %rm" Cre"t, "candalou" or o!"cene material", any matter that fal"ely "ugge"t" a connection with any li1ing indi1idual D 5o"t common u"age i" paragraph :n:"ee !elow 10 F8.+:(. 4.3:,9,+,32s D >.here any mark ha" !y ordinary and !ona fide commercial u"age !ecome recogni<ed in Canada a" de"ignating the kind, ;uality, ;uantity, de"tination, 1alue, place of origin or date of production of any ware" or "er1ice", no per"on "hall adopt it a" a tradeDmark in a""ociation with "uch ware" or "er1ice" or other" of "ame general cla"" or u"e it in a way likely to mi"lead, nor "hall any per"on "o adopt or "o u"e any mark "o nearly re"em!ling that mark a" to !e likely to !e mi"taken therefore> 10.1F8.+:(. 4.3:,9,+,32s D >.here a denomination mu"t, under the Plant /reeder": 7ight" %ct, !e u"ed to de"ignate a plant 1ariety, no per"on "hall adopt it a" a tradeDmark in a""ociation with plant 1ariety or another plant 1ariety of the "ame "pecie" or u"e it in a way likely to mi"lead, nor "hall any per"on "o adopt or "o u"e any mark "o nearly re"em!ling that denomination a" to !e likely to !e mi"taken therefore> 12#1% W:(2 +.*6(?7*.; .(),s+.*95( D > u!Bect to "ection $*, a tradeDmark i" regi"tra!le if it i" not @gA in whole or in part a protected geographical indication, where the tradeDmark i" to !e regi"tered in a""ociation with a wine not originating in a territory indicated !y the geographical indicationC @hA in whole or in part a protected geographical indication, where the tradeDmark i" to !e regi"tered in a""ociation with a "pirit not originating in a territory indicated !y the geographical indication> 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >>)(3).*4:,/*5 ,26,/*+,32> mean", in re"pect of a wine or "pirit, an indication that @aA identifie" the wine or "pirit a" originating in the territory of a .T( 5em!er, or a region or locality of that territory, where a ;uality, reputation or other characteri"tic of the wine or "pirit i" e""entially attri!uta!le to it" geographical origin, and @!A e,cept in the ca"e of an indication identifying a wine or "pirit originating in Canada, i" protected !y the law" applica!le to that .T( 5em!er> D The ne,t ca"e in1ol1e" a di"pute o1er ".&@$A@nA@iiiA of the 'rademar!s -"tF 9#1% P.3:,9,+(6 7*.;s D >N3 4(.s32 s:*55 *634+ ,2 /322(/+,32 1,+: * 98s,2(ss, *s * +.*6(?7*.; 3. 3+:(.1,s(, *20 7*.; /32s,s+,2) 3<, 3. s3 2(*.50 .(s(795,2) *s +3 9( 5,;(50 +3 9( 7,s+*;(2 <3., @nA *20 9*6)(, /.(s+, (795(7 3. 7*.; @iA *634+(6 3. 8s(6 90 *20 3< H(. $*=(s+0Ks F3./(s *s 6(<,2(6 ,2 +:( N*+,32*5 D(<(2/( A/+, D ieF military "ym!ol" or name" @iiA 3< *20 82,-(.s,+0, or D ee .oyal .oads UniversityieF ?/C logo @iiiA *634+(6 *26 8s(6 90 *20 4895,/ *8+:3.,+0, ,2 C*2*6* *s *2 3<<,/,*5 7*.; <3. 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s> D Thi" i" the !ig onego1:t can adopt a mark !y "imply announcing it D Therefore, official mark" of pu!lic authoritie" "u!Bect to almo"t no re"triction"

00
11 F8.+:(. 4.3:,9,+,32s D >N3 4(.s32 s:*55 8s( ,2 /322(/+,32 1,+: * 98s,2(ss, *s * +.*6(?7*.; 3. 3+:(.1,s(, *20 7*.; *634+(6 /32+.*.0 +3 s(/+,32 9 3. 10 3< +:,s A/+ or "ection $* or $- of the ?nfair Competition %ct, chapter '#- of the 7e1i"ed tatute" of Canada, $&5'> D ee whole of "ection &"tupid internet i" down againF D 4o1ernment or >pu!lic authority> mu"t re;ue"t the 7egi"trar to gi1e pu!lic notice of the adoption and u"e of the cre"t, mark, em!lem, or !adge D BF nothing a!out challenge"only need a re;ue"t from the go1ernment or >pu!lic authority>, and then the 7egi"trar ha" no di"cretion what"oe1er other than to regi"ter the >mark> a" an >official mark> D Con"e;uence of !ecoming an >official mark> mean" that >no per"on "hall adopt in connection with a !u"ine"", a" a tradeDmark, or otherwi"e, any mark con"i"ting of, or "o nearly re"em!ling a" to !e likely to !e mi"taken for> the >official mark> D BF thi" mean" if you are u"ing a mark, and after the go1:t regi"ter" it a" an >official mark>, that:" (O, a" ".&@$A only prohi!it" pro"pecti1e adoption, not retro"pecti1e cancellation of mark" already adopted D The ne,t ca"e illu"trate" how the court" go a!out "orting out the >official mark"> pro1i"ion and what !odie" con"titute a >pu!lic authority> and enBoy the pri1ilege" of preDemption

7ntario Assn. of Arc#itects v. Assn. of Arc#itectura Tec#no o2ists of 7ntario ('((' 9ed. CA) Cs.9$%&$n& +F D 2, the %""ociation of Technologi"t", a notDforDprofit corporation, had re;ue"ted the 7egi"trar of Trademark" to gi1e pu!lic notice of it" adoption and u"e of the word" >%7C6IT3CT?7%L T3C69ICI%9, %7C6IT3CT3DT3C69ICI39, %7C6IT3CT?7%L T3C69(L(4I T, and %7C6IT3CT3DT3C69(L(4?3 a" - official mark" under ".&@$A@nA@iiiA of the 'rademar!s -"t D The regi"trar ga1e pu!lic notice of the official mark" !y pu!li"hing them in the TradeDmark" Qournal D %fterward", %, the (ntario %""ociation of %rchitect", applied to the +CT2 to re1er"e the deci"ion of the regi"trar to gi1e pu!lic notice of 2:" official mark"they didn:t want to precluded from u"ing tho"e term" pu!licly, "o they challenged the deci"ion D % had no "tatutory right of appeal in the %ct @no challenger pro1i"ionA, !ut a" the pu!lic notice curtailed the right" of the applicant:" mem!er" to u"e the official mark", the applicant wa" intere"ted in the deci"ion and had "tanding to !ring the application a" Budicial re1iew under admini"trati1e law D TQ di"mi""ed the original application(ntario %""ociation now appeal" IF D .ere (%% correct that %%T( were not entitled to preDempt the word" a" official mark"G D I" the %""ociation of Technologi"t" a Spu!lic authorityT that can adopt mark" for ware" and "er1ice" under ".&@$A@nA@iiiA of the 'rademar!s -"tG QF D 9o, for (%%%%T( are not a >pu!lic authority> !ecau"e they are not controlled !y the go1ernment e1en though they operated for the pu!lic:" !enefit %F D The te"t for determining whether an entity i" a pu!lic authority for the purpo"e of ". &@$A@nA@iiiA !oiled down to a twoDpart te"tF aA G3-(.27(2+ C32+.35 D In determining go1:t control, the Court will re;uire "ome ongoing go1ernment "uper1i"ion of the acti1itie" of the entity !A P895,/ B(2(<,+ D In determining pu!lic !enefit, a duty to the pu!lic i" rele1ant to whether the entity operate" for the !enefit of the pu!lic D %pplication of the te"tF aA G3-(.27(2+ C32+.35 <3. OAA D The only form of go1ernment control on which 2 could rely wa" that e,erci"a!le through the legi"lature to change the re"pondent:" "tatutory o!Bect", power" and dutie" D TQ erred in concluding that the re"pondent:" "tatutory origin wa" "ufficient go1ernment control to make it a pu!lic authority D The +(s+ <3. )3-(.27(2+ /32+.35 .(H8,.(s s37( 32)3,2) )3-(.27(2+ s84(.-,s,32 3< +:( */+,-,+,(s 3< +:( (2+,+0 "uch a" tho"e often included in (ntario legi"lation creating "elfD

0&
regulatory profe""ion"ieF architecture and the 1ariou" regulated health di"cipline" D S,2/( +:( *)(2/0 1*s 23+ *//382+*95( +3 )3-(.27(2+ <3. *20+:,2) ,+ 6,6, ,+ 1*s 23+ * A4895,/ *8+:3.,+0 <3. +:( 48.43s( 3< s.9#1%#2%#,,,% !A P895,/ B(2(<,+ <3. AATO D The 2 regulate" part of the practice of a profe""ion, tho"e who are mem!er" of the re"pondent and u"e the "tatutory de"ignation" permitted !y the --'8 -"t D It wa" therefore rea"ona!le for the trial Budge to conclude that the re"pondent:" regulatory acti1itie" !enefit the pu!lic cA H*6 +:( D E*634+(6 *26 8s(6F +:( 7*.;sR D In 1iew of the conclu"ion that the trial Budge erred in concluding that the 2 wa" a pu!lic authority, it wa" not nece""ary to con"ider whether the re"pondent had adopted and u"ed the de"ignation a" official mark" for "er1ice" 7F D T:( 4.,-,5()(s 3< *2 3<<,/,*5 7*.; s:3856 9( (2=30(6 3250 90 936,(s 826(. s37( 6().(( 3< 4895,/ /32+.35 *26 34(.*+(6 ,2 s37( 1*0 <3. 4895,/ 9(2(<,+ D BF the ne,t ca"e i" goofy, a" it:" a !attle !etween two bona fide pu!lic authoritie" +oya +oads University v. Canada ('((1 9ed. Ct.)C8ffi"ial mar!s are prospe"tiveF not retrospe"tive +F D In the "pring of $&&&, 7oyal 7oad" ?ni1er"ity u"ed the phra"e >Jou can get there from here> in it" ad1erti"ing campaign for educational "er1ice" D The ?ni1er"ity applied for an official mark for their ad "logancan:t regi"ter an ad1erti"ing "logan under the regular 'rademar!s -"t "ection", !ut can !e regi"tered a" an >official mark> a" ".&@$A@nA@iiiA ha" no re"triction" on u"e D 6owe1er, Canada In1e"tment and a1ing" wa" a Crown agency that marketed Canada a1ing" /ond" to pu!lic u"ed the "ame phra"e in it" ad1erti"ing campaign !etween (cto!er '))$ and Quly '))' D (n 5ay '&, '))' the 7egi"trar of TradeDmark" ga1e notice of it" adoption and u"e !y the ?ni1er"ity D The ?ni1er"ity commenced thi" action for "ummary Budgment after the defendant Crown declined to "top u"ing the phra"e?ni1er"ity "ought an inBunction again"t the Crown:" u"e D 9o ;ue"tion that 7oyal 7oad" were entitled to get the official mark...!ut only operate" pro"pecti1ely IF D .a" the Crown prohi!ited from u"ing the mark in it" ad1erti"ing campaignG D .a" marketing campaign for each year:" "erie" of Canada a1ing" /ond" !e con"idered a new u"eG QF D Je", for Canada In1e"tment, !u"ine"" wa" a continuing !u"ine"" and could continue to u"e the mark a" long a" they "aw fit %F D ". &@$A@nA@iiA of the 'rademar!s -"t preclude" adoption !y another, after pu!lication of notice of an official mark, in thi" ca"e, of the Plaintiff uni1er"ity >in connection with a !u"ine"", a" a trade mark or otherwi"e> of an official mark D 6ere, the 2efendant:" adoption and u"e of the mark prior to it" pu!lication a" an official mark of the Plaintiff wa" not a 1iolation of "". &@$A@nA@iiA and that pu!lication did not re"ult in, and did not cau"e, any change in the 2efendant:" !u"ine"" with which it continued to u"e the mark for it" ad1erti"ing in '))'D'))* D BF in a normal trademark, you are protected again"t u"e that i" confu"ing with your", !ut can:t protect a mark u"ed with a different u"eC howe1er, with an official mark, there i" a !lanket prohi!ition for all "er1ice" whether they are confu"ing or not D P35,/0F "ame "logan u"ed in two totally different conte,t" won:t confu"e any!ody, and two pu!lic authoritie" operating for the pu!lic:" !enefit "hould !e a!le to u"e them 7F D A 7*.; ,s *634+(6 ,2 .(5*+,32 +3 * 4*.+,/85*. ;,26 3< 98s,2(ss 1:(2 ,+ :*s * 2(1 8s(, 98+ +:( 3<<,/,*5 7*.;s 4.,-,5()( ,s 3250 4.3s4(/+,-(, 23+ .(+.3s4(/+,-(, *26 +:(.(<3.( 63(s2B+ 4.(-(2+ 4*.+,(s <.37 /32+,28(6 8s( 3< * 7*.; 4.(-,38s50 *634+(6 D N3+(F the 8lympi" and Parolympi"s -"t e,pand" on the >official mark"> "ection with * "chedule" and different le1el" of protection for eachF aA $*.;s 3< +:( C*2*6,*2 O5074,/s Ass3/,*+,32 D *0 mark" li"ted, "uch a" >Canadian (lympic Committee>, >+a"ter 6igher tronger>, 5Dring "ym!ol, >International (lympic Committee>, ect D The"e are >permanently official mark"> u"ing the wording of ".&@$A@nA

&)
!A $*.;s 3< +:( '*2/38-(. O5074,/ G*7(s D ieF >4ame" City>, > eaDtoD ky 4ame">, >.hi"tler ')$)>, ect D The"e are temporary mark" that e,pire at the end of ')$) cA O5074,/ 7*.;s 8s(6 ,2 *ss3/,*+,32 1,+: * 98s,2(ss D The"e prohi!it not u"e of the mark, !ut mi"leading the pu!lic into !elie1ing that a !u"ine"" ha" "ome endor"ement ofHconnection with the (lympic" D Thi" i" to protect tho"e who "ay >The official KKK "upplier of the (lympic game"> from other !u"ine"" who ha1e paid nothing yet refer to the (lympic" D 31idence of improper a""ociation with (lympic" include" com!ining mark" in "ection $ and ' D Trying to cut off the >free rider> potential of the act;ua"i >pa""ingDoff> "ection D Thi" demon"trate" the percei1ed "hortcoming" of the law of trademark" on !lanket prohi!ition" from official mark" when it come" to media e1ent" that are good for !u"ine"" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK F% DISCLAI$ER OF RIGHTS TO EJCLUSI'E USE OF PORTION OF TRADE$AR& D 2i"claimer" can !e an important de1ice to get around certain rule" "urrounding regi"tra!ility D /y putting a clearly de"cripti1e word into part of a de"ign and di"claiming word, it can !e regi"tered D ee the 'rademar!s -"tF !5 D,s/5*,7(. D >The 7egi"trar may re;uire an applicant for regi"tration of a tradeDmark to di"claim the right to the e,clu"i1e u"e apart from the tradeDmark of "uch portion of the tradeDmark a" i" not independently regi"tra!le, !ut the di"claimer doe" not preBudice or affect the applicantN" right" then e,i"ting or thereafter ari"ing in the di"claimed matter, nor doe" the di"claimer preBudice or affect the applicantN" right to regi"tration on a "u!"e;uent application if the di"claimed matter ha" then !ecome di"tincti1e of the applicantN" ware" or "er1ice"> 41#1% A7(267(2+s +3 .(),s+(. D >The 7egi"trar may, on application !y the regi"tered owner of a tradeDmark made in the pre"cri!ed manner, make any of the following amendment" to the regi"terF @eA enter a di"claimer that doe" not in any way e,tend the right" gi1en !y the e,i"ting regi"tration of the tradeDmark> D In the ne,t ca"e, Lake Cement trie" to get around regi"tra!ility rule" that one or more word" ar not di"tincti1e or are de"cripti1e !y i""uing a di"claimer under ".*5 D The Court decide" that if the word" are decepti1ely mi"de"cripti1e, you can:t cure that !y di"claiming the e,clu"i1e u"e of them D 6owe1er, the regi"tra!ility of a mark i" 1iewed a" a whole, "o de"ign element" can make an otherwi"e nonDdi"tincti1e mark di"tincti1e Lake 7ntario Ce*ent Ltd. v. +e2istrar of Trade*arks (193! 9ed. Ct. T$)C*is"laimer for "learly des"r. +F D The applicant, Lake Cement, "ought to regi"ter a compo"ite mark in which the letter P and the word >Premier> appeared in a parallelogram format a" applied to the "ale of "and and gra1el, ready mi,ed concrete and concrete !lock" and !rick" ordinarily u"ed in the con"truction of !uilding" and home" D 6owe1er, the word >Premier> wa" di"claimed in the application D The e,aminer of trademark" reBected the application on the ground that the mark >Premier> wa" either clearly de"cripti1e @hige"t ;ualityA or decepti1ely mi"de"cripti1e @if it i"n:t of the highe"t ;ualityA IF D hould the 7egi"trar ha1e i""ued the trademark to Lake Cement for the word >Premier>G QF D Je", for Lake (ntario Cementthey regi"tered the parallelogram logo along with di"claiming the u"e of the word >Premier> under ".*5 of the 'rademar!s -"t %F D The 'rademar!s -"t doe"n:t contain a pro1i"ion denying regi"tration to letter" and initial" D Court note" that numerou" regi"tration" ha1e !een made of trademark" con"i"ting only of initial" D Therefore, a +.*6( 7*.; 78s+ 9( /32s,6(.(6 *s * 1:35(

&$
D 31en when part" of a mark taken "eparately may not !e capa!le of regi"tration, the mark, when taken a" a whole, may !e di"tincti1e and regi"tra!le D imilarly, a di"claimer allow" a regi"tration to contain matter which "tanding alone i" nonDdi"tincti1e D The mark i" regi"tra!le if, after the di"claimer, there remain" a di"tincti1e feature or a pictorial repre"entation which would make the mark a" a whole di"tincti1e from other mark", and pro1ided that the unregi"tra!le letter" or word" were "o unregi"tra!le !ecau"e clearly de"cripti1e or nonD di"tincti1e D % 6,s/5*,7(. 38):+ 23+ 9( 8s(6 ,2 .(5*+,32 +3 * 6(/(4+,-(50 7,s6(s/.,4+,-( 7*++(. s3 *s +3 .(26(. +:( 7*.; *s * 1:35( .(),s+.*95( 1:(2 +:( 82.(),s+.*95( 7*++(. ,s +:( 637,2*2+ <(*+8.( 3< +:( /3743s,+( 7*.; D The di"claimer i" not on the mark and all the con"umer will "ee i" the deception D 6ere, the 13.6 AP.(7,(.A ,s 82.(),s+.*95( 9(/*8s( ,+ ,s /5(*.50 6(s/.,4+,-( D H31(-(., +:( 13.6 AP.(7,(.A ,s 23+ 6(/(4+,-(50 7,s6(s/.,4+,-(, s3 6,s/5*,7(. 1*s O& D It may !e mi"de"cripti1e if the ware" are not actually that good, !ut no decepti1ely "o D The T5 SPure .oolT would !e decepti1e if applied to cotton good", !ut SpremierT i" Bu"t a laudatory term and cannot ha1e the effect of defeating a otherwi"e di"tincti1e mark D Therefore, >Premier> ha1ing !een di"claimed, the trade mark a" a whole !ecome" regi"tra!le D ince the logo a" a whole wa" regi"tra!le, the word could !e regi"tered if it wa" di"claimed D BF a lot of trademark" are de"ign", and de"ign" can regi"ter a lot of word" that are not regi"tra!le !ecau"e they are clearly de"cripti1e !y incorporating the word into the de"ign 7F D A 6,s/5*,7(. /*2B+ 9( 8s(6 +3 /8.( * 7,s6(s/.,4+,-( 13.6 +:*+ ,s 6,s:32(s+ *938+ * 4.368/+, 98+ ,+ /*2 9( 8s(6 +3 /8.( * 13.6 +:*+ ,s /5(*.50 6(s/.,4+,-( D >F Can the 6ell:" %ngel" "ecure regi"tration of a trademark, gi1en the prohi!ition of immoral mark"G D AF The 6ell:" %ngel" regi"tered their trademark" decade" ago for u"e in a""ociation with Backet", tD "hirt", po"ter", maga<ine", !umper "ticker", ect KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 4% CONFUSION D % +.*6(7*.; ),-(s +:( 312(. +:( .,):+ 3< (@/58s,-( 8s( 3< +:( +.*6(7*.; 826(. s.19 D The "cope of >e,clu"i1e u"e> mean" another can:t u"e the mark in a""ociation with their ware" or "er1ice", a" well a" re"tricting other u"er" from u"ing a mark that i" confu"ing with your mark @".')A D 9ote the re;uirement of not !eing a!le to regi"ter a mark that i" confu"ing under ".$6 D Therefore, confu"ion i" the >gut"> of the 'rademar!s -"t D The general approach to confu"ion i" laid down in ".6 of the %ct D There are no pre"umption" or "pecial "tatu" for >famou" mark">, !ut rather e1aluating the !a"i" for confu"ion on the 5 factor" in ".6@5A or any other the court !elie1e" i" rele1ant D ee the 'rademar!s -"tF #1% W:(2 7*.; 3. 2*7( /32<8s,2) D >+or the purpo"e" of thi" %ct, * +.*6(?7*.; 3. +.*6(?2*7( ,s /32<8s,2) 1,+: *23+:(. +.*6(? 7*.; 3. +.*6(?2*7( ,< +:( 8s( 3< +:( <,.s+ 7(2+,32(6 +.*6(?7*.; 3. +.*6(?2*7( 13856 /*8s( /32<8s,32 1,+: +:( 5*s+ 7(2+,32(6 +.*6(?7*.; 3. +.*6(?2*7( ,2 +:( 7*22(. *26 /,./87s+*2/(s 6(s/.,9(6 ,2 +:,s s(/+,32> D Therefore, mark i" confu"ing if it cau"e" confu"ion>cau"ing confu"ion> defined in ".6@'A #2% I6(7 D >T:( 8s( 3< * +.*6(?7*.; /*8s(s /32<8s,32 1,+: *23+:(. +.*6(?7*.; ,< +:( 8s( 3< 93+: +.*6(?7*.;s ,2 +:( s*7( *.(* 13856 9( 5,;(50 +3 5(*6 +3 +:( ,2<(.(2/( +:*+ +:( 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s *ss3/,*+(6 1,+: +:3s( +.*6(?7*.;s *.( 7*28<*/+8.(6, s356, 5(*s(6, :,.(6 3. 4(.<3.7(6 90 +:( s*7( 4(.s32, 1:(+:(. 3. 23+ +:( 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s *.( 3< +:( s*7( )(2(.*5 /5*ss> D Therefore, if you hypothetically u"e the "ame mark in the "ame geographic area, it i" likely to lead to the inference that the ware" or "er1ice" come from the "ame "ource D Tie" into the idea of the trademarkF identifying one "upplier a" the "ource of ware"H"er1ice" D Te"t i" confu"ion in the marketplacewho i" re"pon"i!le for the pu!lic:" confu"ionG

&'
#5% W:*+ +3 9( /32s,6(.(6 D >I2 6(+(.7,2,2) 1:(+:(. +.*6(?7*.;s 3. +.*6(?2*7(s *.( /32<8s,2), +:( /38.+ 3. +:( R(),s+.*., *s +:( /*s( 7*0 9(, s:*55 :*-( .()*.6 +3 *55 +:( s8..3826,2) /,./87s+*2/(s ,2/586,2) @aA +:( ,2:(.(2+ 6,s+,2/+,-(2(ss 3< +:( +.*6(?7*.;s 3. +.*6(?2*7(s *26 +:( (@+(2+ +3 1:,/: +:(0 :*-( 9(/37( ;2312C D 9ot ac;uired di"tincti1en""mu"t !e >inherent> and e,tent that they:re known @!A +:( 5(2)+: 3< +,7( +:( +.*6(?7*.;s 3. +.*6(?2*7(s :*-( 9((2 ,2 8s(C D Compare !oth mark" in length of time @"ame a" :a: for di"tincti1ene""A @cA +:( 2*+8.( 3< +:( 1*.(s, s(.-,/(s 3. 98s,2(ssC @dA +:( 2*+8.( 3< +:( +.*6(M *26 D ieF whole"ale, retail, international, ect @eA +:( 6().(( 3< .(s(795*2/( 9(+1((2 +:( +.*6(?7*.;s 3. +.*6(?2*7(s ,2 *44(*.*2/( 3. s3826 3. ,2 +:( ,6(*s s8))(s+(6 90 +:(7> D The"e >confu"ion> factor" are nonDe,hau"i1e D .hen te"ting whether two mark" are confu"ing with each other, look at all the "urrounding circum"tance" including :a: to :e: @which are taken from the common lawA D =attelF In a conte,t-"pecific a""e""ment, different circum"tance" recei1e different weight" 15#1% R(),s+.*+,32 3< /32<8s,2) 7*.;s D >9otwith"tanding "ection $' or $-, confu"ing tradeDmark" are regi"tra!le if the applicant i" the owner of all "uch tradeDmark", which "hall !e known a" a""ociated tradeDmark"> D In other word", the 85+,7*+( > ,s 1:(+:(. +:( 4895,/ #*2 *44.(/,*95( s()7(2+ 3<% ,s 5,;(50 +3 /32<8s( +:*+ )336s 9(*.,2) 7*.; AAA *26 7*.; ABA 6(.,-( <.37 +:( s*7( s38./( D .hen comparing mark >%> and mark >/>, look at the 5 factor" from ".6@5A of the %ct D N3+(F right of e,clu"i1e u"e i" nationDwide, which i" different from pa""ingDoff in that confu"ion can !e real a" well a" potential @no actual inBury to the plaintiff:" goodwill need" to !e pro1edA D The ne,t ca"e i" a leading CC ca"e on the infringement of famou" tradeDmark name" D The Court found that 5attel Inc. could not enforce the u"e of their tradeDmarked name >/%7/I3> again"t a re"taurant named >/ar!ie:"> !ecau"e they were in totally different channel" of trade, "old different ware" and "er1ice", and "imply !ecau"e >/%7/I3> wa" famou" did not mean that the general pu!lic would confu"e the re"taurant for the doll D In other word", there i" no "pecial "tatu" for >famou"> mark", e,cept in"ofar a" the fact" "upport the conclu"ion that the pu!lic @or a "ignificant part of themA will infer that the u"e of the mark, in "ome new conte,t, indicate" the in1ol1ement of the >famou"> mark owner =atte ,nc. v. 149)'(3 Canada ,nc. ('((! SCC)CBarbie not asso"iated ith dolls didn>t "onfuse publi" +F D 5attel oppo"ed 7:" application to regi"ter it" S/ar!ieN"T trade -mark and a related de"ign in a""ociation with Sre"taurant "er1ice", take-out "er1ice", catering and !an;uet "er1ice"T on the !a"i" that "ome mark" are "o famou" that Smark" "uch a" . . . /%7/I3 may not now !e u"ed in Canada on mo"t con"umer ware" and "er1ice" without the a1erage con"umer !eing led to infer the e,i"tence of a trade connection with the owner" of the"e famou" !rand"T D The Trade-mark" (ppo"ition /oard of the Canadian Intellectual Property (ffice @S/oardTA accepted the re"pondentN" argument that it" u"e of the S/ar!ieT name @"ince $&&'A for it" "mall chain of 5ontreal area re"taurant" would not likely create confu"ion in the marketplace with the appellantN" /%7/I3 trade-mark and allowed the regi"tration D The /oard found /%7/I3N" fame to !e tied to doll" and doll acce""orie" and that the re"pondentN" applied-for mark, u"ed in connection with 1ery different product" and "er1ice", wa" not likely to !e confu"ing with any of the appellantN" /%7/I3 mark" D /oth the +ederal Court and the +ederal Court of %ppeal upheld the /oardN" deci"ion D They al"o reBected the appellantN" application to introduce fre"h e1idence in the form of a "ur1ey proffered to "how the likelihood of confu"ion !etween the mark" IF D .ould the re"taurant:" "er1ice" under the /ar!ie name !e confu"ed with the /ar!ie !randG QF D 9o, for "mall town re"taurant!ig !ully 5attel lo"e" e1ery "tep of the way

&*
%F D The power of attraction of trade-mark" and other Sfamou" !rand name"T i" now recogni<ed a" among the mo"t 1alua!le of !u"ine"" a""et" D 6owe1er, whate1er their commercial e1olution, the legal purpo"e of trade-mark" continue" to !e, under ".', their u"e !y the owner Sto di"tingui"h ware" or "er1ice" manufactured, "old, lea"ed, hired or performed !y him from tho"e manufactured, "old, lea"ed, hired or performed !y other"T D % mark i" a guarantee of origin and inferentially, an a""urance to the con"umer that the ;uality will !e what he or "he ha" come to e,pect D 9othing pre1ent" the appellant from u"ing it" /%7/I3 trade-mark to !oo"t @if it canA "ale" of e1erything from !icycle" to food product", !ut the H8(s+,32 ,s 1:(+:(. $*++(5 /*2 /*55 ,2 *,6 +.*6(-7*.; 5*1 +3 4.(-(2+ 3+:(. 4(345( <.37 8s,2) * 2*7( *s /37732 *s B*.9,( ,2 .(5*+,32 +3 s(.-,/(s #s8/: *s .(s+*8.*2+s% .(73+( +3 +:*+ (@+(2+ <.37 +:( 4.368/+s +:*+ )*-( .,s( +3 BARBIEKs <*7( D ?nder ". 6@'A of the 'rade- mar!s -"t, confu"ion ari"e" if it i" likely that the hypothetical purcha"er X the ca"ual con"umer "omewhat in a hurry X will !e led to the mi"taken inference that Sthe ware" or "er1ice" a""ociated with tho"e trade-mark" are manufactured, "old, lea"ed, hired or performed !y the "ame per"on, whether or not the ware" or "er1ice" are of the s*7( )(2(.*5 /5*ssT D 5attel argued that the >"ame general cla""> protected /ar!ie in all cla""e" of ware"H"er1ice" D The general cla"" of ware" and "er1ice", while rele1ant, i" not controlling D %ll the "urrounding circum"tance" mu"t !e con"idered, including factor" "et out in ". 6@5A D % difference in ware" or "er1ice" doe" not StrumpT all other factor", nor doe" the fame of a trade-mark D If, in the end, the re"ult of the u"e of the new mark would !e to introduce confu"ion into the marketplace, it "hould not !e permitted Swhether or not the ware" or "er1ice" are of the "ame general cla""T D BF if you:re going to pro1e confu"ion !y "ur1ey e1idence, >it i" rele1ant if e1en a limited percentage of the population "ur1eyed i" confu"ed, !ut e1idence that a lot of people might or "ould po""i!ly make the mi"taken inference i" not> D ParliamentN" agreement that "ome trade-mark" are "o well known that their u"e in connection with any ware" or "er1ice" would generate confu"ion doe" not mean that /%7/I3 ha" "uch tran"cendence D In the in"tant ca"e, ha1ing regard to all the "urrounding circum"tance" and the e1idence !efore the /oard, it" deci"ion that there wa" no likelihood of confu"ion !etween the two mark" in the marketplace wa" rea"ona!le D T:( 328s .(7*,2(6 +:.38):38+ 32 +:( .(s4326(2+ +3 (s+*95,s: +:( *9s(2/( 3< 5,;(5,:336, 98+ +:( B3*.6 1*s 3250 .(H8,.(6 +3 6(*5 1,+: 43+(2+,*5 s38./(s 3< /32<8s,32 +:*+, ,2 +:( B3*.6Ks -,(1, :*-( *938+ +:(7 *2 *,. 3< .(*5,+0 D BF mark" coDe,i"ted in "ame market for a con"idera!le period of time, and opponent wa"n:t a!le to !ring forth any e1idence of actual confu"ion, which !oard wa" a!le to draw an inference from D .hen the rele1ant factor" of the pragmatic and functional approach are properly con"idered, the s+*26*.6 3< .(-,(1 *445,/*95( +3 +:( B3*.6Ks 6(/,s,32 ,s .(*s32*95(2(ss D The e,perti"e of the /oard and the Sweighing upT nature of the mandate impo"ed !y ". 6 of the Trade-mark" %ct lead to that conclu"ion de"pite the grant of a full right of appeal D ?nder the 'rademar!s -"t, there:" no o!Bection to regi"tering a mark where there i" no actual confu"ion !ut "till ha" a coattail" effect D .hile it:" pro!a!le that >/ar!ie:"> re"taurant i" capitali<ing on the fame of the /ar!ie name, a" long a" no!ody i" confu"ed that they are actually connected, it:" (O D Therefore, ,2+(2+G*ens rea ,s 23+ s,)2,<,/*2+M s:31,2) */+8*5 /32<8s,32 ,s 1:*+Bs ,743.+*2+ D The re"pondentN" applied-for trade-mark, which doe" not lie only in the word S/ar!ieT !ut in the +3+*5,+0 3< +:( (<<(/+, including the "cript in which it i" written and the "urrounding de"ign, ha" !ecome "omewhat known within the area where !oth partie"N mark" are u"ed D The "tandard of confu"ion i" the >moron in a hurry> or >/*s8*5 /32s87(. s37(1:*+ ,2 * :8..0> D Therefore, it:" not the "tupid con"umer, !ut mu"t a""ume that they don:t pay much attention D Court then goe" on to apply the 5 @6GA factor" in ".6@5A of the %ctF aA I2:(.(2+ 6,s+,2/+,-(2(ss 3< (*/: 7*.; D /%7/I3 ha" ac;uired a "trong "econdary meaning a""ociated with the appellantN" doll product" and, on that account, ha" achie1ed con"idera!le di"tincti1ene""

&D 6owe1er, the /oard did not accept that the /%7/I3 mark i" Sfamou"T for or di"tincti1e of anything other than doll" and doll"N acce""orie" !A L(2)+: 3< +,7( +:( 7*.; :*6 9((2 ,2 8s( D /%7/I3 mark had !een u"ed much longer, ha" deep root" and ha" !een highly pu!lici<ed o1er a large geographic area cA N*+8.( 3< +:( 1*.(s 73s+ s,)2,<,/*2+ :(.( D .are" were totally different appealing to totally different "ection" of the market D If the /%7/I3 mark i" not famou" for anything !ut doll" and doll acce""orie" and there i" no e1idence that /%7/I3N" licen"ee" are in the rele1ant market" u"ing the /%7/I3 mark for Sre"taurant "er1ice", take-out "er1ice", catering and !an;uet "er1ice"T, it i" difficult to "ee the !a"i" on which a ca"ual con"umer "omewhat in a hurry i" likely to draw a mi"taken inference dA N*+8.( 3< +:( +.*6( D 7eference to trade i" whether it:" whole"ale, retail, ectnot the actual ware" or "er1ice" D 7egardle"", here, doll !uying i" a different trade than eating at a re"taurant D 2oll !u"ine"" and re"taurant !u"ine"" appeal to different ta"te" of largely different clientele" D Euite apart from the great difference !etween the appellantN" ware" and the re"pondentN" "er1ice", they occupy different channel" of trade and the increa"ed potential for confu"ion that might ari"e through intermingling in a "ingle channel of trade i" not pre"ent eA R(s(795*2/( 9(+1((2 +:( +.*6(7*.;s D ome re"em!lance, !ut not a "ignificant factor fA A66,+,32*5 s8..3826,2) /,./87s+*2/(s D 9othing el"e rele1ant e,cept for the fact that 5attel couldn:t produce any e1idence of actual confu"ion de"pite the fact that !oth mark" had !een in u"e in the "ame geographic area for a prolonged period of time D %fter analy<ing the factor", /innie Q. come" to the "ame conclu"ion a" the !oardHcourt" !elow D C32<8s,32 ,s *51*0s * H8(s+,32 3< <*/+C 1:(+:(. +:( 5(ss <*738s 7*.; 1,55 9( /32<8s(6 ,2 +:( 7,26s 3< +:( 4895,/ 1,+: +:( <*738s 7*.; D BF demon"trate" that famou" mark" get no "pecial protection under trademark law 7F D P*.+,(s 7*0 .(),s+(. * 7*.; +3 /*4,+*5,D( 32 +:( <*7( 3< *23+:(. +.*6(7*.;, 98+ ,< +:(.( ,s 23 */+8*5 /32<8s,32 ,2 +:( 7,26s 3< +:( A/*s8*5 /32s87(. s37(1:*+ ,2 * :8..0A 32 +:( <*/+s, +:(.(Bs 23 /32<8s,32 D N3+(F a company like >8irgin>, which ha" a wide 1ariety of product" @ieF mu"ic, airplane", re"taurant", ectA, may ac;uire potential uni1er"al protection "o that indi1idual" may not !e a!le to u"e the word >8irgin> for any!ody, !ut decided on the fact" of the market pre"ence of the !rand D The ne,t ca"e i" a further illu"tration of the multiDfactor approach to Budging confu"ion, where it "howed that confu"ion i" unlikely if the common element of the mark" it"elf i" nonDdi"tincti1e =o son Cos. v. Ao#n La<att Ltd. (199) 9ed. CA)CCould not sho "onfusion be"ause merely des"riptive +F D 5ol"on, the appellant, u"ed the name >5ol"on 4olden> to de"cri!e a !rand of it" !eer D La!att, re"pondent, applied to regi"ter the name >.inche"ter 4old> in re"pect of a !rand of it" !eer D 5ol"on of cour"e oppo"ed the regi"tration on the ground that it wa" confu"ing or likely to !e confu"ed with >5ol"on 4olden> IF D .a" the name confu"ingG QF D 9o, for La!att %F D The two trademark" >5ol"on 4olden> and >.inche"ter 4old> were "ufficiently di"tincti1e of each other a" to a1oid confu"ion D 6owe1er, the word" >gold> and >golden> on which the appellant !a"ed it" oppo"ition were merely de"cripti1e of categorie" of !eer" to which a gi1en !rand !elong" D The u"e of gold per se on one !eer !y .inche"ter wouldn:t trigger thought" of 5ol"on in the mind" of the pu!lic"imply de"cri!ed the colour of the !eer D (n each mark, the dominant element wa" the !rand, not gold

&5
D Therefore, the hypothetical con"umer couldn:t make an incorrect inference on the "ource 7F D I< * /37732 (5(7(2+ +:*+ 7(.(50 6(s/.,9(s +13 6,<<(.(2+ 9.*26s /32s+,+8+(s +:( /37732 (5(7(2+, +:(.( 1,55 9( 23 */+8*5 /32<8s,32 ,2 +:( 7,26s 3< +:( :043+:(+,/*5 /32s87(. D .hile the ne,t ca"e i" on the line, the Budge thought the pu!lic would not a""ume that e1ery >5c> name for "omething drinka!le or eata!le i" linked to 5c2onald:" =c$ona d>s Cor&. v. Coffee %ut Stores Ltd. (199) 9ed. Ct. T$)CNo blan!et prote"tion for family mar!s +F D Coffee 6ut, the re"pondent, applied to regi"ter the trade mark 5c/3%9 for u"e in a""ociation with the ware" >coffee and tea> D The 7egi"trar reBected the application and agreed with 5c2onald:", !ut 5c2onald:" !rought an appeal o1er the point" where the 7egi"trar reBected the appellant:" oppo"ition otherwi"ethere i" al"o o!1iou"ly a cro""Dappeal !y the re"pondent Coffee 6ut IF D .a" the applicant for the trade mark the "ame party a" the re"pondentG D .a" the trademark 5c/3%9 unregi"tera!le !ecau"e it wa" primarily a "urnameG D .a" the appellant wa" the owner of a family of trademark" "o a" to warrant increa"ing the am!it of protection a1aila!le to it again"t newcomer" "uch a" the applicantG QF D +or Coffee 6ut, trademark 5c/3%9 regi"tered @to /lom:" "urpri"eA %F D (n the fir"t i""ue, the pro!lem of Coffee 6ut:" name wa" re"ol1ed !y the court:" e,erci"ing the di"cretion gi1en to the 7egi"trar under ".-5@$A of the %ct and entering an amendment to the regi"ter to reflect the correct name of the applicant D (n the "econd i""ue, the trademark 5c/3%9 could !e percei1ed a" a coined word a" oppo"ed to a "urname, "o it "houldn:t form the !a"i" of a reBection D The main i""ue "urrounded confu"ion and the family of mark"principle" of confu"ionF aA % deci"ion of the 7egi"trar a" to whether two trade mark" are confu"ing i" to !e gi1en great weight and not lightly "et a"ide !A %pplicant for a trademark ha" a continuing onu" to e"ta!li"h regi"tra!ility of the trademark and to "ati"fy that there i" no rea"ona!le pro!a!ility of confu"ion with any pre1iou"ly regi"tered mark cA Criteria to !e con"idered in a""e""ing the i""ue of confu"ion i" "et out in ".6@5A of the %ct D 6ere, the .(),s+.*. (..(6 ,2 :356,2) +:*+ +:(.( 1*s 23 s,7,5*.,+0 ,2 1*.(s, s(.-,/(s *26 +.*6(s 1:,5( :356,2) +:*+ +:(.( 1*s * 43+(2+,*5 3-(.5*4 ,2 +:( +.*6(s D ugge"tion that 5c2onald:" might decide to "ell !ean" in the future, !e they Belly or coffee !ean", i" in"ufficient to "upport a finding of confu"ion D %dditionally, coffee repre"ented only -^ of total "ale" and didn:t e"ta!li"h that the mark i" a""ociated "pecifically with coffee D (nly lawyer" @hot coffee ca"eA would a""ociate coffee with 5c2onald" D .ith confu"ion, ,+ ,s +:( -,(1 3< +:( /32s87(. 1:,/: ,s ,743.+*2+ ,2 5*1 *26 ,+ 2(/(ss*.,50 <35531s +:*+ +:( /3..(/+ /32s87(. 78s+ 9( s8.-(0(6 D 6ere, there wa" no e1idence of actual confu"ion from con"umer" or purcha"er" who u"ed 5c/3%9 , "o E of >when you "ee 5c/3%9 , do you think 5c2(9%L2 > wa"n:t a"ked D 6owe1er, there wa" e1idence from 5c/3%9 : "tore manager" who depo"ed that they had not heard of any in"tance" of actual confu"ion D Therefore, the .(),s+.*. (..(6 ,2 <,26,2) +:*+ +:( +.*6(7*.; $/BEANS 1*s /32<8s,2) 1,+: +:( +.*6(7*.; $/DONALDBS <3. 8s( ,2 *ss3/,*+,32 1,+: +:( 1*.(s /3<<(( *26 +(* *26 +:( s(.-,/(s 3< +:( 34(.*+,32 3< * 98s,2(ss 6(*5,2) 1,+: +:( s*5( 3< +:(s( ,+(7s D +inally, 5c2onald:" tried to pro1e that 5c/3%9 wa" confu"ing with it" family of trade mark" D 6owe1er, in the end, $/D32*56Bs :*s (@/58s,-,+0 ,2 +:( *.(* 3< <*s+ <336 .(s+*8.*2+ .,):+s 98+ :*s 23+:,2) ,2:(.(2+50 6,s+,2/+,-( 32/( 038 )(+ 38+s,6( <*s+ <336 .(s+*8.*2+s D ieF here, 5c/3%9 : !u"ine"" i" clo"er to 5ac:" con1enience "tore" than to 5c2onald:" fa"t food re"taurant !u"ine"" D ieF 5c2onald:" market" to childrenC 5c3%9 i" gourmet coffee at the high end of the trade D BF underlying current in the ca"e i" a reluctance to gi1e a !rand too much protection, otherwi"e any!ody doing anything in a""ociation with food couldn:t "tart their name with a >5c> D Therefore, e1en if >5c> indicated a family of trademark", it wa"n:t "uch that no!ody el"e could u"e it in a""ociation with a !rand that "old food

&6
D (n the totality of the fact", 5c/3%9 wouldn:t !e confu"ed with 5c2(9%L2 7F D W:(2 4.3-,2) */+8*5 /32<8s,32 ,2 +:( 7,26s 3< +:( /32s87(., ,+ ,s ,743.+*2+ +:*+ +:( /3..(/+ /32s87(. 78s+ 9( s8.-(0(6 D 9ote that /32<8s,32 ,s *2 ,ss8( +:*+ )3(s +3 .(),s+.*9,5,+0 D (ne of the ".$' regi"tra!ility re;uirement" i" that the >mark not !e confu"ing with another regi"tered mark>, and i" Budged at the time of application to regi"ter D 6owe1er, the ne,t concept @>di"tincti1ene"">A, which i" al"o mea"ured in the mind" of the pu!lic, can change o1er time @ieF merely de"cripti1e name" can gain di"tincti1ene"" o1er timeA KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 5% DISTINCTI'ENESS D 2i"tincti1ene"" i" e""ential to !oth the initial and the continuing 1alidity of the regi"tration of a trademark D >F i" the !rand or mark uni;uely a""ociated with a particular productG If it doe"n:t di"tingui"h one product from another product !ecau"e !oth u"e "imilar mark", the mark can !ecome in1alid under ".$0 of the %ct D The i""ue of di"tincti1ene"" may !e rai"ed !y an opponent to an application to regi"ter @".*0@'A@dAA D It may !e rai"ed a" a defence in an action for infringement D It may al"o !e a ground for an application to the +ederal Court under ".5#@$A, to ha1e a regi"tered trademark "truck off the regi"ter D N3+(F "ee Canadian Shredded 9heat ca"e a" well D The ne,t ca"e demon"trate" the u"e of trademark law in relation to the u"e of the 5arl!oro !rand D O-(..,6,2) > i" what !rand the pu!lic a""ociate" with particular good" in the Canadian market only D ince Imperial To!acco wa" the only pro1ider of 5arl!oro in Canada, and had !een continuou"ly for 5) year", the mark wa" "ufficiently di"tincti1e of Imperial To!acco !ecau"e there wa" no!ody el"e that it could !e a""ociated with D N3+(F would !e a different "ituation if Imperial To!acco tried to regi"ter today, a" pu!lic would a""ociate 5arl!oro with Philip 5orri" e1en if they weren:t "old in Canada D C32<8s,32 -. 6,s+,2/+,-(F D C32<8s,32 i" a "pecific term regarding the te"t of regi"tra!ility and infringement !etween two mark" D Therefore, it:" * +(s+ 3< /32<5,/+ 9(+1((2 +.*6(7*.;s D It:" a!out cau"eC on the other hand, di"tincti1ene"" i" a!out effect D D,s+,2/+,-(2(ss ,s * 9.3*6(. +(.7, regarding whether the mark can perform any function at all regarding whether the mark can di"tingui"h the mark from the ware"H"er1ice" of other" D Can lack di"tincti1ene"" for "e1eral rea"on", !ut you lo"e di"tincti1ene""Hne1er ha1e it if it can:t identify to the pu!lic your ware"H"er1ice" from the ware"H"er1ice" of other" D (ne way to lo"e di"tincti1ene"" i" if the u"e of a confu"ing mark goe" unchecked @ieF SuBanne>sA D Therefore, actual confu"ion that take" place in marketplace will cau"e a lo"" of di"tincti1ene"" D 6owe1er, in mo"t ca"e", we talk a!out potential di"tincti1ene"" D %nother way to lo"e di"tincti1ene"" i" that a mark !ecome" "o "ucce""ful that the pu!lic u"e" it a" a general term @ieF Shredded 9heatA D The ratio for thi" ca"e i" that a mark can "till actually di"tingui"h your ware" or "er1ice" in the Canadian market e1en if ma""e" of people think of it mainly in connection with another !u"ine"", "o long a" that other !u"ine"" doe" not "ell it ware" in Canada D If your ware" are the only one" on the Canadian market !earing that mark, the mark !y definition di"tingui"he" your ware" from tho"e of other" !ecau"e, thank" to your maintaining your right of e,clu"i1e u"e, the mark i"n:t u"ed on any!ody el"e:" ware" P#i i& =orris ,nc. v. ,*&eria To<acco Ltd. (1943 9ed. CA)CCanadian rights to famous -meri"an mar! +F D Phillip 5orri", the plaintiff, "ought to e,punge a regi"tration of Imperial To!acco Limited @2A for the

&#
trade mark 5%7L/(7( for u"e in a""ociation with cigarette" D 2:" regi"tration had !een made 2ecem!er '#, $&*' under the 'rade =ar! and *esign -"t D Imperial got hold of the 5arl!oro !rand from the $&*' regi"trar, and "old "mall ;uantitie" of 5arl!oro" o1er time to hold off Philip 5orri" D Philip 5orri" finally got fed up and tried to "trike 5arl!oro off the regi"trar, and under ". 5# of the 'rade =ar!s -"t tried to e,punge the re"pondent:" regi"tration on the ground thatF aA 5ark wa"n:t di"tincti1e of the re"pondent on Qune '6, $&0$, when proceeding" commenced !A 5ark wa" not regi"tra!le when regi"tration wa" effected under the Trade 5ark and 2e"ign %ct, cA The re"pondent had a!andoned the mark, and dA The re"pondent wa" not the per"on entitled to regi"tration D P i" the owner of the mark 5%7L/(7( for cigarette" in $6) countrie", and had ad1erti"ed in pu!lication" that circulated in Canada D P ha" inordinately more "ale" of it" 5arl!oro cigarette" than the 2 ha" of it" !rand IF D 2oe" the regi"tration of the mark !y 2 "tandG QF D Je", for Imperial To!acco %F D The i""ue" !efore the TQF aA R(),s+.*9,5,+0 ,2 19!2 D PN" predece""or a""igned the mark in and for Canada to the predece""or of the 2 D There wa" "uch a long delay @and ac;uie"cence !y Philip 5orri" in the meantimeA that any dou!t mu"t now !e re"ol1ed in fa1our of the regi"tered owner of the mark D In thi" ca"e, the delay ha" !een -& year", "o there wa" a "trong !ia" toward" keeping the regi"ter "ta!le D There wa" al"o e1idence that "trongly "ugge"t" a recognition !y the P of the 1alidity of the 2:" initial regi"tration !A A9*26327(2+ *s 3< 1981 D 5ere nonDu"e of a trade mark i" not "ufficient to create a!andonmentnonDu"e mu"t !e accompanied !y an intention to a!andon D 5ere token u"e to maintain a regi"tration i" not u"e in the normal cour"e of trade !ut that wa" not the ca"e here D The e1idence demon"trate" that Imperial To!acco did not intend to a!andon the trade mark 5%7L/(7(, !ut acti1ely tried to keep the !rand ali1e cA D,s+,2/+,-(2(ss ,2 1981 #3250 4.37,s,2) *.)87(2+ <3. P:,5,4 $3..,s% D Philip 5orri" argued that in the Canadian market, 5arl!oro !rand wa" no longer di"tincti1e D P relied upon a "ur1ey which "howed that #6^ of Canadian "moker" who a""ociated the mark 5%7L/(7( with a "ource, identified that "ource a" the appellant, wherea" only &^ identified that "ource a" the re"pondent D D,s+,2/+,-(2(ss :*s +3 9( /32s,6(.(6 ,2 .(5*+,32 +3 3+:(. 1*.(s 3<<(.(6 32 +:( s*7( 7*.;(+, +:*+ ,s 1,+:,2 C*2*6* D The only legal "ale" made !y the appellant in Canada were the dutyDfree "ale" D 6owe1er, Imperial To!acco argued in defence they were the innocent 1ictim of "pillo1er ad1erti"ing of %merican 5arl!oro ad1erti"ingC holding otherwi"e would put Canadian trademark holder" at the mercy of !ig %merican companie"argument worked D To hold otherwi"e would !e to "u!Bect Canadian regi"trant" to a force maBeure o1er which they had no effecti1e control 7F D D,s+,2/+,-(2(ss ,2 +:( C*2*6,*2 7*.;(+ ,s 23+ 53s+ s3 <*. *s )336s 32 +:( 7*.;(+ *.( */+8*550 /32/(.2(6 1:(2 *6-(.+,s,2) <.37 *23+:(. /382+.0 /.(*+(s * s4,553-(. (<<(/+ D N3+(F in 9il!inson S ord $Canada& #td. v. Juda, one 1ariety of >.ilkin"on word> ra<or !lade" "old in Canada wa" made, proce""ed, and packaged in the ?nited Oingdom, and lo"t di"tincti1ene"" in Canada D In the ne,t ca"e, the > u<anne:"> ca"e, the court held that di"tincti1ene"" i" lo"t if e1en one !u"ine"" u"e" a confu"ing mark in the "ame geographical area a" you u"e your mark, "o that your maker no longer >actually di"tingui"he"> @"ee the definition of >di"tincti1e> in ".'A your ware" or "er1ice" from tho"e of other !u"ine"" Au d P#i i&s Ltd. v. SuBanne>s ,nc. ('((- 9ed. CA)C- single infringer may be sole "ause of loss

&0
+F D %uld wanted to e,punge u<anne:" trademark > u<anne:"> from the trademark regi"ter pur"uant to ".5#@$A of the 'rademar!s -"t IF D 2id the mark lo"e it" di"tincti1ene"" in %l!ertaG QF D Je" %F D The ;ue"tion of whether a trademark ha" lo"t it" di"tincti1ene"" i" one of fact D It i" po""i!le that a "ingle infringer can !e the cau"e of the lo"" of di"tincti1ene"", although rare D 6ere, there wa" e1idence to "upport the conclu"ion that a" the appellant:" trademark had lo"t it" di"tincti1ene"", and the fact that re"pondent wa" the "ole cau"e of the lo"" wa" of no a""i"tance to the appellant 7F D A /374*20 78s+ 4.3+(/+ +:(,. 9.*26 +3 (2s8.( +:*+ ,+ ,s 23+ 8s(6 1,+:38+ +:(,. *8+:3.,D*+,32, *26 +:*+ <3.(,)2 9.*26s 632B+ )(+ s356 +:*+ 48+ +:( 6,s+,2/+,-(2(ss 3< * 9.*26 *+ .,s; KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK III. DISTINGUISHING GUISE D ee ".' of the %ct for a definitionF 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >>6,s+,2)8,s:,2) )8,s(> mean" @aA a s:*4,2) 3< 1*.(s 3. +:(,. /32+*,2(.s, or @!A a 736( 3< 1.*44,2) 3. 4*/;*),2) 1*.(s +:( *44(*.*2/( 3< 1:,/: ,s 8s(6 90 * 4(.s32 <3. +:( 48.43s( 3< 6,s+,2)8,s:,2) 3. s3 *s +3 6,s+,2)8,s: 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s 7*28<*/+8.(6, s356, 5(*s(6, :,.(6 3. 4(.<3.7(6 90 :,7 <.37 +:3s( 7*28<*/+8.(6, s356, 5(*s(6, :,.(6 3. 4(.<3.7(6 90 3+:(.s > D It:" >di"tincti1e> in di"tingui"hing a product from "omeone el"e:" D >+.*6(?7*.;> mean" @aA a mark that i" u"ed !y a per"on for the purpo"e of di"tingui"hing or "o a" to di"tingui"h ware" or "er1ice" manufactured, "old, lea"ed, hired or performed !y him from tho"e manufactured, "old, lea"ed, hired or performed !y other", @!A a /(.+,<,/*+,32 7*.;, @"ee "ection !elowA @cA * 6,s+,2)8,s:,2) )8,s(, or @dA a propo"ed tradeDmark> D The two criteria for regi"tra!ility of a di"tingui"hing gui"e are in ".$*@aA and @!A of the %ctF 1!#1% W:(2 6,s+,2)8,s:,2) )8,s(s .(),s+.*95( D >% di"tingui"hing gui"e i" .(),s+.*95( 3250 ,< @aA ,+ :*s 9((2 s3 8s(6 ,2 C*2*6* 90 +:( *445,/*2+ 3. :,s 4.(6(/(ss3. ,2 +,+5( *s +3 :*-( 9(/37( 6,s+,2/+,-( *+ +:( 6*+( 3< <,5,2) *2 *445,/*+,32 <3. ,+s .(),s+.*+,32 C and D In other word", the di"tingui"hing gui"e mu"t ha1e !ecome di"tincti1e through u"e in Canada @!A +:( (@/58s,-( 8s( 90 +:( *445,/*2+ 3< +:( 6,s+,2)8,s:,2) )8,s( ,2 *ss3/,*+,32 1,+: +:( 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s 1,+: 1:,/: ,+ :*s 9((2 8s(6 ,s 23+ 5,;(50 82.(*s32*950 +3 5,7,+ +:( 6(-(5347(2+ 3< *20 *.+ 3. ,268s+.0> D In other word", e,clu"i1e u"e of a di"tingui"hing gui"e mu"t not likely unrea"ona!ly to limit de1elopment of any art or indu"try D Concern i" that "ince a di"tingui"hing gui"e can !e a""ociated with the product it"elf @or it:" packagingA, may lock up "omething of 1alue the pu!lic "hould ha1e acce"" to D The concept of a di"tingui"hing gui"e wa" commented on in )ir!bi, where the CC referred to the di"tingui"hing gui"e pro1i"ion" in the %ct @e1en though it wa" a pa""ing off ca"eA D The Court noted that getting a di"tingui"hing gui"e on the regi"ter doe" not gi1e a right to functional feature" of the di"tingui"hing gui"e D Thi" po"tDregi"tration re;uirement from )ir!bi i" "een in ".$*@'A of the %ctF 1!#2% E<<(/+ 3< .(),s+.*+,32 D >9o regi"tration of a di"tingui"hing gui"e interfere" with the u"e of any utilitarian feature em!odied in the di"tingui"hing gui"e>

&&
D Thi" wa" u"ed in )ir!bi to "upport the argument that purely utilitarian feature" aren:t the "u!Bect of e,clu"i1e u"e or monopoly in trademark protection or in pa""ing off D In the ne,t ca"e, the "hape of the chlage key !ow flunked !oth te"t" in ".$*@$A $o*inion Lock Co. v. Sc# a2e Lock Co. (19!1 +e2. T=)C8utline of a !ey not registrable as a *6 +F D chlage lock company, the applicant, "ought to regi"ter the configuration of a key a" a di"tingui"hing gui"e for original key" for door lock", a" they had a "hapeHoutline characteri<ing their key" D 2ominion, the manufacturer" of key !lank", oppo"ed the application on the ground" that it offend" ".$*@$A@aA !ecau"e it doe"n:t di"tingui"h chlage key", and ".$*@$A@!A !ecau"e it would >unrea"ona!ly limit the de1elopment of, and e"ta!li"hed practice in, the key manufacturing and replacement indu"try> IF D I" the mark regi"tera!leG QF D 9o, for 2ominion %F D It wa" ruled !y the Trade 5ark" (ffice that the trade mark wa" a >di"tingui"hing gui"e> a" defined in ". '@gA of the @$&6$A %ct, and that e1idence "hould !e filed to comply with ". $*@$A@aA of the %ct D 6owe1er, the 7*.; 1*s2B+ .(),s+.*95( 9(/*8s( ,+ 1*s2B+ 6,s+,2/+,-( 1:(2 *445,/*+,32 1*s <,5(6 D %l"o, the (@/58s,-( 8s( of the mark !y the applicant in a""ociation with original key" for door lock" i" 5,;(50 +3 5,7,+ +:( 6(-(5347(2+ 3< *2 ,268s+.0 ,2 C*2*6* D 2ominion e"ta!li"hed that it i" a common procedure that key !lank" are fre;uently made with outline "hape "uch that they match the outline "hape of original key" of different manufacturer" of key" and lock", and that lock"mith" u"e "uch outline "hape" to "elect !lank", or perhap" more preci"ely "peaking, to narrow down the "election of !lank" 7F D D,s+,2)8,s:,2) )8,s(s 78s+ :*-( 9(/37( 6,s+,2/+,-( +:.38): 8s( ,2 C*2*6* *26 78s+ 23+ 82.(*s32*950 5,7,+ 6(-(5347(2+ 3< *20 *.+ 3. ,268s+.0 ,2 3.6(. +3 9( .(),s+(.(6 KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK I'. CERTIFICATION $AR&S D % certification mark, like a di"tingui"hing gui"e, i" a "u!category of trademark, and i" defined in ".'F 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >/(.+,<,/*+,32 7*.;> mean" a mark that i" 8s(6 <3. +:( 48.43s( 3< 6,s+,2)8,s:,2) 3. s3 *s +3 6,s+,2)8,s: 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s +:*+ *.( 3< * 6(<,2(6 s+*26*.6 1,+: .(s4(/+ +3 @aA the /:*.*/+(. 3. H8*5,+0 3< +:( 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s, @!A the 13.;,2) /326,+,32s 826(. 1:,/: +:( 1*.(s :*-( 9((2 4.368/(6 3. +:( s(.-,/(s 4(.<3.7(6, @ieF a >unionDmade> la!elA @cA the /5*ss 3< 4(.s32s 90 1:37 +:( 1*.(s :*-( 9((2 4.368/(6 3. +:( s(.-,/(s 4(.<3.7(6, or @again, a >unionDmade> la!elA @dA the *.(* 1,+:,2 1:,/: +:( 1*.(s :*-( 9((2 4.368/(6 3. +:( s(.-,/(s 4(.<3.7(6 , from ware" or "er1ice" that are not of that defined "tandard> D 7egi"tra!ility rule" for certification mark" are located in ".'*F 2!#1% R(),s+.*+,32 3< /(.+,<,/*+,32 7*.;s D >A /(.+,<,/*+,32 7*.; 7*0 9( *634+(6 *26 .(),s+(.(6 3250 90 * 4(.s32 1:3 ,s 23+ (2)*)(6 ,2 +:( 7*28<*/+8.(, s*5(, 5(*s,2) 3. :,.,2) 3< 1*.(s 3. +:( 4(.<3.7*2/( 3< s(.-,/(s s8/: *s +:3s( ,2 *ss3/,*+,32 1,+: 1:,/: +:( /(.+,<,/*+,32 7*.; ,s 8s(6> D In other word", the regi"trant of a certification mark can:t !e the party u"ing itmu"t !e a neutral third party "uch a" the Canadian tandard" %""ociation 2!#2% L,/(2/( D >The owner of a certification mark may licen"e other" to u"e the mark in a""ociation with ware" or "er1ice" that meet the defined "tandard, and the u"e of the mark accordingly "hall !e deemed to !e u"e thereof !y the owner> D Therefore, once regi"tered, you can licence the mark out to other" 2!#!% U2*8+:3.,D(6 8s( D >The owner of a regi"tered certification mark may pre1ent it" u"e !y unlicen"ed per"on" or in a""ociation with any ware" or "er1ice" in re"pect of which the mark i" regi"tered !ut to which the

$))
licence doe" not e,tend.> D Include" policing power, a" the owner can pre1ent other" from u"ing the mark, gi1ing an incenti1e to regi"tering certification mark" D >F how do you pre1ent the owner of a regi"tration mark from mi"u"ing itG D AF if the mark doe" not perform the function identified in the definition of >certification mark> in ".', ieF doe"n:t di"tingui"h ware"H"er1ice" of a certain character or ;uality @a" definedA from ware"H"er1ice" that don:t ha1e that ;uality, the regi"tration will !e in1alid under ".$0 for lack of di"tincti1ene"" D Therefore, it:" in the owner:" intere"t to en"ure that it doe" in fact di"tingui"h a" it i" "uppo"ed to do KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK '. LICENSING AND TRANSFER 1% LICENSING D L,/(2s,2) :*s (-(.0+:,2) +3 63 1,+: A6,s+,2/+,-(2(ssA D There u"ed to !e a "cheme of >regi"tered u"er">, where tho"e that got on the regi"ter a" regi"tered u"er" had the "ame effect under the %ct a" u"e !y the owner D ieF doe"n:t lo"e di"tincti1ene"" !ecau"e it:" deemed u"e !y the owner, e1en though it:" !y licencee D Thi" old act wa" cum!er"ome, a" it re;uired regi"tration of the licencee e1ery time, "o the go1ernment replaced it with ".5) of the %ct, which deem" the effect of u"e !y the licen"ee to !e the "ame a" that of u"e !y the owner, pro1ided that under the term" of the licence agreement the owner retain" direct or indirect control o1er the character or ;uality of the ware"H"er1ice"F 50#1% L,/(2/( +3 8s( +.*6(?7*.; D >+or the purpo"e" of thi" %ct, if an entity i" licen"ed !y or with the authority of the owner of a tradeDmark to u"e the tradeDmark in a country and the owner ha", under the licence, 6,.(/+ 3. ,26,.(/+ /32+.35 3< +:( /:*.*/+(. 3. H8*5,+0 3< +:( 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s, +:(2 +:( 8s(, *6-(.+,s(7(2+ 3. 6,s45*0 3< +:( +.*6(?7*.; ,2 +:*+ /382+.0 *s 3. ,2 * +.*6(?7*.;, +.*6(? 2*7( 3. 3+:(.1,s( 90 +:*+ (2+,+0 :*s, *26 ,s 6((7(6 *51*0s +3 :*-( :*6, +:( s*7( (<<(/+ *s s8/: * 8s(, *6-(.+,s(7(2+ 3. 6,s45*0 3< +:( +.*6(?7*.; ,2 +:*+ /382+.0 90 +:( 312(. > D (wner mu"t ha1e >direct or indirect control of the character or ;uality of the ware"H"er1ice"> D If the licence gi1e" owner directHindirect control, then u"e !y the licencee i" deemed to ha1e the "ame effect a" u"e !y the owner 50#2% I6(7 D >+or the purpo"e" of thi" %ct, to the e,tent that pu!lic notice i" gi1en of the fact that the u"e of a tradeDmark i" a licen"ed u"e and of the identity of the owner, it "hall !e pre"umed, unle"" the contrary i" pro1en, that the u"e i" licen"ed !y the owner of the tradeDmark and the character or ;uality of the ware" or "er1ice" i" under the control of the owner> D In other word", you get the !enefit of pre"umption on condition that pu!lic notice i" gi1en D If it weren:t for ".5), there would potentially !e the "ame trademark !eing u"ed from two different owner" D ieF owner and licencee u"ing the "ame mark on two different product" D Therefore, the mark would no longer di"tingui"h the ware" and "er1ice" of either D Thi" i" why s.50 6((7s +:( (<<(/+ 3< +:( 5,/(2/(Bs 8s( +3 9( +:( s*7( *s +:*+ 3< +:( 312(.Bs 8s(, 1:,/: 7(*2s +:*+ 6,s+,2/+,-(2(ss ,s 23+ 53s+ 1:(2 8s(6 90 +:( 5,/(2/(( D N3+(F good to ha1e e,plicit e1idence of a licence agreement, and court will need a lot of e1idence to find an implicit agreement for >indirect control> @ieF "u!"idiary working under parent company would need e1idence to e"ta!li"h parent company e,erci"ing controlA D The ne,t ca"e, while under the old >regi"tered u"er> "y"tem which wa" the e;ui1alent of ".5) under the current %ct, i" illu"trati1e of licencing under the %ct D It al"o point" out that if a trademark i" tran"ferred, it:" up to the tran"feror and tran"feree to en"ure that di"tincti1ene"", too, i" tran"ferred from the tran"feror:" ware"H"er1ice" to the tran"feree"

$)$
S.C. Ao#nson : Son Ltd. v. =arketin2 ,nternationa Ltd. (1939 SCC)C*istin"tiveness not lost for 8::H +F D In $&5#, appellant .C. Qohn"on and on, Inc. @SQohn"on ?. .TA wa" regi"tered a" the owner of the trade mark S(++\TXwhich it wa" already u"ing in the ?nited tate"Xfor a per"onal in"ect repellent D %t the "ame time, the other appellant .C. Qohn"on and on, Limited @SQohn"on CanadaTA, a wholly owned "u!"idiary of the former, wa" regi"tered a" the Sregi"tered u"erT of thi" trade mark D In $&#5, re"pondent 5arketing International Ltd. !egan marketing a repellent in Canada under the trademark S/?44 (++T, and thi" led !oth appellant" to !ring an infringement action in +ederal Court D /y a counterclaim, re"pondent a"ked that the trade mark S(++\T !e e,punged, alleging that it wa" not 1alidly regi"tered D The Trial 2i1i"ion allowed the principal action in part and di"mi""ed the counterclaimclaimed u"e !y the regi"tered u"er led to a lo"" of di"tincti1ene"" D The +ederal Court of %ppeal, on the other hand, concluded that the trade mark S(++\T wa" in1alid, a" it con"idered thi" mark wa" not di"tinct within the meaning of ". $0@$A@!A of the Trade 5ark" %ct, "olely on the ground that it i" not u"ed to identify good" of the owner of the mark, !ut rather the u"er D It al"o held that in Canada, (++\ wa" identified not with Qohn"on ? %:" ware" @the >owner>A !ut with Qohn"on Canada D It accordingly re1er"ed the trial deci"ion and ordered the trade mark S(++\T to !e e,punged from the 7egi"ter of Trade 5ark"hence the appeal to the CC IF D .a" the mark not di"tincti1e of the ware" of the owner .C. Qohn"on I on ? %G QF D 9o, for 5arketing, appeal di"mi""ed %F D CC hold" that u"e !y the licencee wa" in effect u"e !y the owner D They al"o draw attention to the fact that if you ha1e a tran"fer or a""ignment of a trademark, there i" nothing in the %ct which e,empt" a party from the di"tincti1ene"" re;uirement D ieF if you "ellHa""ign a mark, and for a period of time !oth your good" and the new owner:" good" are in the market, thi" can potentially cau"e a lo"" of di"tincti1ene"" D (nu" on owner who i" tran"ferringHletting mark u"ed to en"ure that di"tincti1ene"" i" pre"er1ed D To en"ure thi", "hould own according to ".5) and then licence accordingly 7F D L,/(2/,2) ,s *55 *938+ 6,s+,2/+,-(2(ss, *26 ,+ /*2 9( 53s+ ,2 /(.+*,2 /,./87s+*2/(s KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 2% TRANSFER D ee ".-0 of the %ct, where the tran"fera!ility of a regi"tered or unregi"tered trademark i" e"ta!li"hed !y the %ct it"elf in ".$F 48#1% T.*6(?7*.; +.*2s<(.*95( D >A +.*6(?7*.;, 1:(+:(. .(),s+(.(6 3. 82.(),s+(.(6, ,s +.*2s<(.*95( , and deemed alway" to ha1e !een tran"fera!le, either in connection with or "eparately from the goodwill of !u"ine"" and in re"pect of either all or "ome of the ware" or "er1ice" in a""ociation with which it ha" !een u"ed> D Thi" gi1e" free tran"fera!ility with no formalitie" re;uired 48#!% R(),s+.*+,32 3< +.*2s<(. D >The 7egi"trar "hall regi"ter the tran"fer of any regi"tered tradeDmark on !eing furni"hed with (-,6(2/( s*+,s<*/+3.0 +3 :,7 3< +:( +.*2s<(. and the information that would !e re;uired !y paragraph *)@gA in an application !y the tran"feree to regi"ter the tradeDmark> D 2i"tincti1ene"" would !e the only po""i!le i""ue here KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 'I. INFRINGE$ENT D ?"ing a trademark i" narrowly defined in the %ct a" "ticking the mark on the package or u"ing it in a""ociation with "er1ice" if it:" di"played with the "er1ice"F 4#1% W:(2 6((7(6 +3 9( 8s(6 D >% tradeDmark i" deemed to !e u"ed in a""ociation with ware" if, at the time of the tran"fer of the property in or po""e""ion of the ware", in the normal cour"e of trade, it i" 7*.;(6 32 +:( 1*.(s +:(7s(5-(s 3. 32 +:( 4*/;*)(s ,2 1:,/: +:(0 *.( 6,s+.,98+(6 or it i" in any other manner "o a""ociated with the ware" that notice of the a""ociation i" then gi1en to the per"on to whom the

$)'
property or po""e""ion i" tran"ferred> D .ithout the !road ".') that protect" again"t thing" not "trictly defined a" u"e, there would !e no protection again"t u"ing mark" in thing" like ad1erti"ing D ection $& of the %ct gi1e" the owner a national right throughout CanadaF 19 R,):+s /32<(..(6 90 .(),s+.*+,32 D > u!Bect to "ection" '$, *' and 6#, the regi"tration of a tradeDmark in re"pect of any ware" or "er1ice", unle"" "hown to !e in1alid, ),-(s +3 +:( 312(. 3< +:( +.*6(?7*.; +:( (@/58s,-( .,):+ +3 +:( 8s( +:.38):38+ C*2*6* 3< +:( +.*6(?7*.; ,2 .(s4(/+ 3< +:3s( 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s > D The definition of infringement of a regi"tered trademark i" go1erned !y ".') of the %ctF 20 I2<.,2)(7(2+ D >The right of the owner of a regi"tered tradeDmark to it" e,clu"i1e u"e "hall !e 6((7(6 +3 9( ,2<.,2)(6 90 * 4(.s32 23+ (2+,+5(6 +3 ,+s 8s( 826(. +:,s A/+ 1:3 s(55s, 6,s+.,98+(s 3. *6-(.+,s(s 1*.(s 3. s(.-,/(s ,2 *ss3/,*+,32 1,+: * /32<8s,2) +.*6(?7*.; 3. +.*6(?2*7( , !ut no regi"tration of a tradeDmark pre1ent" a per"on from making @aA *20 932* <,6( 8s( 3< :,s 4(.s32*5 2*7( *s * +.*6(?2*7( , or @!A any !ona fide u"e, other than a" a tradeDmark @iA of the geographical name of hi" place of !u"ine"", or @iiA of any accurate de"cription of the character or ;uality of hi" ware" or "er1ice", ,2 s8/: * 7*22(. *s ,s 23+ 5,;(50 +3 :*-( +:( (<<(/+ 3< 6(4.(/,*+,2) +:( -*58( 3< +:( )3361,55 *++*/:,2) +3 +:( +.*6(?7*.;> D Therefore, there i" deemed infringement if you "ellHdi"tri!uteHad1erti"e ware" or "er1ice" in a""ociation with a confu"ing trademark or confu"ing tradename D 9ote that ".') al"o protect" tradeDname", which i" !a"ically a !u"ine"" nameF 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >>+.*6(?2*7(> mean" the name under which any !u"ine"" i" carried on, whether or not it i" the name of a corporation, a partner"hip or an indi1idual> D Therefore, you can "top any!ody u"ing a !u"ine"" name that confu"ing with your trademark D .hile there:" nothing "topping "ome!ody from regi"tering a trademark and u"ing it a" a tradename, you can:t regi"ter a tradename in and of it"elf D 6owe1er, the %ct make" an e,ception for !ona fide u"e of a per"onal name a" a tradename, "o long a" the u"e i" not likely to ha1e the >effect of depreciating the 1alue of the goodwill attaching to the trademark> D Thu" doe"n:t allow a trademark to crowd out what an indi1idual might naturally cau"e their !u"ine"", unle"" it:" !eing done in a way to cheapen the mark D To attack the 1alidity of a mark, "ection $6 of the %ct "tate"F 1 #1% R(),s+.*+,32 3< 7*.;s 8s(6 3. 7*6( ;2312 ,2 C*2*6* D >%ny applicant who ha" filed an application in accordance with "ection *) for regi"tration of a tradeDmark that i" regi"tra!le and that he or hi" predece""or in title ha" u"ed in Canada or made known in Canada in a""ociation with ware" or "er1ice" i" entitled, "u!Bect to "ection *0, to "ecure it" regi"tration in re"pect of tho"e ware" or "er1ice", 825(ss *+ +:( 6*+( 32 1:,/: :( 3. :,s 4.(6(/(ss3. ,2 +,+5( <,.s+ s3 8s(6 ,+ 3. 7*6( ,+ ;2312 ,+ 1*s /32<8s,2) 1,+: @aA a tradeDmark @ieF unregi"teredA that had !een pre1iou"ly u"ed in Canada or made known in Canada !y any other per"onC D ieF if an indi1idual trie" to regi"ter a mark on the !a"i" that they:1e u"ed it, and "ome!ody el"e "omewhere in Canada wa" u"ing a mark that wa" confu"ing with it !efore the indi1idual:" u"e, it:" unregi"tra!le @!A a tradeDmark in re"pect of which an application for regi"tration had !een pre1iou"ly filed in Canada !y any other per"onC or @cA a tradeDname that had !een pre1iou"ly u"ed in Canada !y any other per"on> D 6owe1er, in practical term", regi"tration under the"e circum"tance" happen" all the time !ecau"e they don:t check the Canada 6aaBette e1eryday"o "ee ".$#

$)*
1"#1% E<<(/+ 3< .(),s+.*+,32 ,2 .(5*+,32 +3 4.(-,38s 8s(, (+/. D >9o application for regi"tration of a tradeDmark that ha" !een ad1erti"ed in accordance with "ection *# "hall !e refu"ed and no regi"tration of a tradeDmark "hall !e e,punged or amended or held in1alid on the ground of any pre1iou" u"e or making known of a confu"ing tradeDmark or tradeDname 90 * 4(.s32 3+:(. +:*2 +:( *445,/*2+ <3. +:*+ .(),s+.*+,32 3. :,s 4.(6(/(ss3. ,2 +,+5(, e,cept at the in"tance of that other per"on or hi" "ucce""or in title, and the !urden lie" on that other per"on or hi" "ucce""or to e"ta!li"h that he had not a!andoned the confu"ing tradeDmark or tradeDname at the date of ad1erti"ement of the applicantN" application> D Thu" can:t come and challenge a trademark and in1oke a third party:" prioritymu"t !e the actual pre1iou" u"er that can conte"t the regi"tration under ".$ 1"#2% W:(2 .(),s+.*+,32 ,2/32+(s+*95( D >In proceeding" commenced *<+(. +:( (@4,.*+,32 3< <,-( 0(*.s <.37 +:( 6*+( 3< .(),s+.*+,32 of a tradeDmark or from Quly $, $&5-, whiche1er i" the later, no regi"tration "hall !e e,punged or amended or held in1alid on the ground of the pre1iou" u"e or making known referred to in "u!"ection @$A, 825(ss ,+ ,s (s+*95,s:(6 +:*+ +:( 4(.s32 1:3 *634+(6 +:( .(),s+(.(6 +.*6(?7*.; ,2 C*2*6* 6,6 s3 1,+: ;2315(6)( 3< +:*+ 4.(-,38s 8s( 3. 7*;,2) ;2312> D 6ere, if per"on :%: u"e" a mark "tarting in '))', and per"on :/: u"e" a mark "tarting in '))-, and then per"on :/: regi"ter" the trademark in '))5, per"on :%: could ha1e oppo"ed the regi"tration !ecau"e per"on :/: i" not the correct per"on to regi"ter under ".$6 until ')$) D 9ote the e,ception, where if you can pro1e that per"on :/: knew per"on :%:" mark e,i"ted D Thu" the 4.3+(/+,32 <3. 82.(),s+(.(6 +.*6(7*.;s ,s H8,+( s+.32)

D The way in which an alleged infringer can attack the 1alidity of the regi"tration of the trademark i" on any of the ground" li"ted in ".$0@$A of the %ctF 18#1% W:(2 .(),s+.*+,32 ,2-*5,6 D >The regi"tration of a tradeDmark i" in1alid if @aA the tradeDmark wa" 23+ .(),s+.*95( *+ +:( 6*+( 3< .(),s+.*+,32, @!A the tradeDmark i" 23+ 6,s+,2/+,-( *+ +:( +,7( 4.3/((6,2)s 9.,2),2) +:( -*5,6,+0 3< +:( .(),s+.*+,32 ,2+3 H8(s+,32 *.( /377(2/(6, or @cA the tradeDmark :*s 9((2 *9*2632(6, and "u!Bect to "ection $#, it i" in1alid if the applicant for regi"tration wa" not the per"on entitled to "ecure the regi"tration> KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 'II. DEPRECIATING 'ALUE OF THE GOODWILL ATTACHING TO THE TRADE$AR& D ee ".'' of the %ctF 22#1% D(4.(/,*+,32 3< )3361,55 D >9o per"on "hall u"e a tradeDmark regi"tered !y another per"on in a manner that i" likely to ha1e the effect of depreciating the 1alue of the goodwill attaching thereto> 22#2% A/+,32 ,2 .(s4(/+ +:(.(3< D >In any action in re"pect of a u"e of a tradeDmark contrary to "u!"ection @$A, the court may decline to order the reco1ery of damage" or profit" and may permit the defendant to continue to "ell ware" marked with the tradeDmark that were in hi" po""e""ion or under hi" control at the time notice wa" gi1en to him that the owner of the regi"tered tradeDmark complained of the u"e of the tradeDmark> D The ne,t ca"e in1ol1e" a di"pute !etween a champaign company >Cli/;uot> and a chain of women:" wear "hop" >Cli;uot> where 8eu1eF aA %ttacked regi"tration under ".$0 @not regi"tra!le at time of regi"trationA !ecau"e it wa" confu"ing and !A Claimed the Cli;uot mark depreciated the 1alue of the goodwill attached to the Clic;uot mark contrary to ".''

$)?euve C ic0uot Ponsardin v. Bouti0ues C i0uot Ltee ('((! SCC)CNo useF no lin!F and no depre"iation +F D %mong tho"e with champagne ta"te", !rand of 8eu1e Clic;uot Pon"ardin i" con"idered among 1ery !e"t, and ha" !een !uilding it" fine reputation with drinking cla""e" "ince !efore +rench 7e1olution D The 83?83 CLICE?(T trade-mark ha" al"o appeared on a range of promotional item", not offered for "ale in Canada, including fa"hion ware" for women and men D It i" undou!tedly a famou" trade-mark that de"er1e" wide protection not only from free -rider" !ut from tho"e who, without any intention of free-riding, ne1erthele"" u"e in their own !u"ine"" di"tingui"hing mark" that create confu"ion or depreciate the 1alue of the goodwill attaching to tho"e of the appellant D 6ere, the appellant "eek" to "top the re"pondent"N group of "i, womenN" wear "hop" in Eue!ec and ea"tern (ntario from u"ing the trade-name Cli;uot and the re"pondent"N own regi"tered trade-mark" Cli;uot and Cli;uot S?n monde _ partT, and to ha1e the"e trade-mark" e,punged from the 7egi"ter D The appellant claim" that con"umer" will likely !e confu"ed to the point of thinking that the womenN" clothing and the champagne originate with the "ame "ource, there!y infringing the appellantN" regi"tered trade-mark" contrary to ". ') of the 'rade- mar!s -"t !ecau"e they were confu"ing D It further claim" that e1en if the re"pondent"N u"e i" not confu"ing, that u"e ne1erthele"" depreciate" the 1alue of the goodwill attaching to it" mark, contrary to ". '' of the %ct D The +ederal Court concluded that the appellant wa" not entitled to e,pungement D Taking all the "urrounding circum"tance" into account, the trial Budge found there wa" little, if any, ri"k of confu"ion a" to "ource D he al"o found that the u"e !y the re"pondent" of their regi"tered trade-mark" did not reduce the 1alue of the goodwill attaching to the appellantN" 83?83 CLICE?(T mark D The +ederal Court of %ppeal upheld the deci"ion IF D 2o the women:" clothing "tore" with the Cli;uot name depreciate the 1alue of the goodwill attaching to the trademark 8eu1e Cli;uot that attache" to +rench ChampaignG QF D 9o, for the /outi;ue" %F D The ;ue"tion 1:(+:(. +:(.( (@,s+s * 5,;(5,:336 3< /32<8s,32 ,s 5*.)(50 32( 3< <*/+ D ince thi" i" an infringement claim rather than an oppo"ition proceeding, the onu" wa" on the appellant to pro1e "uch likelihood on a !alance of pro!a!ilitie" D ?nder ". 6@'A of the Trade-mark" %ct, confu"ion occur" Sif the u"e of !oth trade-mark" in the "ame area would !e likely to lead to the inference that the ware" or "er1ice" a""ociated with tho"e trade-mark" are manufactured, "old, lea"ed, hired or performed !y the "ame per"on, whether or not the ware" or "er1ice" are of the "ame general cla"".T D In e1ery ca"e, the factor" to !e con"idered when making a determination a" to whether a trade-mark i" confu"ing to the "omewhat-hurried con"umer in Sall the "urrounding circum"tance"T include, !ut are not limited to, tho"e enumerated in ". 6@5A of the %ct D The fame of the mark i" not, a" "uch, an enumerated circum"tance @although it i" implicit in three of the enumerated factor", namely inherent di"tincti1ene"", the e,tent to which a mark ha" !ecome known, and the length of time that it ha" !een u"edA D 6ere, the trial BudgeN" finding that 83?83 CLICE?(T i" a Sfamou"T mark i" of importance in con"idering Sall the "urrounding circum"tance"T !ecau"e fame pre"uppo"e" that the mark tran"cend" at lea"t to "ome e,tent the ware" with which it i" normally a""ociated D 6owe1er, +:( <*/+ 3< 9(,2) <*738s 3. 1(55 ;2312 63(s 23+ 90 ,+s(5< 4.3-,6( *9s358+( 4.3+(/+,32 <3. * +.*6(-7*.; D It i" one factor which mu"t !e a""e""ed together with all the other" D 6ere, ha1ing regard to all the "urrounding circum"tance" and the e1idence !efore the trial Budge, there i" no !a"i" to interfere with her conclu"ion that there wa" no likelihood of confu"ion !etween the two mark" in the rele1ant market" D BF Critical factor" were nature of the ware" and the channel of trade @"". @*A and @-AA, e1en though "". @$A, @'A, and @5A fa1oured 8eu1e under the ".6@5A te"t D The 83?83 CLICE?(T trade-mark, regi"tered in $0&&, i" di"tincti1e D The re"pondent"N womenN" wear !outi;ue" are al"o known in the area in which !oth trade-mark" are u"ed, and their mark", which were introduced in $&&5, are not famou" D 6owe1er, the 6,<<(.(2/( 9(+1((2 +:( *44(55*2+Ks 58@8.0 /:*74*)2( *26 +:( .(s4326(2+sK 7,6-4.,/(6 137(2Ks 1(*. ,s s,)2,<,/*2+totally different nature of ware"

$)5
D .hile "ome trade-mark" tran"cend the ware", "er1ice" and !u"ine""e" with which they were originally a""ociated, 23 1,+2(ss ,2 +:,s /*s( s8))(s+(6 +:*+ +:( 'EU'E CLIC>UOT 7*.; 13856 9( *ss3/,*+(6 90 3.6,2*.0 /32s87(.s 1,+: 7,6-4.,/(6 137(2Ks /53+:,2) D 7e"pondent"N and appellant:" )336s *5s3 73-( ,2 6,<<(.(2+ /:*22(5s 3< +.*6( *26 6,s+.,98+,32 D BF e1en though 8eu1e Clic;uot wa" a 1ery famou" !rand, and Cli;uot admitted to capitali<ing on the name, 8eu1e Clic;uot wa" attached to a 1ery narrow channel of trade that wouldn:t confu"e D .hile it wa" unnece""ary to lead e1idence of actual confu"ion, it i" ne1erthele"" rele1ant to note that no "uch e1idence wa" adduced D The appellantN" e,pert witne"" did little to "ugge"t a likelihood of confu"ionC at mo"t, "he "peculated a!out po""i!ilitie" D BF "ince !oth mark" had coDe,ited in 5ontreal for o1er $) year", you think there would !e "ome e1idence of confu"ion a1aila!le D 6a1ing con"idered all the "urrounding circum"tance" the trial Budge held that ordinary con"umer" would !e unlikely to make any mental link !etween the mark" and the re"pecti1e ware" and "er1ice" of the partie" "aying that in her 1iew S. . . it i" not likely that a con"umer would think the plaintiff wa" affiliated with the defendant" or that the plaintiff had granted a third party a licence to allow it to u"e the di"tincti1e part of it" mark in a""ociation with a womenN" clothing "toreT D The *44(55*2+ +:8s <*,5(6 +3 6,s/:*.)( ,+s 328s 3< 4.3-,2) * 5,;(5,:336 3< /32<8s,32 D 6owe1er, e1en if a mark i" regi"tered, you can make a ".'' depreciation claim D In"erted into %ct to protect again"t two regi"tered mark" where one mark di"credited the other D 6ere, with re"pect to the ". '' depreciation claim, the appellant "ay" that the fame of the 83?83 CLICE?(T mark for upmarket lu,ury good" i" "uch that a""ociating the name CLICE?(T @al!eit mi""pelled a" Cli;uotA with a mid-range womenN" clothing "tore ro!" the appellantN" mark of "ome of it" lu"tre, !lurring it" powerful a""ociation with top ;uality lu,ury good", and there!y dilute" the di"tincti1e ;ualitie" that attract high-end !u"ine"" D If the champagne mark !ecome" a""ociated in the pu!lic mind with a group of mid-price womenN" clothing "hop", the S!rand e;uityT the appellant ha" !een !uilding in +rance "ince the $0th century, and in thi" country "ince the $&th century, would !e de1alued and whittled away D %gain, the onu" of proof to e"ta!li"h the likelihood of "uch depreciation re"ted on the appellant D 2e"pite the undou!ted fame of it" mark, the 5,;(5,:336 3< 6(4.(/,*+,32 1*s <3. +:( *44(55*2+ +3 4.3-(, 23+ <3. +:( .(s4326(2+s +3 6,s4.3-(, 3. <3. +:( /38.+ +3 4.(s87( D ection '' of the TradeDmark" %ct ha" recei1ed "urpri"ingly little Budicial attention in the more than half century "ince it" enactment D It "eem" that where mark" are u"ed in a confu"ing manner the preferred remedy i" under ". ') D 3;ually, where there i" no confu"ion, claimant" may ha1e felt it difficult to e"ta!li"h the likelihood of depreciation of goodwill D 6owe1er, the two "tatutory cau"e" of action are conceptually ;uite different, a" 826(. s. 22 +:( /5*,7*2+ 78s+ (s+*95,s: 4 +:,2)sF aA Us( 3< +:( 45*,2+,<<Bs +.*6(7*.; D Pro1e that regi"tered trade-mark wa" u"ed !y defendant in connection with ware" or "er1ice" !A G3361,55 D Pro1e that it" mark i" "ufficiently well known to ha1e "ignificant goodwill attached to it cA P(./(,-(6 /322(/+,32 90 4895,/ D That it" mark wa" u"ed in a manner likely to ha1e an effect on that goodwill @linkageAC and dA D(4.(/,*+,32 D That the likely effect would !e to depreciate the 1alue of it" goodwill @damageA D 9othing in ". '' re;uire" a demon"tration that u"e of !oth mark" in the "ame geographic area would likely lead to confu"ion D The *44(55*2+ 2((6 3250 s:31 +:*+ +:( .(s4326(2+s :*-( 7*6( 8s( 3< 7*.;s s8<<,/,(2+50 s,7,5*. +3 'EU'E CLIC>UOT +3 (-3;( ,2 * .(5(-*2+ 82,-(.s( 3< /32s87(.s * 7(2+*5 *ss3/,*+,32 3< +:( +13 7*.;s +:*+ ,s 5,;(50 +3 6(4.(/,*+( +:( -*58( 3< +:( )3361,55 *++*/:,2) +3 +:( *44(55*2+Ks 7*.; D .ithout "uch a link, connection or mental a""ociation in the con"umerN" mind !etween the re"pondent"N di"play and the 83?83 CLICE?(T mark, there can !e no depreciation of the latter D 6ere, the trial Budge wa" correct to reBect the ". '' claim, a" the appellant did not e"ta!li"h that the

$)6
re"pondent" had made u"e of mark" "ufficiently "imilar to 83?83 CLICE?(T to e1oke in a rele1ant uni1er"e of con"umer" a mental a""ociation of the two mark" that i" likely to depreciate the 1alue of the goodwill attaching to the appellantN" mark !ecau"eF aA R(s4326(2+s 2(-(. 8s(6 +:( *44(55*2+Ks .(),s+(.(6 +.*6(-7*.; *s s8/: D %lthough the u"e of a mi""pelled Cli;uot would "uffice if the ca"ual o!"er1er would a""ociate the mark u"ed !y the re"pondent" with the mark of the appellant, the trial Budge found that a con"umer who "aw the word Cli;uot u"ed in the re"pondent"N "tore" would not make any link or connection to the appellantN" mark D The appellantN" ". '' claim thu" fail" at the fir"t hurdle !A N3 5,2; *26 +:(.(<3.( 23 ,74*/+ 32 +:( )3361,55 *++*/:(6 +3 'EU'E CLIC>UOT D .hile there i" clearly con"idera!le goodwill attaching to the 83?83 CLICE?(T mark that e,tend" !eyond wine and champagne, if the ca"ual con"umer doe" not a""ociate the mark" di"played in the re"pondent"N "tore with the mark of the 1enera!le champagne maker, there can !e no impact on the goodwill attached to 83?83 CLICE?(T D .hile %:" mark i" famou", !ut a court cannot a""ume the i""ue of linkage or mental a""ociation in %:" fa1our or re1er"e the onu" onto the re"pondent" to di"pro1e "uch linkage D EL,;(5,:336F ,s * 7*++(. 3< (-,6(2/(, 23+ s4(/85*+,32, *26 +:( *44(55*2+Ks (@4(.+ 1,+2(ss 6,6 23+ 4.3-,6( 78/: *ss,s+*2/( 32 +:,s 43,2+ D 2ifferent than ;uoted ca"e"ieF /ar!ie 1. /ar!ie:" Playhou"e @porn internet "iteA D %ccordingly, the appellant failed to e"ta!li"h the third element of the ". '' te"t a" well cA N3 (-,6(2/( 3< E6(4.(/,*+,32F D .hile court didn:t need to go here, they did anyway" and found no depreciation D .hile the partie" agreed to an order under 7ule $5* of the +ederal Court 7ule" relie1ing them of any need to call e1idence a" to damage" flowing from any infringement alleged in thi" ca"e @i.e. the ". ') claimA, the e""ence of lia!ility under ". '' i" preci"ely the likelihood Sof depreciating the 1alue of the goodwill attachingT to the claimantN" trade -mark" D The e,tent of any actual depreciation might !e left to a reference, !ut likelihood of depreciation i" one of the element" of the cau"e of action D The reference wa" de"igned to deal with the "u!"e;uent ;uantification of ". ') lo"" or entitlement, not the nece""ary condition" precedent to ". '' lia!ility 7F D T:( s/34( 3< s.22, 1:,5( -(.0 2*..31, :*s s37( 8s( 1:(.( 8s( 3< *23+:(.Bs .(),s+(.(6 +.*6(7*.; :*s * 5,2; +3 +:( 7*.; *26 6(4.(/,*+(s +:( -*58( 3< +:( )3361,55 *++*/:(6 +3 +:( 7*.; ,2 +:( 7,26s 3< +:( 4895,/ KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 'III. RE$EDIES D The general remedie" pro1i"ion in re"pect of any >act VthatW ha" !een done contrary to thi" %ct i"F 5!.2P31(. 3< /38.+ +3 ).*2+ .(5,(< D >.here a court i" "ati"fied, on application of any intere"ted per"on, that any act ha" !een done contrary to thi" %ct, the court may make any order that it con"ider" appropriate in the circum"tance", including an order pro1iding for relief !y way of inBunction and the reco1ery of damage" or profit" and for the de"truction, e,portation or other di"po"ition of any offending ware", package", la!el" and ad1erti"ing material and of any die" u"ed in connection therewith> KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK IJ. INTERNATIONAL D There i"n:t much law on international a"pect" D 6owe1er, like in copyright and patent", there i" an international agreement which deal" with trademark" and i" reflected in the 'rademar!s -"t D It gi1e" a foreign owner with a trademark regi"tered a!road a pre"umpti1e right to ha1e the trademark regi"tered in Canada D ee "ection $- of the %ct, which act" a" an e,ception to the general regi"tra!ility rule" of ".$'F 14#1% R(),s+.*+,32 3< 7*.;s .(),s+(.(6 *9.3*6

$)#
D >9otwith"tanding "ection $', a tradeDmark that the applicant or the applicantN" predece""or in title ha" cau"ed to !e duly regi"tered in or for the country of origin of the applicant i" regi"tra!le if, in Canada, @aA it i" 23+ /32<8s,2) 1,+: * .(),s+(.(6 +.*6(?7*.;C D ame a" Canada:" regi"tration rule"regi"try take" priority o1er int:l regi"tration @!A it i" 23+ 1,+:38+ 6,s+,2/+,-( /:*.*/+(., ha1ing regard to all the circum"tance" of the ca"e including the length of time during which it ha" !een u"ed in any countryC D N3+(F nothing a!out >primarily merely> a "urname, or >decepti1ely mi"de"cripti1e>, only that it mu"t !e >not without di"tincti1e character> D BF thi" i" the main difference with internationally regi"tered mark" compared to dome"tic mark" under ".$'mu"t pa"" thi" >not without di"tincti1e character> te"t @cA it i" 23+ /32+.*.0 +3 73.*5,+0 3. 4895,/ 3.6(. or of "uch a nature a" to decei1e pu!licC @dA it i" 23+ * +.*6(?7*.; 3< 1:,/: +:( *634+,32 ,s 4.3:,9,+(6 90 s(/+,32 9 3. 10> D The following i" the only ca"e dealing with ".$-@$A@!A of the %ct, which wa" anppeal !y /o"ton Pi<<a International regarding di"mi""al of it" application for e,pungement of the /o"ton Chicken trademark Boston PiBBa ,nternationa ,nc. v. Boston C#icken ,nc. ('((1 9ed. CA) C9asn>t distin"t thru Canada use +F D /o"ton Chicken regi"tered the mark three year" !efore the trial !ut had u"ed it only once in Canada D TQ held that Chicken:" mark wa" not inherently di"tincti1e, "uch that there wa" no likelihoodHpo""i!ility of confu"ion with /o"ton Pi<<a International:" mark D International argued that, e1en though it wa"n:t confu"ing, Chicken:" mark had no di"tincti1e character in Canada, and thu" the TQ wa" !ound to e,punge it" regi"tration D /o"ton Chicken argued that di"tincti1ene"" could !e e"ta!li"hed without u"e in Canada IF D I" /o"ton Chicken:" mark >not without di"tincti1e character> in CanadaG QF D 9o, for /o"ton Pi<<a International...Chicken:" logo and de"ign were e,punged from the regi"ter %F D The /o"ton Chicken mark wa" not inherently di"tincti1e, nor had it ac;uired di"tincti1ene"" in Canada !y 1irtue of u"e on the Canadian market D %l"o, Chicken:" u"e of the mark in Canada wa" "cant D 6owe1er, the court !elow made the nonDdi"tincti1ene"" finding regarding the word" /o"ton Chicken alone, and not regarding Chicken:" logo or de"ign D BF odd deci"ion a" too re"tricti1e a reading of the %ct, a" it "eem" like u"e out"ide Canada could !e u"ed to decide whether the mark had ac;uired di"tincti1ene"" 7F D F3. * <3.(,)2 .(),s+(.(6 7*.; +3 9( A23+ 1,+:38+ 6,s+,2/+,-( /:*.*/+(.A ,2 C*2*6*, * 7*.; 78s+ :*-( */H8,.(6 6,s+,2/+,-(2(ss +:.38): 8s( 32 +:( C*2*6,*2 7*.;(+ KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK SECTION FI'E PATENTS I. INTRODUCTION TO PATENT LAW D The "u!Bect matter of a patent i" an in1ention, and thu" the key to the entire ;ue"tion of patenta!ility i" the concept of >in1ention>, which i" defined in ".'F 2 D(<,2,+,32s D >S,2-(2+,32T mean" *20 2(1 *26 8s(<85 *.+, 4.3/(ss, 7*/:,2(, 7*28<*/+8.( 3. /3743s,+,32 3< 7*++(., 3. *20 2(1 *26 8s(<85 ,74.3-(7(2+ ,2 any art, proce"", machine, manufacture or compo"ition of matter> D Thu" you can patent "omething new and u"eful, or any new and u"eful impro1ement D 6owe1er, the definition of >in1ention> i" ma""i1ely "upplemented !y Buri"prudence D BF re;uirement" for patenta!ility from the ".' defintionF aA N3-(5+0 D 5u"t !e >any newproce"", machine, manufacture, or compo"ition of matter> !A N32?39-,38s2(ss D imilar to no1elty, which i" a!out whether the o!Bect ha" already !een in1ented

$)0
D .hile nonDo!1iou"ne"" deal" with thing" almo"t in1ented, !ut there:" a "tep mi""ing !efore it:" really in1ented cA U+,5,+0 D 8ery argua!le, !ut the in1ention mu"t !e u"eful in "ome way D The >art, proce"", machine, manufacture, or compo"ition of matter> /3-(.s *573s+ *20+:,2) D ieF a new way of u"ing an old "u!"tance i" an >art> or >proce""> and thu" i" an in1ention D %part from li1ing matter @e,ception for uniDcelluar organi"m"A, almo"t any matter can !e patented D The general concept of the patent "y"tem, which e1ol1ed out of 7oyal 5onopolie" in the Tudor %ge, i" that it i" good for the economy and "ociety in general if indi1idual" could get a temporary in1ention o1er thing" they in1ent !ecau"e it would encourage ingenuity D Thu" 4*+(2+s s+34 3+:(.s <.37 .,44,2) 3<< ,2-(2+,32s <3. * 5,7,+(6 +,7( 4(.,36 D horter than copyright" @life of author P5) year"A or trademark" @often perpetualA') year" only D In addition to the "mall time protection, the off"et of the patent proce"" i" /3745(+( 6,s/53s8.( 3< +:( 7*+(.,*5s 3< +:( 4*+(2+ @ieF wouldn:t patent "ecret to making CocaDColaA D Thu" patent law operate" under a 9*.)*,2 +:(3.0F aA P.3+(/+,32 ') year" from the date of in1ention !A D,s/53s8.( $0 month" after application, the information i" relea"ed to the general pu!lic KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

II. PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING A PATENT D ?nlike copyright, which i"n:t geared to regi"tration, and unlike trademark", where there are "ome right" attached to unregi"etered trademark", patent right" are "olely attached to regi"tration D W,+:38+ .(),s+.*+,32, 23 .,):+s *++*/: +3 +:( 4*+(2+ D %dditionally, "imilar to trademark", the regi"tration of a patent doe" not guarantee 1alidity, and can !e attacked !y challenger" where!y they argue the patent didn:t meet the re;uirement" D In patent regi"tration, the ;(0 ,s 6.*<+,2), where technical proce""e" mu"t !e e,pre""ed in reada!le form D Patent gi1e" a monopoly, and the monopoly i" defined !y what i" on the application @ieF the claimA D 9ote that :*-,2) * 4*+(2+ ,s 23 )8*.*2+(( +:*+ ,+ ,s 5()*550 -*5,6 D %ny >intere"ted per"on> may apply to ha1e any or all of the claim" in your patent declared in1alid or 1oid, on the ground that they did not "ati"fy the re;uirement" of the Patent -"t with re"pect toF aA P*+(2+*9,5,+0 3< s89=(/+ 7*++(. !A N3-(5+0 @ieF no!ody ha1ing di"clo"ed it to the pu!lic !efore, ".'0.'@$AA cA O9-,38s2(ss @ieF in1ol1ing no in1enti1e "tep from what wa" already a1aila!le to the pu!licA dA O+:(. ).3826s @".6)@$A D %ll - re;uirement" remain 1ulnera!ilitie" po"tDregi"tration, and infringement ca"e" typically ari"e D 4eneral procedureF aA $*;( *445,/*+,32 D Oey element" of any patent application areF iA S4(/,<,/*+,32con"i"t" ofF aA D,s/53s8.( de"cription of what in1ention i" and how it:" made @".'#@*AA !A C5*,7s legal definition of the in1ention @".'#@-AA D If a party want" to pur"ue an action for infringement, mu"t "how that the infringer 1iolated the patent claim D 2rafter mu"t !e a!le to "how that e1erything in the claim meet" the re;uirement" of a 1alid patent iiA U+,5,+0

$)&
D 5u"t !e a!le to meet any challenge on the ground that the in1ention lack" utility @ieF the machine, compo"ition of matter, proce"", ectmu"t !e "hown to po""e"" characteri"tic" that, at lea"t potentially, are u"efulA iiiA C3s+G9(2(<,+ D 2ecide whether the e1entual !enefit" from a monopoly of the in1ention are worth the e,pen"e of patenting it !A D(/,6( 1:(.( +3 <,5( D In many ca"e", in1entor" elect to file fir"t in the ?nited tate", a" it:" the !igge"t potential market and the ? Patent (ffice i" wellDe;uipped and re"pon"i1e D Pro1ided an application i" filed in Canada within $' month" of the fir"t filing in a foreign country with which Canada ha" a patent treaty @including the ? %A, the applicant can o!tain a >claim date> for the Canadian patent application that i" the date of the fir"t foreign application !eing filed @".'0.$@'AA D Thi" eliminate" the ri"k that "ome!ody el"e will file an application in Canada !etween the time you file in Canada !etween the time you file in the ? and you file in Canada D The date of the ? filing will !e the >claim date> for the application, gi1ing it priority o1er any "u!"e;uent application filed in Canada @unle"", of cour"e, it ha" an earlier >claim date>A cA P.3/(ss 3< (@*7,2*+,32 D Thi" can take year"patent office e,amine" the 1alidity of the patent application D The Patent (ffice re"earche" if the application meet" the re;uirement" of >in1ention>, no1elty @e"peciallyA, nonDo!1iou"ne"", and utility, and failing any of the - part" kill" the application D N3+(F >filing date> i" date of fir"t filing in Canada, while >claim date> i" date of fir"t filing internationally @may or may not !e in CanadaA D ?nder ".$), the application !ecome" pu!lic $0 month" after filing dA &2315(6)( 68.,2) (@*7,2*+,32 D ".'0.'@$A@aAF if the indi1idual filing, or "ome!ody who got knowledge through the filer, ha" di"clo"ed the in1ention to the pu!lic, the indi1idual mu"t file within one year of the date when that happened @rare, "ince you can:t file an incomplete in1ention, "o there:" no protection for di"clo"ing an in1ention almo"t complete and other applying for protection for the complete in1entionA D ".'0.'@$A@!AF they may "ur1ey technical or "cientific literature to "ee if the "u!Bect matter of your patent wa" already a1aila!le to the pu!lic D ".'0.*F decide whether the in1ention a" genuinely the product of an in1enti1e "tep, or if it wa" Bu"t >o!1iou"> eA P*+(2+ ,ss8(6 D If e1erything goe" according to plan, the patent i" granted under ".-' D A$3234350A ,2/586(s +:( A(@/58s,-( .,):+, 4.,-,5()(, *26 5,9(.+0 3< 7*;,2), /32s+.8/+,2), *26 8s,2) +:( ,2-(2+,32 *26 -(26,2) ,+ +3 3+:(.s +3 9( 8s(6A 826(. s.42 D Thu" thi" i" not Bu"t a monopoly to the right to make the thingC it:" al"o the "ole right to u"e D ee =onsanto, where chmei"er wa" found to !e u"ing the gene in the modified canola !y "toring it, thu" 1iolating 5on"anto:" patent e1en though the "eed accidentally flew onto land D The patent holder then ha" a monopoly of the in1ention for ') year" from the date of filing the application under ".-D The monopoly i" enforcea!le again"t any!ody who infringe" your >e,clu"i1e right, pri1ilege and li!erty of making, con"tructing and u"ing the in1ention and 1ending it to other" to !e u"ed> @".-'A D 9ote that patent protection ha" an ,2+(.2*+,32*5 *s4(/+ D The patent mu"t !e >new> glo!ally, not Bu"t in the Canadian market @unlike in trademark"A D 6owe1er, practically "peaking, to protect your patent glo!ally, you "hould get a patent in each of the maBor market" that the patent operate" in D 7egulation of thi" i" conducted !y international treatie", which "tate that getting a patent in one treaty country gi1e" the holder $' month" to apply for a patent in other treaty countrie", and priority of the patent will !e retroacti1e and !ackdated to the filing of the application in the fir"t in"tance D In the %ct, the applicant can o!tain a >claim date> for the Canadian patent application @defined in ".'A and that thi" i" the date of the fir"t foreign application !eing filed @".'0.$@'AA

$$)
D The underlying principle of the regi"tration proce"" i" that 4*+(2+ 4.3+(/+,32 ,s 23+ <,.s+ +3 ,2-(2+, 98+ <,.s+ +3 <,5( D .hile thi" mean" that a patent holder can:t !e undercut !y "u!"e;uent in1entor", it doe" create a race to put in the fir"t patent application D ?nder ".'0@$A@cA, the fir"t application get" priority, e1en if the fir"t application in1ented "econd KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK III. PATENTABILITY D The re;uirement" of a 1alid patent are a" follow"F aA AI2-(2+,32A D The "u!Bect matter of the in1ention mu"t !e capa!le of !eing an in1ention D 3;ui1alent of !eing a >work> in copyright law D (nly the >in1entor> i" allowed to get a patent @".'#@$AA, "o a >di"co1ery> i" not the "ame thing a" an in1ention @ieF di"co1ering medicinal propertie" in plant" in de1eloping countrie"can:t patent !ecau"e it:" "imply "omething that occur" in natureA D The ne,t * re;uirement" are inherent in the concept of >in1ention>, and ha1e their own te"t" !A N3-(5+0 D In other word", it mu"t not !e di"clo"ed anywhere D ee ".'0.' cA N32?39-,38s2(ss D 2i"tinction !etween no1elty and o!1iou"ne"" i" that >no1elty> mean" the in1ention already e,i"t" or i" knownC >o!1iou"ne""> i" that no!ody ha" come up with the in1ention, !ut i" "uch a "imple "tep from what already e,i"t" that no in1enti1e "tep wa" in1ol1ed D ee ".'0.* D >F would a per"on >"killed in the art" or "cience"> !ut without any ingenuity think that the in1ention wa" o!1iou" gi1en the information currently a1aila!le pu!liclyG dA U+,5,+0 D In1ention mu"t !e u"eful for "ome purpo"e D Come" from ".' definition of >in1ention>, which claim" it mu"t !e >new or u"eful> in "ome way D 6owe1er, thi" i" a 1ery !road te"t, "o if an in1ention ha" potential to !e u"eful in further e,perimentation or medical u"e, the mere fact the in1ention ha" potential may !e enough D .hile patent" may !e challenged in future infringement action", whene1er the -*5,6,+0 3< +:( 4*+(2+ ,s *++*/;(6 +:( ,2H8,.0 )3(s 9*/; +3 +:( A<,5,2) 6*+(A 3. +:( A/5*,7 6*+(A D ?nlike trademark law, where di"tincti1ene"" can !e lo"t o1er time if it i" not u"ed in the market D In patent, the monopoly la"t" for ') year" from the date of application and that:" final KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 1% SUBIECT $ATTER OF THE IN'ENTION A% GENERAL CRITERIA D >F what i" patenta!leG .hat ;ualifie" a" an in1ention a" defined in ".' of the actG D AF 1ery !road D %gain, the key to the entire ;ue"tion of patenta!ility i" the concept of >in1ention> in ".' @a new and u"eful art, proce"", machine, manufacture, compo"ition of matter, or impro1ement theretoA, !ut the following ca"e" gi1e a lot of "u!"tance to the definition D %l"o note the "ection on impro1ement"F !2 I74.3-(7(2+s D >%ny per"on who ha" in1ented any impro1ement on any patented in1ention may o!tain a patent for the impro1ement, !ut he doe" not there!y o!tain the right of making, 1ending or u"ing the original in1ention, nor doe" the patent for the original in1ention confer the right of making, 1ending or u"ing the patented impro1ement>

$$$
D Thi" allow" for patenting !etter, more efficient way" of proce""e" D 6owe1er, if the product it"elf i" "u!Bect of a patent, it can:t !e reproduced !y any mean" D N3+(F order of ca"e" in patent "ection of the cour"e i" in the order of importance D The ne,t ca"e demon"trate" that the concept of >in1ention> i" 1ery !road, including @to u"e the language of ".'A an >art> or >proce""> a" well a" actual machine" or compo"ition" of matter D Therefore, in Shell 8il, e1en though the acti1e ingredient in each compo"ition claimed wa" either not patenta!le @!ecau"e it wa" too oldA or no patent wa" "ought for it, and e1en though the compo"ition a" "uch wa" o!1iou", there wa" no1elty in the u"e to which the compo"ition, according to the patent claim", wa" to !e put D Therefore, the in1ention wa" the u"e @1ery !road interpretation of ".'A S#e 7i Co. v. Canada (Co**issioner of Patents) (194' SCC)CPatent for ne use of old "ompounds +F D hell (il applied for a patent on certain chemical compo"ition" compri"ing chemical compound" mi,ed with an adBu1ant @they wanted to patent the proce"", not the compound or compo"ition it"elfA D The Sin1entionT wa" the di"co1ery of the u"efulne"" of the compound", old and new, a" plant growth regulator" and thi" i" what it want" to protect !y a patent on it" chemical compo"ition" D ?"e of the"e compo"ition" in regulating plant growth produced "omething new when properly diluted, thu" pro1iding >a 1alua!le mean" of increa"ing crop producti1ity while at the "ame time reducing the la!our and e,pen"e nece""ary to produce the crop> D BF >compound"> and >compo"ition"> are differentC here, hell didn:t apply for protection of the compound", !ut rather the compo"ition"Hmi,ture of the compound" with an adBu1antHdiluter D The 3,aminer reBected appellantN" application and the Commi""ioner of Patent" and the +ederal Court of %ppeal upheld hi" deci"ion D 7eBected on the !a"i" of :arb er!e +oe"hst, which held that there wa" no in1enti1e ingenuity in1ol1ed in the mi,ture of a pharmaceutical compound with an adBu1antHcarrier D ince e1ery!ody in "cience knew you could mi, chemical compound" with an adBu1ant, there wa" no in1ention in1ol1ed in the new compo"ition IF D I" a new u"e for an old compound patenta!leG I" thi" new u"e part of the in1entionG Can hell (il opt for a patent on the compo"ition" in"tead of on the new compound"G 2oe" a claim on the compo"ition" 1iolate ". *6 of the Patent -ctG QF D 9o, for hell (il, patent granteda new u"e i" patenta!le, "o u"e of the"e compound" properly diluted for the purpo"e of regulating plant growth granted a monopoly for ') year" %F D hell:" idea of *4450,2) 356 /3743826s +3 * 2(1 8s(L32( /*4*95( 3< 4.*/+,/*5 *445,/*+,32 *26 3< 826,s48+(6 /377(./,*5 -*58(L1*s *2 ,2-(2+,32 1,+:,2 +:( 7(*2,2) 3< s. 2 3< +:( Patent Act D The old :arb er!e ca"e" where you cannot claim a patent on compo"ition" containing compound" which are them"el1e" the "u!Bect of a claim or in re"pect of which a patent ha" already i""ued were different D 9othing in the %ct, including ". *6, precluded a claim for the"e compo"ition" which are the practical em!odiment of the new knowledge D %ny /5*,7 <3. +:( /3743s,+,32s /32+*,2,2) 2(1 /3743826s 1*s *5s3 4*+(2+*95( D The patenting of the compound" only would not gi1e appellant protection for it" idea of u"ing compound" ha1ing a particular chemical "tructure a" plant growth regulator" D The mi,ture of the compound" with the appropriate adBu1ant" wa" nece""ary in order to em!ody the idea in practical form D Therefore, there wa" an in1enti1e "tep in1ol1ed in mi,ing the compound" with the appropriate carrier" for their application to plant" D CC left it open a" to whether hell could ha1e patented !oth the product and the compo"ition that u"e" the product D +urther, the"e compo"ition claim" were not "u!Bect to the re"triction" of ". -$ @product" intended for food or medicineA and no "eparate claim wa" !eing made for the compound" D ee 'ennessee 1astman for more on ".-$ @which ha" now !een repealedA 7F D A 2(1 8s( <3. *2 82;2312 48.43s( ,s 4*+(2+*95( <3. +:( 48.43s( 3250, (-(2 ,< +:( 8s( ,2-35-(s +:( 7,@+8.( 3< 356 /3743826s +:*+ 1(.( +:(7s(5-(s +:( s89=(/+ 3< 4*+(2+s *5.(*60 ,ss8(6

$$'

D N3+(F Shell 8il wa" applied in Calgon Corp. v. North Bay $2000 :ed. C-& D I""ue wa" the 1alidity of Calgon:" patent on u"ing low le1el ultra1iolet light irradiation of water to pre1ent the replication of crypto"poridium oocy"t" D 9orth /ay, which wa" u"ing lowDle1el ?8 to treat it" drinking water, "aid the patent wa" in1alid !ecau"e the >in1ention> wa" only a di"co1ery D ?8 irradiation at low le1el" wa" already a known mean" to kill !acteria and 1iru"e" in water, "o u"ing ?8 irradiation at low le1el" to treat water "upplie" wa" ;uite common D Calgon had "imply di"co1ered that lowDle1el irradiation had an added !enefit in that it pre1ented crypto"poridium from flouri"hing D +ed C% upheld the patent, where the Court held that e,i"ting u"e that had an added !enefit D BF e,treme e,ample of the Shell 8il principle, where a new u"e for an old u"e i" patenta!le howe1er, it i" !i<arre !ecau"e not e1en the u"e wa" new, Bu"t the newly di"co1ered ad1antage of the u"e D BF odd re"ult, a" now water purification plant" currently u"ing lowDle1el ?8 to treat drinking water may now !e infringing Calgon:" patent D N3+(F careful !etween claim" for new product" and new proce""e" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK B% $ERE SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE OR ABSTRACT THEORE$ D 9ote the prohi!ition on granting a patent for any >mere "cientific principle or a!"tract theorem>F 2"#8% W:*+ 7*0 23+ 9( 4*+(2+(6 D >9o patent "hall !e granted for any mere "cientific principle or a!"tract theorem> D ection '#@0A come" into play in two way"F aA I6(*s +:*+ :*-( 2(-(. 9((2 48+ ,2+3 (<<(/+ D %l"o applie" to idea" that are too a!"tract and unrelated to any "pecific application D Thu" 3in"tein could not ha1e patented hi" theory of relati1ity !A S35(50 ,2+(55(/+8*5 34(.*+,32*5 4.3).*7s D 7ule only applie" to "y"tem" or program" that may !e entirely practical !ut in1ol1e nothing !ut a "erie" of intellectual operation" or computation", whether performed !y a human mind or a de1ice like a computer D 9e,t three "ection" all touch on thi" dichotomy !etween idea" and in1ention" D ection '#@0A e,pre""e" fundamental idea that the 5*1 3< 4*+(2+s 63(s 23+ 4.3+(/+ /.(*+,-( ,6(*s *s s8/: D It protect" only the em!odiment of tho"e idea" in "ome form of manufacture, compo"ition of matter, proce"", ectin an in1ention D BF can:t patent a "cientific theory, !ut rather only a particular application of a "cientific theory D Thi" reflect" a di"tinction analogou" to the one in copyright law !etween >idea> and >e,pre""ion> KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK C% PROFESSIONAL S&ILLS OR $ETHODSM SCHE$ES OR PLANS D The ne,t ca"e demon"trate" that mere profe""ional "kill", or way" of doing thing" that ha1e no phy"ical element, are not in1ention" no matter how ingeniou" Lawson v. Co**issioner of Patents (193( ./. Ct. of Can.)CProfessional s!ills or methods not patentable +F D % !uilding lot wa" in the "hape of a champagne gla"", and Law"on @arguing to ha1e hi" patent appro1edA argued that thi" de"ign changed the character of the land and therefore "hould !e patented D 6owe1er, the Patent commi""ioner ad1i"ed thatF aA The mean" of "u!di1i"ion de"ign of the lot wa"n:t patenta!le !A The "u!di1i"ion de"ign wa" merely a plan for laying out land and lacked in1enti1e ingenuity cA To !e patenta!le, the de"ign mu"t !e more than a "cheme or plan

$$*
D Law"on argued that the de"ign !ecome" a commercial unit with additional utility after it get" di1ided D ieF much more choice in !uilding layout" for hou"e", ect D 6owe1er, the Commi""ioner "till "aid there wa"F aA Lack of "u!Bect matter mu"t !e effect or tran"formation re"ulting in "omething taking on a different "tate !A Lack of uno!1iou"ne"" impo""i!le to "ay !ecau"e there wa" no phy"ical em!odiment of idea cA Lack of no1elty doe" not in1ol1e new idea or "olution to a pro!lem or need IF D .a" the commi""ioner correctG QF D Je", for the Commi""ionerpatent 3PIC +%IL %F D Court con"idered the claimed ad1antage" a" follow"F aA %llow greater den"ity of hou"e" dou!tful !A %llow "taggered !uilding" not new cA 4reater choice of !uilding plan" "ome merit dA 4reater freedom of orientation to enBoy the "ite "ome merit eA 7educe co"t of in"talling "er1ice" dou!tful D .hether there wa" a lack of "u!BectDmatter depended upon the proper interpretation to !e gi1en to the word" SartT and SmanufactureT a" they appear in ection '@dA of the Patent -"t D 9ot all u"eful art" and manufacturer" are included in ".'@dA D In1ention i" an e""ential attri!ute of patenta!ility, ".'@dA mu"t !e read accordingly D S%n art or operation i" an act or "erie" of act" performed !y "ome phy"ical agent upon "ome phy"ical o!Bect and producing in "uch o!Bect "ome change either of character or of condition. It i" a!"tract in that, it i" capa!le of contemplation of the mind. It i" concrete in that it con"i"t" in the application of phy"ical agent" to phy"ical o!Bect" and i" then apparent to the "en"e" in connection with "ome tangi!le o!Bect or in"trumentT D SIt i" now accepted that if the in1ention i" the mean" and not the end, the in1entor i" entitled to a patent on the mean"T D 6owe1er, here, the 7(+:36 3< 6,-,s,32 * 7*28<*/+8.( 1*s *5s3 23+ 4*+(2+*95( 9(/*8s( +:(.( 1*s 23 /:*2)( ,2 +:( /:*.*/+(. 3. /326,+,32 3< 7*+(.,*5 39=(/+s D The "kill of the real e"tate "u!di1ider analogou" to a lawyer in1enting a new method of cro""D e,aminationit:" mere profe""ional "kill or method D Land i"n:t change in any way, "o can:t patent a" an in1ention "imply the way line" are drawn on a "u!di1i"ion planthi" i" Bu"t an a!"tract principle D Therefore, you /*2 )(+ * 73234350 32 * 1*0 3< 34(.*+,2) 32 s37(+:,2) 4:0s,/*5 @"ee Shell 8il, where outcome i" "ome phy"ical alterationA !ut /*2B+ )(+ * 73234350 32 * 1*0 3< 34(.*+,2) +:*+ :*s 23 4:0s,/*5 (7936,7(2+ @a" here in #a sonA D BF can:t "ay "omething i" no1el or nonDo!1iou" if there:" no phy"ical re"ult, a" well a" policy idea" of allowing 1alua!le idea" a!out doing "omething !eing monopoli<ed D N3+(F (1erlap of the Copyright -"t, the /ndustrial *esign -"t, and the Patent -"t i" po""i!le D The de"ign may !e co1ered under copyright, !ut i"n:t not patenta!le "u!Bect matter D 6ere, mere "cheme" or plan" were not patenta!le "u!Bect matter 7F D P.3<(ss,32*5 s;,55s *.( 23+ +:( s89=(/+ 7*++(. 3< * 4*+(2+, *26 s,2/( +:( 6,-,s,32 3< 5*26 ,s * s8.-(03. 3. s35,/,+3. s;,55, +:( 7(+:36 3< s896,-,6,2) ,s 23+ *2 *.+ *26 23+ * 4*+(2+*95( 4.3/(ss KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK D% $EDICAL TREAT$ENT D 9ote the Patent -"t defintionF "9#2% I2-(2+,32 4(.+*,2,2) +3 * 7(6,/,2( D >+or the purpo"e" of "u!"ection @$A and "ection" 0) to $)$, an in1ention pertain" to a medicine if the in1ention i" intended or capa!le of !eing u"ed for medicine or for the preparation or production of medicine> D The ne,t ca"e deal" with the former ".-$ of the Patent -"t, which "tated that a party could not patent a "u!"tance intended to !e a food or medicine, !ut in"tead only patent the proce"" for manufacture of the food of medicine @it wa" repealed in $&&'A

$$-

Tennessee .ast*an Co. v. Co**issioner of Patents (193' SCC)CBan on patent of medi"al treatment +F D Commi""ioner of Patent" refu"ed to grant a patent to Tenne""ee for a "urgical method for Boining or !onding "urface" of inci"ion"Hwound" in li1ing animal ti""ue !y applying certain compound" D The di"co1ery that the"e compound" had an une,pected property of !onding human ti""ue wa" new, u"eful and uno!1iou", !ut the compound" it"elf were old, well known, and u"ed for other application" D The Commi""ioner decided that the method did not con"titute patenta!le "u!Bect matter under ". '@dA of the Patent -"t in that it i" neither an art, or a proce"" within the meaning of the "ection D The deci"ion of the Commi""ioner wa" affirmed !y the 3,che;uer Court IF D Can a new u"e for "urgical purpo"e" of a known "u!"tance !e claimed a" an in1ention and patenta!leG QF D 9o, appeal di"mi""ed".-$ of the Patent -"t go1ern" the application %F D The "cope of the word Sproce""T in ". '@dA i" "omewhat circum"cri!ed !y the pro1i"ion of ". '0@*A e,cluding a Smere "cientific principle or a!"tract theorem.T D The claim" are limited to a method @ieF the proce""A, which in thi" ca"e i" nothing el"e than a new u"e for a known "u!"tance D .hile applicant" claim not that they in1ented the glue, !ut that they in1ented the glue for "urgical u"e, the court reBect" the argument D ection -$ of the %ct wa" enacted for the purpo"e of re"tricting the "cope of patent" Srelating to "u!"tance" prepared or produced !y chemical proce""e" and intended for food or medicineT D Thi" nece""arily implie" that, with re"pect to "uch "u!"tance", the therapeutic u"e cannot !e claimed !y a proce"" claim apart from the "u!"tance it"elf D Thu" * 4*.+0 /*2B+ 904*ss +:( 4.3:,9,+,32 3< 4*+(2+,2) +:( s89s+*2/( 90 4*+(2+,2) +:( 8s( 3< +:( s89s+*2/(, s3 +:( /5*,7 78s+ <*,5 D The only way you can patent a medical "u!"tance thingy i" to patent the proce"" for producing it D .hile a party can patent proce""e" for, "ay, tenderi"ing meat or applying her!icide, can:t patent for medical procedure" !ecau"e of ".-$ D BF if allowed to patent the medical u"e of the "u!"tance, you indirectly patent the medical "u!"tance which i" not patenta!le under ".-$can:t allow 7F D W:,5( s.41 ,s 231 .(4(*5(6 #038 /*2 231 4*+(2+ 6.8)s%, 4*.+,(s s+,55 /*223+ 4*+(2+ * 7(+:36 3< 7(6,/*5 +.(*+7(2+ *s 6,s+,2/+ <.37 +:( s89s+*2/( 1,+: 1:,/: 038 4(.<3.7 +:( 7(6,/*5 +.(*+7(2+ <3. +:( s*7( 435,/0 .(*s32s .()*.6,2) *-*,5*9,5,+0 3< 7(6,/*5 +.(*+7(2+s <3. (-(.09360 D N3+(F while ".-$ ha" !een repealed, and the rea"oning in 'ennessee 1astman i" no longer applica!le, the ca"e "till "tand" for the propo"ition that method" of medical treatment are nonDpatenta!le D 6owe1er, recent ca"e law "ince the $&&' repeal on the "tatu" of the !an on patenting method" of medical treatment indicate that the i""ue may !e open to ;ue"tion @ieF ca"e law from %u"traliaA D 2i"pute" o1er the patenta!ility of medical treatment method" reflect the general ten"ion that run" throughout patent law !etweenF aA P.3?4*+(2+ will encourage re"earch, de1elopment, and ingenuity !A A2+,?4*+(2+ will dri1e up co"t" of future progre"" !y monopoli<ing good idea" for ') year" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK E% INFOR$ATION TECHNOLOGY D >F can a party patent "oftwareG D The following ca"e hold" that a computer program can:t !e an in1ention !ecau"e it i" "imply a "et of algorithm" @"erie" of "imple "tep" followed to perform a ta"kA that i" a fa"ter !ut identical intellectual proce"" a" that performed !y human" Sc# u*<er2er Canada Ltd. v. Co**issioner of Patents (1941 9ed. CA)CSoft are not patentable +F D % geologi"t applied for a patent !ecau"e he de1i"ed a method where!y mea"urement" of "oil characteri"tic" from !orehole" are recorded on magnetic tape", tran"mitted to a computer programmed according to the mathematical formulae "et out in the "pecification", and con1erted into chart", graph"

$$5
or ta!le" in reada!le form D ieF o!tained data wa" proce""ed !y a computer and di"played in graphical, humanDreada!le form D P claimed that the u"efulne"" of the in1ention i" not the computer program, !ut the comple, proce"" of tran"forming the data, which i" affected !y the computer D ieF ea"ier and more efficient to find oil and ga", therefore co"tD"a1ing" and u"eful IF D I" a proce"" of a computer tran"ferring "cientific data into graphical, reada!le form an in1ention forming patenta!le "u!Bect matterG QF D 9o, patent denied...P wa" claiming a monopoly on a computer program which i" not an in1ention %F D In1ention a" defined !y the Patent -"t doe" not e,clude computer program", !ut u"ing computer program" to manipulate data i" not new D If the calculation" were performed not !y computer", !ut !y men, then the "u!Bect matter would !e mathematical formulae which are not patenta!le D E-(2 +:38): +:( 7(+:36 3< /*5/85*+,32 90 * :87*2 #*2 *9s+.*/+ +:(3.(7% 13856 +*;( 150 0(*.s, +:( <*/+ +:*+ * /3748+(. /*2 63 ,+ <*s+(. ,s +:( s*7( +:,2) D It i" s+,55 *2 ,6(* +:*+ ,s 23+ 4*+(2+*95(, *26 23+ 826(. s.2 3< +:( A/+ D Therefore, the fact that you will u"e a computer to apply a formulae, doe" not make an otherwi"e unDpatenta!le formulae patenta!le D 6ere, a two part te"t wa" appliedF aA D(+(.7,2( 1:*+ :*s 9((2 6,s/3-(.(6 !A A4450 4*+(2+ /.,+(.,* D %fter characteri"ing the alleged in1ention, con"ider whether the new di"co1ery wa" merely an operation or proce"" which could !e performed mentally D 6owe1er, if in creating the u"eful end re"ult, one doe" more than merely determine information from calculation", then may !e patenta!le D 6ere, chlum!erger conte"t" that calculation" are not mental operation" !ut purely mechanical one" that con"titute the 1ariou" "tep" in the proce"" di"clo"ed !y the in1ention D If thi" wa" correct, it would follow that the mere fact that the u"e of computer" i" pre"cri!ed to perform the calculation" pre"cri!ed in the "pecification", would ha1e the effect of tran"forming into patenta!le "u!BectDmatter what would, otherwi"e, !e clearly not patenta!le 7F D T:( <*/+ +:*+ * /3748+(. ,s 3. s:3856 9( 8s(6 +3 ,745(7(2+ * 6,s/3-(.0 63(s 23+ /:*2)( +:( 2*+8.( 3< +:( 6,s/3-(.0 *26 63(s 23+ 7*;( *2 3+:(.1,s( 824*+(2+*95( <3.785*( 4*+(2+*95( D 6owe1er, the ne,t ca"e demon"trate" an e,ception to the general rule if that "oftware i" not patenta!le D If the "oftware i" connected with a no1el mean" of u"ing hardware, then it can ;ualify a" an in1etion +e A&& ication for Patent of ,nternationa Business =ac#ines Cor&. (194) PAB : Co**>r) C+ard are +F D u!BectDmatter of thi" application relate" to the "torage, inde,ing and retrie1al of te,t data for te,t proce""ing machine" "uch a" printer" D I/5 wanted a method for "toring memory on a hard dri1e D Initial re"pon"e !y Patent Commi""ioner wa" thi" wa" "imply a computer program and not patenta!le D I/5 claim" that their method call" for the phy"ical placement of information in a "pecific manner and "o achie1e" a phy"ical impro1ement with re"pect to the "ecurity of data and the "peed of acce"" IF D .a" the di"clo"ed method more than "imply calculation" or a mere "cientific principle or a!"tract theorem and therefore patenta!leG QF D Je", patent granted %F D Patent /oard i" "ati"fied that the di"clo"ed method i" directed to more than the 1ariou" calculation" to !e made and more than a mere "cientific or a!"tract theorem D It wa"n:t Bu"t the program it"elfC it wa" the phy"ical operation" a""ociated with the program that were patenta!le D 6ere, I/5 wa" 4*+(2+,2) +:( s+3.*)( 6(-,/(M 4*+(2+,2) +:( 2(1 1*0 3< .(),s+(.,2)Gs+3.,2) 6*+* 32 +:( s+3.*)( 6(-,/(, 1:,/: )*-( ,+ (238): 4:0s,/*5 (7936,7(2+ +3 9( D /oard i" al"o of the opinion that the di"clo"ure of the application complie" with the re;uirement" of ".' of the Patent -"t and therefore they do not "upport the reBection of the claim" for !eing directed to nonD"tatutory "u!Bect matter 7F D W:,5( 4*.+,(s 7*0 4*+(2+ :*.61*.( 3. 7(+:36s 3< 8s,2) :*.61*.(, s8/: *s 2(1 1*0s 3< s+3.,2)

$$6
6*+* 32 * s+3.*)( 6(-,/( +:*+ *5+(.s +:( 1*0 +:( /3748+(. 4.3).*7 <82/+,32s, /3748+(. s3<+1*.( +:*+ s,7450 8s(s +:( :*.61*.( +3 7*;( /*5/85*+,32s *.( 23+ 4*+(2+*95( D N3+(F In the ? %, you can patent a new way of u"ing algorithm" on a particular piece of hardware D ieF u"ing program :,: on hardware :y: !ecau"e it doe"n:t monopoli<e program :,: entirely D 6owe1er, in Canada, the u"e of an algorithm i" not patenta!le unle"" there i" "ome effect !y program :,: on the way that hardware :y: function" D BF thi" i" oddmay !e changed in the future, !ut no recent ca"e law on thi"mainly companie" u"e copyright protection rather than patent law to protect their computer program" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK F% LI'ING $ATTER D /efore +arvard College, the CC made a deci"ion in Pioneer +i<Bred where a company wanted to patent a hy!rid plant that produced a particular "oy!ean D The company produced the "oy!ean not !y genetic manipulation !ut !y cro""D!reeding plant" in a way that wa" not po""i!le in nature D CC held that the cro""!red "oy!ean 1ariety did not meet the di"clo"ure re;uirement" of the Patent -"t, a" there wa" no guarantee the proce"" would produce the plant @trial and error neededA D hortly after thi" deci"ion, Parliament pa""ed the Plant Breeders> .ights -"t, which gi1e" plant" "pecifically tailored and le"" onerou" re;uirement" in return for a narrower monopoly right than i" a1aila!le under the Patent -"t D Pioneer +i<Bred demon"trate" the difficulty in trying to patent li1ing matter, a" it:" difficult to define the in1ention in a way that any!ody following the in1ention could reproduce it @it:" >li1ing> matterA D .hile in Pioneer the CC dodged the i""ue of patenting li1ing matter !y focu"ing on the di"clo"ure i""ue @BF a >chicken> deci"ionA, the following ca"e tackled the i""ue headDon %arvard Co e2e v. Canada (Co**issioner of Patents) (6%arvard =ouse Case6) ('((' SCC)C#ongH +F D 6ar1ard re"earcher" de1eloped a proce"" !y which it could !reed genetically altered mice that would po""e"" a cancerDpromoting gene D In the proce"", the cancer promoting gene @>oncogene>A i" inBected into fertili<ed mou"e egg" a" clo"e a" po""i!le to the oneDcell "tage D .hen the mou"e grow" up, it ha" kid" with the "ame gene that are u"ed for re"earch D The "chool then applied for a patent for the genetically altered mice they called the >oncomou"e> a" well a" a patent for the proce"" !y which they created the oncomice @ieF the founder mice and the off"pring who"e cell" are affected !y the oncogeneA D The Commi""ioner of Patent" reBected their application to patent the mice on ground" that higher life form" were not in1ention" under "ection ' of the Canadian Patent -"t D In ".' of the Patent -"t, an >in1ention> i" defined a" >any new and u"eful impro1ement, in an art, proce"", machine, manufacture or compo"ition of matter> D 6owe1er, they allowed the proce"" claim", a" it:" a way of doing "omething that will produce the "ame re"ult e1ery time D +ederal Court agreedC +ederal Court of %ppeal re1er"ed, holding that the %ct allow" for patenting a >compo"ition of matter> and that thi" include" li1ing thing" "ince Parliament didn:t e,clude it IF D I" the oncomou"e, a genetically modified rodent with heightened genetic "u"cepti!ility to cancer, an >in1ention> under ".'G %re the word" >manufacture> and >compo"ition of matter>, in the conte,t of the Patent -"t, "ufficiently !road to include higher life form" and the proce"" leading up to themG QF D 9o, for Canada in a 5D- Budgment @with "trong di""ent from /innie Q.A %F D There are two Budgment"F aA B*s+*.*/:( I. $*=3.,+0 H,):(. 5,<( <3.7s 23+ 4*+(2+*95( 826(. 7(*2,2) 3< A,2-(2+,32A D BF 1ery delicate Budgment !y maBority !a"ed on "tatutory interpretation, !ut undertone" are completely !a"ed on morality on whether it:" >right> to patent li1ing thing", including human" D ince the "ole ;ue"tion in thi" appeal i" whether the word" >manufacture> and >compo"ition of matter>, within the conte,t of the Patent -"t, are "ufficiently !road to include higher life

$$#
form", it i" irrele1ant whether thi" Court !elie1e" that higher life form" "uch a" the oncomou"e ought to !e patenta!le D /a"tararche !a"e" conclu"ion on "tatutory interpretation, a" the word" of the Patent -"t >are to !e read in their entire conte,t and in their grammatical and ordinary "en"e harmoniou"ly with the "cheme of the %ct, the o!Bect of the %ct, and the intention of Parliament> D Parliament did not define >in1ention> a" >anything new and u"eful made !y man> D The /:3,/( 3< *2 (@:*8s+,-( 6(<,2,+,32 s,)2*5s * /5(*. ,2+(2+,32 +3 (@/586( /(.+*,2 s89=(/+ 7*++(. *s 9(,2) 38+s,6( +:( /32<,2(s 3< +:( A/+ D 6ere, >7*28<*/+8.(> denote" a nonDli1ing mechani"tic product or indu"trial proce"", not a higher life form, "o doe"n:t fit here D %l"o, >/3743s,+,32 3< 7*++(.> doe" not include a higher life form "uch a" the oncomou"e !ecau"e when read along with other word", it implie" "omething nonDli1ing D It may relate to chemical compo"ition", !ut a "elfDreproducing !eing that tran"cend" the compo"ition of matter it hold" can:t !e patenta!le D Therefore, Bu"t a" >machine> and >manufacture> do not imply a li1ing creature, the word" >compo"ition of matter> are !e"t read a" not including higher life form" D .hile a fertili<ed egg inBected with an oncogene may !e a mi,ture of 1ariou" ingredient", the !ody of a mou"e doe" not con"i"t of ingredient" or "u!"tance" that ha1e !een com!ined or mi,ed together !y a per"on D 5oreo1er, >matter> capture" only one a"pect of a higher life form, generally regarded a" po""e""ing ;ualitie" and characteri"tic" that tran"cend the particular genetic material of which it i" compo"ed D Therefore, thi" argument would "ay that the initially inBected egg i" an in1ention, !ut then change" and i" no longer an in1ention D 6igher life form" /*223+ 9( /32/(4+8*5,D(6 *s 7(.( A/3743s,+,32s 3< 7*++(.A 1,+:,2 +:( /32+(@+ 3. s/:(7( 3< +:( Patent Act D ince patenting higher life form" would in1ol1e a radical departure from the traditional patent regime, and "ince the patenta!ility of "uch life form" i" a highly contentiou" matter that rai"e" a num!er of e,tremely comple, i""ue", /5(*. *26 82(H8,-3/*5 5(),s5*+,32 ,s .(H8,.(6 <3. :,):(. 5,<( <3.7s +3 9( 4*+(2+*95( D The fact that reproduction doe"n:t guarantee e,actly the "ame mou"e i" trou!ling D %l"o concerned with infringement, a" indi1idual" would infringe when mice ha1e "e, D Patenting of higher life form" rai"e" uni;ue concern" not addre""ed !y the "cheme of the %ctindication that Parliament ne1er intended the definition of >in1ention> to e,tend to thi" type of "u!Bect matter D 7e;uire Parliament to engage in pu!lic de!ate, a !alancing of competing "ocial intere"t", and intricate legi"lati1e drafting D BF 5aBority !elie1e" it:" clear that Parliament didn:t ha1e li1ing thing" in mind during drafting, and reading it in would !e >legi"lating from the !ench> when it:" addre""ing i""ue" that Parliament would rather de!ate D %lthough the Patent -"t i" de"igned to ad1ance re"earch and de1elopment and encourage !roader economic acti1ity, a product of human ingenuity mu"t fall within the term" of the %ct in order for it to !e patenta!le D u!"e;uent legi"lation, Plant Breeders> .ights -"t i" of "ignificance to the interpretation of the Patent -"t and the i""ue of it" applica!ility to higher life form" D In re"pon"e to Pioneer +i<Bred, Parliament pa""e" "pecial legi"lation that gi1e" "pecial con"ideration to plant" in e,change for le"" protection than under the Patent -"t D In maBority:" 1iew, thi" i" recognition of Parliament 1iewing pro!lem" with patenting plant", and it knew of the pro!lem" of patenting animal" at the "ame time D Therefore, if a "pecial legi"lati1e "cheme wa" needed to protect plant 1arietie", a "u!"et of higher life form", a "imilar "cheme may al"o !e nece""ary to deal with the patenting of higher life form" in general @"uch a" geneticallyDmodified mice hereA D The di"tinction !etween lower and higher life form", though not e,plicit in the Patent -"t, i" nonethele"" defen"i!le on the !a"i" of the common "en"e difference" !etween the two D ieF lower life unicellular organi"m" R yea"t @chemical" that are li1ingA D It i" 231 *//(4+(6 ,2 C*2*6* +:*+ 531(. 5,<( <3.7s *.( 4*+(2+*95( 98+ +:,s 63(s 23+

$$0
2(/(ss*.,50 5(*6 +3 +:( /32/58s,32 +:*+ :,):(. 5,<( <3.7s *.( 4*+(2+*95( D It i" ea"ier to conceptuali<e a lower life form a" a >compo"ition of matter> or >manufacture> than it i" to conceptuali<e a higher life form in the"e term" D BF 5aBority can:t draw a logical di"tinction !etween patenting a mou"e and not patenting human cell", which would open up a whole ho"t of moral i""ue" that Parliament "hould addre"" D Patenta!le microDorgani"m" are formed in "uch large num!er" that any mea"ura!le ;uantity will po""e"" uniform propertie" and characteri"tic" D The "ame can:t !e "aid for plant" and animal, which can:t !e perfectly reproducea!le D Therefore, it i" far ea"ier to analogi<e a microDorgani"m to a chemical compound or another inanimate o!Bect than it i" to analogi<e an animal to an inanimate o!Bect !A D,ss(2+ B,22,( I. C*2B+ .(*6 ,2 5,7,+*+,32s ,2+3 6(<,2,+,32 3< *2 A,2-(2+,32A ,2 +:( A/+ D Oey ;ue"tion i" whether it i" an in1ention under the act thi" "houldn:t !e a policy de!ate D The e,traordinary "cientific achie1ement of altering e1ery "ingle cell in the !ody of an animal which doe" not in thi" altered form e,i"t in nature, !y human modification of the genetic material of which it i" compo"ed, i" an in1enti1e >compo"ition of matter> within ". ' D The fertili<ed, genetically altered oncomou"e egg i" an in1ention under the Patent -"t, and there i" no !a"i" in the "tatutory te,t to conclude that the re"ulting oncomou"e, that grow" from the patented egg, i" not it"elf patenta!le !ecau"e it i" not an in1ention D The conte,t and "cheme of the Patent -"t reinforce the e,pan"i1e "en"e of the word" >compo"ition of matter> to render the oncomou"e patenta!le D .hile Parliament did not contemplate the oncomou"e in $06& when it enacted the definition of >in1ention>, it did not contemplate moon rocket", anti!iotic", telephone", eD mail or handDheld computer" either D BF %ct "ay" you can patent !a"ically anything, maBority read" in re"triction" that aren:t there, and a higherHlower life form di"tinction doe"n:t make any "en"e D The intent that can properly !e attri!uted to Parliament, !a"ed on the language it u"ed and the conte,t of patent legi"lation generally, i" that it /32s,6(.(6 ,+ +3 9( ,2 +:( 4895,/ ,2+(.(s+ +3 (2/38.*)( 2(1 *26 8s(<85 ,2-(2+,32s 1,+:38+ ;231,2) 1:*+ s8/: ,2-(2+,32s 13856 +8.2 38+ +3 9( *26 +3 +:*+ (26 ,2-(2+3.s 1:3 6,s/53s(6 +:(,. 13.; s:3856 9( .(1*.6(6 <3. +:(,. ,2)(28,+0 D The oncomou"e i" al"o patented in Buri"diction" that co1er ? % %u"tria, /elgium, 2enmark, +inland, +rance, 4ermany, 4reece, Ireland, Italy, Lu,em!ourg, The 9etherland", Portugal, pain, weden and the ?nited Oingdom D Therefore, the Commi""ioner:" approach to thi" ca"e "ound" a highly di"cordant note D The ma""i1e pri1ate "ector in1e"tment in !iotechnological re"earch i" e,actly the "ort of re"earch and inno1ation that the Patent -"t wa" intended to promote D 6ealthcare i" the maBor !eneficiary of !iotechnology D %t the "ame time, 1a"t amount" of money mu"t !e found to finance !iomedical re"earch D The Patent -"t em!odie" the pu!lic policy that tho"e who directly !enefit from an in1ention "hould !e a"ked, through the patent "y"tem, to pay for it, at lea"t in part D .hile a" a matter of law there can !e no patent on a human !eing, the Patent Act 63(s 23+ 6,s+,2)8,s:, ,2 ,+s 6(<,2,+,32 3< A,2-(2+,32A, 9(+1((2 A531(.A *26 A:,):(.A 5,<( <3.7s D 9one of the propo"ed di1iding line" !etween >lower> and >higher> life form" ari"e from the te,t of the Patent -"t D .hether to car1e out a "u!BectDmatter e,ception for >higher life form">, and how >higher life form> i" to !e defined, i" a policy matter for Parliament D %" to the contention that growth from a "ingle fertili<ed cell to the complete mou"e ha" nothing to do with the in1entor" and e1erything to do with the >law" of nature>, it mu"t !e "aid that the >law" of nature> are an e""ential part of working of many and pro!a!ly mo"t patented in1ention D Pharmaceutical drug" utili<e the normal !odily proce""e" and function" of animal" and human" and are not on that account regarded a" le"" patenta!le D %dditionally, e1en if the animal doe"n:t perfectly reproduce e1ery time, di""ent doe"n:t care, a" the in1ention i" the gene and the gene will !e pre"ent in each reproduced mou"e D %doption of the Plant Breeders> .ights -"t in $&&) doe" not mean that the "u!Bect matter of

$$&
patent" e,clude" plant" and, !y e,ten"ion, other >higher> life form" "uch a" "eed" and animal" D It cannot !e "aid that the two %ct" are incon"i"tent D %nimal" continue to !e u"ed in la!oratorie" for "cientific re"earch whether patented or not D .ith re"pect to the commodification of human life, the patenta!ility of human" i" precluded !y law and the !roade"t claim here "pecifically e,cept" human" from the "cope of tran"genic mammal" D W:,5( +:( 6.*1,2) 3< +:( 5,2( ,s 32 4*+(2+,2) :87*2 9(,2)s *26 (-(.09360 *).((s 32 +:,s, *20 /.(*+8.( 3+:(. +:*2 * :87*2 s:3856 9( 4*+(2+*95( *s 532) *s ,+ ,s +:( 4.368/+ 3< s37( :87*2 7*2,485*+,32 *26 +:8s *2 A,2-(2+,32A 826(. s.2 3< +:( A/+ D Therefore, neither the Commi""ioner of Patent" nor the court" ha1e the authority to declare a moratorium on >higher> life patent" until Parliament choo"e" to act 7F D I2 /32+.*s+ +3 73s+ 3+:(. =8.,s6,/+,32s, +:( 7*=3.,+0 :356s +:*+ 5,-,2) 3.)*2,s,7s *.( 23+ 4*+(2+*95( 826(. +:( Patent Act 9(/*8s( ,+ 63(s 23+ <,+ +:( 6(<,2,+,32 3< *2 A,2-(2+,32A 826(. s.2 *26 13856 5(*6 +:( 1*0 +3 4*+(2+,2) 3+:(. :,):(.?5,<( <3.7s, s8/: *s :87*2s D N3+(F in +arvard College, !oth maBority and di""ent a" obiter di"ta "ee no pro!lem" in patenting a microD !iological cell "uch a" yea"t or !acteria @ieF one cell organi"m"A D 2idn:t "ay you can:t patent the gene, a" you can patent "omething found in nature if you find a new u"e for it D Can al"o patent "omething in nature that you find and then do "omething to D Therefore, an indi1idual modified cell appear" to !e patenta!le, !ut you can:t patent li1ing organi"m" D >F if you patent the cell, doe" thi" lead to the conclu"ion that any creatureHorgani"m holding the patented cell i" infringing patent protectionG ee the ne,t ca"e

=onsanto Canada ,nc. v. Sc#*eiser ('(() SCC)C?alid patent over a "ell or geneF not higher life forms +F D 5on"anto i" the licen"ee and owner, re"pecti1ely, of a patent that di"clo"e" the in1ention of chimeric gene" that confer tolerance to glypho"ate her!icide" "uch a" 7oundup and cell" containing tho"e gene" D Canola containing the patented gene" and cell" i" marketed under the trade name >7oundup 7eady Canola> and ha" >Canola police> monitoring the country D +armer chmei"er grow" canola commercially in a"katchewan D ne1er purcha"ed >7oundup 7eady> canola nor o!tained a licence to plant it D 6e al"o had knowledge of thi" re"i"tance !ecau"e he te"ted it D %fter killing the nonDmodified Canola, he collected the re"i"tant Canola, acti1ely planted the re"i"tant "eed, and grew a whole !unch of 7oundup 7eady Canola D ince 5on"anto didn:t licence the genetically modified Canola to chmei"er, they were afraid that they would lo"e their monopoly o1er their crop D %fter Canola police te"ted chmei"er:" $&&0 canola crop re1ealed that &5D&0^ wa" 7oundup 7eady Canola, !ig e1il 5on"anto !rought an action again"t chmei"er for patent infringement D N3+(F not under the Plant Breeders> .ights -"t, !ut action under the Patent -"t D 5on"anto made a !unch of patent claim", including a chimeric gene, an e,pre""ion 1ector, a plant tran"formation 1ector, 1ariou" "pecie" of plant cell", and a method of regenerating the re"i"tant plant D TQ found the patent to !e 1alid and allowed the action, concluding that the appellant" knew or ought to ha1e known that they "a1ed and planted "eed containing the patented gene and cell and that they "old the re"ulting crop al"o containing the patented gene and cell D The +ederal Court of %ppeal affirmed the deci"ion !ut made no finding on patent 1alidity IF D %re the plant" and "eed" that 5on"anto claim" a patent o1er unpatenta!le >higher life form">G QF D 9o, for 5on"antopatent i" 1alid %F D chmei"er argue" that the "u!Bect matter claimed in the patent @ieF a gene or a method of rengerating a glypho"ateDre"i"tant planA i" unpatenta!le D CC di"agree", !ecau"e they claim 5on"anto only patented the cell, not the plant D .hile acknowledging that 5on"anto claim" protection only o1er a gene and a cell, chmei"er

$')
contend" that the re"ult of e,tending "uch protection i" to re"trict u"e of a plant and a "eed D /a"ically, he "ay" CC "hould follow +arvard =ouse were plant" and "eed" were found to !e unpatenta!le >higher life form"> D 6owe1er, CC claim" there:" a 6,<<(.(2/( 9(+1((2 4*+(2+,2) * )(2(G/(55 *26 4*+(2+,2) * 7*77*5 D Therefore, not incon"i"tent with +arvard =ouse D %l"o, in obiter, !oth maBority and di""ent in +arvard =ouse noted that a fertili<ed, genetically altered oncomou"e egg would !e patenta!le "u!Bect matter, regardle"" of it" ultimate anticipated de1elopment into a mou"e D Therefore, chmei"er failed to di"charge it" onu" that the patent i" in1alid D .hether or not patent protection for the gene and the cell e,tend" to acti1itie" in1ol1ing the plant i" not rele1ant to the patentN" 1alidity 7F D W:,5( *2,7*5s *26 45*2+s *.( 23+ 4*+(2+*95(, ,+ ,s 43ss,95( +3 4*+(2+ * )(2(+,/*550 736,<,(6 /(55 1:3s( 48.43s( ,+ ,s +3 <3.7 4*.+ 3< *2 *2,7*5 3. * 45*2+ D ee later "ection on >infringement> for a !igger and more difficult i""ue of whether chmei"er actually infringed 5on"anto:" 1alid patentHin1ention KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK 2% NO'ELTY A% GENERAL D Jou can patent *20+:,2) +:*+ :*s * .(5*+,32 +3 +:( 4:0s,/*5 13.56 D It can !e a new thing or a new u"e, !ut the line "top" when you try to patent a concept or an idea D ieF profe""ional "kill" are not in1ention" D %dditionally, patent" mu"t !e 23-(5 @".'0.'A, 23+ 39-,38s @".'0.*A, *26 8s(<85 @".'A D %" the word >new> in the definition of >in1ention> in ".' implie", it i" of +:( (ss(2/( 3< +:( ,2-(2+,32 +:*+ ,+ s:3856 7*.; *2 *6-*2/( 3-(. (@,s+,2) ;2315(6)( D 9ote that anticipation !y an in1ention that i" the "u!Bect of a pre1iou" Canadian patent or patent application i" dealt with "pecifically inF 28.2#1% S89=(/+?7*++(. 3< /5*,7 78s+ 23+ 9( 4.(-,38s50 6,s/53s(6 D >The "u!BectDmatter defined !y a claim in an application for a patent in Canada @the >pending application>A mu"t not ha1e !een di"clo"ed @aA 73.( +:*2 32( 0(*. 9(<3.( +:( <,5,2) 6*+( 90 +:( *445,/*2+, 3. 90 * 4(.s32 1:3 39+*,2(6 ;2315(6)(, 6,.(/+50 3. ,26,.(/+50, <.37 +:( *445,/*2+, ,2 s8/: * 7*22(. +:*+ +:( s89=(/+?7*++(. 9(/*7( *-*,5*95( +3 +:( 4895,/ ,2 C*2*6* 3. (5s(1:(.( C D Therefore, if an in1entor di"clo"e"Hpu!li"he" an in1ention, there i" a $Dyear grace period where you can "till apply for a patent D ieF if Canada amended the Patent -"t to allow" higher life form" to !e patenta!le, 6ar1ard wouldn:t !e a!le to patent the mou"e !ecau"e time had run out @!A 9(<3.( +:( /5*,7 6*+( 90 * 4(.s32 23+ 7(2+,32(6 ,2 4*.*).*4: #*% ,2 s8/: * 7*22(. +:*+ +:( s89=(/+?7*++(. 9(/*7( *-*,5*95( +3 +:( 4895,/ ,2 C*2*6* 3. (5s(1:(.( C D Thi" co1er" "ituation" where "ome!ody el"e di"clo"e" the in1ention"ame a" :a: @cA in an application for a patent that i" filed in Canada !y a per"on other than the applicant, and ha" a filing date that i" !efore the claim dateC or @dA in an application @the >coDpending application>A for a patent that i" filed in Canada !y a per"on other than the applicant and ha" a filing date that i" on or after the claim date if> D 9ote that 23-(5+0 ,s /53s(50 .(5*+(6 +3 232?39-,38s2(ss D The di"tinction !etween them i" that lack of no1elty mean" the in1ention it"elf wa" already out there D (!1iou"ne"" refer" to "ituation" where the in1ention wa" not out there a" "uch, !ut in1ol1ed no >in1enti1e "tep> in relation to what wa" already known

$'$
D %l"o note that 23-(5+0 ,s *ss(ss(6 ,2 .(5*+,32 +3 1:*+ :*s *5.(*60 9((2 4895,s:(6, 23+ 1:*+ :*s *5.(*60 9((2 ,2-(2+(6 D Canada, like mo"t countrie", u"e" a >fir"t to file> criterion @unlike ? % where you can challengeA KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK B% ANTICIPATION D A2+,/,4*+,32 in1ol1e" an allegation that an ,2-(2+,32 :*s *5.(*60 9((2 <8550 6,s/53s(6 D Look to the >prior art>ieF e1erything pu!li"hed around the glo!e @ieF Bournal article"A that might ha1e di"clo"ed the in1ention and a"k if the in1ention ha" !een properly di"clo"ed D >F ha" the in1ention already !een di"clo"edG I" it already out thereG D 9ot enough to Bu"t ha1e the in1ention de"cri!ed out there in theory, !ut mu"t !e di"clo"ed in a way that make" it practical and allow" another per"on to do it D -pote2F .ith anticipation, there mu"t !e di"clo"ure of the whole in1ention in "uch a way a" to (2*95( +:( ,2-(2+,32 +3 9( 4(.<3.7(6 1,+:38+ 8268( 98.6(2 D -pote2F anticipation in1ol1e" a 'Dpart analy"i"F aA D,s/53s8.( i" the in1ention pre1iou"ly di"clo"edG !A E2*95(7(2+ can you take a de"cription and actually create the in1entionG D The ne,t ca"e i" the definiti1e e,planation of how no1elty i" dealt with D BF yet another e,ample of CC !eing hyperacti1e in IP lawthey are trying to make IP law more fle,i!le and le"" mechani"tic, while at the "ame time pre"er1ing the certainty the "y"tem depend" on D The ne,t ca"e in1ol1e" a di"pute o1er "election patent" !etween %pote, Inc. @T%pote,TA, a generic drug manufacturer, and anofiD ynthela!o Canada Inc @T anofiTA who held the original patent, o1er >Pla1i,> D The CC decide" that a patent i" 1alid a" long a" the in1ention ha" not !een pre1iou"ly di"clo"ed in a way that would allow it to !e reproduced A&ote/ ,nc. v. Sanofi;Synt#e a<o Canada ,nc. ('((4 SCC)C-nti"ipation E dis"losure I enablement +F D anofi held the original `0#5 patent @i""ued in $&05, e,pired in '))'A which co1er" nearly a ;uarterD million compound" which can inhi!it platelet aggregation acti1ity, or clotting, in the !lood D :0#5 patent wa" the >genu"> patent, a" it could come up with a !unch of different compound" D Thi" ca"e in1ol1ed one of the antiDcoagulant compound" known a" a racemate, a "u!"tance which contain" e;ual amount" of two "tructurally different compound" called the de,tro -rotatory i"omer and the le1o-rotatory i"omer D The `0#5 patent holder, anofi, al"o held a "u!"e;uent `### "election patent which wa" the de,tro-rotatory i"omer D Therefore, they claim the rightDhanded >de,troDrotatory i"omer> of a particular compound that had really good antiDcoagular performance @ieF >Pla1i,>A, which wa" i""ued in $&&5 and e,pired in ')$' @under old rule" !efore $&0&po"tD$&0&, all application" get ') year monopolyA D The drug i" marketed under the trade name >P5*-,@> a" an antiDcoagulant which e""entially inhi!it" the !lood from clotting D %pparently the i"omer that wa" u"ed to make Pla1i, i" le"" to,ic and !etter tolerated than it" counterpart the leftDhanded le1o-rotatory i"omer D In '))*, %pote,, a generic manufacturer "er1ed a 9otice of %llegation on anofi to o!tain a 9otice of Compliance from the 5ini"ter of 6ealth in order to market it" generic 1er"ion of Pla1i, D They claimed that it would not infringe N" patent for Pla1i, !ecau"e the `### patent wa" in1alid on the ground" ofF aA A2+,/,4*+,32 In1ention had already !een fully di"clo"ed !A O9-,38s2(ss 31en if it hadn:t !een fully di"clo"ed, it didn:t contain any ingenuity cA D3895( 4*+(2+,2) Trying to patent the "ame thing twice D "ucce""fully "ought an order in +ederal Court prohi!iting the 5ini"ter from i""uing the 9otice of Compliance to % on the ground that the generic 1er"ion of Pla1i, did infringe the `### patent D The +ederal Court of %ppeal upheld the deci"ionnow %pote, appeal" IF D %re "election patent" in1alid in principle or on the fact" of thi" ca"e, on the ground of anticipationG

$''
QF D 9o, for inofi %F D %pote, argued that the original :0#5 patent di"clo"ed the entire in1ention, and thu" the :### patent containing Pla1i, "imply repeated "omething that wa" already known D 6owe1er, the CC affirmed a 'D"tep approach for anticipation and reBected the appellantN" argument" that "election patent" are in1alid in principleF aA D,s/53s8.( 3< +:( s(5(/+,32 4*+(2+ ,2 +:( 3.,),2*+,2) 4*+(2+ D The `0#5 genu" patent wa" not found to di"clo"e the "pecial ad1antage" of the `### "election patent, "uch a" reduced to,icity, !ut not all ad1antage" were properly known D (nce the "u!"etH"election patent wa" known, it could !e patented D The genu" patent gi1e" you a monopoly o1er all in1ention" coming from the genu" D The "election patent protect" you if there:" "ome "pecial ad1antage that wa" not pre1iou"ly under"tood in the earlier patent D Therefore the !enefit" of the `### patent, which wa" !a"ed upon the in1ention that thi" particular i"omer had e"pecially good propertie" that weren:t known in the earlier patent and didn:t identify any i"omer", could not ha1e !een anticipated !y the originating `0#5 patent !A E2*95(7(2+ 3< +:( s(5(/+,32 4*+(2+ D % "killed reader "hould !e a!le to arri1e at the in1ention the fir"t time they try it and each time after, with limited trial and error D 6ere, "imply looking at the genu" patent would allow an indi1idual to get Pla1i,, or would ena!le any!ody to figure out that the detroDrotatory i"omer would !e !etter D 6owe1er, "ince anticipation re;uire" !oth di"clo"ure and ena!lement, it wa" unnece""ary for the CC to conclude if there wa" ena!lement after finding there wa" no di"clo"ure D Therefore, the `0#5 patent wa" found to not anticipate the `### patent a" alleged !y %pote,. 7F D A2+,/,4*+,32 ,s 23+ =8s+ +:*+ +:( *9s+.*/+ ;2315(6)( 3< +:( ,2-(2+,32 78s+ 9( 6,s/53s(6, 98+ ,+ 78s+ 9( *-*,5*95( ,2 * <3.7 +:*+ 13856 *5531 *209360 +3 .(?/.(*+( +:( ,2-(2+,32 KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK C% PRE'IOUS DISCLOSURE TO THE PUBLIC D ee the Patent -"tF 28.2#1% S89=(/+?7*++(. 3< /5*,7 78s+ 23+ 9( 4.(-,38s50 6,s/53s(6 D >The "u!BectDmatter defined !y a claim in an application for a patent in Canada @the >pending application>A mu"t not ha1e !een di"clo"ed @aA more than one year !efore the filing date !y the applicant, or !y a per"on who o!tained knowledge, directly or indirectly, from the applicant, in "uch a manner that the "u!BectD matter !ecame a1aila!le to the pu!lic in Canada or el"ewhereC @!A !efore the claim date !y a per"on not mentioned in paragraph @aA in "uch a manner that the "u!BectDmatter !ecame a1aila!le to the pu!lic in Canada or el"ewhere> KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK !% NON?OB'IOUSNESS D -pote2F In order to !e 39-,38s, ,+ ,s2B+ *51*0s 2(/(ss*.0 +:*+ +:( 4(.s32 s;,55(6 ,2 +:( *.+ :*-( 9((2 *9s358+(50 /(.+*,2 3< :31 +3 */:,(-( +:( #*55()(6% ,2-(2+,32 D In certain ca"e", it:" enough that, to a hypothetical per"on, it would ha1e !een o!1iou" that the in1ention could !e tried with 1irtual, if not a!"olute, a""urance of "ucce"" @ieF > 39-,38s +3 +.0>A D >(!1iou" to try> may !e a mi"leading namedoe"n:t mean that it:" o!1iou" "ome!ody would try itC it mean" that it would !e o!1iou" that the trial would !e "ucce""ful D It:" not a rigid te"t where!y any idiot could know how to achie1e the in1ention D It may !e o!1iou" e1en if there i" "ome trial and error to get from the prior art to the in1ention D Therefore, the "tandard i" that of the >"killed technician> or a >per"on "killed in the art> D /oth anticipation and o!1iou"ne"" are part of )(2(.*5 +:(7( ,2 4*+(2+ 5*1 that i""ue" "hould !e re"ol1edF aA N3+ 7(/:*2,s+,/*550, 98+ 1,+: +(s+s +:*+ *6*4+ +:(7s(5-(s +3 +:( 48.43s(s 3< +:( s0s+(7 , while

$'*
!A $*,2+*,2,2) * :,): 6().(( #,2 +:(3.0% 3< 4.(6,/+*9,5,+0 D ee the Patent -"tF 28.!I2-(2+,32 78s+ 23+ 9( 39-,38s D >The "u!BectDmatter defined !y a claim in an application for a patent in Canada mu"t !e "u!BectD matter that would not ha1e !een o!1iou" on the claim date to a per"on "killed in the art or "cience to which it pertain", ha1ing regard to @aA information di"clo"ed more than one year !efore the filing date !y the applicant, or !y a per"on who o!tained knowledge, directly or indirectly, from the applicant in "uch a manner that the information !ecame a1aila!le to the pu!lic in Canada or el"ewhereC and @!A information di"clo"ed !efore the claim date !y a per"on not mentioned in paragraph @aA in "uch a manner that the information !ecame a1aila!le to the pu!lic in Canada or el"ewhere> A&ote/ ,nc. v. Sanofi;Synt#e a<o Canada ,nc. ('((4 SCC)C78bvious to try7 E self<evident ought to or! +F D ee a!o1e IF D .a" the patent o!1iou" and therefore in1alidG QF D 9o, for anofi%pote, failed to e"ta!li"h that the `### patent for the de,troDrotatory i"omer would ha1e !een So!1iou" to tryT from the `0#5 patent D If it were, anofi would not likely ha1e "pent the time and re"ource" to de1elop the Pla1i,. %F D O9-,38s2(ss ,s 5*.)(50 /32/(.2(6 1,+: :31 * s;,55(6 13.;(. 13856 :*-( */+(6 ,2 +:( 5,):+ 3< +:( 4.,3. *.+, and an o!1iou"ne"" in;uiry "hould follow a four-"tep approachF aA I6(2+,<0,2) +:( A4(.s32 s;,55(6 ,2 +:( *.+A D >F what i" that per"onN" rele1ant common general knowledgeG D 6ere, that 4(.s32 ,s * +.*,2(6 4:*.7*/:(7,s+ !A I6(2+,<0,2) +:( ,2-(2+,-( /32/(4+ D >F what did the in1entor in1entG D Therefore, the in1enti1e concept of the claim in ;ue"tion mu"t !e determined or con"trued D 6ere, the in1enti1e concept of the claim" in the `### patent i" that it i" a compound u"eful in inhi!iting platelet aggregation which ha" greater therapeutic effect and le"" to,icity than the other compound" of the `0#5 patent cA I6(2+,<0,2) 6,<<(.(2/(s, ,< *20, +:*+ (@,s+ 9(+1((2 +:( 7*++(.s /,+(6 *s <3.7,2) 4*.+ 3< +:( Es+*+( 3< +:( *.+F *26 +:( ,2-(2+,-( /32/(4+ 3< +:( /5*,7 D >F any added knowledgeG D 6ere, there i" no di"clo"ure in the `0#5 patent of the "pecific !eneficial propertie" a""ociated with the de,tro-rotatory i"omer of thi" racemate or it" !i"ulfate "alt, in contra"t to the `### patent, which claim" the in1ention of the de,tro-rotatory i"omer of the racemate, clopidogrel, and it" !i"ulfate "alt, di"clo"e" their !eneficial propertie" o1er the le1o-rotatory i"omer and the racemate, and e,pre""ly de"cri!e" how to "eparate the racemate into it" i"omer" dA ',(1(6 1,+:38+ ;2315(6)( 3< +:( *55()(6 ,2-(2+,32, 13856 +:( 6,<<(.(2/(s 9( E39-,38s +3 +.0F <3. * s;,55(6 4(.s32 3. 63 +:(0 .(H8,.( * 6().(( 3< ,2-(2+,32R D >F any "tep" that mu"t !e made to a per"on "killed in the art D Court mu"t con"ider whether, 1iewed without any knowledge of the alleged in1ention a" claimed, tho"e difference" con"titute "tep" which would ha1e !een o!1iou" to the per"on "killed in the art or whether they re;uire any degree of in1enti1ene"" D It i" at thi" final "tep that the i""ue of So!1iou" to tryT will ari"e and the nature of the in1ention in thi" ca"e i" "uch a" to warrant thi" te"t D %pote, tried to argue that the o!1iou"ne"" te"t >o!1iou" to try> here would !ring a!out confu"ion D CC di"agree", a" in certain field" where trial and error i" the way re"earch i" conducted, "omething i" o!1iou" e1en if there i" a !it of e,perimentation re;uired D Cater" to "ituation" where "ome trial i" needed and where "ome circum"tance" are pretty certain D 2on:t apply >o!1iou"DtoDtry> in "ituation" where re"ult"Hde"tination" are unlikely and ad1ance" re;uire further e,perimentationHin1ention to "ee whether "omething will work or not D In"tead, *4450 A39-,38s?+3?+.0A ,2 (26(*-38.s 1:(.( *6-*2/(s *.( 3<+(2 132 90 (@4(.,7(2+*+,32, 98+ *6-*2/(s ,2 +:( <,(56 *.( 23+ +(..,950 s8.4.,s,2) *26 *.( * /5(*. 2(@+

$'s+(4 ,2 +:( +(/:2353)0 D I< *2 E39-,38s +3 +.0F +(s+ ,s 1*..*2+(6, +:( <35531,2) <*/+3.s s:3856 9( +*;(2 ,2+3 /32s,6(.*+,32 *+ +:( <38.+: s+(4 3< +:( 39-,38s2(ss ,2H8,.0 @a" with anticipation, thi" li"t i" not e,hau"ti1eAF aA I" it 73.( 3. 5(ss s(5<?(-,6(2+ +:*+ 1:*+ ,s 9(,2) +.,(6 38):+ +3 13.;G %re there a finite num!er of identified predicta!le "olution" known to per"on" "killed in the artG !A .hat i" the (@+(2+, 2*+8.( *26 *7382+ 3< (<<3.+ .(H8,.(6 +3 */:,(-( +:( ,2-(2+,32G %re routine trial" carried out or i" the e,perimentation prolonged and arduou", "uch that the trial" would not !e con"idered routineG cA I" there a 73+,-( pro1ided in the prior art to find the "olution the patent addre""e"G D +or * <,26,2) +:*+ *2 ,2-(2+,32 1*s E39-,38s +3 +.0F, +:(.( 78s+ 9( (-,6(2/( +3 /32-,2/( * =86)( 32 * 9*5*2/( 3< 4.39*9,5,+,(s +:*+ ,+ 1*s 73.( 3. 5(ss s(5<-(-,6(2+ +3 +.0 +3 39+*,2 +:( ,2-(2+,32 D 5ere po""i!ility that "omething might turn up i" not enoughC 78s+ 9( s(5<?(-,6(2+ ,+ 1,55 13.; D (ther factor" include a moti1e to try and the amount of effort re;uired D >F i" thi" idea that any!ody would reali<e that thi" wa" "omething to tryG If the unimaginati1e "killed technician would ha1e tried it, it !ecome" o!1iou" D 6ere, when the rele1ant factor" are con"idered, the in1ention wa" not "elf-e1ident from the prior art and common general knowledge in order to "ati"fy the te"t D .hile there were fi1e well-known method" to "eparate thi" racemate into it" i"omer", +:(.( 1*s 23 (-,6(2/( +:*+ * 4(.s32 s;,55(6 ,2 +:( *.+ 13856 :*-( ;2312 1:,/: 3< +:( <,-( ;2312 s(4*.*+,32 +(/:2,H8(s 13856 13.; 1,+: +:,s .*/(7*+( D +urther, "pent million" of dollar" and "e1eral year" de1eloping the racemate up to the point of preliminary human clinic trial" !efore it wa" di"co1ered that the de,tro -rotatory i"omer wa" acti1e and non-to,ic D %" the `0#5 patent did not differentiate on the !a"i" of efficacy and to,icity, what to "elect or omit wa" not then "elf-e1ident to a per"on "killed in the art D It wa" al"o not "elf-e1ident from the `0#5 patent or common general knowledge what the !eneficial propertie" of the de,tro-rotatory i"omer of thi" racemate or it" !i"ulfate "alt would !e and what wa" !eing tried ought to work D The cour"e of conduct and the time in1ol1ed throughout demon"trate that the ad1antage of the de,tro-rotatory i"omer wa" not ;uickly or ea"ily predicta!le 7F D W:,5( 23+ * 82,-(.s*5 +(s+, A39-,38s +3 +.0A +(s+ <3. 39-,38s2(ss ,s *445,/*95( ,2 /(.+*,2 s,+8*+,32sM +3 *4450, <,)8.( 38+ 1:*+ ,s 6,<<(.(2+ *938+ * /(.+*,2 ,2-(2+,32, *2*50D( 1:(+:(. *2 ,26,-,68*5 s;,55(6 ,2 +:( *.+ 13856 .()*.6 ,+ *s 39-,38s, *26 *4450 +:( A39-,38s +3 +.0A +(s+ 1:(.( +:( ,2-(2+,32 s:3856 9( 73.( 3. 5(ss s(5<?(-,6(2+ +3 s37(32( s;,55(6 ,2 +:( *.+ D N3+(F you can patent "omething you can think will work a" a matter of >s3826 4.(6,/+,32> D Therefore, it i" patenta!le if you can declare that a certain mem!er" of a group of compound" ha1e certain good propertie", and want to patent the whole group of compound" @e1en one" you ha1en:t te"tedA !ecau"e a" a matter of >"ound prediction>, they will e1entually work D %pply when you patent "omething that ha"n:t !een tried and not e1ery em!odiment of "omething ha" !een known D In -pote2, the genu" patent wa" good !ecau"e of >"ound prediction>, and the "election patent wa" al"o 1alid !ecau"e it wa" an impro1ement that wa"n:t anticipated a" defined !y the original in1ention and wa"n:t o!1iou" KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK I'. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PATENT D >F what i" the proper approach to con"truing the language in a patentG D ee the Patent -"tF 2"#!% S4(/,<,/*+,32 D >The "pecification of an in1ention mu"t @aA correctly and fully de"cri!e the in1ention and it" operation or u"e a" contemplated !y the in1entorC

$'5
@!A "et out clearly the 1ariou" "tep" in a proce"", or the method of con"tructing, making, compounding or u"ing a machine, manufacture or compo"ition of matter, in "uch full, clear, conci"e and e,act term" a" to ena!le any per"on "killed in the art or "cience to which it pertain", or with which it i" mo"t clo"ely connected, to make, con"truct, compound or u"e itC @cA in the ca"e of a machine, e,plain the principle of the machine and the !e"t mode in which the in1entor ha" contemplated the application of that principleC and @dA in the ca"e of a proce"", e,plain the nece""ary "e;uence, if any, of the 1ariou" "tep", "o a" to di"tingui"h the in1ention from other in1ention"> 2"#4% C5*,7s D >The "pecification mu"t end with a claim or claim" defining di"tinctly and in e,plicit term" the "u!BectDmatter of the in1ention for which an e,clu"i1e pri1ilege or property i" claimed> D The ne,t ca"e i" a leading CC deci"ion on patent", namely claim con"truction and dou!le patenting @ieF whether a patent "hould !e in1alid !ecau"e an in1ention wa" patented twiceA D The court adopted purpo"i1e con"truction a" the mean" to con"true patent claim" 8#ir &oo Cor&. v. Ca*co ,nc. ('((( SCC)CPurposive "onstru"tion for des"riptive patent ord meaning +F D In the $&#)", .hirlpool de1eloped an in1enti1e dual action agitator for clothe" wa"hing machine" that utili<ed the !ottom portion of the "haft for the u"ual o"cillating motion !ack and forth !ut added an upper "lee1e that wa" de"igned to work a" a auger D The auger propelled water and clothing downward" onto the o"cillating 1ane" of the lower agitator to produce more uniform "cru!!ing D Thi" de1elopment work re"ulted in three Canadian patent"F aA In the fir"t patent, the dual agitator wa" powered !y a dri1e "haft !A $&#&D$&&6 "econd patent @>:0)* patent>A "u!"tituted a clutch mechani"m for the dri1e "haft D TQ concluded that !oth of the"e patent" re;uired that the 1ane" on the lower agitator !e rigid cA $&0$D$&&0 third patent @>:#*- patent>A made two impro1ement" to the 0)* patentF iA +le,i!le 1ane" were "u!"tituted for rigid 1ane" iiA Choice of dri1e mode", one where the upper auger wa" dri1en >intermittently> and the other where it wa" dri1en >continuou"ly> D Camco made wa"hing machine" that allegedly infringed the >#*-> patent after the >0)*> patent ran out !ut while the >#*-> patent wa" "till in effect @ieF !etween $&&6 and $&&0A D In defence, Camco attack" on the 1alidity of the :#*- patent on the ground" that it con"tituted >dou!le patenting> !ecau"e the in1ention "et out in it" intermittent dri1e claim" corre"ponded with the in1ention "et out in the claim" of the earlier :0)* patent D %lternati1ely, Camco claim" the u"e of fle,i!le 1ane" wa" an o!1iou" and nonDin1enti1e 1ariation that did not warrant patent protection D ieF they were included in the original patent, and merely adding fle,i!le 1ein" in the >#*-> patent didn:t change anything !ecau"e they were implicit in >0)*> patent IF D .ere the patent" 1alidG 2id a con"truction of the >0)*> patent include fle,i!le 1ein", or did it co1er rigid 1ein" onlyG QF D Je", for .hirlpool, patent infringed a" >0)*> patent didn:t include fle,i!le 1ein" D TQ "aid that !oth patent" were 1alid, and that the original one did not co1er rigid 1ane", "o the "econd one co1ering fle,i!le 1ane" wa" 1alid and it wa" not dou!le patenting %F D F,.s+ s+(4 <3. *20 /38.+ ,2 * 4*+(2+ s8,+ ,s +3 /32s+.8( +:( /5*,7s D .hirlpool, who want" their original patent to !e narrow to "u"tain the later patent, argue" that the 1ein" referred to in the earlier patent were rigid 1ein" only due to purpo"i1e con"truction D Camco, meanwhile, want" a !road con"truction D The court adopt" the Spurpo"i1e con"tructionT approach i" adopted for !oth 1alidity and infringement D Lord 2iplockF >The H8(s+,32 ,2 (*/: /*s( ,sC 1:(+:(. 4(.s32s 1,+: 4.*/+,/*5 ;2315(6)( *26 (@4(.,(2/( 3< +:( ;,26 3< 13.; ,2 1:,/: +:( ,2-(2+,32 1*s ,2+(26(6 +3 9( 8s(6, 13856 826(.s+*26 +:*+ s+.,/+ /3745,*2/( 1,+: * 4*.+,/85*. 6(s/.,4+,-( 13.6 3. 4:.*s( *44(*.,2) ,2 * /5*,7 1*s ,2+(26(6 90 +:( 4*+(2+(( +3 9( *2 (ss(2+,*5 .(H8,.(7(2+ 3< +:( ,2-(2+,32 s3 +:*+ *20 -*.,*2+ 13856 <*55 38+s,6( +:( 73234350 /5*,7(6, (-(2 +:38): ,+ /3856 :*-( 23 7*+(.,*5

$'6
(<<(/+ 8432 +:( 1*0 +:( ,2-(2+,32 13.;(6> D CC adopt" 48.43s,-( /32s+.8/+,32, 7(*2,2) .(*6,2) * 6(s/.,4+,-( 13.6 1,+: +:( ,2-(2+,32 *s * 1:35(..."ame a" any principle of "tatutory interpretation D ieF in other word", would a per"on >"killed in the art> of wa"hing machine" in $&#&, gi1en the "tate of the indu"try at that time, read >rigid 1ein"> literally @ieF narrowlyA, or !roadly a" to the in1ention of the whole a" to include fle,i!le 1ein"G D If literal meaning i" key, any modification re"ult" in infringementC howe1er, purpo"i1e con"truction that implie" e,ten"ion"Hre"triction" mean" that an in1ention may ha1e different contour" and mayHmay not !e infringed depending on how the contour" are interpreted D The Spurpo"i1e con"tructionT approach i" adopted for !oth 1alidity and infringement i""ue" D 7e;uire" the identification !y the court, with the a""i"tance of the "killed reader, of the particular de"cripti1e word" or phra"e" in the claim" that de"cri!e the Se""entialT element" of the in1ention D Purpo"i1e con"truction properly direct" it"elf to the word" of the claim" interpreted knowledgea!ly and in the conte,t of the "pecification a" a wholeC it ad1ance" the o!Becti1e of an interpretation of the patent claim" that i" rea"ona!le and fair to !oth patentee and pu!lic D BF if you 1ary a nonDe""ential component of an in1ention, you are "till infringing !ecau"e a per"on >"killed in the art> would reali<e that the e""ence of an in1ention i" "till !eing copied D 6ere, it wa" 34(2 +3 +:( +.,*5 =86)( +3 /32/586(, :*-,2) .()*.6 +3 +:( (@4(.+ (-,6(2/(, +:*+ +:( /5*,7s 3< +:( B80! 4*+(2+, 4.34(.50 /32s+.8(6, 6,6 23+ ,2/586( <5(@,95( -*2(s D The appellant" SdictionaryT approach to claim" con"truction wa" rightly reBected D It wa" permi""i!le for the trial Budge to look at the re"t of the "pecification, including the drawing, to under"tand what wa" meant !y the word S1aneT in the claim", !ut not to enlarge or contract the "cope of the claim a" written and thu" under"tood D The patent "pecification wa" not addre""ed to grammarian", etymologi"t" or to the pu!lic generally, !ut to "killed worker" "ufficiently 1er"ed in the art to which the patent relate" to ena!le them on a technical le1el to appreciate the nature and de"cription of the in1ention D The trial Budge, reading the claim" with the knowledge and in"ight into the technical term" pro1ided !y the re"t of the "pecification, and !y the conce""ion of the appellant"N own e,pert, concluded that rigid 1ane" were e""ential to the :0)* in1ention a" claimed D 9o !a"i" had !een "hown to re1er"e that conclu"ion D The prohi!ition again"t dou!le patenting in1ol1e" a compari"on of the claim" rather than the di"clo"ure, !ecau"e it i" the claim" that define the monopoly D The ;ue"tion i" how SidenticalT the claim" mu"t !e in the "u!"e;uent patent to Bu"tify in1alidation D The fir"t !ranch of the prohi!ition i" "ometime" called S"ame in1entionT dou!le patenting D 4i1en the claim" con"truction adopted !y the trial Budge it /*223+ 9( s*,6 +:*+ +:( s89=(/+ 7*++(. 3< +:( B"!4 4*+(2+ 1*s +:( s*7( 3. +:*+ +:( /5*,7s 1(.( E,6(2+,/*5 3. /32+(.7,238sF 1,+: +:3s( 3< +:( B80! 4*+(2+ 7F D C5*,7s /*2 9( /32s+.8(6 ,2 5,):+ 3< +:( (2+,.( 6,s/53s8.( ,2 +:( *445,/*+,32, s3 +:*+ 7(*2,2)s 3< 4*.+,/85*. 6(s/.,4+,-( 13.6s ,2 * /5*,7 *.( .(*6 90 4(.s32s As;,55(6 ,2 +:( *.+A ,2 5,):+ 3< +:( ,2-(2+,32 *s * 1:35( D BF ince the "tandard i" Budged !y a per"on >"killed in the art> at the time of the in1ention, patentee" mu"t !e aware and patent any in1ention"Hmodification" to original patent" that the"e per"on" at that time would not ha1e thought were o!1iou" or known KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK '. DOUBLE PATENTING D 2ou!le patenting claim" often ari"e when one patent e,pire", !ut a "econd patent i" only a "light modification of the fir"t patent D If a company doe"n:t make the "econd patent, they ri"k that another company will patent an impro1ement of the original in1ention when the patent on the original in1ention run" out D There are two ground" for a dou!le patenting claimF aA AS*7( ,2-(2+,32A 4*+(2+,2)

$'#
D 6ere, the "econd patent duplicate" the fir"t D -pote2F didn:t happen !ecau"e the "election patent wa" an impro1ement o1er the genu" patent !A AO9-,38s2(ssA 63895( 4*+(2+,2) D 6ere, the "econd patent i" o!1iou"ly an e,ten"ion of the fir"t D -pote2F didn:t happen !ecau"e "election patent wa" >patenta!ly di"tinct coumpound> from genu" A&ote/ ,nc. v. Sanofi;Synt#e a<o Canada ,nc. ('((4 SCC)C6enus and sele"tion patent not identi"al +F D ee a!o1e IF D .a" there dou!le patentingG QF D 9o, for anofi %F D trategie" that attempt to e,tend the time limit of e,clu"i1ity of a patent may !e contrary to the o!Becti1e" of the Patent -"t, depending on the circum"tance", !ut a generali<ed concern a!out e1ergreening i" not a Bu"tification for an attack on the doctrine of "election patent" D % "election patent may !e "ought !y a party other than the in1entor or owner of the original genu" patent "o that e1ergreening doe" not ari"e D In addition, s(5(/+,32 4*+(2+s (2/38.*)( ,74.3-(7(2+s 3-(. +:( s89=(/+ 7*++(. 3< +:( 3.,),2*5 )(28s 4*+(2+ 9(/*8s( +:*+ s(5(/+,32 63(s s37(+:,2) 9(++(. +:*2 3. 6,<<(.(2+ <.37 1:*+ 1*s /5*,7(6 ,2 +:( )(28s 4*+(2+ D Thu" there i" 23 Es*7( ,2-(2+,32F 63895( 4*+(2+,2) !ecau"e the claim" of the `0#5 and `### patent" were not identical or coterminou" and the former i" !roader than the latter D +urther, a" the claim" in the `### patent reflect a patenta!ly di"tinct compound from the compound" in the `0#5 patent, it i" 23+ ,2-*5,6 <3. E39-,38s2(ssF 63895( 4*+(2+,2) D BF am!it of the genu" patent wa" defined !y >"ound prediction> of what compound" would ha1e anticoagulant propertie", !ut "election patent had a different u"e, "o it wa" not dou!le patenting 7F D T:(.( ,s 23 63895( 4*+(2+,2) ,< * s(/326 ,2-(2+,32 ,s 23+ * /340 3< +:( <,.s+ 4*+(2+ 3. ,s 23+ *2 39-,38s (@+(2s,32 3< +:( <,.s+ 4*+(2+ KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

'I. INFRINGE$ENT D Infringement i" a 1ery !road concept, with critical pro1i"ion" in the Patent -"tF 54#1% I8.,s6,/+,32 3< /38.+s D >%n action for the infringement of a patent may !e !rought in that court of record that, in the pro1ince in which the infringement i" "aid to ha1e occurred, ha" Buri"diction, pecuniarily, to the amount of the damage" claimed and that, with relation to the other court" of the pro1ince, hold" it" "itting" neare"t to the place of re"idence or of !u"ine"" of the defendant, and that court "hall decide the ca"e and determine the co"t", and a""umption of Buri"diction !y the court i" of it"elf "ufficient proof of Buri"diction> D Thi" allow" a patentee to pur"ue an infringement action again"t an infringer 42 C32+(2+s 3< 4*+(2+ D >31ery patent granted under thi" %ct "hall contain the title or name of the in1ention, with a reference to the "pecification, and "hall, "u!Bect to thi" %ct, grant to the patentee and the patenteeN" legal repre"entati1e" for the term of the patent, from the granting of the patent, the (@/58s,-( .,):+, 4.,-,5()( *26 5,9(.+0 3< 7*;,2), /32s+.8/+,2) *26 8s,2) +:( ,2-(2+,32 *26 s(55,2) ,+ +3 3+:(.s +3 9( 8s(6, "u!Bect to adBudication in re"pect thereof !efore any court of competent Buri"diction> D Therefore, >u"ing> i" where the infringement action generate" D %ccording to ".-', >u"e> i" not re"tricted to in1enting, a" if "ome!ody ha" infringed a patent !y making a product that infringe" a patent, 7(.( 8s( ,2<.,2)(s +:( 4*+(2+ D N3+(F indi1idual" who !ought infringing machine" from Camco in 9hirlpool were legally infringing the patenthowe1er, they wouldn:t get "ued for damage" or account of profit" !ecau"e regular people weren:t doing anything to damage .hirlpool KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

$'0

1% A$A&ING, CONSTRUCTING AND USING THE IN'ENTIONA D In the ne,t ca"e that drew worldwide attention, the CC heard the ;ue"tion of whether growing genetically modified plant" con"titute" >u"e> of the in1ention of genetically modified plant cell", and ruled that it doe" =onsanto Canada ,nc. v. Sc#*eiser ('(() SCC)C)no ingly planting and "ultivating ne plants is use +F D ee a!o1e D chmei"er argue" all he did wa" "elect the certain re"i"tant plant", and "ince he ne1er "pread the re"i"tant "pray to produce 7oundup 7eady Canola, he ne1er u"ed the in1ention IF D 2id chmei"er infringe 5on"anto:" patent !y merely har1e"ting the 7oundup 7eady CanolaG QF D Je", for 5on"antoinfringed ".-' of the Patent -"t %F D The act of readily "electing 7oundup 7eady Canola from the field and planting it con"tituted u"e D ince he organi<ed hi" farm to deli!erately plant and har1e"t the re"i"tant Canola ready, he had the !enefit of the in1ention a1aila!le to him e1en if he ne1er u"ed it D 31en though the plant" propagate without human inter1ention the realitie" of modern agriculture mean there i" alway" human inter1ention in the growth of plant" and thu" farming i" a method of >u"e> of plant gene" D 6ere, the patent granted for the in1ention did not "pecify the u"e of 7oundup a" part of the in1ention, and thu" there wa" no !a"i" for introducing the re;uirement that 7oundup had to !e u"ed in order for the in1ention to !e u"ed D That i", a patent prohi!it" unauthori<ed u"e of an in1ention in any manner, not merely unauthori<ed u"e for it" intended purpo"e D CC al"o held that ;231,2)50 #3., 1:(.( 32( 38):+ +3 :*-( ;2312% 45*2+,2) *26 /85+,-*+,2) )(2(+,/*550 736,<,(6 /*235* /32s+,+8+(s A8s(A 3< $32s*2+3Bs 4*+(2+(6 ,2-(2+,32 3< )(2(+,/*550 736,<,(6 /*235* /(55s D BF no mens rea needed heremere fact of "praying roundup or, in chmei"er:" ca"e, acti1ely "electing the re"i"tant plant" and har1e"ting them, infringement occur" D Therefore, he had "ufficient intent to con"titute >u"e> of the patented in1ention e1en if the crop i" not treated with 7oundup and the pre"ence of the gene afford" no ad1antage to the farmer D ?"e of the patented gene" and cell" analogou" to the u"e of a machine containing a patented part D >It i" 23 6(<(2/( +3 s*0 +:*+ +:( +:,2) */+8*550 8s(6 1*s 23+ 4*+(2+(6, 98+ 3250 32( 3< ,+s /37432(2+s> D +inally, 90 45*2+,2) )(2(+,/*550 736,<,(6 R382684 .(s,s+*2+ /*235*, S/:7(,s(. 7*6( 8s( 3< +:( As+*26?90A 3. ,2s8.*2/( 8+,5,+0 3< +:( ,2-(2+,32 D That i", he left him"elf the option of u"ing 7oundup on the crop "hould the need ari"e D Thi" wa" con"idered to !e analogou" to the in"tallation of patented pump" on a "hipF e1en if the pump" are ne1er actually "witched on, they are "till u"ed !y !eing a1aila!le for pumping if the need ari"e" D BF thi" ca"e might cancel out +arvard =ouse, a" the cell can !e the in1ention rather than oncomou"e D 6ere, the re"i"tant plant" @a higher life formA weren:t patenta!le, !ut !a"ically in effect were !ecau"e the re"i"tant plant gene wa" patented !y 5on"anto D D,ss(2+ here follow" +arvard =ouse, where!y while a company can patent product" and proce""e", they cannot patent higher form" of life "uch a" the whole plant it"elf 7F D Us( 3< *2 ,2-(2+,32, 1:(.(90 *2 ,2<.,2)(. ;231,2)50 45*2+s *26 /85+,-*+(s )(2(+,/*550 736,<,(6 /(55s, /32s+,+8+(s A8s(A (-(2 ,< +:( 45*2+s *.( 23+ s356 9(/*8s( ,+ +:.(*+(2s +:( 73234350 32 +:( s4(/,*5 /*235* 45*2+ 90 s+3.,2) *26 45*2+,2) +:( R382684 R(*60 /*235* s((6s 48.s8*2+ +3 /377(./,*5 ,2+(.(s+s D BF farmer" won:t infringe if they find genetically modified plant cell" on their land and do nothing D 6owe1er, the moment that they !egin to change their practice" to "tart har1e"ting the new plant cell", it will con"titute >u"e> and infringe the patent e1en if they ne1er u"e the "pray normally u"ed to produce the genetically modified plant cell"