Articles

CBA Members

Intellectual
Property

CBA Intellectual Property Section

Articles are published by the Intellectual Property Section. Members interested in posting articles are encouraged to send them to the Section by email: CBAI_P@cba.org.

Today
Today

Case summary: Off-road patent invalid

  • May 16, 2019
  • Peter W. Choe

This is a patent infringement action concerning a family of three patents – 294, 562 and 509 – regarding track assemblies to be installed on all-terrain vehicles to facilitate their operation on snow and other unstable or uneven surfaces.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Better evidence on s. 45 appeals can be costly

  • May 16, 2019
  • Matthew Boyd

The applicant, Hi-Star Franchise Systems, is the owner of Canadian trademark registration no. TMA 761,343 for the mark “WE’VE GOT YOUR BACK” in association with the services “real estate, mortgage and insurance brokerage services.”

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Federal Court of Appeal considers trademark use and profit

  • May 16, 2019
  • David Chapman

The Registrar of Trademarks issued a s. 45 notice to the appellant, Cosmetic Warriors Limited at the request of Riches, McKenzie & Herbert LLP. The registrar held that the appellant had demonstrated use of the trademark under s. 4(1), but this finding was overturned by the Federal Court. The appellant appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.

Intellectual Property

Case summary: FC revisits the substantial similarity analysis in copyrights

  • May 16, 2019
  • Andrea Rush

This case pertains to the ability to protect jewellery and a methodology of creating it, under the Copyright Act. The plaintiff relied on the Copyright Act to seek damages, injunction and a declaration that the copyright was infringed in certain wax seal jewellery and methods of creation contrary to ss. 3(1) and 27 of the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42 [Act].

Intellectual Property

Case summary: Norwich orders in the copyright notice and notice regime

  • May 16, 2019
  • Andrea Rush

The case is about allegations of illegal downloading and sharing of movies. Under the “notice and notice” regime, the plaintiffs sent notice to TekSavvy that some TekSavvy subscribers had illegally downloaded and shared movies over which the plaintiffs say they have copyrights.

Intellectual Property