Articles

The British Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA) in Vancouver Community College v. Vancouver Career College (Burnaby) Inc. recently decided that use of a trademark as a keyword advertisement constituted passing off of a trademark, unanimously reversing the trial judge’s decision. The BCCA held that trademark confusion occurs at the moment the consumer first encounters the trademark in the search results, and not the moment the consumer clicks on the link and arrives at the landing page.

In a major victory for Nintendo, the Federal Court of Canada awarded $12.7 million in damages for circumventing technological protection measures and copyright infringement. This decision (Nintendo of America Inc. v Jeramie Douglas King et al, 2017 FC 246) was the first substantive application of the anti-circumvention rules introduced in Canada in 2012, and will be of significance to content creators who are considering the use and enforcement of TPMs to protect copyrighted content.

Significant legislative changes are on the horizon in the field of genetic testing with Parliament’s recent passage of Bill S-201: An Act to Prohibit and Prevent Genetic Discrimination. The Act will implement broad protections relating to an individual’s right to access their genetic information, as well as to prevent an individual from being required to undergo genetic testing and to disclose the results of their genetic tests. This article examines the legislative changes.

On January 30, 2017, the Federal Court released its decision in A.T. v Globe24h.com and Sebastien Radulescu, finding a foreign-based website operator liable for a breach of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA). While PIPEDA has been applied to foreign companies before, Globe24h is the Federal Court’s most explicit statement on the issue of extraterritorial application so far.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard oral arguments on November 8, 2016 in an important appeal challenging the “promise of the patent” utility doctrine in Canada. In AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (Esomeprazole), the Supreme Court was asked to decide on the question of whether the doctrine properly exists in Canada. This article provides a brief summary of the oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court.

John Simpson outlines the options available to companies experiencing an online attack on its brand.

The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court in Nortel Networks Corporation, Re 2015 ONSC 2987 (“Nortel”), is a useful case study to highlight the complexity associated with the valuation of intellectual property.