Articles

The Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc upheld an interlocutory injunction against Google, a non-party, to globally de-index the websites of the defendant that is infringing the plaintiff's intellectual property. Although Google obtained a judgment from a US court declaring that the decision was not enforceable in the US, it was unsuccessful in having the original injunction overturned in Canada on the basis of the US judgment.

In the Federal Court’s recent decision of Andrew Collett v Northland Art Company Canada Inc and Bremner Fine Art Incorporated, 2018 FC 269, Justice Gleeson addressed the plaintiff’s claims for damages for infringement of copyright and moral rights, including statutory and punitive damages. This article summarizes the Court’s consideration of these damages.

Topics covered this week included franchise law and rescission, liability for wrongful patent enforcement, the duty to defend in the MVA context, family law (custody and access and breach of court orders), securities class actions, and mortgage enforcement. John Polyzogopoulos

The intersection of intellectual property law and competition law is an area that gains greater significance with each passing year. Much of the focus in this area recently has been on the appropriate scope of action to take by regulators. Also important, but attracting less attention, is the application of common law doctrines against contracts in restraint of trade to agreements that are based on the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Technology is everywhere and is changing how we communicate and carry on our daily lives. This article highlights three technology issues that are changing the legal landscape.

Due to the flexible nature of the law of claims construction in Canada, the meaning of the commonly used transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" may surprise foreign lawyers and patent practitioners.

The Federal Court’s decision in Sleep Country Canada Inc v Sears Canada Inc, granted a rather rare interlocutory injunction prohibiting the use of a slogan pending the final determination of a trademark infringement action. Sears Canada Inc. was enjoined from using their newly adopted slogan that stated “There is no reason to buy a mattress anywhere else”, as it was confusing to Sleep Country Canada Inc.’s (“Sleep Country”) trademarked slogan “Why buy a mattress anywhere else".

On June 30, 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously granted AstraZeneca’s appeal in the long-awaited conclusion of the “Promise Doctrine” saga in AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc. The primary legal consequence of this decision is that the Supreme Court of Canada has reset the utility test and eliminated the Promise Doctrine.

Amendments to the Trade-Marks Act made in 2014, despite not being fully implemented yet, have already encouraged squatting and over-claiming, and have resulted in a 75 per cent increase in the number of Canadian applications waiting to be registered, from 40,000 in 2014 to nearly 70,000, the CBA National IP Section says in a letter to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.