Articles

This article summarizes the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision ordering a temporary stay of proceedings to a class action whose pith and substance pertained to a specialized tribunal's jurisdiction.

This article analyzes the recall implications for product liability class action certification, as considered in two cases, Larsen v ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp and Bowman v Kimberly-Clark Corporation.

This article summarizes Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. v. Gomel, 2023 BCCA 274, in which the Court clarified that a theory of damages is distinct from and insufficient to meet the requirement of establishing the existence of a plausible methodology to determine damages on a class-wide basis.

In the recent decision of North Brewing Company Ltd. v DLA Piper (Canada) LLP, 2023 FC 1188, the Federal Court clarifies the extent to which variations of a registered trademark will constitute use of the mark by the owner in cancellation proceedings pursuant to section 45 of the Trademarks Act.

The Court of Appeal’s unanimous decision in this case is a forceful defence of focussing on the reasons of the decision-maker in reasonableness review.

In this ongoing series, we will profile each of the members of the OBA IT/ IP Law Section Executives to learn about them in five minutes or less. It’s five minutes or less because we know that a lot of you docket in six minute increments! Meet this year's Vice-Chair: M. Imtiaz Karamat!

In this ongoing series, we will profile each of the members of the OBA IT/ IP Law Section Executives to learn about them in five minutes or less. It’s five minutes or less because we know that a lot of you docket in six minute increments! Meet this year's Chair: Paul Lomic!

In the recent decision Energizer Brands, LLC v Gilette Company, 2023 FC 804, the Federal Court ruled that Duracell’s use of Energizer’s registered trademarks ENERGIZER and ENERGIZER MAX in comparative advertising on its sticker labels depreciated the goodwill in Energizer’s registered trademarks.

Redirecting bank wire transfers has become an increasingly common method of fraud, frequently perpetuated through hacking or otherwise impersonating individuals representing a business. In the aftermath, there is often dispute about who bears responsibility for the financial loss: the company that mistakenly sent funds to the wrong bank, or the company whose email was hacked.