Iforex Consigli Construction

Eurocambi sites similares EuroCambi: euroconvertitore on-line cambio valuta tassi aggiornati BCE, converte istantaneamente il valore di ogni valuta quotata dalla Banco Central Europeu - ECB Forex Estrangeiro Excange conversor EuroCambi: euroconvertitore on-line cambio valuta tassi aggiornati BCE, converte istantaneamente il valore di Ogni valuta quotata dalla Banco Central Europeu - ECB Forex Foreign Excange converter Idioma: N / D Classificação Global 661244 Categoria Rang 4636 Financial Management 308841 Reino Unido 8260327 United States Tempo no Site Média. Taxa de rejeição Powered by SimilarWeb Valute. it - ​​Conversor de moeda, convertidor de valor, câmbio de euro Câmbio - Conversor de moeda: câmbio de câmbio do valor principal Câmbio de câmbio - Tasso de câmbio Câmbio de câmbio - Tasso de câmbio. Um sito dedicado a fornire i tassi di câmbio e di conversione delle valu pi249 tardi, ora aggiornato ogni 5 minuti. By Richard Stobbe Consultores de patentes são muitas vezes feitas esta pergunta. No Canadá, o CIPO publicou o primeiro relatório do IP Canada. Que contém um interessante trove de IP estatísticas. Entre os gráficos infográficos e de pizza é uma série de gráficos de barras mostrando o tempo de emissão para patentes do Canadá. Nos últimos quatro anos, o escritório de patentes do Canadá conseguiu poupar meses fora do prazo de entrega, mas a média ainda está em O bairro de 80 meses, ou cerca de 6 1/2 anos. Certamente algumas patentes emitirão mais cedo, no intervalo de 3 anos, e algumas levarão muito mais tempo. Existem estratégias para influenciar (até certo ponto) o ritmo do processo de patente. E lembre-se, este é o momento de emissão do arquivamento. O tempo para preparar e elaborar o pedido também deve ser levado em conta. Certifique-se de que você obter aconselhamento de seu agente de patentes e orçamento para este período de tempo, é um compromisso. Mais perguntas sobre patentear suas invenções Entre em contato conosco. Calgary 8211 07:00 MT Por Richard Stobbe O escritório canadense de marcas registradas publicou um Aviso de Prática, a fim de esclarecer a prática atual com relação à aplicação da análise descritiva a nomes geográficos. Em nosso post anterior sobre este tópico (Série de Marcas Registradas: Pode um Nome Geográfico ser uma Marca Registrada), observamos que um nome geográfico pode ser registado como uma marca no Canadá. A questão é se o termo é claramente descritivo ou enganosamente misdescritivo nas línguas inglesa ou francesa do local de origem dos bens ou serviços. O Aviso de Prática nos diz que uma marca registrada será considerada um nome geográfico 8222 se a pesquisa do examinador mostrar que a marca registrada não tem outro significado senão como um nome geográfico.8221 Não está claro em que consistirá essa pesquisa. (Uma pesquisa no Google Maps Um atlas) Mesmo que a marca tenha outros significados, exceto como um nome de lugar, a marca ainda será considerada um nome geográfico se a marca 8220 tiver um significado primário ou predominante como nome geográfico. O significado primário ou predominante deve ser determinado a partir da perspectiva do consumidor canadense comum dos bens ou serviços associados. Se uma marca comercial for determinada como sendo um nome geográfico, o lugar de origem real dos bens ou serviços associados será verificado por meio de confirmação fornecida pelo requerente.8221 (ênfase adicionada) Em alguns casos, a origem real de produtos pode ser Fácil determinar 8211, onde, por exemplo, as maçãs são cultivadas na Colúmbia Britânica, então é lógico que 8220 Colúmbia Britânica 8221 seria claramente descritivo do local de origem e, portanto, claramente descritivo dos bens. É provável que as maçãs sejam cultivadas e colhidas em um local. Mas como determinar a origem real de, digamos, um laptop projetado na Califórnia, com peças de Taiwan e da China, montadas na Tailândia Se o examinador decidir que o nome geográfico é o mesmo que o local real de origem dos produtos , A marca será considerada 8220claramente descritiva8221 e não registrável. Se o nome geográfico NÃO for o mesmo que o local real de origem dos bens e serviços, a marca será considerada despropositada 8222, uma vez que o consumidor comum seria induzido em erro na crença de que os produtos eram originários da localização desse nome geográfico. É importante notar que o local de origem dos produtos não é o mesmo que o endereço do requerente. A sede da recorrente é irrelevante para estes fins. Calgary 8211 07:00 MT Por Richard Stobbe A Xylem Water Solutions é proprietária da marca registrada canadense AQUAVIEW em conjunto com software para estações de tratamento de água e estações de bombeamento. Xylem recebeu uma notificação da seção 45 de um advogado de marca registrada, provavelmente em nome de um concorrente anônimo de Xylem, ou um partido anônimo que quis reivindicar a marca AQUAVIEW para si. Esta é uma tática comum para desafiar, e talvez knock-out, uma marca concorrente. Uma notificação nos termos do artigo 45 da Lei de Marcas exige que o proprietário de uma marca registrada prove que a marca foi usada no Canadá durante o período de três anos imediatamente anterior à data do aviso. Como os leitores do ipblog. ca vão saber, o termo 8220use8221 tem um significado especial na lei de marcas registradas. Neste caso, Xylem foi colocado à tarefa de mostrar 8220use8221 da marca AQUAVIEW em associação com software. Como um fornecedor de software mostra 8220use8221 de uma marca registrada em software no Canadá A Lei nos diz que a marca 8220A é considerada como sendo usada em associação com bens se, no momento da transferência do imóvel ou posse dos bens, No decurso de operações comerciais normais, é marcado nos próprios produtos ou nas embalagens em que são distribuídos 82308221 (Secção 4) A regra geral é que uma marca deve ser apresentada no ponto de venda (ver: Scott Paper v. Georgia Pacific). Nesse caso, envolvendo uma marca de papel higiênico, Georgia-Pacific8217s marca não tinha desenvolvido qualquer reputação, uma vez que não era visível até depois da embalagem foi aberta. Como observamos em nosso post anterior, se uma marca não é visível no ponto de compra, ela pode funcionar como uma marca de comércio, independentemente de quantas vezes os consumidores viram a marca depois de abrir a embalagem para usar o produto. A decisão em Ashenmil v Xylem Water Solutions AB. 2016 TMOB 155 (CanLII), aborda este problema em relação às vendas de software. De certa forma, Xylem enfrentou um problema semelhante ao que enfrentou a Geórgia-Pacífico. A evidência mostrou que a marca AQUAVIEW foi exibida em screenshots website, especificações técnicas e screenshots do software. A decisão enquadra o problema desta forma: 82208230even, mesmo que a Marca tenha aparecido na tela durante a operação do software, ela teria sido vista pelo usuário somente após o comprador ter adquirido o software. 8230 vendo uma marca exibida, quando o software está funcionando sem a prova de que a marca foi usada no momento da transferência da posse da mercadoria, não é o uso da marca8221 conforme exigido pela Lei. A decisão aceitou, em última análise, esta prova de utilização e confirmou o registo da marca AQUAVIEW. It8217s vale a pena notar os seguintes take-aways da decisão: A exibição de uma marca dentro do software real seria visualizado pelos clientes somente após a transferência do software. Este tipo de exibição pode constituir o uso da marca nos casos em que um cliente renova sua licença, mas é improvável que seja suficiente como evidência de uso para novos clientes. Neste caso, o software foi 8220complicado8221 software para plantas de tratamento de água. O proprietário vendeu apenas quatro licenças no Canadá dentro de um período de três anos. À luz disto, era razoável inferir que os compradores tomariam seu tempo em tomar uma decisão e teriam revisado a documentação técnica antes da compra. Assim, a exibição da marca na documentação técnica foi aceita como 8220use8221 antes da compra. Este não seria o caso, digamos, de um aplicativo para celular 99 ou de um software comercial pronto, onde a documentação técnica provavelmente não será revisada antes da compra. Capturas de tela do site e folhetos de marketing digital que mostram claramente a marca pode reforçar a evidência de uso. Novamente, dependendo do software, os compradores podem ser esperados para rever esses materiais antes da compra. Empresas de software são bem aconselhados a garantir que suas marcas são claramente exibidos em materiais que o comprador vê antes da compra, que será diferente, dependendo do tipo de software. A exibição de uma marca em screenshots de software não é desencorajada, mas não deve ser a única evidência de uso. Se o software é descarregável, então a marca deve ser claramente exibida para o comprador no ponto de checkout. Os casos mostraram alguma flexibilidade para determinar cada caso em seus fatos, mas don8217t confiar na misericórdia do tribunal: fornecedores de software devem garantir que eles têm fortes provas de uso real da marca antes da compra. Evidências claras podem mesmo impedir um desafio de seção 45 em primeiro lugar. Para discutir a proteção de seu software e marcas registradas, entre em contato conosco. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST Por Richard Stobbe Canadá8217s Anti-Spam Legislação (CASL) é excessivamente complexo e notoriamente difícil de interpretar 8211 heck, até mesmo os advogados começam a ver o dobro quando eles lêem o título oficial da lei (uma lei para promover a eficiência E da adaptabilidade da economia canadense, regulando certas atividades que desestimulam o uso de meios eletrônicos para a realização de atividades comerciais e emendam a Lei da Comissão de Telecomunicações e Rádio, a Lei de Concorrência, a Lei de Proteção de Informações Pessoais e Eletrônicos Aja ). O conceito de consentimento implícito (em oposição ao consentimento expresso) é incorporado na lei, eo truque é interpretar quando, exatamente, uma empresa pode contar com o consentimento implícito para enviar mensagens comerciais eletrônicas (CEMs). Há uma série de diferentes tipos de consentimento implícito, incluindo uma relação pré-existente de negócios ou não comerciais, ea chamada isenção de publicação 8222. Uma recente decisão administrativa (Cumprimento e Execução Decisão CRTC 2016-428 re: Blackstone Learning Corp.) centrou-se em 8220 publicação 8221 sob a Seção 10 (9) da Lei. Uma empresa pode confiar no consentimento implícito para enviar CEMs quando houver: publicação conspícua do endereço de email em questão, o endereço de e-mail não é acompanhado por uma declaração de que a pessoa não deseja receber mensagens comerciais eletrônicas não solicitadas no endereço eletrônico e Mensagem é relevante para as pessoas de negócios, papel, funções ou deveres em uma empresa ou capacidade oficial. Neste caso, a Blackstone Learning enviou cerca de 380.000 e-mails para funcionários do governo durante 9 campanhas publicitárias separadas durante um período de 3 meses em 2014. O caso contra a Blackstone pelo CRTC não se debruçou sobre as evidências de fato, Blackstone admitiu os fatos essenciais. Em vez disso, este caso focado na defesa levantada por Blackstone. A empresa apontou para a isenção de publicação 8201 e argumentou que poderia contar com o consentimento implícito para os CEMs desde que os endereços de e-mail dos funcionários do governo foram todos vistosamente publicados on-line. No entanto, a empresa prestou muito pouco apoio a esta afirmação, e não forneceu apoio relacionado com os outros dois elementos da defesa, nomeadamente, que os endereços de correio electrónico não foram acompanhados por uma declaração 8220no spam8221, e que os CEM foram relevantes Para o papel ou negócio dos destinatários. A decisão CRTC8217s fornece algumas orientações sobre o consentimento implícito e 8220 publicação óbvia8221: O CRTC observou que 8220 A isenção conspícua de publicação e os requisitos dela estabelecidos no parágrafo 10 (9) (b) da Lei estabelecem um padrão mais elevado do que a simples disponibilidade pública de Em outras palavras, encontrar um endereço de e-mail on-line não é suficiente. Em primeiro lugar, a isenção só se aplica se o destinatário do email publicar o endereço de e-mail ou autorizar alguém a publicá-lo. Let8217s tomar o exemplo de um representante de vendas que pode publicar seu e-mail, e também autorizar um revendedor ou distribuidor para publicar o endereço de e-mail. No entanto, o CRTC observa se um terceiro coletasse e vendesse uma lista de tais endereços por conta própria, então isso não criaria um consentimento implícito por conta própria, porque nessa instância nem o titular da conta nem o destinatário da mensagem publicariam o endereço , Ou estar fazendo com que ele seja publicado.8221 A decisão não fornece muito contexto em torno do fator de relevância, ou como isso deve ser interpretado. A orientação do CRTC fornece alguns exemplos óbvios de um e-mail de publicidade como ser um assistente administrativo não é relevante para um CEO. Neste caso, Blackstone foi cursos de publicidade relacionados com a escrita técnica, gramática e gestão do stress. Indiscutivelmente, esses tópicos podem ser relevantes para uma ampla gama de pessoas dentro do governo. Note-se que o ônus de comprovar o consentimento, incluindo todos os elementos da exceção da publicação 8222, é da responsabilidade da pessoa que confia nele. O CRTC não fará nenhum favor aqui. Certifique-se de ter registros precisos e completos para mostrar por que essa isenção está disponível. Essencialmente, o endereço de e-mail deve ser publicado de tal forma que seja razoável inferir o consentimento para receber o tipo de mensagem enviada, nas circunstâncias.8221 Essas circunstâncias específicas do fato, obviamente, serão decididas pela CRTC. Por fim, os esforços da empresa no cumprimento pode fator na pena final. Inicialmente, o CRTC avaliou uma penalidade administrativa pecuniária (AMP) de 640.000 contra a Blackstone. A decisão observou que a correspondência de Blackstones com o Departamento de Indústria mostrou o 8220potential para auto-correção8221 mesmo se os esforços de conformidade de Blackstone8217 não foram particularmente robustos8221. Esses esforços de cumprimento, entre outros fatores, convenceram a comissão a reduzir a AMP para 50.000. Como sempre, quando se trata de CEMs, uma onça de prevenção CASL vale um quilo de AMPs. Obtenha aconselhamento de profissionais sobre a conformidade com o CASL. Calgary 07:00 MST Por Richard Stobbe Em uma longa batalha entre Trader Joe8217s e Irate Joe8217s (anteriormente Pirata Joe8217s, um fornecedor de genuíno Trader Joe8217s produtos em Vancouver, BC), o US Circuit Court of Appeals recentemente pesado pol Nós originalmente Cobriu esta história há alguns anos atrás. Em Trader Joe8217s Company v. Hallatt, um indivíduo, dba Pirate Joes, também conhecido como Transilvania Trading PDF. O tribunal considerou o alcance extraterritorial das leis de marcas americanas. O réu, Michael Hallatt, não negou ter comprado mantimentos da marca Trader Joes no estado de Washington, contrabandeado este contrabando através da fronteira e depois revendido em uma loja chamada 8220Pirate Joes8221 (embora Hallatt mais tarde caiu o 8220P8221 para expressar sua frustração com TJ8217s ). Trader Joes processou no tribunal federal dos EUA por violação de marca registrada e concorrência desleal sob a lei federal de Lanham ea lei estadual de Washington. Uma vez que a atividade supostamente infratora do Sr. Hallatts ocorreu inteiramente no Canadá, a questão era se a lei federal das marcas federais dos EUA se estenderia para fornecer um remédio em um Tribunal dos Estados Unidos. Na esteira desta decisão, as reivindicações federais de Trader Joe8217s são mantidas vivas, embora o tribunal rejeitou as reivindicações de lei do estado contra Hallatt. O tribunal concluiu: 8220 Resolvemos duas questões para decidir se a Lei Lanham chega a Hallatts supostamente infringindo a conduta, a maior parte do que ocorreu no Canadá: Primeiro, é a aplicação extraterritorial da Lei Lanham uma questão que implica tribunais federais matéria jurisdição Segundo, Trader Joes alegam que a conduta de Hallatts afetou o comércio americano de uma maneira suficiente para invocar as proteções da Lei Lanham Porque respondemos não à primeira pergunta, mas sim à segunda, eu inverter a demissão dos tribunais distritais das alegações federais e remissão para outros procedimentos. 8221 Em inglês claro, o tribunal de apelações pediu ao tribunal inferior para reconsiderar as alegações federais e tomar uma decisão final. Pegue um saco de Trader Joe8217s Pita Crisps com Cranberries e sementes de abóbora 8230 e fique atento Calgary 8211 08:00 MST Por Richard Stobbe Let8217s dizer uma empresa negocia um acordo de licença de patente com o proprietário da patente. O acordo inclui uma clara proibição contra a cessão 8211, ou seja, para que qualquer uma das partes transfira os seus direitos ao abrigo do acordo, têm de obter o consentimento da outra parte. Então, o que acontece se a patente subjacente é transferida pelo proprietário da patente? A cláusula em um caso recente era muito clara: Nenhuma das partes contratantes atribuirá. Subcontratar, sublicenciar ou transferir de outra forma este Contrato ou qualquer interesse nos termos do presente, ou ceder ou delegar quaisquer dos seus direitos ou obrigações ao abrigo do presente, sem o prévio consentimento por escrito da outra parte. Qualquer tentativa de cessão, subcontratação, sublicença ou transferência do mesmo será nula e não terá força ou efeito. O presente Contrato será vinculativo e beneficiará as partes e os respectivos sucessores e herdeiros. Ênfase adicionada Essa era a cláusula que aparecem em um contrato de licença para um fecho de correr impermeável patenteado entre YKK Corp. e Au Haven LLC, o proprietário da patente. A YKK negociou uma licença exclusiva para fabricar os zíperes patenteados em troca de um royalty sobre as vendas. Através de uma série de atribuições, a propriedade da patente foi transferida para um novo proprietário, Trelleborg. A YKK, no entanto, não consentiu na atribuição da patente à Trelleborg. O novo proprietário mais tarde se juntou a Au Haven e ambos processaram YKK por violação do contrato de licença de patente, bem como violação da patente licenciada. YKK respondeu, argumentando que Trelleborg (o proprietário da patente) não tinha legitimidade para processar, já que a suposta atribuição era nula, de acordo com a cláusula citada acima, devido ao fato de que o consentimento de YKK8217s nunca foi obtido: 8220Aquela tentativa de subcontratação, (Sublinhou) Em outras palavras, a YKK argumentou que, uma vez que a tentativa de atribuição da patente foi feita sem o consentimento, não era uma atribuição efetiva e, portanto, a Trelleborg não era O proprietário adequado da patente, e, portanto, não tinha direito de demandar por violação dessa patente. O tribunal considerou isso na recente decisão dos EUA em Au New Haven LLC v. YKK Corporation (US District Court SDNY, 28 de setembro de 2016) (gorjeta de chapéu para Finnegan). Rejeitando o argumento de YKK8217s, o tribunal considerou que a cláusula não impediu atribuições da patente subjacente ou tornar atribuições da patente inválido, uma vez que a cláusula só proibia atribuições do acordo e de qualquer interesse no âmbito do acordo. E não mencionou especificamente a atribuição da própria patente. Assim, a transferência da patente (mesmo que fosse feita sem o consentimento da YKK8217) era válida, o que significava que a Trelleborg tinha o direito de processar por violação dessa patente. Tanto os licenciadores como os licenciados devem ter em conta as consequências das disposições de cessão da sua licença, se a cessão é permitida pelo licenciado ou licenciante e se a atribuição da patente subjacente deve ser controlada ao abrigo do acordo. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST ipbog. ca tem 10 anos este mês. Ele tem sido uma década desde o nosso primeiro post em outubro de 2006 e para comemorar este marco 8230since ninguém will8230 let8217s ter um olhar para os direitos de IP e aniversários. Você pode ter ouvido que as letras e músicas da música 8220Happy Birthday8221 foram o objeto de uma prolongada batalha de direitos autorais. A ação veio como uma surpresa para muitas pessoas, considerando que esta é a canção mais popular de 8220world8217s (aparentemente batendo para fora da Escadaria de Zeppelin8217s para o Céu. Mas essa é outra história de direitos autorais para outra época). A Warner Music Group afirmou que era proprietária dos direitos de autor da 8220Happy Birthday8221, e quando a música foi usada para fins comerciais (filmes, programas de TV, comerciais), a Warner Music obteve taxas de licença de até 2 milhões por ano. Quando esta reivindicação de direitos autorais foi finalmente contestada, uma corte dos EUA decidiu que a Warner Music não tinha direitos de autor válidos, resultando em uma resolução de 14 milhões da disputa de décadas de idade em 2016. No domínio das marcas registradas, vários proprietários de marcas canadenses reivindicam o FELIZ ANIVERSÁRIO, incluindo: A Seção 9 Marca Oficial abaixo, retratando uma jaritataca ou possivelmente um esquilo com um chapéu alto, para celebrar o sesquicentenário de Toronto8217s. Hey, don8217t ser muito difícil em Toronto, foi o 821780s. Outra Seção 9 Marca Oficial, o mais 8220 FELIZ ANIVERSÁRIO FELIZ ANIVERSÁRIO VANCOUVER 1886-1986 8221 para comemorar esse centenário de city8217s. Porque nada diz 8216let8217s party8217 como as palavras HAPPY BIRTHDAY VANCOUVER 1886-1986. Cartier8217s marca HAPPY BIRTHDAY (TMA511885 e TMA779496) em associação com bolsas, óculos e canetas. Mattel8217s marca HAPPY BIRTHDAY (TMA221857) em associação com bonecas e roupas de boneca. A marca HAPPY BIRTHDAY VINEYARDS (pendente) para o vinho, não deve ser confundido com VINHEDOS BOLO ANIVERSÁRIO (também pendentes) também para o vinho. FTD8217s marca FESTA DE ANIVERSÁRIO (TMA229547) e BIRTHTEA FELIZ (TMA484760) para arranjos florais de corte 8220live8221 E para aqueles que can8217t esperar até o seu aniversário completo é a marca registada HALFYBIRTHDAY (TMA833899 e TMA819609) para cartões e software. A marca registrada BIRTHDAY BLISS (TMA825157) para programas de estudo no campo do desenvolvimento espiritual e religioso8221. Não se esqueça de BIRTHDAYTOWN (TMA876458) para itens de novidade como 8220 cadeias, cristas e crachás, bandeiras, galhardetes, fotos, postais, álbuns de fotos, copos e copos, canecas, cartazes, canetas, lápis, alfinetes, adesivos para janela e adesivos8221 . Naturalmente, nenhuma lista de marcas registradas seria completa sem incluir McDonald8217s MCBIRTHDAY marca (TMA389326) para serviços de restaurante. Então, pop abrir uma garrafa de vinho de marca e desfrutar de alguns arranjos florais de corte ao vivo e um hambúrguer de McBirthday como você peruse uma década worth o direito canadense de direito IP comentário. Calgary 8211 10:00 MST Por Richard Stobbe O Instituto Chartered de UK8217s de Advogados de Patentes (CIPA) lançou um resumo útil de 12 páginas intitulado The Impact of Brexit on Intellectual Property. Que discute uma série de tópicos de PI e o impacto previsto sobre direitos e transacções de PI, incluindo: EPC, PCT e patentes do Reino Unido Marcas comunitárias Segredos comerciais Direitos de autor Disputas de PI e transacções de PI É a posição da CIPA8217 que os detentores de direitos de propriedade intelectual devem esperar 8220 Nos próximos anos, uma vez que os direitos nacionais de propriedade intelectual existentes no Reino Unido não são afectados, as patentes europeias e as aplicações permanecem inalteradas, eo Governo britânico nem sequer tomou medidas para desencadear o artigo 508221 que colocaria em movimento o mecanismo burocrático formal para sair da UE. Esta etapa não é esperada até o final de 2016 ou início de 2017, o que significa que a saída final pode não ocorrer até 2019. Os titulares de direitos canadenses que têm direitos de PI baseados no Reino Unido ou na UE são encorajados a consultar advogados IP sobre seus direitos de PI. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST Por Richard Stobbe Na Parte 1, observamos o crescimento da indústria de cerveja artesanal no Canadá e nos EUA e como isso gerou algumas disputas de marcas interessantes. O caso de Brooklyn Brewery Corp. contra Black Ops Brewing, Inc. (7 de janeiro de 2016) enfrentou a Brooklyn Brewery Corporation, com sede em Nova York, contra a Black Ops Brewing, Inc., na Califórnia, em uma briga pelo uso da marca BLACK OPS Para a cerveja. A cervejaria de Brooklyn estabeleceu vendas, desde 2007, de sua cerveja sob a marca registrada BROOKLYN BLACK OPS (para 29.99 uma garrafa). Ele se opôs à utilização do nome BLACK OPS pela cervejaria da Califórnia, que iniciou suas operações em 2015. A cervejaria da Califórnia argumentou que deveria ser feita uma distinção entre o nome da cervejaria e os nomes das cervejas individuais dentro da linha de produtos, Diferentes nomes identificadores como VALOR, SHRAPNEL e BLONDE BOMBER. No entanto, este argumento desmoronou sob a evidência de que o termo Black Ops apareceu em cada rótulo de cada uma das cervejas acima listadas, e havia evidência clara de que a cervejaria da Califórnia solicitou o registro da marca BLACK OPS BREWING em associação com cerveja no USPTO. O tribunal estava convencido de que o uso das marcas Black Ops Brewing, Black Ops e blackopsbrewery criava uma probabilidade de que o público consumidor fosse confundido com quem faz qual produto. 8221 Foi emitida uma liminar proibindo a Black Ops Brewing de vender cerveja usando o Nome BLACK OPS. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST Por Richard Stobbe Se você é um start-up, levantar dinheiro pode se sentir como um emprego a tempo inteiro. Alberta recentemente introduziu algumas mudanças de regra que podem ser de interesse: ASC Regra 45-517 Isenção de Prospecto para empresas de arranque (Start-up Business Exemption 8211 PDF) (com efeitos a partir de 19 de Julho de 2016) destina-se a 8220facilitar a captação de capital para Pequenas e médias empresas em termos adaptados para oferecer salvaguardas adequadas aos investidores.8221 Em segundo lugar, Alberta está considerando a adoção do Instrumento Multilateral 45-108 Crowdfunding (MI 45-108) e abriu para um período de comentários em julho. Crowdfunding (MI 45-108) Se as regras de crowdfunding forem adotadas para os emissores da Alberta, ela facilitaria a distribuição de títulos através de um portal de financiamento on-line em Alberta, bem como em qualquer outra jurisdição que a adotou. Alberta juntaria Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontário, Quebc, Novo Brunswick e Nova Escócia que já adotaram MI 45-108. Isenção de empresas iniciantes (Regra 45-517) Quanto à nova isenção de empresas iniciantes, aqui estão os itens essenciais lançados pela ASC: Projetado para start-ups da Alberta que buscam arrecadar fundos de investidores da Alberta Visando 8220 necessidades de financiamento muito modestas8221 , Veja os caps abaixo Projetado para ser um processo mais simples e menos oneroso Pode ser usado por emissores que desejam arrecadar fundos através de seus amigos e familiares, ou para crowdfund através de um portal de financiamento on-line desde que o portal é um revendedor registrado, De investidores do Alberta O emissor pode emitir ações ordinárias, ações preferenciais não conversíveis em ações, títulos conversíveis em ações ordinárias ou ações preferenciais não conversíveis, entre outros títulos Emitente deve elaborar um documento de oferta Há um limite de 250.000 por distribuição e um máximo de dois Distribuições de empresas iniciantes em um ano civil Capacidade total acumulada 1 milhão Projetado para um montante máximo de investimento de 1.500 por investidor. No entanto, através de um revendedor registado, a assinatura máxima desse investidor pode ser tão elevada como 5.000. A oferta deve fechar dentro de 90 dias. Há um período obrigatório de 48 horas para os investidores cancelarem seu investimento. O emissor deve fornecer a cada investidor uma forma de divulgação de risco especificada e um formulário de reconhecimento de risco. Interessado em ouvir mais Calgary 8211 07:00 MST Por Richard Stobbe Os canadenses bebem muita cerveja. O número de cervejarias licenciadas no Canadá subiu 100 nos últimos cinco anos para mais de 600. Em Alberta e BC. Sozinho, o número de cervejarias dobrou entre 2010 e 2015. As tendências da indústria estão mudando, impulsionadas pelo crescimento das cervejarias micro e artesanais no Canadá, um fenômeno espelhado nos Estados Unidos, onde mais de 4.000 cervejarias licenciadas estão competindo para o negócio dos consumidores, o maior número de cervejarias na história dos EUA. E com isso vem uma efusão de marcas relacionadas com a cerveja. Nomes de cervejarias e rótulos de cerveja invariavelmente levam ao choque de algumas garrafas de cerveja na prateleira do litígio. A marca ATLAS para cerveja foi contestada no caso da Atlas Brewing Company, LLC contra Atlas Brew Works LLC, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 381 (marca registrada Trial App. Bd. (TTAB) 22 de setembro , 2015). A Atlas Brewing Company opôs-se ao pedido de marca da ATLAS, alegando que existia um risco de confusão entre a ATLAS ea ATLAS BREWING COMPANY. A TTAB concordou com a existência de um risco de confusão, uma vez que as duas marcas são praticamente idênticas (a adição da 8220Brewing Company8221 é meramente descritiva ou genérica) e os produtos são idênticos. No entanto, a TTAB decidiu, em última instância, que a recorrente tinha direitos anteriores, uma vez que a Atlas Brewing Company não vendeu efectivamente produtos que ostentassem a marca ATLAS BREWING COMPANY antes da data de apresentação do pedido de marca. A única evidência relacionada ao período de pré-venda 8211, por exemplo, conversas privadas, cartas e negociações com arquitetos, construtores e fornecedores de equipamentos. O TTAB caracterizou-os como atividades mais ou menos internas ou organizacionais que geralmente não seriam conhecidas pelo público em geral8221. Em segundo lugar, havia evidências de contas de mídia social que usavam o nome ATLAS BREWING COMPANY, mas a TTAB não estava convencida de que isso equivalesse ao uso real da marca como marca registrada. 8220 O ato de aderir ao Twitter em 30 de abril de 2012, ou Facebook em 14 de maio de 2012, não estabelece por si só um uso análogo ao uso de marca registrada. 8220 É interessante notar que a TTAB rejeitou o argumento de que a indústria da cerveja deveria ser tratada de forma semelhante à indústria farmacêutica: a Atlas Brewing Company alegou que existem circunstâncias especiais que se aplicam porque é necessária a aprovação regulamentar antes de poder vender cerveja e que a A indústria de cerveja é semelhante à indústria farmacêutica, onde os direitos de marca podem ser anexados antes das vendas reais de bens e as aprovações governamentais são necessárias antes das vendas reais ao público em geral.8221 A TTAB respondeu dizendo que as empresas farmacêuticas Vendas do produto com a marca durante a fase de testes clínicos, antes da introdução no mercado. Neste caso, no entanto, não houve vendas reais. Assim, a oposição foi recusada eo pedido de ATLAS foi autorizado a prosseguir. O velho Atlas Brewing Company tem desde rebranded como Burnt City Brewing. Com uma piscadela de conhecimento para as dores de cabeça legais: 8220Weve todos foram queimados por algo, mas agora estavam de volta e melhor do que nunca.8221 Hat gorjeta para Foley Hoag para o seu arredondamento de casos americanos. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST Por Richard Stobbe Um código fonte do developer8217s é considerado a receita secreta do mundo de software 8211 o equivalente digital da famosa receita de Coca-Cola. No Google Inc. v. Mutual. 2016 BCSC 1169 (CanLII), um desenvolvedor de software buscou uma ordem protetora sobre o código-fonte que foi procurado no curso do litígio dos EUA. Primeiro, um pouco de fundo. This was really part of a broader U. S. patent infringement lawsuit ( VideoShare LLC v. Google Inc. and YouTube LLC ) between a couple of small-time players in the online video business: YouTube, Google, Vimeo, and VideoShare. In its U. S. complaint, VideoShare alleged that Google, YouTube and Vimeo infringed two of its patents regarding the sharing of streaming videos. Google denied infringement. One of the defences mounted by Google was that the VideoShare invention was not patentable due to prior art 8211 an invention that predated the VideoShare patent filing date. This 8220prior art8221 took the form of an earlier video system, known as the POPcast system. Mr. Mutual, a B. C. resident, was the developer behind POPcast. To verify whether the POPcast software supported Google8217s defence, the parties in the U. S. litigation had to come on a fishing trip to B. C. to compel Mr. Mutual to find and disclose his POPcast source code. The technical term for this is 8220 letters rogatory 8221 which are issued to a Canadian court for the purpose of assisting with U. S. litigation. Mr. Mutual found the source code in his archives, and sought a protective order to protect the never-public back end Source Code files, the disclosure of which would 8220breach my trade secret rights8221. The B. C. court agreed that the source code should be made available for inspection under the terms of the protective order, which included the following controls. If you are seeking a protective order of this kind, this serves as a useful checklist of reasonable safeguards to consider. Useful Checklist of Safeguards The Source Code shall initially only be made available for inspection and not produced except in accordance with the order The Source Code is to be kept in a secure location at a location chosen by the producing party at its sole discretion There are notice provisions regarding the inspection of the Source Code on the secure computer The producing party is to test the computer and its tools before each scheduled inspection The receiving party, or its counsel or expert, may take notes with respect to the Source Code but may not copy it The receiving party may designate a reasonable number of pages to be produced by the producing party Onerous restrictions on the use of any Source Code which is produced The requirement that certain individuals, including experts and representatives of the parties viewing the Source Code, sign a confidentiality agreement in a form annexed to the order. A Delaware court has since ruled that VideoShare8217s two patents are invalid because they claim patent-ineligible subject matter . Calgary 8211 10:00 MST By Richard Stobbe When an employee claims to own his employer8217s software, the analysis will turn to whether that employee was an 8220author8221 for the purposes of the Copyright Act . and what the employee 8220contributed8221 to the software. This, in turn, raises the question of what constitutes 8220authorship8221 of software What kinds of contributions are important to the determination of authorship, when it comes to software Remember that each copyright-protected work has an author, and the author is considered to be the first owner of copyright. Therefore, the determination of authorship is central to the question of ownership. This interesting question was recently reviewed in the Federal Court decision in Andrews v. McHale and 1625531 Alberta Ltd. . 2016 FC 624. Here, Mr. Andrews, an ex-employee claimed to own the flagship software products of the Gemstone Companies, his former employer. Mr. Andrews went so far as to register copyright in these works in the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. He then sued his former employer, claiming copyright infringement, among other things. The former employer defended, claiming that the ex-employee was never an author because his contributions fell far short of what is required to qualify for the purposes of 8220authorship8221 under copyright law. The ex-employee argued that he provided the context and content by which the software received the data fundamental to its functionality. The evidence showed that the ex-employee8217s involvement with the software included such things as collecting and inputting data coordination of staff training assisting with software implementation making presentations to potential customers and to end-users collecting feedback from software users and making suggestions based on user feedback. The evidence also showed that a software programmer engaged by the employer, Dr. Xu, was the true author of the software. He took suggestions from Mr. Andrews and considered whether to modify the code. Mr. Andrews did not actually author any code, and the court found that none of his contributions amounted to 8220authorship8221 for the purposes of copyright. The court stopped short of deciding that authorship of software requires the writing of actual code however, the court found that a number of things did not qualify as 8220authorship8221, including collecting and inputting data making suggestions based on user feedback problem-solving related to the software functionality providing ideas for the integration of reports from one software program with another program providing guidance on industry-specific content. To put it another way, these contributions, without more, did not represent an exercise of skill and judgment of the type of necessary to qualify as authorship of software. The court concluded that: 8220It is clearly the case in Canadian copyright law that the author of a work entitled to copyright protection is he or she who exercised the skill and judgment which resulted in the expression of the work in material form.8221 para. 85 In the end, the court sided with the employer. The ex-employee8217s claims were dismissed. Field Law acted as counsel to the successful defendant 1625531 Alberta Ltd. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST By Richard Stobbe An inventor had a 8220wow8221 moment when he came across a design improvement for cold-weather visors 8211 something suitable for the snowmobile helmet market. The helmet maker brought the improved helmet to market and also pursued both patent and industrial design protection. The patent application was ultimately abandoned, but the industrial design registration was issued in 2010 for the Helmet Face Shield design, which purports to protect the visor portion of a snowmobile helmet . AFX Licensing, the owner of the invention, sued a competitor for infringement of the registered industrial design. AFX sought an injunction and damages for infringement under the Industrial Design Act . The competitor 8211 HJC America 8211 countered with an application to expunge the registration on the basis of invalidity. HJC argued that the design was invalid due to a lack of originality and due to functionality. Can a snowmobile visor be protected using IP rights A registrable industrial design has to meet certain criteria: (i) it must differ substantially from the prior art (in other words it must be original ) (ii) it cannot closely resemble any other registered industrial designs and (iii) it cannot have been published more than a year before application for registration. In AFX Licensing Corporation v. HJC America, Inc. . 2016 FC 435 (CanLII), the court decided that AFX8217s industrial design registration was valid but was not infringed by the HJC product because the court saw 8220substantial differences8221 between the two designs. In summarizing, the court noted the following: 8220First, the protection offered by the industrial design regime is different from that of the patent regime8230 the patent regime protects functionality and the design regime protects the aesthetic features of any given product .8221 (Emphasis added) The industrial design registration obtained by AFX does 8220not confer on AFX a monopoly over double-walled anti-fogging face shields in Canada. Rather, it provides a measure of protection for any shield that is substantially similar to that depicted in the ID 964 illustrations, and it cannot be said that the HJ-17L meets that threshold.8221 The infringement claim and the expungement counter-claim were both dismissed. Calgary 8211 07:00 By Richard Stobbe Yesterday UK voters elected to approve a withdrawal from the EU. What does this mean for Canadian business owners who have intellectual property (IP) rights in the UK The first message for Canadian IP rights holders is (in true British style) remain calm and keep a stiff upper lip. All of this is going to take a while to sort out and rights holders will have advance notice of the various means to protect their rights in an orderly fashion. The British are not known for rash actions 8212 ok, other than the Brexit vote. Rights granted by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), will be impacted, although the extent of the impact is still to be negotiated and settled. The UKs membership in WIPO (the World International Property Organisation) is independent of EU membership and so will not be affected by this process. Similarly, the UKs participation in the European Patent Convention is not dependent on EU membership. Current speculation is that EU Trade Marks will continue to be recognized as valid in the EU, although such rights will not be recognized in the UK. This may require Canadian rights holders to submit new applications for those marks in the UK, or there may be a negotiated conversion of those EUIPO rights into national UK rights, permitting these registered marks to be recognized both in the EU and the UK. Copyright law should not be dramatically impacted, since many of the rights of Canadian copyright holders would benefit from international copyright conventions that predate the EU era. However, UK copyright law was undergoing a process to become aligned with EU laws. For example, recent amendments to the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 were enacted in 2014 to implement EU Directive 2001/29, and the fate of these statutory amendments remains unclear at the moment. Again, this won8217t happen overnight. Many bureaucrats must debate many regulations before the way forward becomes clear. That8217s not much of a rallying cry but it is the reality for an unprecedented event such as this. The good news If you are a EU IP rights negotiator, you will have steady employment for the next few years. Calgary 8211 10:00 MST By Richard Stobbe A word that clearly describes a particular product or service cannot function as a trademark for that product or service. The Trademarks Act phrases this idea in a more formal way: section 12(1)(b) says that a trade-mark is registrable if it is not 8220whether depicted, written or sounded, either clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive in the English or French language of the character or quality of the wares or services in association with which it is used or proposed to be used or of the conditions of or the persons employed in their production or of their place of origin8221. (Emphasis added) The case of Primalda Industries Corp v Morinda, Inc. . 2004 CanLII 71759 (CA TMOB), reviewed an application for the trade-mark TAHITIAN NONI Design, for the following wares: 8220skin care preparations namely, cleansers, lotions, gels, moisturizing creams8221 and similar products. The term TAHITIAN NONI refers to the morinda citrifolia tree, which is commonly known as NONI in the Polynesian language. The application was opposed based on a challenge that the mark offended section 12(1)(b) since it was 8220clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive8221 of the products, by virtue of the fact that the name is a clear description of ingredients in the skin care products, which are derived from the fruit of the 8216Tahitian NONI tree. This might be like trying to register the word CANADIAN MAPLE in association with skin care products derived from, say, the syrup from the maple tree. However, after reviewing the Act, the court rejected this ground of opposition. Why 8220It is self-evident from the legislation,8221 the Court said, 8220that words that might be descriptive in a language other than French or English are not subject to paragraph 12(1)(b). As the opponent alleges in its statement of opposition that 8216NONI8217 is a Polynesian word and there is no evidence that it is an English or French word . I conclude that TAHITIAN NONI Design cannot be unregistrable pursuant to paragraph 12(1)(b).8221 In short, a clearly descriptive word can be registrable in Canada as long as it is not descriptive in the English of French language. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST By Richard Stobbe Silverpop Systems provides digital marketing services through a cloud-based tool called 8216Engage8217. Leading Market Technologies, Inc. (8220LMT8221) engaged Silverpop through a service agreement and during the course of that agreement LMT uploaded digital advertising content and recipient e-mail addresses to the Engage system. A trove of nearly half a million e-mail addresses, provided by LMT, was stored on the Engage online system. In November 2010, Silverpop8217s system was hacked, putting LMT8217s email list at risk. Silverpop notified LMT of the data breach. After LMT refused to pay for further service, Silverpop suspended the agreement. Litigation commenced in 2012, with LMT claiming damages for breach of contract and negligence based on Silverpop8217s failure to keep the email list secure. Should the service provider be liable Silverpop argued that it was engaged to provide access to its online system, not specifically to keep data secure. Thus there was no breach of its obligations under the agreement. And anyway, if LMT suffered any damages, they were indirect or consequential and consequential such damages were excluded under the terms of the agreement. LMT countered that, in fact, the agreement quite clearly contained a confidentiality clause, and that the damages suffered by LMT were direct damages, not indirect consequential damages. The US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Silverpop Systems Inc. v. Leading Market Technologies Inc . sided with Silverpop: 8220Here, the parties8217 agreement was not one for the safeguarding of the LMT List. Rather, the parties contracted for the providing of e-mail marketing services . While it was necessary for LMT to provide a list of intended recipients (represented as e-mail addresses on the LMT List) to ensure that the service Silverpop provided (targeted e-mail marketing) was carried out, the safe storage of the list was not the purpose of the agreement between the parties.8221 (Emphasis added) The court was careful to review both the limit of liability clause (which provided an overall cap on liability to 12 months fees), and the exclusion clause (which barred recovery for indirect or consequential damages). The overall limit of liability had an exception: the cap did not apply to a breach of the confidentiality obligation. However, this exception did not impact the scope of the limit on indirect or consequential damages. Since the court decided that the claimed breach did not result from a failure of performance, and the consequential damages clause applied to LMT8217s alleged loss. As a result, LMT8217s claims were dismissed. Lessons for business Those limitation of liability and exclusion clauses are often considered 8220boilerplate8221. But they really do make a difference in the event of a claim. Ensure you have experienced counsel providing advice when negotiating these clauses, from either the customer or service provider perspective. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST By Richard Stobbe A documentary film is, by its nature, a work of non-fiction. It expresses a set of facts, arranged and portrayed in a particular way. If a fictional novel is written, based on a documentary film, is copyright infringed Put another way, does copyright protect the 8220facts8221 in the documentary In the recent Federal Court decision in Maltz v. Witterick . the court considered a claim of copyright and moral rights infringement by the makers of a documentary entitled No. 4, Street of Our Lady about the Hamalajowa family, a real-life family who harboured and saved three Jewish families during the Second World War in Poland. A writer, inspired by the documentary, wrote a fictional young adult novel based on the same real-life experiences of the Hamalajowa family, even going so far as to use many of the same names, the same storyline and facts. The book, entitled My Mother8217s Secret . was published by Penguin Canada and went on to become a modest success. After hearing of the book, the filmmakers sued both the author and Penguin Canada for infringement of their copyright in the documentary film. Although there was no verbatim copying of the dialogue or narrative, the filmmakers claimed that their copyright was infringed in the overall themes, relying on the interesting case of Cinar Corporation v. Robinson . which stands for the proposition that the cumulative features of a work must be considered, and that for the purposes of copyright a 8220substantial taking8221 can include similarities such as themes. The filmmakers also argued that a distinction must be drawn between 8220big facts8221 and 8220small facts8221. For example, a 8220big fact8221 that Polish Jews were captured and deported to concentration camps is not deserving of copyright protection, whereas a 8220small fact8221 that a particular Jewish family was taken away from a particular place on a specific day 8211 this kind of fact is deserving of protection, and it was this type of information that was copied by the author from the documentary film without permission. The court rejected this notion. 8220The Applicants arguments based on differences between small and large facts, with the former deserving of protection in this case and the latter not so deserving, are without merit. Copyright law recognizes no such difference or distinction. Facts are facts and no one owns copyright in them no matter what their relative size or significance .8221 (Emphasis added) The Court also made an important clarification regarding characters in the story. Citing the Anne of Green Gables decision, the filmakers claimed infringement of the 8220well-delineated characters8221 in the film, including the members of the Hamalajowa family. They argued that 8220the characters in the Book are clearly based on and are virtually identical to the individuals in the Documentary.8221 This analysis is misguided, according to the Court. 8220There are no fictional characters in the Documentary there are only real people or references to and recollections of once real persons, and there cannot be copyright over a real person, whether dead or alive .8221 (Emphasis added) The copyright and moral rights claims were dismissed. The important message that is reinforced by this fascinating decision is that the only copyright in the filmmakers8217 story lies in their expression of that story and not in its facts . Calgary 8211 07:00 MST By Richard Stobbe Where should a lawsuit be heard Canada The US In other posts we discuss the idea of a 8220choice of law8221 and 8220forum selection8221 clauses in contracts. In those cases, the parties agree to a particular forum in advance. What if there is no contractual relationship There8217s just an intellectual property infringement claim. What is the proper forum for that dispute to be heard In Halo Creative v. Comptoir Des Indes Inc. David Ouaknine . Case No. 15-1375 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2016), a recent decision out of the US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, this issue was reviewed. Halo Creative, a Hong Kong based furniture maker, launched an IP infringement lawsuit against Comptoir Des Indes, Inc. a Canadian company, and its CEO, claiming infringement of Halo8217s U. S. design patents, U. S. copyrights, and one U. S. common law trademark. The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The Canadian company moved to dismiss the lawsuit based on a 8220forum non conveniens8221 argument 8211 essentially an argument that the Federal Court of Canada would be a better place to litigate the claims. The Illinois district court agreed with the Canadians and dismissed the case. Halo appealed. At the appeal level, the court looked at the adequacy of the Canadian court to litigate this issue. The Federal Court of Canada was certainly an available forum but there was no evidence that Halo could seek a satisfactory remedy there, since the infringing activity took place in the U. S. and the infringed rights were all based on U. S. registrations or U. S. based trademark rights. IP rights are fundamentally territorial. The U. S. court even quoted a Canadian textbook: 8220a Canadian court would not have jurisdiction to entertain in an action brought by an author of a work in respect of acts being committed outside Canada. even if the defendant was within Canada.8221 (Emphasis added) Here, there was no evidence that any infringement occurred in Canada. The motion was dismissed and the lawsuit will proceed in the U. S. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST By Richard Stobbe So much confusion, so little time. The Trade-marks Act teaches us that the use of one trade-mark causes confusion with another trade-mark if the use of both trade-marks in the same area would likely lead to the inference that the products associated with those trade-marks emanate from the same person, even if the products are of a different class. Confusion is assessed by looking at all the surrounding circumstances including: the inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks the extent to which the marks have become known the length of time the trade-marks have been in use the nature of the products or business the nature of the trade and the degree of resemblance between the two trade-marks in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them. In the case of U-Haul International Inc. v. U Box It Inc. . 2015 FC 1345 (CanLII), U-Haul International applied to register the trade-marks U-BOX WE-HAUL and U-BOX . for use in association with moving and storage services, namely, rental moving, storage, delivery and pick up of portable storage units. A competitor 8211 U Box It 8211 opposed these applications on the basis of confusion with its registered U BOX IT mark for use for use in association with garbage removal and waste management services. Are moving and storage services8221 in the same area as garbage removal and waste management services U-Haul argued that the two companies offer completely different services, and 8220that garbage removal and waste management are the 8216exact opposite8217 of moving and storage, and in different channels of trade.8221 However, the court agreed with the opponent8217s argument that confusion was based on 8220the similar manner in which the services are provided, and not on any finding that the services were in fact the same.8221 After reviewing all of the factors listed above, the court found a reasonable likelihood of confusion, and refused to register the two marks U-BOX WE-HAUL and U-BOX . based on confusion with the registered mark U BOX IT . Calgary 8211 05:00 MSTBy Richard Stobbe The Canadian trademarks office has released a Practice Notice in order to clarify current practice with respect to applying the descriptiveness analysis to geographical names. In our earlier post on this topic ( Trademark Series: Can a Geographical Name be a Trademark ), we noted that a geographical name can be registrable as a trademark in Canada. The issue is whether the term is clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive in the English or French languages of the place of origin of the goods or services. The Practice Notice tells us that a trademark will be considered a 8220geographic name8221 if the examiner8217s research shows 8220that the trademark has no meaning other than as a geographic name.8221 It8217s unclear what this research would consist of. (A search in Google Maps An atlas) Even if the mark does have other meanings, other than as a place name, the mark will be still considered a geographical name if the trademark 8220 has a primary or predominant meaning as a geographic name. The primary or predominant meaning is to be determined from the perspective of the ordinary Canadian consumer of the associated goods or services. If a trademark is determined to be a geographic name, the actual place of origin of the associated goods or services will be ascertained by way of confirmation provided by the applicant.8221 (Emphasis added) In some case, the 8220actual origin8221 of products may be easy to determine 8211 where, for example, apples are grown in British Columbia, then it stands to reason that 8220British Columbia8221 would be clearly descriptive of the place of origin and thus clearly descriptive of the goods. Apples are likely to be grown and harvested in one location. But how would one determine the 8220actual origin8221 of, say, a laptop which is designed in California, with parts from Taiwan and China, assembled in Thailand If the examiner decides that the geographic name is the same as the actual place of origin of the products, the trademark will be considered 8220clearly descriptive8221 and unregistrable. If the geographic name is NOT the same as the actual place of origin of the goods and services, the trademark will be considered 8220deceptively misdescriptive8221 since the ordinary consumer would be misled into the belief that the products originated from the location of that geographic name. It8217s worth noting that the place of origin of the products is not the same as the address of the applicant. The applicant8217s head office is irrelevant for these purposes. Calgary 8211 07:00 MT By Richard Stobbe Xylem Water Solutions is the owner of the registered Canadian trademark AQUAVIEW in association with software for water treatment plants and pump stations. Xylem received a Section 45 notice from a trademark lawyer, probably on behalf of an anonymous competitor of Xylem, or an anonymous party who wanted to claim the mark AQUAVIEW for themselves. This is a common tactic to challenge, and perhaps knock-out, a competitor8217s mark. A Section 45 notice under the Trade-marks Act requires the owner of a registered trademark to prove that the mark has been used in Canada during the three-year period immediately before the notice date. As readers of ipblog. ca will know, the term 8220use8221 has a special meaning in trademark law. In this case, Xylem was put to the task of showing 8220use8221 of the mark AQUAVIEW in association with software. How does a software vendor show 8220use8221 of a trademark on software in Canada The Act tells us that 8220A trade-mark is deemed to be used in association with goods if, at the time of the transfer of the property in or possession of the goods, in the normal course of trade, it is marked on the goods themselves or on the packages in which they are distributed 82308221 (Section 4) The general rule is that a trademark should be displayed at the point of sale (See: our earlier post on Scott Paper v. Georgia Pacific ). In that case, involving a toilet paper trademark, Georgia-Pacific8217s mark had not developed any reputation since it was not visible until after the packaging was opened. As we noted in our earlier post, if a mark is not visible at the point of purchase, it can8217t function as a trade-mark, regardless of how many times consumers saw the mark after they opened the packaging to use the product. The decision in Ashenmil v Xylem Water Solutions AB . 2016 TMOB 155 (CanLII), tackles this problem as it relates to software sales. In some ways, Xylem faced a similar problem to the one which faced Georgia-Pacific. The evidence showed that the AQUAVIEW mark was displayed on website screenshots, technical specifications, and screenshots from the software. The decision frames the problem this way: 82208230even if the Mark did appear onscreen during operation of the software, it would have been seen by the user only after the purchaser had acquired the software. 8230 seeing a mark displayed, when the software is operating without proof of the mark having been used at the time of the transfer of possession of the ware, is not use of the mark8221 as required by the Act . The decision ultimately accepted this evidence of use and upheld the registration of the AQUAVIEW mark. It8217s worth noting the following take-aways from the decision: The display of a mark within the actual software would be viewed by customers only after transfer of the software. This kind of display might constitute use of the mark in cases where a customer renews its license, but is unlikely to suffice as evidence of use for new customers. In this case, the software was 8220complicated8221 software for water treatment plants. The owner sold only four licenses in Canada within a three-year period. In light of this, it was reasonable to infer that purchasers would take their time in making a decision and would have reviewed the technical documentation prior to purchase. Thus, the display of the mark on technical documentation was accepted as 8220use8221 prior to the purchase. This would not be the case for, say, a 99 mobile app or off-the-shelf consumer software where technical documentation is unlikely to be reviewed prior to purchase. Website screenshots and digital marketing brochures which clearly display the mark can bolster the evidence of use. Again, depending on the software, purchasers can be expected to review such materials prior to purchase. Software companies are well advised to ensure that their marks are clearly displayed on materials that the purchaser sees prior to purchase, which will differ depending on the type of software. The display of a mark on software screenshots is not discouraged but it should not be the only evidence of use. If software is downloadable, then the mark should be clearly displayed to the purchaser at the point of checkout. The cases have shown some flexibility to determine each case on its facts, but don8217t rely on the mercy of the court: software vendors should ensure that they have strong evidence of actual use of the mark prior to purchase. Clear evidence may even prevent a section 45 challenge in the first place. To discuss protection for your software and trademarks, contact us . Calgary 8211 07:00 MST By Richard Stobbe In a long-running battle between Trader Joe8217s and Irate Joe8217s (formerly Pirate Joe8217s, a purveyor of genuine Trader Joe8217s products in Vancouver, B. C.), the US Circuit Court of Appeals recently weighed in. We originally covered this story a few years ago . In Trader Joe8217s Company v. Hallatt, an individual, dba Pirate Joes, aka Transilvania Trading PDF . the court considered the extraterritorial reach of US trademarks laws. The Defendant, Michael Hallatt, didn8217t deny that he purchased Trader Joes-branded groceries in Washington state, smuggled this contraband across the border, and then resold it in a store called 8220Pirate Joes8221 (although Hallatt later dropped the 8220P8221 to express his frustration with TJ8217s). Trader Joes sued in U. S. federal court for trademark infringement and unfair competition under both the federal Lanham Act and Washington state law. Since Mr. Hallatts allegedly infringing activity took place entirely in Canada, the question was whether U. S. federal trademarks law would extend to provide a remedy in a U. S. Court. In the wake of this decision, Trader Joe8217s federal claims are kept alive, although the court dismissed the state law claims against Hallatt. The court concluded: 8220We resolve two questions to decide whether the Lanham Act reaches Hallatts allegedly infringing conduct, much of which occurred in Canada: First, is the extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act an issue that implicates federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction Second, did Trader Joes allege that Hallatts conduct impacted American commerce in a manner sufficient to invoke the Lanham Act s protections Because we answer no to the first question but yes to the second, we reverse the district courts dismissal of the federal claims and remand for further proceedings.8221 In plain English, the appeals court has asked the lower court to reconsider the federal claims and make a final decision. Grab a bag of Trader Joe8217s Pita Crisps with Cranberries amp Pumpkin Seeds 8230 and stay tuned Calgary 8211 08:00 MST ipbog. ca turns 10 this month. It8217s been a decade since our first post in October 2006 and to commemorate this milestone 8230since no-one else will8230 let8217s have a look at IP rights and birthdays. You may have heard that the lyrics and music to the song 8220Happy Birthday8221 were the subject of a protracted copyright battle. The lawsuit came as a surprise to many people, considering this is the 8220world8217s most popular song8221 (apparently beating out Zeppelin8217s Stairway to Heaven . but that8217s another copyright story for another time). Warner Music Group claimed that they owned the copyright to 8220Happy Birthday8221, and when the song was used for commercial purposes (movies, TV shows, commercials), Warner Music extracted license fees, to the tune of 2 million each year. When this copyright claim was finally challenged, a US court ruled that Warner Music did not hold valid copyright, resulting in a 14 million settlement of the decades-old dispute in 2016 . In the realm of trademarks, a number of Canadian trademark owners lay claim to HAPPY BIRTHDAY including: The Section 9 Official Mark below, depicting a skunk or possibly a squirrel with a top hat, to celebrate Toronto8217s sesquicentennial. Hey, don8217t be too hard on Toronto, it was the 821780s. Another Section 9 Official Mark, the more staid 8220 HAPPY BIRTHDAY VANCOUVER 1886-1986 8221 to celebrate that city8217s centennial. Because nothing says 8216let8217s party8217 like the words HAPPY BIRTHDAY VANCOUVER 1886-1986. Cartier8217s marks HAPPY BIRTHDAY (TMA511885 and TMA779496) in association with handbags, eyeglasses and pens. Mattel8217s mark HAPPY BIRTHDAY (TMA221857) in association with dolls and doll clothing. The mark HAPPY BIRTHDAY VINEYARDS (pending) for wine, not to be confused with BIRTHDAY CAKE VINEYARDS (also pending) also for wine. FTD8217s marks BIRTHDAY PARTY (TMA229547) and HAPPY BIRTHTEA (TMA484760) for 8220live cut floral arrangements8221 And for those who can8217t wait until their full birthday there8217s t he registered mark HALFYBIRTHDAY (TMA833899 and TMA819609) for greeting cards and software. The registered mark BIRTHDAY BLISS (TMA825157) for 8220study programs in the field of spiritual and religious development8221. Let8217s not forget BIRTHDAYTOWN (TMA876458) for novelty items such as 8220key chains, crests and badges, flags, pennants, photos, postcards, photo albums, drinking glasses and tumblers, mugs, posters, pens, pencils, stick pins, window decals and stickers8221. Of course, no trademark list would be complete without including McDonald8217s MCBIRTHDAY mark (TMA389326) for restaurant services. So, pop open a bottle of branded wine and enjoy some live cut floral arrangements and a McBirthday burger as you peruse a decade8217s worth of Canadian IP law commentary. Calgary 8211 10:00 MST By Richard Stobbe The UK8217s Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) has released a helpful 12-page summary entitled The Impact of Brexit on Intellectual Property . which discusses a number of IP topics and the anticipated impact on IP rights and transactions, including: EPC, PCT and UK patents Community trade marks Trade secrets Copyright IP disputes and IP transactions It is CIPA8217s position that IP rights holders should expect 8220business as usual8221 in the next few years, since existing UK national IP rights are unaffected, European patents and applications remain unaffected, and the UK Government has not even taken steps to trigger 8220Article 508221 which would put in motion the formal bureaucratic machinery to leave the EU. This step is not expected until late 2016 or early 2017, which means the final exit may not occur until 2019. Canadian rightsholders who have UK or EU-based IP rights are encouraged to consult IP counsel regarding their IP rights. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST By Richard Stobbe In Part 1 we noted the growth in the craft beer industry in Canada and the U. S. and how this has spawned some interesting trademark disputes. The case of Brooklyn Brewery Corp. v. Black Ops Brewing, Inc. (January 7, 2016) pitted New York-based Brooklyn Brewery Corporation against California-based Black Ops Brewing, Inc. in a fight over the use of the mark BLACK OPS for beer. Brooklyn Brewery established sales, since 2007, of its beer under the registered trademark BROOKLYN BLACK OPS (for 29.99 a bottle). It objected to the use of the name BLACK OPS by the California brewery, which commenced operations in 2015. The California brewery argued that a distinction should be made between the name of the brewery versus the names of individual beers within the product line, which had different identifying names such as VALOR, SHRAPNEL and the BLONDE BOMBER. However, this argument fell apart under evidence that the term Black Ops appeared on each label of each of the above-listed beers, and there was clear evidence that the California brewery applied for registration of the mark BLACK OPS BREWING in association with beer in the USPTO. The court was convinced that use of the marks Black Ops Brewing, Black Ops, and blackopsbrewery created 8220a likelihood that the consuming public will be confused as to who makes what product.8221 An preliminary injunction was issued barring Black Ops Brewing from selling beer using the name BLACK OPS. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST By Richard Stobbe Canadians drink a lot of beer. The number of licensed breweries in Canada has risen 100 over the past five years to over 600. In Alberta and B. C. alone, the number of breweries doubled between 2010 and 2015 . Industry trends are shifting, driven by the growth in micro and craft breweries in Canada, a phenomenon mirrored in the U. S. where over 4,000 licensed breweries are vying for the business of consumers, the highest number of breweries in U. S. history . And with this comes an outpouring of beer-related trademarks. Brewery names and beer labels invariably lead to the clash of a few beer bottles on the litigation shelf. Let8217s have a look at recent U. S. cases: The mark ATLAS for beer was contested in the case of Atlas Brewing Company, LLC v. Atlas Brew Works LLC , 2015 TTAB LEXIS 381 (Trademark Trial amp App. Bd. (TTAB) Sept. 22, 2015). Atlas Brewing Company opposed the trademark application for ATLAS, arguing that there was a likelihood of confusion between ATLAS and ATLAS BREWING COMPANY. The TTAB agreed that there was a likelihood of confusion, since the two marks are virtually identical (the addition of 8220Brewing Company8221 is merely descriptive or generic) and the products are identical. However, the TTAB ultimately decided that the applicant had earlier rights, since Atlas Brewing Company did not actually sell any products bearing the ATLAS BREWING COMPANY trademark before the filing date for the trademark application. The only evidence related to the pre-sales period 8211 for example, private conversations, letters, and negotiations with architects, builders, and vendors of equipment. The TTAB characterized these as 8220more or less internal or organizational activities which would not generally be known by the general public8221. Secondly, there was evidence of social media accounts which used the ATLAS BREWING COMPANY name, but the TTAB was not convinced that this amounted to actual use of the brand as a trademark. 8220The act of joining Twitter on April 30, 2012, or Facebook on May 14, 2012, does not by itself establish use analogous to trademark use. 8220 Interestingly, the TTAB rejected the argument that the beer industry should be treated in a way similar to the pharmaceutical industry: Atlas Brewing Company argued that 8220there are special circumstances which apply because regulatory approval is required prior to being able to sell beer and that the beer industry is similar to the pharmaceutical industry, where trademark rights may attach prior to the actual sales of goods, and government approvals are needed prior to actual sales to the general public.8221 The TTAB countered this by pointing out that pharma companies engaged in actual sales of the product bearing the trademark during the clinical testing phase, prior to introduction into the marketplace. In this case, however, there were no actual sales. Thus, the opposition was refused and the application for ATLAS was allowed to proceed. The old Atlas Brewing Company has since rebranded as Burnt City Brewing . with a knowing wink at the legal headaches: 8220Weve all been burned by something, but now were back and better than ever.8221 Hat tip to Foley Hoag for their round-up of American cases. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST By Richard Stobbe In honour of Canada Day tomorrow (for our American readers, that8217s the equivalent of Independence Day, with the beer, hotdogs and fireworks, but without the summer blockbuster movie to go along with it), here is our venerable national anthem8230 in trademarks: OH CANADA (registered for use in association with whiskey), our HOME AND NATIVE LAND (registered for key chains, mugs, coasters and place mats, but expunged for failure to renew in 2012), TRUE PATRIOT LOVE (registered for accepting and administering charitable contributions to support the Canadian Military and their families) in all our sons command (until the lyrics are amended through a private members bill ) WITH GLOWING HEARTS (abandoned) we see thee rise, the TRUE NORTH (registered for footwear namely shoes, boots, slippers and sandals) STRONG AND FREE (registered for T-shirts, sweaters, and hats) From far and wide, OH CANADA (registered for use in association with whiskey), WE STAND ON GUARD (registered for water purification systems) for thee God keep OUR LAND (registered for fresh fruit), GLORIOUS AND FREE (registered for athletic wear, beachwear, casual wear, golf wear, gym wear, outdoor winter clothing and fridge magnets) OH CANADA (registered for use in association with whiskey) we stand ON GUARD FOR THEE (registered for travel health insurance services, but abandoned in 1996) WE STAND ON GUARD (registered for water purification systems) for thee Happy Canada Day Calgary 8211 12:00 MST By Richard Stobbe Yesterday UK voters elected to approve a withdrawal from the EU. What does this mean for Canadian business owners who have intellectual property (IP) rights in the UK The first message for Canadian IP rights holders is (in true British style) remain calm and keep a stiff upper lip. All of this is going to take a while to sort out and rights holders will have advance notice of the various means to protect their rights in an orderly fashion. The British are not known for rash actions 8212 ok, other than the Brexit vote. Rights granted by the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), will be impacted, although the extent of the impact is still to be negotiated and settled. The UKs membership in WIPO (the World International Property Organisation) is independent of EU membership and so will not be affected by this process. Similarly, the UKs participation in the European Patent Convention is not dependent on EU membership. Current speculation is that EU Trade Marks will continue to be recognized as valid in the EU, although such rights will not be recognized in the UK. This may require Canadian rights holders to submit new applications for those marks in the UK, or there may be a negotiated conversion of those EUIPO rights into national UK rights, permitting these registered marks to be recognized both in the EU and the UK. Copyright law should not be dramatically impacted, since many of the rights of Canadian copyright holders would benefit from international copyright conventions that predate the EU era. However, UK copyright law was undergoing a process to become aligned with EU laws. For example, recent amendments to the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 were enacted in 2014 to implement EU Directive 2001/29, and the fate of these statutory amendments remains unclear at the moment. Again, this won8217t happen overnight. Many bureaucrats must debate many regulations before the way forward becomes clear. That8217s not much of a rallying cry but it is the reality for an unprecedented event such as this. The good news If you are a EU IP rights negotiator, you will have steady employment for the next few years. Calgary 8211 10:00 MST By Richard Stobbe A word that clearly describes a particular product or service cannot function as a trademark for that product or service. The Trademarks Act phrases this idea in a more formal way: section 12(1)(b) says that a trade-mark is registrable if it is not 8220whether depicted, written or sounded, either clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive in the English or French language of the character or quality of the wares or services in association with which it is used or proposed to be used or of the conditions of or the persons employed in their production or of their place of origin8221. (Emphasis added) The case of Primalda Industries Corp v Morinda, Inc. . 2004 CanLII 71759 (CA TMOB), reviewed an application for the trade-mark TAHITIAN NONI Design, for the following wares: 8220skin care preparations namely, cleansers, lotions, gels, moisturizing creams8221 and similar products. The term TAHITIAN NONI refers to the morinda citrifolia tree, which is commonly known as NONI in the Polynesian language. The application was opposed based on a challenge that the mark offended section 12(1)(b) since it was 8220clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive8221 of the products, by virtue of the fact that the name is a clear description of ingredients in the skin care products, which are derived from the fruit of the 8216Tahitian NONI tree. This might be like trying to register the word CANADIAN MAPLE in association with skin care products derived from, say, the syrup from the maple tree. However, after reviewing the Act, the court rejected this ground of opposition. Why 8220It is self-evident from the legislation,8221 the Court said, 8220that words that might be descriptive in a language other than French or English are not subject to paragraph 12(1)(b). As the opponent alleges in its statement of opposition that 8216NONI8217 is a Polynesian word and there is no evidence that it is an English or French word . I conclude that TAHITIAN NONI Design cannot be unregistrable pursuant to paragraph 12(1)(b).8221 In short, a clearly descriptive word can be registrable in Canada as long as it is not descriptive in the English of French language. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST By Richard Stobbe Where should a lawsuit be heard Canada The US In other posts we discuss the idea of a 8220choice of law8221 and 8220forum selection8221 clauses in contracts. In those cases, the parties agree to a particular forum in advance. What if there is no contractual relationship There8217s just an intellectual property infringement claim. What is the proper forum for that dispute to be heard In Halo Creative v. Comptoir Des Indes Inc. David Ouaknine . Case No. 15-1375 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2016), a recent decision out of the US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, this issue was reviewed. Halo Creative, a Hong Kong based furniture maker, launched an IP infringement lawsuit against Comptoir Des Indes, Inc. a Canadian company, and its CEO, claiming infringement of Halo8217s U. S. design patents, U. S. copyrights, and one U. S. common law trademark. The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The Canadian company moved to dismiss the lawsuit based on a 8220forum non conveniens8221 argument 8211 essentially an argument that the Federal Court of Canada would be a better place to litigate the claims. The Illinois district court agreed with the Canadians and dismissed the case. Halo appealed. At the appeal level, the court looked at the adequacy of the Canadian court to litigate this issue. The Federal Court of Canada was certainly an available forum but there was no evidence that Halo could seek a satisfactory remedy there, since the infringing activity took place in the U. S. and the infringed rights were all based on U. S. registrations or U. S. based trademark rights. IP rights are fundamentally territorial. The U. S. court even quoted a Canadian textbook: 8220a Canadian court would not have jurisdiction to entertain in an action brought by an author of a work in respect of acts being committed outside Canada. even if the defendant was within Canada.8221 (Emphasis added) Here, there was no evidence that any infringement occurred in Canada. The motion was dismissed and the lawsuit will proceed in the U. S. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST By Richard Stobbe So much confusion, so little time. The Trade-marks Act teaches us that the use of one trade-mark causes confusion with another trade-mark if the use of both trade-marks in the same area would likely lead to the inference that the products associated with those trade-marks emanate from the same person, even if the products are of a different class. Confusion is assessed by looking at all the surrounding circumstances including: the inherent distinctiveness of the trade-marks the extent to which the marks have become known the length of time the trade-marks have been in use the nature of the products or business the nature of the trade and the degree of resemblance between the two trade-marks in appearance or sound or in the ideas suggested by them. In the case of U-Haul International Inc. v. U Box It Inc. . 2015 FC 1345 (CanLII), U-Haul International applied to register the trade-marks U-BOX WE-HAUL and U-BOX . for use in association with moving and storage services, namely, rental moving, storage, delivery and pick up of portable storage units. A competitor 8211 U Box It 8211 opposed these applications on the basis of confusion with its registered U BOX IT mark for use for use in association with garbage removal and waste management services. Are moving and storage services8221 in the same area as garbage removal and waste management services U-Haul argued that the two companies offer completely different services, and 8220that garbage removal and waste management are the 8216exact opposite8217 of moving and storage, and in different channels of trade.8221 However, the court agreed with the opponent8217s argument that confusion was based on 8220the similar manner in which the services are provided, and not on any finding that the services were in fact the same.8221 After reviewing all of the factors listed above, the court found a reasonable likelihood of confusion, and refused to register the two marks U-BOX WE-HAUL and U-BOX . based on confusion with the registered mark U BOX IT . Calgary 8211 05:00 MST By Richard Stobbe A interesting Report on Business article by the founder of a Canadian business is useful as a cautionary tale about brand confusion (see: I was outraged when Sobey8217s rebranded its chain with the same name as my company ). The author of the article tells of her struggles when grocery chain Sobeys launched a brand 8211 FRESHCO 8211 that was identical to the name of her then 15-year old company, also named FRESHCO . It sounds like a frustrating experience. In particular, the author notes that her company was 8220federally incorporated across Canada, and not trademarked,8221 leaving her with no legal options to prevent the entry of Sobey8217s FRESHCO brand for grocery store services. For small business owners or start-ups, this might be worth examining with a legal lens: First, it8217s important to remember that incorporation is completely different from trademark registration. One is creation of a corporate entity, and one is the registration of a brand name. The corporate name sometimes (but does not necessarily) mirror the core brand name of the business. A corporate name is no guarantee of anything in the trademark realm. Next, don8217t forget that trademark rights are based on use in the marketplace, and a business generates certain trademark rights even without taking the step of registration at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. In other words, a business can defend common law trademark rights based on past use even in the absence of a registered trademark. It8217s just harder than with a registered mark. A registered trademark provides stronger rights across Canada, and that kind of brand protection should always be considered by business owners as part of their investment. Even after an incident like the one described by this author, it8217s open to the earlier user of the mark to apply for registration, even after many years of 8220unregistered8221 use. In this case, the Sobey8217s trademark FRESHCO for grocery services is in a different channel of trade than the author8217s FRESHCO mark for construction services. Trademark law permits similar or even identical marks to co-exist, so long as consumers aren8217t confused. Think of DELTA for hotel services and DELTA for faucets. Identical marks, different channels of trade. There is actually nothing improper about that, as frustrating as it may seem to the earlier user. The author appears to have used this as a positive opportunity to reinvest in the brand and refocus the company8217s marketing message. If this kind of thing happens to your business, ensure that you get legal advice from an experienced trademark lawyer on your options as you make decisions for your company. Calgary 8211 07:00 MST By Richard Stobbe The adage 8220use it or lose it8221 captures the essence of the ongoing requirement to put a trademark into commercial use. If you abandon your mark, you effectively give up your trademark rights. The corollary is to 8220use it as registered. or lose it8221 Not quite as catchy, but just as important. The Federal Court decision in Padcon Ltd. v. Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP 2015 FC 943 reminds us of this. In this case, a trademark owner obtained a registration in 2006 for the mark THE OUTRIGGER STEAKHOUSE AND BAR in association with 8220r estaurant, bar and pub services8221. When challenged, the trademark owner could only show use of the word OUTRIGGER alone, together with the symbol, on its menus and on some related promotional materials. Are deviations permitted When the court considers a mark-as-used against the mark-as-registered, it will consider the following test: The practical test to be applied in order to resolve a case of this nature is to compare the trade mark as it is registered with the trade mark as it is used and determine whether the differences between these two marks are so unimportant that an unaware purchaser would be likely to infer that both, in spite of their differences, identify goods having the same origin. That question must be answered in the negative unless the mark was used in such a way that the mark did not lose its identity and remained recognizable in spite of the differences between the form in which it was registered and the form in which it was used. The court decided that use of OUTRIGGER alone on menus and promotional materials did not constitute evidence of use of the mark-as-registered: THE OUTRIGGER STEAKHOUSE AND BAR . The registration was expunged. Lessons for business Review your marks-as-used, and compare against your marks-as-registered. Consider developing brand guidelines to ensure that your organization, and others who might be authorized to use your trademarks, are in compliance with the guidelines. If you already have brand guidelines, ensure that there are clear lines of responsibility for enforcement. Calgary 8211 11:00 MT By Richard Stobbe Let8217s take an example. Is the word PARIS registrable as a trademark in Canada A quick search of the registry shows that there are over 250 registered marks which contain the word PARIS for everything from jewelry to software to real estate management services. A geographical name can be registrable. It depends. The issue is whether the word is 8220clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive8221 in the English or French languages of the place of origin of the goods or services. In MC Imports Inc. v. AFOD Ltd. . a 2016 case Federal Court of Appeal decision, the court reviewed a challenge to the registered mark LINGAYEN in association with fish sauce and shrimp paste products. The owner of the LINGAYEN mark had sued a competitor for infringement the competitor sold shrimp paste under a different brand, but the packaging included the phrase 8220Lingayen Style8221 to describe its product. This reference to 8220Lingayen8221 was, according to the claim, an infringement of the LINGAYEN registered mark. Lingayen is a municipality in the Philippines known for its distinctive shrimp paste products. Thus, the court found that the use of the phrase 8220Lingayen Style8221 was not use of the word for trademark purposes, but was used to describe the place of origin of the goods with which it is associated. Therefore, there was no infringement. When considering a geographical trademark, ensure that you seek experienced counsel . Calgary 8211 07:00 MST By Richard Stobbe Adidas, Veuve Clicquot, Barbie When is a mark considered famous in Canada, and do famous marks enjoy special protection A handful of Canadian cases have outlined the courts treatment of well-known brands: Sure, Barbie is famous but not trump-card famous. That was the conclusion of the court in Mattel, Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc. . when Mattel raised a challenged that the mark BARBIE used in connection with restaurant services would lead consumers to make an inference that the restaurant was affiliated with Mattels famous BARBIE doll mark. Canadian Courts will not automatically presume that there will be confusion just because one mark is famous. As the Federal Court in Mattel phrased it, the fame of the mark could not act as a marketing trump card such that the other factors are thereby obliterated. Canadian courts will assess all of the surrounding circumstances to determine confusion. In Mattel, they considered the restaurant services to be distinguishable from Mattels famous doll. The owner of the famous luxury brand VEUVE CLICQUOT encountered similar difficulties in its infringement claim against a purveyor of mid-priced womens wear being sold under the brand CLIQUOT in Quebec. In Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v Boutiques Cliquot Lte. . Veuve Clicquot argued that the association with sniff mid-priced apparel was damaging its carefully managed reputation. In an interesting turn of phrase from the decision, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that the champagne maker has been building its fine reputation with the drinking classes since before the French Revolution. The role of champagne drinking classes as a catalyst for the French Revolution is perhaps a topic for a separate article. In any event, the Court did not find any evidence that the VEUVE CLICQUOT brand image was tarnished, or that the goodwill was otherwise devalued or diluted. The infringement claim was dismissed, leaving the CLIQUOT womens wear shops free to continue business. In a more recent case, shoemaker Adidas challenged a competitors registration of a two-stripe design for shoes. Adidas complained that the two-stripe design was confusing with its own three-stripe design. In A didas AG v. Globe International Nominees Pty Ltd. . the Federal Court conceded that the adidas 3-Stripes Design is well-known, if not famous, in Canada and internationally. However, in deciding that the two-stripe mark was not confusing with the Adidas 3-stripe design, the Court sounded a cautionary note for owners of famous brands: Fame and notoriety associated with a trademark can be a double-edged sword for a trademark owner. On the one hand, an enhanced reputation may provide the owner with extended protection for the trademark beyond goods and/or services covered by a registration for the marks 8230 On the other hand, when a trademark becomes so well known or famous that the public is so familiar with it and readily identifies that trademark as used in the marketplace on goods and/or services, it may be that even as a matter of first impression, any differences between the well-known mark and another partys trademark, as used on the same or similar goods and/or services, may serve to more easily distinguish the other partys trademark and reduce any likelihood of confusion. Put another way, a mark can be so well-known to consumers that small differences in a competing mark will enable consumers to distinguish between the two marks. Get advice on trade-mark protection and infringement from Field Law8217s experienced trademark team. Calgary 8211 07:00 MT By Richard Stobbe This is a story of what 8220use8221 really means. In the internet context, a trademark can be displayed on a website by a Canadian company, and that website can be accessed anywhere in the world. Similarly, a foreign company can display its mark on a website which can be accessed by Canadian consumers. Is the foreign company8217s mark being 8220used8221 in Canada for trademark purposes, merely by being displayed online to Canadian consumers If you follow this kind of thing8230 and who doesn8217t8230 you would say that this issue was settled in the 2012 case HomeAway, Inc. v Hrdlicka . 2012 FCJ No 1665 where Justice Hughes said clearly: 8220a trade-mark which appears on a computer screen website in Canada, regardless where the information may have originated from or be stored, constitutes for Trade-Marks Act purposes, use and advertising in Canada.8221 In Supershuttle International, Inc. v. Fetherstonhaugh amp Co. . 2015 FC 1259 (CanLII), the court reviewed a challenge to the SUPERSHUTTLE trademark, which was registered in connection with 8220airport passenger ground transportation services8221. The SUPERSHUTTLE mark was displayed to Canadian consumers who could reserve airport shuttle transportation in the United States. The mark was registered in Canada and displayed in Canada, but no shuttle services were actually performed in Canada. The court concluded that: 8220While the observation of a trademark by individuals on computers in Canada may demonstrate use of a mark, the registered services must still be offered in Canada .8221 (Emphasis added) Non-Canadian trademark owners should take note: merely displaying a mark in Canada via the internet may not be enough for 8220use8221 of that mark in Canada. The services or products which are listed in the registration must be available in Canada. Make sure you get experienced advice regarding registration of marks in Canada. Calgary 8211 07:00 MT By Richard Stobbe Imprisonment in intellectual property infringement cases is rare 8211 although not unheard of . The message from a recent Canadian Federal Court decision is8230 don8217t mess with the Court. They expect compliance with their orders and a contempt order can lead to a 8220warrant of committal8221, resulting in imprisonment. In 2013, a Federal Court ruled that Hightimes Smokeshop and its officer and director, Ameen Muhammad had infringed the HIGH TIMES trademark owned by Trans-High Corporation (See: Trans-High Corporation v Hightimes Smokeshop and Gifts Inc. . 2013 FC 1190 (CanLII)). In spite of this judgment, the judgement was ignored, and trademark infringement continued on the shop signage, sales receipts and printed materials of Hightimes Smokeshop. Then in June 2015, Hightimes Smokeshop and Mr. Muhammad each pleaded guilty to five counts of contempt which resulted in the issuance of a Contempt Order, and an award of 62,500 in costs, payable by Hightimes Smokeshop and Mr. Muhammad, jointly and severally. However, that Contempt Order was also ignored and no money was paid to Trans-High Corporation. In Trans-High Corporation v. Hightimes Smokeshop and Gifts Inc. . 2015 FC 1104 (CanLII), Trans-High Corporation brought another motion to compel compliance with the Contempt Order, citing a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, that a person who is ordered by a court to pay money may be imprisoned for contempt if he or she shows a certain degree of intention to evade his or her obligations or, put another way 8220he or she is unwilling to pay the debt despite having the ability to pay8221 (see paragraph 11). The Court issued a warrant for the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Muhammad, arising from contempt in a trademark infringement case. Calgary 8211 07:00 MT By Richard Stobbe What if a competitor cut and paste the metatags from your website and used them on the competitors site Is there a remedy under Canadian law Are metatags subject to trademark protection The answer is8230 it depends. Red Label Vacations (redtag. ca) sued its rival 411 Travel Buys for use of metatags, including 8220Red Tag Vacations8221 in the 411 Travel Buys website. The Federal Court dismissed the trademark and copyright claims of Red Label Vacations (see: No copyright or trademark protection for metatags ). Red Label Vacations appealed. In Red Label Vacations Inc. v. 411 Travel Buys Limited . 2015 FCA 290, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, and upheld the lower court decision. The court agreed that 411 Travel Buys had copied the metatags from Red Label8217s site, but noted that none of the metatags appeared in the visible portion of the 411 Travel Buys website. Therefore, consumers did not see any of the metatags. In that sense, there was no 8220use8221 of the metatags as trademarks for the purposes of determining infringement. Interestingly, there was one instance where the metatags were visible, and that was in the Google search result, where the words 8220Book Online with Red Tag Vacations 038 Pay Less Guaranteed8221 appeared in connection with the 411 Travel Buys site. The court considered that this would have the effect of sending consumers to Red Label8217s site. The court did leave the door ajar for other metatag trademark infringement cases, noting 8220 in some situations, inserting a registered trade-mark (or a trade-mark that is confusing with a registered trade-mark) in a metatag may constitute advertising of services that would give rise to a claim for infringement8230 8221 Emphasis added Calgary 8211 07:00 MT By Richard Stobbe As an update to our earlier post . we note that the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada . in its most recent bulletin, is estimating that the anticipated changes to Canada8217s intellectual property laws 8211 including the overhaul of trademark laws under new Trademarks Regulations . as well as changes to the Patent Rules and Industrial Design Regulations 8211 will not begin until late 2016. This pushes the patent law changes into late 2017, with the trademark amendments to be implemented by early 2018. The impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on Canada8217s IP laws is still being assessed. If ratified in Canada, the TPP is expected to require further consequential amendments to Canadian laws 8211 such as copyright term extensions. Fique ligado. Just don8217t hold your breath. Calgary 8211 07:00 MT