Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Overview of Canadian Trademark Law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Overview of Canadian Trademark Law
A trademark is most often known as a symbol, word, or phrase that is used in commerce to distinguish a particular seller’s wares from that of another ("Trade-marks Act")( Wensley & Caraway). The protection of trademarks within the Canadian trademark law is not only emphasized within the Trade-marks Act, but also decreed under common law, similarly known as the rulings dictated by federal judiciaries ("Canadian trademark law"). This implies that trademarks can either be registered under the Act, or safeguarded by a common law action called “passing off.” Passing off is a crucial mean of protecting a registered trademark through section 7(b) and 7(c) of the Act that deliberates the tort of such a regulation ("Canadian trademark law"). Both statutes ensure the protection of not only trademarks but also certification marks, distinctive marks, proposed marks, service marks, and distinguishing guises against perpetrators who either defraud the goodwill of these marks or generate confusion in relation to it. For a plaintiff to prove that trademark infringement has occurred, he/she needs to illustrate either the existence of goodwill within the market area, that the defendant’s use of mark or trade name exemplified the misrepresentation of wares, or that such falsification caused harm to the organization ("Canadian trademark law"). The owner of the trademark has an advantage through Section 19, 20, and 22 of the Act, which sanction for the exclusive rights to the mark throughout Canada in relevance to the products and services it was generated for, prohibiting the distribution of wares in association with a confusing trademark by unapproved individuals, and/or obstructing non-owners from using the mark in a manner that may result in the v...
... middle of paper ...
...b 2014. .
Government of Canada. “Justice Laws”. Trade-marks Act. 1985. Web.
-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/T-13/page-1.html>.
Lipton, Jacqueline. "Bad Faith in Cyberspace: Grounding Domain Name Theory in
Trademark, Property, and Restitution." Harvard University. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 2010. Web. 26 Feb 2014. .
Samson, Ted. "Typosquatter slapped with $1 million lawsuit for allegedly harvesting emails." Info World. N.p., 25 Jun 2012. Web. 24 Feb 2014. .
Wensley, Anthony. Caraway, Brett. “Trademark Lecture Slides” CCT206H5S.
University of Toronto Mississauga. 6, Feb. 2014. Lecture PowerPoint.
(7) Hall B. Patents and Patent Policy -. 2007. The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary' of the Morse H. SETTLEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISPUTES IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRIES: ANTITRUST RULES. Allison JR, Lemley MA, Moore KA, Trunkey RD. Valuable patents. Geol.
v. VIP Prods., LLC 666 F. Supp. 2d 974 (Mo., 2008) Anheuser-Busch makes a distinction between confusing and non-confusing parodies, the latter being protected as a parody. The important factors in the case were that the price point of the products was the same, they were directly competing goods and the survey showed that there was a level of confusion (30.3% were confused), in addition, consideration was placed on irreparable harm caused by the defendants use of the mark, the priority lay with the first to register the trademark, lastly the District Court considered public interest, i.e. whether the public was deceived. Similarly in Starbucks Corp v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee Inc., 588 F3d 97 (2d Cir. 2007) the court distinguished Louis Vuitton S.A. v Haute Diggty Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007) by holding that if (as in the Louis Vuitton case), the mark is used in non-competing goods, the defendant conveyed that it was not the source of the plaintiffs product and if the actual use of the mark does not impair the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark there may be an argument in favor of the defendant, however, if the defendant’s humor is not conveyed to the public, and does not increase the public identification of the plaintiff’s mark with its mark it will fail to establish
I have never had a strong opinion on monopolies in Canada. However, I believe that monopolies can stifle innovation, competition, and affect the prices that the consumer has to pay for a product or service. Since we live in a mixed market economy, Canada has very few monopolies such as the health, airspace, and telecommunications industries. Companies within theses industries are notorious for price fixing, lack of innovation, and competition. These problems are prevalent because of the barriers to entry the new players face such government regulation, the cost of doing business, and infrastructure.
Throughout the history of mankind, technology has been the engine of all social progress. People have made inventions that revolutionized our way of living and thinking. There have been over half of a billion patents given out throughout the World of which more than million patents were granted to Canadian inventors. Nevertheless, the National Science Literacy Survey revealed that two thirds of Canadians are not able to name even one Canadian inventor or any Canadian accomplishments! Throughout the past century and into the next millennium, the range of Canadian inventions is a reflection of Canada’s ingenuity, and innovating and inventing is one of the reason why Canada is on par with countries such as Britain, the United States, and France. Coincidentally, many Canadian-made inventions have been in the fields of transportation and communications, while some fields such as medicine and science are slowly progressing. Other inventions have been made to combat the Canadian climate. Numerous technological advances have been achieved in machinery associating in improving the approach resources are excavated, since Canada is rich in primary resources/staples such as agriculture, wood, mining, and fish. However, since Canada is respectably a new nation, many crucial achievements have either been built or improved on, so it is formidable to invent a Canadian worldwide utilized invention. Although, this doesn’t mean that Canada did not contribute to humanity. On the contrary, with inventions such as the snowmobile, discovery of insulin and the hockey masks; are being used all over the world, as well as saving millions of lives every year. In general, Canadian technology such as medical treatment, transportation, and technology have ...
Thompson, I. (2006) Decision of a Delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks with Reasons
In the 1998 Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law Review, Michael J. Mrvica argues that The National Basketball Association v. Motorola represents a type of intellectual property conflict. Intellectual property rights attributes to someone’s rights in intangible things. The intellectual property rights are in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution. The thesis of this article being, “The expansion of intellectual property law, and the rights afforded therein, has created complex litigation.”
The image of Canada is not as favorable internationally as it should be. Therefore, developing an appealing brand identity has become an important part of attracting international investment to Canada, since its image is more prone to misconception while US has a strong brand image that does not require much active promotion internationally. Thus, Canada needs the help of a branding strategy to improve on a broader scale internationally.
Barnes, D. W. (2011). Congestible intellectual property and impure public goods. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 9(8), 533. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=njtip
Businesses filing the claim must also show that the business use of the trademark is expected to cause uncertainty as to the association, relationship or the affiliation among them. To establish a violation of the Lanham Act for either a registered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, or an unregistered mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), the plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) it has a valid and legally protectable mark; (2) it owns the mark; and (3) the defendant's use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion.( A&H Sportswear, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores, Inc., 237 F.3d 198 (3rd Cir.
The aim of this essay is to critically discuss how the law of passing off and trade mark law have common roots and therefore are, in many respects, similar. I will begin with a short brief history of trade mark law and the law of passing off. I move on to discuss the similarity between trade mark law and the law of passing off with reference to relevant case law and statutes. Although, passing off and trade mark law deal with overlapping factual situations, s 2(2) of the Trade Mark Act 1994 maintains passing off as a separate cause of action. When a trade mark is threatened by the actions of third parties the proprietor will bring an action for both passing off and trade mark infringement which both share many similarities. However, they are
Michael C. McFarland, Intellectual Property, Information, and the Common Good, June 4-5 1999, Intellectual Property and Technology Forum, May 27 2004, <http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/commentary/content/1999060503.html>.
A lot of individuals usually mistake trademark for copyright. Trademark is used in a brand to identify a name, logo, and slogan from similar competitive products. Another important fact that should be noted is that copyright is different from patent right. The latter is protection of once invention.
I received high grades in the several intellectual property courses I took during law school. I even had the opportunity to audit a trademark law course, where I learned about the Trademark Act of 1946 and several major trademark law cases. Additionally, I was a blogger for American University Washington College of Law’s Intellectual Property Law Brief (IPLB). As a blogger, I produced articles discussing a range of intellectual property topics, such as geographically descriptive trademarks, Internet service providers’ liability, music sampling, and foreign trademark infringement. My coursework and my work with the IPLB not only provided substantive knowledge of trademark law, but exposed me to a wide range of contemporary issues in trademark law.
In France the first compre-hensive trademark system of the world was passed into law in 1857 with the “Manufacture and Goods Marks Act”. In Britain, the 1862 Merchandise Marks Act made it a criminal offence to imitate another’s trademark ‘with the intent to defraud or to enable another to defraud’. In 1875, The Trademarks Registration Act was passed which allowed formal registration of trademarks at the UK Patent office for the first time. Registration was considered to comprise prima facie evidence of ownership of a trademark and registration of marks began on 1st Janu-ary 1876. The 1875 act defined a registrable trademark as ‘a device, or mark, or name of an in-dividual or firm printed in some particular and distinctive manner, or a written signature or copy of a written signature of an individual or firm; or a distinctive label or
My aim is to examine certain past cases where a party claimed that their intellectual property was used without consent. Because most things are not black or white, rather a spectrum of grays, patents surely produce positive and negative outcomes. They can potentially block certain individuals’ access to certain essentials who might desperately need them. In economic terms, a deadweight loss exists might exist in economies where patents are implemented by a government. This is a controversial topic, since the firm or individual attempting to defend the patent in question can potentially lose profits due to the copyright infringement. 3D Printing: Cultural Property as Intellectual Property, written by Charles Croning will be one of my essential sources for my paper. His focuses on “how we perceive tangible works of cultural property, and how we resolve disputes over their ownership.” I will investigate the outcome of these cases to a higher degree, as well as, analyze the claims of the opposing