Mariela Gutierrez Olivares is a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article was written as a requirement for Prof. Pina D’Agostino’s IP Intensive Program.

Controversy ensued when a Mexican food restaurant in the UK, �ղ���ܱ��í��, issued a ��to a similar restaurant, Sonora �ղ���ܱ��í��, for infringement of their registered mark "Taqueria." Yet is Spanish for a place where tacos are sold. Trademarking is akin to trademarking "pizzeria" or "café."

Across social media platforms, what they perceived as an act of�������� (owned by �ղ���ܱ��í�� Worldwide "TW"). A group called MexiBrit even launched which has collected over 100,000 signatures to date, hailing, "The Mexican UK community is outraged and we won't stop until we see justice. Stop the cultural appropriation!"��However, Sonora �ղ���ܱ��í�� is not the first business TW's trademark is enforced against. In 2020, TW of their mark and successfully opposed a competitor’s mark, "Taco Ria" claiming it was "visually similar and phonetically and conceptually identical" and would confuse consumers.

Conflicts surrounding��marks that many consider generic, descriptive or worse culturally appropriating (or misappropriating) are . The recent �ٲ���ܱ��í�� highlights the following issues in the global trademarks (and IP) regime:

1. The role of trademark examiners interpreting the statutes that grant trademark rights is increasingly challenging in a global economy.��In cases like the one here, trademark examiners and officers consider the average consumer's knowledge in the jurisdiction they are acting. Here, a trademark examiner would examine the understanding of the UK public when reviewing the "Taqueria" mark. Presumably, when it was granted in 2004, the mark was not considered generic or descriptive.
2. The use of generic and descriptive marks will inevitably cause harm.��Owners who invest resources to build a reputation suffer when they have to discontinue use of a mark. Inversely, non-owner users who become excluded from using a term where no other exists also suffer. Here, TW could choose to surrender its mark, but not without facing a considerable financial setback – forfeiting the investment made to build its name and re-distinguishing its business under a new name. Sonora �ղ���ܱ��í�� and others who wish to defend their use of the mark must also spend their resources and potentially face more significant losses if those actions fail.
3. Protecting traditional and cultural heritage requires adequate legal tools.��Whether "Taqueria" ought to remain a generic term available for anyone to use in their business name is a legal question. Though various have called for the , legal tools to determine how such protection is to be accomplished are lacking. Despite the moral reprehension associated with , legally-binding solutions are few and far between, left to each jurisdiction.

Trademarks indicate the source of a product or service. Where intellectual property rights (including trademarks) exist, accusations of cultural appropriation are insufficient to cancel or invalidate those rights. All things considered, more �ٲ���ܱ��í��s means more tacos and that is a great problem for the UK and the world to solve.

The post Tacos with a Side of Cease and Desist appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Katie Graham is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

A dated August 5, 2022 from the United Kingdom’s High Court of Justice has the potential to expand the definition of “artistic works of craftmanship” under UK copyright law. Deputy High Court Judge Stone rejected a motion by the defendants, Liking Ltd. (“Liking”), to strike out Water Rower (UK) Ltd.’s (“WaterRower”) claim for copyright infringement in its WaterRower water resistance rowing machine on the basis that the machine is not a “work of artistic craftmanship” within the UK’s .

The Facts at Issue

As a member of the 1975 US National Rowing Team and having studied naval architecture, including wooden boat design, John Duke sought to design a wooden rowing machine in which the user has a “welcome emotional connection, as they would with a piece of furniture”. The first versions of this machine were developed between 1985 and 1987 and, since this time, there have been eight iterations of the WaterRower and it has grown to be an “iconic design” in the UK and US. Liking admitted to copying the eighth iteration of the WaterRower in creating its rival rowing machine, the TOPIOM Model 1. However, Liking argued that since the WaterRower could not be considered a “work of artistic craftmanship,” no copyright subsists in the WaterRower.

Court’s Decision

While the Court did not ultimately conclude whether the WaterRower is a “work of artistic craftmanship” under copyright law, Judge Stone ruled that the question of whether the WaterRower could be considered as such is one that requires a full trial and cannot be determined in summary judgment. This ruling was based on the leading House of Lords authority on works of artistic craftmanship, George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd.[1] Though Hensher provides a less than clear definition of what constitutes works of artistic craftmanship, Judge Stone considered that:

1. The artist’s intention is relevant to whether a work is artistic, and there is evidence about Mr. Duke’s intention as a craftsman; and
2. It is unclear that the WaterRower is less artistic than the examples of artistic works given by Lord Simon in Hensher, including hand-painted tiles and stained-glass windows.

As such, Judge Stone rejected Liking’s argument under Hensher that, on any view, WaterRower has no real prospect of proving their machine is artistic.

What could this mean for UK and Canadian copyright law?

If the WaterRower is found to be an artistic work of craftmanship at trial, this would indicate that the UK courts are adopting a more flexible definition of “artistic”, especially in relation to functional works that are generally considered more congruent with the patent framework.

In Canadian copyright law, works of artistic craftmanship are generally limited to those “intended to have an appeal to the aesthetic senses” (). Given the evidence of John Duke’s intention to create a wooden rowing machine that evokes emotion, the argument could be made that the aesthetic features of the WaterRower are protected under the Canadian copyright regime. However, since the WaterRower has been mass produced for the fitness industry in Canada, the Canadian would intervene and only permit the aesthetic features of the useful machine to be protected, so long as these features are distinctive. To date, neither WaterRower or Liking have applied for design protection in Canada, though other rowing machine designs�� have previously been registered in Canada.

[1] George Hensher Ltd v Restawile Upholstery (Lancs) Ltd��[1976] AC 64 (“Hensher”).

The post The WaterRower: A Work of Art “Oar” Not? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

In a recent installment in the series of intellectual property disputes in the music industry, electronic artist Four Tet, also known as Kieran Hebden, has against his independent British record label, Domino Record Label, over how much he is paid every time one of his songs is downloaded or streamed. Four Tet had ; a time where CDs were still popular and long before the invention and popularization of music streaming. In this contract, it was stipulated that for licences, he would be paid a royalty rate of but for a sale, such as the sale of a CD, he would be paid a royalty

Sales vs Licences

When Four Tet’s contract was signed in 2001, these standard licensing terms were for the music industry. For music sales, such as selling music via CDs, vinyl, and cassettes, overhead costs for record labels were much higher due to manufacturing and distribution expenses. Thus, in order to cover the overhead costs, record labels would pay their artists a lower royalty rate compared to the royalty rate for licences. For licences, it was understood that the third party licensing the music, such as for a movie, television show, or advertisement, would take on the extra costs, allowing for an artist to receive a higher royalty rate from the record label.

However, with advancements in technology for music consumption, the landscape of the music industry changed. Record labels no longer had high overhead expenses due to no longer having to manufacture and distribute CDs, vinyl or cassettes. Yet record labels continue to ��argue that music downloads and streams should be considered as sales as this is a new technology format. Artists have typically disagreed with this and insist that this type of royalty model is unfair. For example, in 2011, against Eminem’s record company, Universal Music Group for unpaid royalties, due to the producers arguing that streamed and downloaded music should be considered akin to licencing of music and not sales.

The Case at Hand

In 2020, Four Tet against Domino for unpaid royalties. Similar to the Eminem case, Four Tet argued that he should be paid a royalty rate of 50% for streams and downloads of his music, not the 18% that the record label had been paying him. Four Tet reasoned that streams and downloads of music are like licences; not sales. In response to the lawsuit, Domino removed three of Four Tet’s four albums produced with the record label, without Four Tet’s consent, from all streaming services and online stores in November, 2021, which ” Four Tet. Four Tet responded by adding a claim for breach of contract, resulting in Domino threatening to take the case to the High Court.

The case, which took place in the Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court, ultimately and Domino agreed to pay the requested royalty rate of 50% on streams and downloads as they are now considered to be licences. Domino also paid Four Tet £56,921.08 to account for the difference in income owed as a result of the difference between the royalty rates of 18% and 50% and simple interest calculated at a rate of 5% per year during the accounting period commencing July 1, 2017.

Future Impacts

The settlement may significantly impact the way the music industry values streaming and downloading and thus may impact royalty rates. This is particularly important as the music industry seems to be undergoing a reform regarding royalty payments. , a committee of UK MPs published a report advocating for a 50/50 royalty split between the record label and the artist. Similarly, the US Copyright Royalty Board has to increase streaming royalty rates to 15.1% for songwriters/publishers. ��These decisions, including Four Tet’s successful settlement, indicate that the music industry is changing and artists will start gaining fairer deals when it comes to royalties from streaming and downloading.

The post Four Tet’s Successful Royalty Battle: Are Changes Coming in the Music Industry for Royalty Payment? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Raenelle Manning is an IPilogue Writer and at 2L J.D Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The global fashion distributer, is currently engaged in a trademark dispute with Amber Kotrri, the owner of “House of Zana.” House of Zana is a fashion boutique in Darlington, England that specializes in handmade kimonos and other garments. In April 2022, ZARA submitted a notice of opposition to Kotrri’s trademark application, claiming that brand names were “conceptually identical” for customers. ZARA’s lawyers also urged Kotrri to change her business name and remove all existing branding. Kotrri has refused to comply expressing that it would cause “irreparable harm to her business”. The occurred on March 25 2022, where Kotrri defended her business arguing that there is no similarity between the two brands.

Under third party trademark owners have two months to file a formal opposition after a trademark application is submitted. Generally, an will assert that the similarity of the trademark will cause confusion or that the trademark application covers similar goods/services. At the tribunal hearing, ZARA that the brands’ oral and visual similarities will lead consumers to “misread, mishear, mispronounce and/or otherwise perceive House of Zana as ZARA.” Further, ZARA alleged that sales could be affected if the average consumer accessed the House of Zana website erroneously when trying to find ZARA. It seems unlikely that people would confuse the popular high-street fashion retailer with a small boutique. Despite the aural likeness of the brand names, the logos are quite dissimilar. The House of Zana logo is written in an italicized font; this is distinct from the bold ZARA logo. ZARA is a globally recognizable brand with , whereas House of Zana has one store location.��

Other small businesses have been victims of ZARA’s vigilant trademark enforcement. Last year, ZARA also filed trademark oppositions against 23-year-old , the owner of “Zara Ceramics.” She received a letter from ZARA’s attorneys demanding that she rebrand within a year because the business name undermined ZARA Home. She eventually changed the name to “Zara McLaughlin Studios.”. Tara Nguyen, the owner of a small online fashion retailer, “Tara Sartoria” is also currently fighting back against a trademark opposition from ZARA.

IPilogue Writer Sally Yoon recently discussed the concept of a trademark bully in one of her on Apple’s numerous trademark opposition filings. To reiterate, a is loosely defined as “a larger or well-known company that takes a hyper-aggressive approach to asserting their trademark rights, sometimes to the point of absurdity”. ZARA is an established multi-national business with the legal resources to target these smaller businesses with trademark oppositions and infringement. Small-owned business are not likely to have the means to fight back and may end up financially suffering . For example, admitted that responding to ZARA’s letter of opposition cost her business “almost all of their resources”. Fortunately, by publicizing the incident, Amber Kotrri was able to acquire free legal services and significant public support, including over 85,000 signatures on a demanding that ZARA withdraw their legal action.

While public empathy tends to lean towards the smaller business in these disputes, the encourages trademark owners to actively police potential trademark infringement. Trademarks are important for any sized business to protect their investments from potential exploitation. This raises questions about whether ZARA is a trademark bully or justifiably enforcing their trademark rights. ��The House of Zana trademark ruling decision is set to be delivered later this year.

The post Who runs this house: Zara vs Zana Trademark Dispute appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Serena Nath is an IPilogue Writer and a rising 2L JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Typically, the name “Vogue” evokes the highly popular fashion and lifestyle magazine or the song “Vogue” by Madonna. But the original “Vogue” actually refers to the in Cornwall, and named after this village is a pub. However, for Condé Nast, the publisher of Vogue the magazine, having a pub called “Vogue” was an issue.

Vogue, the village pub, has existed for approximately 200 years and Vogue, the magazine, has only existed for about 130 years. Yet to ask Vogue, the pub, to change its name. In a letter sent to the pub at the beginning of May 2022, Conde Nast threated to sue the pub over its name, stating that Condé Nast is the proprietor of the Vogue mark. Condé Nast claimed that the pub’s name could “cause problems” because people may become confused and associate the pub with the magazine. The letter also stated that the pub manager had to reply within seven days, otherwise Condé Nast would take remedial action.

The pub manager, Mark Graham, was not terribly bothered by the letter, and in fact found it “hilariously funny.” In , Mr. Graham helpfully pointed out that the pub predates the magazine and the village is even older than the pub. Further, when the name “Vogue” was chosen for the magazine, Condé Nast did not seek permission from the village, the “real Vogue” as Mr. Graham states, to use the name. In the end, Condé Nast offered the pub an apology, admitting that Mr. Graham was correct and that they in this instance.

This case, a clear David versus Goliath situation, illustrates key access to justice issues in intellectual property law, and even more generally, in law as a whole. Although this case ended up in victory for the small pub, before Mr. Graham sent a reply to Condé Nast, he considered submitting a counterclaim. If he had countered the claim, it would have likely been a lengthy battle in which the pub may not have been victorious, despite both the village and pub existing long before the creation of “Vogue” the magazine. Condé Nast clearly has many more resources to help them fight such a battle. This case could have led to including, but not limited to, the pub running out of financial resources midway through litigation or the pub feeling pressured into a settlement. Sometimes a non-legal response can be the way to resolve these issues and avoid a costly legal problem for either party.

The post Who Wins in the Battle of Vogue, the magazine, (David) versus Vogue, the pub (Goliath)? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Prof. David Vaver presenting the 14th Annual Sir Hugh Laddie Lecture ()

Sally Yoon is an IPilogue Writer, IP Innovation Clinic Fellow, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On June 22, 2022, I had the pleasure of tuning into the 14th Annual Sir Hugh Laddie Lecture. Over the years, the lectures have been delivered by distinguished experts from across the globe. This year, the lecture was delivered by our own Professor David Vaver, Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Osgoode Hall Law School, the first Chair in Intellectual Property & Information Technology Law at the University of Oxford, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, member of the Order of Canada, and Member of IP Osgoode’s Advisory Board. The was delivered in person at the UCL Cruciform Lecture Theatre and live-streamed for viewers across the world.

Sir Hugh Laddie was born in 1946 and studied law at St Catherine’s College, Cambridge. He was a judge of the High Court of England and Wales, a professor, and a leader in the field of intellectual property. Since his passing in 2008, the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL) at the University College London (UCL) Faculty of Laws has organized and delivered , in honour of Justice Laddie, the founder of IBIL.

Prof. Vaver began the lecture by summarizing strands of Justice Laddie’s thinking – he believed IP legislation, which is not different from other legislation, should be looked at as a whole, and that precedence he believed to be misguided should be challenged. He then mentioned three maxims that guided Justice Laddie’s career and offered a general view of his philosophy. A few examples, translated from Latin, being “if someone’s got a right, do something about it”, “in equity, good folk win, bad folk lose”, and “deep pockets shouldn’t always prevail”. As a result of the combination of these strands of thinking, Justice Laddie was able to firmly stand for what he believed intellectual property should and should not do, over the course of his career.

Additionally, Prof. Vaver recognized some of Justice Laddie's significant contributions to trademark, copyright, and patent law.��His contribution to trademarks included extending common law protection to unregistered geographical indications when he ordered , cautious of Cadbury’s marketing tactics potentially fooling customers.

In copyright, Justice Laddie warned us about the possibly of being misled by , that is, “chipping away and ignoring all the bits which are undoubtedly not copied may result in the creation of an illusion of copying in what is left”. Moreover, in an effort to determine what was actually copied in a work, he considered whether the work as a whole or its individual components should have their own copyrights. Eventually he rejected the concept of multiple copyrights, noting that legal millefeuilles with layers of different artistic copyrights would be “slicing too finely or indiscriminately”.

Lastly, Justice Laddie's approach to the Haberman Feeder case demonstrated his values regarding patentability.��, named after its inventor Mandy Haberman, is a specialty bottle which uses a slit valve and is especially useful for feeding babies with feeding difficulties. When the patent for the bottle was challenged for obviousness, Justice Laddie considered the long history of infant feeders (and the absence of anything like the Ms. Haberman’s bottle within it), utilizing unique perspectives to see the value in otherwise readily available solutions.

Overall, Prof. Vaver’s lecture was a wonderful way to remember his valuable contributions and to learn more about the diverse topics (as the title suggests) he dealt with in his career in intellectual property. Justice Laddie’s lasting mark on each of his cases makes it easy for us to remember annually why he remains a cherished figure in the field of intellectual property law.

You can watch UCL's full recording of the lecture here:

The post Prof. David Vaver Presents “Mr. Justice Laddie and his Intellectual Property Cases: Of Millefeuilles and a Fish Called Elvis” appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The Supreme Court of Canada dealt a strong blow to the so-called promise doctrine and made international precedent when it ordered Google to de-index infringing websites across the global Internet. These and the other developments noted below pave the way for an IP-busy 2018 as we await the release of the National IP Strategy, which will hopefully set the stage for Canadian advancements and benefits from emerging technologies and business practices. Here at IP Osgoode, we are set to examine the promise and challenges associated with one of these important technology areas: artificial intelligence (AI). On February 2, 2018, our AI conference, “Bracing for Impact: The Artificial Intelligence Challenge”, will feature internationally renowned AI experts from Canada and abroad. For more information and registration, visit .

We hope you can take part in our AI conference as well as our regular suite of exciting activities and initiatives as 2018 gets further underway!

PATENTS

The patent law landscape experienced incremental changes and some profound shifts that seemed to mimic the changes of the seasons here in Canada during 2017.

It’s All About the Money

The year kicked off with a chilling warning to Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) seeking to protect patent rights through litigation. NPEs commencing patent infringement actions “without a clear theory of infringement” may be sanctioned with for disregarding the “serious cost consequences [following from] allegations shown to be unwarranted”. In , the Federal Court of Canada was satisfied that the defendant’s activities were non-infringing; and because the plaintiffs “should have known that Bell did not infringe”, they were ordered to pay solicitor-client costs.

The Federal Court of Appeal reminded us in February that in “an extremely complex patent case involving [...] 22 allegations of invalidity, 33 days of discovery, 32 days of trial, written submission exceeding 700 pages, and the closing argument lasting three days”.

The Federal Court of Appeal also decided on profit recovery for infringing activities. In , the Court highlighted that the differential profit approach of recovery is to “ensure that a patentee only receives that portion of the infringer’s profit that is causally attributable to the invention”. Accordingly, the Court asserted that it is as the actual value of the “patent lies in the ability of the patentee to exclude competitors and competition” .

The Season of New Life and Law

In the UK, the beginning of spring was marked with a UK Patent Court decision on the interplay between IP and Competition Law. In , the court tackled issues involving standard-essential patents (SEPs), as well as the (FRAND) principles applicable to licensing agreements between patentees and licensees. In particular, the UK Court explained that the requirement to commit to FRAND terms in a SEP licence serves the public interest insofar as it spurs “the best and most up-to-date technical” standards to be set and inventors to “obtain a fair reward for their invention”. While Canadian jurisprudence is yet to develop on what negotiations are FRAND and what are not, the guidelines forecast issues that industries might face on this matter.

Shortly after, the Federal Court of Canada released its , which aimed at developing efficient, expedient, and proportional use of court time. A rundown of the particularly noteworthy protocols to streamline trials and court’s resources is available .

The spring also ushered in a as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union received Royal Assent on the 16^th of May []. It is important to note that CETA listed the ICSID tribunal as the main recourse for disputes. on how this may affect the IP environment domestically suggests that the ICSID’s unappealable decisions could be a new problem for Canada, absent the requirement of certification in domestic courts. So, in addition to CETA’s implications toward patent term restoration, appeals under NOC regulations, and the potential end of dual litigation — see general outline and significance for pharmaceutical patent protection — further developments stemming from the tribunal jurisdiction are anticipated for the new year.

The last development of the season provided an important lesson from a business perspective regarding IP transfer agreements. In , poor management of IP rights and poorly conceived transfer agreements proved to be a hindrance to enforceability. The Federal Court also delivered an important lesson around patent infringement when it announced the Public Judgement and Reasons in , awarding Dow Chemical the largest patent infringement monetary award in Canadian history: $644,623,550 and pre-judgement interest.

Utility, Enforceability, and NOCs

Two hot-button issues from the Supreme Court of Canada heated up the start of the summer. One involved the decision that did away with the Promise Doctrine, and the other pertained to a global takedown order imposed on an online intermediary (Google) that may change the future of IP enforcement.

In the first, , the Court effectively abolished the Promise Doctrine on utility. , all explicit promises of utility made by a patentee had to be fulfilled for the patent to be valid. The Court nonetheless deemed this requirement “unsound” and “not good law”. For the Court, “depriv[ing] such an invention of patent protection if even one ‘promised’ use is not soundly predicted or demonstrated is punitive and has no basis in the Act”. So, in bringing the common-law more into accord with the requirements for patentability, the Court revamped , requiring that the patentees demonstrate, essentially, what the subject-matter of the invention is, and how it is useful in serving a practical purpose.

The second case, , played an important role in increasing IP enforcement outreach in the Internet era. It provides the courts with a more effective measure to protect IP rights. Specifically, the precedent allows an IP owner to obtain a court order against search engines — such as Google in this case — for the removal, on a global scale, of search results (websites) that facilitate infringement of IP rights. It will be interesting to observe whether or not this decision affecting online intermediaries such as Google will to address the problem of unreachable wrongdoers, or will conversely be deemed a to non-infringing actors that are a .

The end of summer featured the ’s proposed amendments to the Notice of Compliance (NOC) Regulations. The amendments seek to update the pharmaceutical patent litigation regime in Canada, enabling Canada to . A discussion of the most significant changes to Canada’s NOC Regulations can be found . The changes will apply to proceedings in which Notices of Allegation (NOAs) were served on or after September 21, 2017 — the date of the NOC Regulations.

Promptly after, the Federal Court released its for actions under the amended NOC Regulations to promote efficiency in light of the strict timelines — 24-month timeframe for a proceeding to be completed and a decision rendered — imposed by the . The guidelines set out procedural rules to be observed for proceedings under the amended NOC Regulations. Some key points worthwhile to look at were outlined .

A Not-So-Obvious Future

Lastly, the winter months saw an of the Canadian law of obviousness. In , the Federal Court of Appeal deemed the “inventive concept” set out in the case an “unnecessary satellite debate” in the analysis of obviousness. After being over the years — see , — the current test for obviousness seems to place emphasis on the as a , at least until a clearer definition of the “inventive concept” is developed by the Supreme Court.

TRADEMARKS

2017 saw a number of notable Canadian court decisions in the realm of trademark law. Outside of the courts, other developments will also shape the IP landscape going forward.

Consumer Criticism Gets a Bit Riskier

In a case dealing with consumer criticism of a brand - - the Federal Court returned a decision favourable to brand-owners. The plaintiff, United Airlines, sued the defendant, Jeremy Cooperstock, for trademark and copyright infringement, depreciation of goodwill, and passing off, over his “gripe site” . The court characterized the website as a “consumer criticism website where visitors can find information on the Plaintiff, submit complaints about the Plaintiff, and read complaints about the Plaintiff dating back to 1998 in the database of complaints.” The website included an .

Justice Phelan held that Cooperstock provided “services” through the website and that the marks were “being used or displayed in the advertising or performance of services pursuant to s 4(2) of the Trade-marks Act.” He also found that there was a likelihood of confusion. As a result, the defendant was found to have infringed s. 20(1)(a).

The defendant was also found liable for passing off: the court found significant goodwill attached to the United marks, that there was confusion and the likelihood of confusion, and that the plaintiff�� suffered damages or was likely to suffer potential damages.

The court held that Cooperstock “intentionally attempted to attract the Plaintiff’s online consumers to his own website for notoriety” and therefore depreciated the goodwill associated with the United marks, contrary to s. 22. Of note, the Defendant was also found to have infringed copyright in the marks and Justice Phelan dismissed the fair dealing defence of parody.

Whereas previous decisions such as Michelin v. Canadian Auto Workers ���Ի���BCAA et al. v. Office and Professional Employees’ Int. Union et al., had held that trademark owners’ rights to control the use of their mark in the context of criticism were limited, the United case demonstrates that brand critics must be careful in their use of brands’ logos and trademarks. While , “[i]n this case, the Defendant sailed too close to the wind – and he was put up on the rocks.”

Why Seek an Injunction Anywhere Else?

In , the plaintiff Sleep Country was successful in its motion for an interlocutory injunction. Sleep Country sought to restrain Sears from using the slogan “THERE IS NO REASON TO BUY A MATTRESS ANYWHERE ELSE”, which it argued was confusing with its own slogan “WHY BUY A MATTRESS ANYWHERE ELSE?” Sleep Country alleged that Sears’ use of the slogan was causing harm to Sleep Country as “a result of confusion between the two slogans, as well as depreciation of the goodwill and loss of distinctiveness of Sleep Country's registered trade-marks.”

The court considered the tripartite RJR-MacDonald test for issuing such an injunction: a serious issue has been raised, the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, and the balance of convenience favours the seeking party. The key issue on the motion was irreparable harm, which the court found was established by Sleep Country’s “concrete and non-speculative evidence.” Justice Kane held that lost sales, loss of distinctiveness, and depreciation of value of the slogan would lead to irreparable harm, and that the harm could not easily be quantified. The balance of convenience was also found to favour Sleep Country.

It has traditionally been quite difficult for trademark owners to obtain interlocutory injunctions. The Sleep Country case indicates that the courts may be relaxing the onus on trademark owners to prove irreparable harm, particularly in cases where confusion is quite apparent.

Notably, the Quebec Superior Court in denied the plaintiff a similar injunction because “the Court cannot come to the conclusion that it is clear that the use by Cascades new Fluff trademark will cause confusion with the Royale trademarks.” Irving dealt with the allegation that Cascades’ fluffy bunny was confusing with Irving’s furry Royale kittens. The court concluded that “the use of white furry animals is not unique to the packaging for living's products” and that any harm would be quantifiable. Contrasted with Sleep Country, in which it was held that any harm would be too difficult to quantify, Irving shows that it may still be difficult for trademark owners to obtain interlocutory injunctions.

Injunctions Go Global

In a case that dealt with trade secrets and passing off, , the Supreme Court affirmed the effectiveness of an extra-territorial injunction granted by the lower courts. The issue on appeal was “whether Google can be ordered, pending a trial, to globally de-index the websites of a company which, in breach of several court orders, is using those websites to unlawfully sell the intellectual property of another company.”

The court concluded that the injunction was the only way to mitigate the harm to Equustek pending the resolution of the underlying litigation. The case therefore stands for the availability of an extra-territorial injunction as an equitable remedy in Canadian courts: “Where it is necessary to ensure the injunction’s effectiveness, a court can grant an injunction enjoining conduct anywhere in the world.”

Among the other trademark cases decided by Canadian courts this year, and are of particular interest.�� In Travelway, the Federal Court of Appeal held that owning a registered mark is not a complete defence to infringement – the respondent’s registered mark was held to infringe that of the applicant’s. In Diageo, the Federal Court held that Heaven Hill’s Admiral Nelson rum products infringed Diageo’s registered Captain Morgan marks. The court considered the plaintiff and defendant’s trade dress and found the Captain Morgan trade dress to be a distinguishing guise and therefore enforceable under the Trade-marks Act. The court also found that the goodwill associated with the Captain Morgan mark had been depreciated.

Other Changes to Trademark Law

Canada’s updated Trademarks Act is set to come into force in early 2019. In June 2017, the the first draft of the new Trademark Regulations. Comments were accepted until July 21, 2017 and will be taken into consideration when revising the draft regulations. Among the notable changes coming in 2019 are Canada’s accession to the Madrid Protocol, the Singapore Treaty, and the Nice Agreement and its classification system. Also significant will be the removal of the use requirement at the time of registration.

COPYRIGHT

2017 continued many of the debates and cases started from the previous year. While some decisions received accolades, others received outright criticism. As was the case in 2016, fair dealing questions came to the fore and hit close to home at 91��ɫ.

Fear Dealing and Post-Secondary Education

In a much anticipated decision, the Federal Court ruled against 91��ɫ in and directed the university to pay an interim tariff to Access Copyright. In 2011, 91��ɫ opted out of the Access Copyright licence due to increasing tariffs and implemented its own copyright guidelines. Crucially, the 91��ɫ guidelines allowed students enrolled in a class or course to receive a single copy through a coursepack or via a posting on an online learning management system if the copying was done in accordance with “fair dealing”. However, the Federal Court held that 91��ɫ did not have any right to opt-out of tariffs and that the university’s guidelines were arbitrary and not compliant with section 29 of the . Among other things, the guidelines operated under the assumption that the use of 10% of a copyright-protected work was “fair dealing” but did not provide an explanation. Quantitatively, this threshold might seem to restrict copying of an entire text. But, as , qualitatively, the parts copied may constitute the “core” of the work, making such use “unfair,” and conceivably allow for the reproduction of the entirety of a work if multiple sections are used across courses and faculties. Further, the court emphasised the school’s failure to comply with the guidelines and therefore, enforced the interim tariff. the inclusion of “education” as a fair dealing purpose played little role in this decision. While much attention on the case framed the important issues with respect to fair dealing, note that the case was not about copyright infringement, but rather whether tariffs imposed by the Copyright Board of Canada are mandatory for post-secondary institutions that use copyright-protected material licensed by Access Copyright. 91��ɫ indicates it will the decision so these questions will continue in 2018 and beyond.

Anti-Circumvention and Technological Protection Measures

Setting precedent in 2017, in the Federal Court applied substantive rules on the anti-circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs), which were introduced in the Copyright Act 2012. The Federal Court expressed its willingness to enforce the TPMs and protect against circumvention in the digital age. The case involved a corporation named Go Cyber shopping (2005) Ltd., which sold and installed circumventing devices enabling users to play potentially hundreds The Federal Court in the suit filed by Nintendo, awarded $12.7 Million as damages and held that Go Cyber “authorized” copying by providing instructions to download header data without the consent of Nintendo constituting infringement. suggests that by adopting “a broad interpretation of a technological protection measure”, the court confirmed Canadian copyright law’s tough stance on copyright piracy.

Obligations of Internet Service Providers

The ongoing conflict between reached the Supreme Court after the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in 2017. Rogers filed before the Supreme Court to consider the scope of the Internet service provider’s (ISP) obligations under the notice and notice system. The FCA ruled that ISPs can disclose the alleged offender’s identity for free. The decision surprised the industry because it would be easier for copyright holders to that they come to financial settlements.

Data protections

Affirming the trial court’s ruling on the copyright protection of seismic data, the appeal in the Alberta case of was dismissed and appeal by GSI to the Supreme Court was denied. On Appeal, GSI argued that Section 101 of should be interpreted properly. , “The correct interpretation of "disclose" also confers on these Boards the legal right to grant to others both access and opportunity to copy and re-copy all materials acquired from GSI and collected under the Regulatory Regime”.

This decision will ensure copyright protection of seismic data by simultaneously providing a framework to access it.

Canadian content and Copyright-related Reviews

In 2017, the Federal Government also adopted initiatives to protect Canadian creators and introduced a policy framework to extend Canadian content worldwide. On September 28, Mélanie Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage, announced Later in the year, on December 13, the Government officially announced the Parliamentary Review of the Copyright Act, as mandated by the 2012 Copyright Modernization Act.�� The government also to reform Copyright Board of Canada in August.

U.S. Developments

In the U.S., perhaps the biggest copyright case of 2017 was The case dealt with the issue of whether copyright could subsist in the “pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features” of a “design of a useful article” – in this case, cheerleading uniforms. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such design features as the arrangement of lines and shapes on cheerleading uniforms were eligible for copyright protection, so long as they were separable from the useful article in question. In other words, if the impugned designs were imagined in abstraction – say for example if they appeared on a canvass – and thus eligible for copyright protection, then they would be equally eligible for copyright protection as part of a useful article. Therefore, while copyright cannot protect the shape, cut, or dimensions of cheerleading uniform, those design features that are separable from the functional object may be eligible for copyright protection. And while such a holding is not entirely novel, the Star Athletica decision likely sets a valuable precedent for lower courts that have struggled with the extent to which copyright protects the design features of a functional object.

Fair use was also a hot topic in U.S. courts in 2017, with a variety of interesting outcomes in cases across creative media. In , a raunchy parody of the Dr. Seuss classic “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” was held to be the kind of transformative work that qualifies as fair use. Meanwhile, in , a U.S. district court judge held that unauthorized children’s versions – or “KinderGuides” – of classic books by Hemmingway, Kerouac, and the like did not constitute fair use, but rather infringing use. In music, Drake’s use of a spoken word sample from jazz artist James Oscar Smith was held to be fair use in , and in film, a Star Trek fan-fiction movie was held to be a derivative work and not fair use in .

Copyright Around the World

Internationally, toymaker Lego was successful for the first time in a against manufacturers in China of some near-identical toys. 2017 also saw China clearly establish its growing importance on the international copyright stage, with deals in the book industry and increasing pressure on to meet international standards with respect to copyright licensing. Meanwhile in the E.U., courts held that if they perform an essential role in facilitating piracy of copyright-protected material, and that the may constitute copyright infringement.

IP OSGOODE

In 2017, IP Osgoode celebrated one of our very own, , who has been a guiding force in the Canadian intellectual property (IP) landscape for the past 40 years.�� IP Osgoode and Osgoode Hall Law School hosted a special symposium entitled, “” in celebration of Prof. Vaver’s in recognition of “his leadership in intellectual property law as a scholar and mentor”.

The symposium included a distinguished set of participants drawn from Prof. Vaver’s network of former students, colleagues and research collaborators, and highlighted four main themes of Prof. Vaver’s extensive scholarship: overlap and redundancy in the IP system, legislation and reform, users’ rights, and the importance of history. The luncheon keynote speaker, The , CC,QC (Supreme Court of Canada, 2006 to 2015),�� who was introduced by The , QC (Federal Court of Canada, 2001 to 2016), provided a heartwarming speech that gave the audience a glimpse into Prof. Vaver’s early life and career.

To mark the year��Prof. Vaver��received the��Order of Canada, IP Osgoode medal. The medal will be awarded yearly to an Osgoode student in the graduating class who merits special recognition for outstanding achievements in the area of intellectual property law. The student’s achievements extend beyond academic excellence, and can include significant contributions to research in intellectual property and related areas or exceptional commitment and enthusiasm through their participation in intellectual property-related extra-curricular activities.

Following the previous year’s successful partnership with Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, the IP Osgoode Innovation Clinic continued to grow in 2017. On behalf of IP Osgoode, Professor D’Agostino entered into an exciting with the International Law Research Program at the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) to support the Innovation Clinic. The IP Osgoode-CIGI partnership stems from a mutual desire to facilitate the discovery, dissemination and application of new knowledge concerning practical IP law training of law students and the desire the to facilitate the provision of basic IP legal services to early stage innovators and start-ups. IP Osgoode hired Dr. as the first full-time Innovation Clinic Coordinator. The addition of a full time coordinator has allowed for a substantial increase of the Clinic’s carriage of client files and expanded the Innovation Clinic’s outreach beyond the 91��ɫ and Osgoode Hall communities as well as the Toronto and 91��ɫ Regions into the Waterloo Region and throughout Ontario.

The partnership also supports Prof. D’Agostino’s research project, which consists of a critical evaluation of the Innovation Clinic model as well as clinic models elsewhere, and identifying potential opportunities for developing a sustainable network of clinics in Canada and beyond. The research and report will further dialogues between industry, law schools, law societies, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), levels of government, and other relevant stakeholders regarding the creation of a network of IP law clinics across Canada. This work will be published in 2018 and help inform and support CIPO and federal government initiatives to increase IP awareness, accessibility, and education in Canada.

Top 10 most read 2017 IPilogue articles

Giuseppina D’Agostino is the Founder & Director of IP Osgoode, the IP Intensive Program, and the Innovation Clinic, the Editor-in-Chief for the IPilogue and the Intellectual Property Journal, and an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School.

With contributions from Stephen Cooley (IPilogue Editor & Osgoode JD Candidate) and Haramrit Kaur (IPilogue Editor and Osgoode Professional Development LLM (Canadian Common Law) Candidate) on Copyright, Sebastian Beck-Watt (IPilogue Senior Editor & Osgoode Graduate) on Trademarks, and Bruna Kalinoski (IPilogue Editor & Osgoode LLM Graduate) on Patents.

The post IP Year in Review 2017 - A Year of Promises Made, Kept, and Abandoned appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Technology, though, is developing at such a pace that any proposed legislation, however foresightful, will soon be outdated. Thus, , the concept proposed by Dr. , Executive Director of the at (and former Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario), is an astute solution to privacy protection that does not rely exclusively on legislation. Dr. Cavoukian suggests that privacy be coded or embedded into the design of information technology, networked infrastructure, and business practices. This proactive and non-remedial approach is user-centered and promotes transparency, incorporating the objectives of legislative reform efforts.

PbD has already been adopted in foreign jurisdictions. For instance, the European Union (EU) is a pioneer in implementing an up-to-date privacy regime that takes the PbD concept into account. Article 25 of the 2016/679 (GDPR), effective May 25th, 2018 onwards, stipulates that data protection measures are designed into the development of business processes for products and services. Meanwhile, the State of California looks to be taking the lead in legislating on . In particular, will create a mandate under California law, pursuant to which all IoT devices will have built-in security features appropriate to the device, as well as the information collected.

Embedding security features into IoT devices also ensures protection from cyber attacks. Network-connected devices can . As panelist , Principal Security Technologist at , mentioned, the technology to allow carriers to stop these attacks exists; what remains is to understand how it works.

From a maufacturing perspective, IoTs can be designed to ensure both security and privacy. However, as ,��General Manager��of Network Security for ’ Enterprise Business Unit, observed, embedding these features into IoT devices will probably increase their cost. Therefore, in an industry where competitors often strive to have more affordable products, IoT manufacturers need to identify specific commercial benefits for being the most “secure” in the market. Eventually, the ultimate choice should be given to customers, who will decide whether they want to invest more in devices with embedded security, or in less expensive ones with add-on (albeit compromisable) security features.

Yet, PbD alone is insufficient to promote privacy, absent a stricter regime on how (online) service providers obtain users’ meaningful consent. Most online agreements to-date include terms of service (), which further permit service providers – along with the third parties they contract with – to keep, analyze and sell their users’ data. By incorporating click-to-agree clauses into ToS, users wishing to access the respective services are left with no choice but to agree to give away their privacy rights. The majority of users are not incentivized to they agree to, since they are not in a position to negotiate a new agreement. As Dr. Cavoukian posited, a drastic reform is required on this front: ToS should prevent service providers from using their customers’ personal data by default, unless opt-in consent has been obtained, also entailing specific conspicuous disclosures. For instance, provides that ‘consent’ of the data subject comprises any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the former’s wishes, by which they, through a statement or a clear affirmative action, demonstrate that they agree to the processing of their personal data.

Dr. Cavoukian also pointed to other risks from privacy and security breaches, related to remote home health care, closed-circuit television camera (CCTC) or surveillance cameras in mass transit systems, smart meters and the smart grid, near field communications, radio-frequency identification (RFIDs) and sensor technologies, big data and data analytics, and internet protocol address location (IP Geolocation). Interestingly, the latter is expected to be addressed by the United States (US) Supreme Court in , notably vis-à-vis the .

Recent Canadian jurisprudence, on the other side, has attempted to strike a balance among privacy rights, and the investigative power of law enforcement, with particular regard to telecoms’ compliance with formal search warrants and production orders. In the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) interpreted the meaning of the word “intercept”, as defined under , in a broad fashion. It did so to protect individual privacy interests in communications. In specific, assessing whether a general warrant power can authorize the prospective production of future text messages from a service provider’s computer, . maintained that Canadians have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their voice communications; these must not be intercepted without compliance with the due process provisions of part VI of the��Criminal Code. Technical differences inherent in new technology should not determine the scope of protection afforded to private communications, which should be extended to traditional voice communications and text messaging alike.

Similarly, the Ontario Superior Court in examined, inter alia, if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records to be produced�� in compliance with the police’s “tower dump” production orders to further an investigation into a string of jewelry store robberies; and if so, whether the telecoms have standing to assert it on behalf of their thousands of affected subscribers. While the Court both issues in the affirmative, it also formulated specific guidelines which respect the information needed to obtain production orders: a statement or explanation is required that demonstrates that the officer seeking the order is aware of the principles of incrementalism and minimal intrusion, and has tailored the requested order with that in mind; an explanation as to why all of the named locations or cell towers, and all requested dates and time parameters, are relevant to the investigation; an explanation as to why all types of records sought are relevant; any other details or parameters which might allow the target of the production order conduct a narrower search and produce fewer records; and a request for a report based on specified data instead of a request for the underlying data itself, are also required. The police should also include confirmation that the types and amounts of requested data can be meaningfully reviewed.

Ensuring privacy is more crucial than ever, especially in light of the coming from the United Kingdom’s current Prime Minister, Theresa May, that internet companies are providing a "safe space"��for extremism, and her proposal to "regulate cyberspace to��prevent the spread of ". However, neither regulating against extremism nor the familiar ‘’ argument are sufficient reasons to leave the door open for potential privacy breaches. Similarly, tech firms, privacy campaigners and academics point out that providing “” underestimates the entire purpose of privacy, while allowing both law enforcement agencies and outlaws to open and bypass these safeguards.

In Canada, ��the Anti-terrorism Act 2015��(former Bill C-51) was criticized for entailing numerous , as it provided several federal government agencies with almost to monitor and profile ordinary Canadians, with a view to identifying security threats. ��Notably, in a 2016 the Federal Court ruled that used by the ��Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s data-analytics program violates federal laws, namely the . Thus, on the 20th of June 2017 the Government introduced : An Act respecting national security matters, which attempts to clarify, among other Bill C-51-related : what type of activities the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) could employ in order to comply with the , and the information sharing process between federal institutions for national security purposes under the SCISA. Bill C-59 aims at: strengthening national security agencies’ accountability through the creation of a new, comprehensive national review body, the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency (NSIRA); enhancing oversight through the creation of an Intelligence Commissioner; and increasing transparency through a commitment to share national security information with Canadians.

By way of conclusion, the imperative of increasing the privacy threshold both from a legislative and ��industry practice standpoint is highlighted from the vast number of compromisable interconnected devices that have��become an integral part of our everyday life. Additionally, storage of��private information obtained via these devices by big data companies for either commercial or surveillance uses, makes it obvious that a proactive approach is required. This can be best achieved by embedding privacy and security not only into the design of information technology, but also to every networked infrastructure and business practice. Failure to do so is not limited to merely jeopardizing business reputation and risks from class action liability; non-compliance with international standards may as well hinder commercial relations, similarly to the effect of the����, which has been found invalid by EU courts.

Yonida Koukio is an IP and Business Law LL.M. Candidate at Osgoode and an IPilogue editor.

***

��The brings together the leadership of Canada’s telecom, broadcast, and IT industries. For its 16th year, the CTS focussed on and featured keynote presentations and panel discussions on the range of issues facing industry and public policy makers in Canada. IP Osgoode and the IPilogue team members thank the CTS’ organizers ( and ) and for their generous support to allow us to attend.

The post Privacy by Default: A Privacy and Cyber-security imperative in the IoT and Big-Data Age appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the fair dealing “allowable purposes” are not to be interpreted restrictively and Canada chose not to confine “criticism or review” to works or performances, as is done elsewhere.[4] The heading should thus be able to cover criticism of anything or anybody, including the subject of the work, at least assuming the fair dealing factors are considered (such as whether there is a non-infringing alternative).[5] This interpretation is consistent with decisions from the U.K. When L. Ron Hubbard sued the author of a book criticizing Scientology – using excerpts of many of Hubbard’s own works – Lord Denning stated that under fair dealing the author “is entitled to criticise not only the literary style, but also the doctrine or philosophy … expounded in the books.”[6] Thus, criticism is not interpreted restrictively by the British court, which allows criticism of the subject to come under fair dealing. Decades after Hubbard, Lord Justice Walker confirmed that “‘Criticism or review’ and ‘reporting current events’ are expressions of wide and indefinite scope” and under fair dealing can include criticism of the ideas in, and implications of, a work.[7]

Treatment of fair use in the U.S.[8] also offers some guidance as to how the exception could extend to the subject of a work. American caselaw indicates that where a work is largely factual and its author has little creative control, it may be used fairly. For instance, in a case where the subject of a photograph was a mobster who was part of an ongoing sentencing, that was enough for the photo to fall under the enumerated fair use category of “news reporting.”[9] The same was true of video of riots in Los Angeles.[10] The courts have also said, though, that where the work is more creative, the factual nature may not be enough.[11] Perhaps even more tellingly, the use of a photo of a person to criticize him, his appearance, and his dealings was held to be fair use for educational and criticism purposes, even though the criticism was very clearly not of the work. The subject of the work was considered in determining whether an initial fair use category would apply. Fair use was not precluded simply because the work was used for its subject rather than as a work.[12]

Even where criticism or other use of the subject may be fair from a purpose point of view, the balance of fairness can be tipped by other factors. In the US the lack of a creative process in the original is an important factor.[13] Most importantly, though, in both the US and U.K., competition with the original work is a weighty factor. Therefore, even works of genuine criticism[14] or ones using factual originals will not be considered as fair uses where they harm the market of the original.[15] According to CCH, this is of course a factor to be considered in Canada as well.[16]

A “work consists, not only of the … style, but also of the thoughts underlying it.”[17] You should be able to fairly copy and criticise those thoughts and even more in your own work – just tread carefully if your copies might compete with the original. Reproduction of a work may be fair, but stealing its customers or usurping its market probably will not be.

Sebastian Beck-Watt is Senior Editor of the IPilogue and a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Sebastian is currently enrolled in Osgoode’s Intellectual Property Law Intensive Program. As part of the program requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.

[1] , RSC 1985, c C-42, s 29.1.

[2] Hubbard v Vosper, [1972] 2 QB 84 at 89 (CA) [Hubbard].

[3] , 2004 SCC 13, [2004] 1 SCR 339 at para 54 [CCH].

[4] Ibid.

[5] D Vaver, Intellectual Property Law, 2d ed (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2011) at 238.

[6] Hubbard, supra note 2 at 94.

[7] Pro Sieben Media AG v Carlton Television Ltd, [1998] EWCA Civ 2001 at 614 [Pro Sieben].

[8] .

[9]�� , 491 F.Supp 2d 177 (D Mass 2007) at 185 [Fitzgerald].

[10] , 942 F Supp 1265 (CD Cal 1996).

[11] Fitzgerald, supra note 9 at 188.

[12] , No 14-14525 (11th Cir 2015).

[13] , No 1:2013cv07153 - Document 71 (SDNY 2015) at 18-19 [NJMG].

[14] Pro Sieben, supra note 7 at 613.

[15] NJMG, supra note 13 at 23-24.

[16] CCH, supra note 3 at para 59.

[17] Hubbard, supra note 2 at 94.

The post Fair Dealing: What Can Be (Fairly) Criticized? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

British Telecommunications (BT) alleges that��on-line services offered by Valve infringe on four U.S. patents held by BT. The patents at trial are broadly worded and could implicate many popular video game, social networking, and video streaming services. If [BT v Valve]��were to succeed,��they would be granted legal authority allowing them police many of the services relied upon by the video game industry, as well as many other popular websites.

David versus Goliath

Valve, founded in 1996, owns and operates ��Steam, an industry-leading software distribution and social networking application for computer gaming.��Steam, released in 2003, commands a near-monopoly over the digital rights management (DRM) and computer game distribution. Despite massive support among developers and gamers alike, ���ٱ𲹳�—a�Ի� �ղ�������—h������ .

British Telecommunications (BT) group is the oldest telecommunications company on the planet, tracing its roots to the invention of the first telephone by Alexander Graham Bell. BT is a leading communications provider in the United Kingdom. According to court documents, BT “,”��in network telecommunications.

What the suit claims

BT argued that Valve continued to operate services at great cost to the patent holder, despite multiple communications asking Valve to stop. The following patents are alleged to have been infringed:

• Communications node for providing network based information service:��

• Method for automatic and periodic requests for messages to an e-mail server from the client:��

• Communications network and method having accessible directory of user profile data:��

• Multi-user display system:��

One can��see��how Valve's services are implicated in these patents. Steam��is a digital marketplace that distributes “”; provides chat services “”; stores “”��for its users; and allows these users to “.”

Valve is far from the only company implicated by the broad language of these patents (and certainly not the most financially successful). Messaging, video streaming, and web marketplaces are endemic to the internet and the tech world. As the patent holder, BT has a choice to enforce the patent against whomever they wish. Why go after Valve?

Possible reasons:

1. This is intended as the first of many similar suits

If the court were to rule in favour of BT in this case—however likely that may be—it would open the door for further enforcement of the strict language contained by the patents-in-suit. If the court accepted the language that “BT has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Valve’s infringement,” and applied retributive, pecuniary damages, this would set a precedent allowing BT to challenge industry leaders’ social media and networking IPs.

2. BT is looking to become involved in gaming, DRM, or streaming

Video games are a multibillion dollar industry. Leading publishers and distributors, like Valve, command the industry’s continually expanding value. Social and competitive gaming services, like Valve's��Steam are at the heart of a parallel, expanding market for “e-Sports”. Video game “sport” tournaments have exploded in popularity and now host regular tournaments each year. Cash prizes range in the tens of thousands of dollars. It is not improbable that major telecommunications companies would keep an eye on this growing market. If BT had any interest in permeating the market, the ability to enforce this patent against Valve could pay serious dividends.

3. A suit against Valve will allow BT to test public opinion

Most computer gamers must interact with Steam.��As a result,����news related to Steam and Valve receives a great deal of attention. The video game consumer base is very large. An accusation against Valve is sure to gain the attention of a large audience, including many people who would not otherwise follow tech news. This is a known tactic within the video game industry to��lobby public opinion.��Kotaku.com has gone so far as to develop a separate ��news page to cover all of the grievances--material and superficial--raised against Valve/Steam.��Targeting Valve is a��sure way to determine if public opinion will allow BT to go ofter other, higher-profile internet services with patent suits (e.g., Facebook, Amazon).

What does this mean?��

Perhaps this can be dismissed as a "patent troll" case. But, granting patent rights to BT in this case might lead to controversial effects. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) (albeit, with rapidly diminishing support). The TPP would permit greater US-based regulation of the public internet. If this were ratified, a decision like that in BT v Valve would support and legitimize BT and the US government's policing of many of the most popular applications and resources on the internet.

Further news related to the suit will follow in the coming months.

Christopher McGoey is an IPilogue Editor and a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.��

The post Big Telecom versus Video Games: Big Implications appeared first on IPOsgoode.