Clashes between large companies are hardly uncommon, particularly when the salient issue concerns valuable intellectual property. Recently, Nokia has in the US against Apple claiming involving wireless data, speed coding, security and encryption. Nokia is demanding back royalties on all iPhones sold since the launch in 2007, which could mean that Apple would have to pay Nokia from $200 million to $1 billion.

Nokia has approximately EUR 40 billion dollars in research and development over the past two decades and has agreements in place with 40 firms to allow them to use Nokia’s technology. Nokia says Apple has not signed such an agreement. Nokia has recently posted a quarterly loss, their first loss in over a decade, largely due to customers moving from models to the and .

believe this lawsuit may be a desperate move made by Nokia in reaction to its loss of market share, with going so far as to hypothesize that this lawsuit would not have been launched had Nokia been making better progress in the smartphone market. Conversely, it is the claim could have some merit to it as Nokia has many more patents than Apple, so it is possible that Apple, to some extent, has used some of Nokia’s patents. Similarly, believe Apple may have a hard time defending their case, as they are a late entrant in the mobile phone market and it would be almost impossible to create a mobile phone without using Nokia’s patented technologies.

Although the case has been filed in a US court, for the purpose of this blog, I will consider the Canadian provisions as the Canadian is the focus of Professor Mgbeoji’s Patent Law course. According to section 42 of the Act, the patentee is granted the “exclusive right, privilege and liberty of making, constructing and using the invention and selling it to others to be used”. As stated in the case of , if any person, without the consent or permission of the patentee, does any of the exclusive rights granted by section 42, they have infringed the patent and are potentially liable to the patentee. Section 55(1) says that the infringer is liable to the patentee for all damage sustained by the patentee. Therefore, if Nokia is successful in proving that Apple has done something that only Nokia has the exclusive right to do, Apple will be liable for damages.

Much of the focus has been on Apple’s position in this lawsuit. Apple may be able to put forth a defence as allowed by section 59 of the Act. So far, Apple seems to be that they have infringed Nokia’s patents. This is certainly a defence, one in which Apple would have the burden of proof to show that the acts complained of did not infringe on Nokia’s patent, or that the scope of Nokia’s claims do not capture the alleged infringement. Apple could also argue they had Nokia’s consent to use the patents; however, given Nokia’s denial of such a licence, and Apple’s denial that they had used Nokia’s patents, this approach seems less likely. In Canada and the US, in order for an invention to be patented, it must be novel, non-obvious and useful, so a line a defence for Apple would be to attack the validity of the patents on the grounds that the invention is not “new”, that the invention is not “useful” or that the invention is “obvious” to a person skilled in the art. Attacking a patent on the grounds of novelty was an effective defence in the case of Gibney v. Ford Motor [ ] where it was held that the defendant did not infringe a patent because the patent was invalid on the grounds that it was not a “new” invention. Lastly, Apple could create a defence on the grounds that Nokia is not the person entitled to the patent, perhaps because they are not the true inventor (as was the case in .).

No matter what defence Apple chooses, it is that this case could go on for years with Apple putting forth a persistent and tenacious defence, as they take accusations of infringement very seriously. This case could get particularly complicated as the U.S. International Trade Commission has to look into Nokia’s patent-infringement claims. Analysts that a licensing deal may be the best and quickest solution for both companies.

The post Clash of the Smartphone Titans - Nokia vs. Apple appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Labatt claims that even The Beer Store employees are as an unspecified number of Red Baron empties have apparently been sent to Labatt's Brava bottle plant to be refilled. George Croft, president and chief executive of Brick Brewing, , largely because The Beer Store is partially owned by Labatt, but also because Brick pays the store a "sorting" fee to ensure its bottles are property returned. In mid-June, this lawsuit was settled "" and under the agreement, Brick must change Red Baron's in the near future.

Although that disagreement may be settled, just last week, Labatt and Brick Brewing geared up for another round of litigation. The lawsuit was once again launched by Labatt, this time claiming that Brick's Red Baron Lime beer of Labatt-owned Bud Light Lime. This time, Brick has apparently that they launched their lime beer as a copy of Bud Light Lime after noticing that stores quickly sold out of Labatt's product. Brick decided to capitalize on the opportunity this created, and rushed their launch of Red Baron lime in order to meet the demand for lime beer that was created by Bud Light Lime. Both Brick's and Labatt's version of the lime beer are sold in clear bottles with green and silver labels featuring a slice of lime, and this time, attention is also being drawn to the websites of and lime beer, which both use green backgrounds and depict young, attractive, swimsuit-clad people gathered around a bottle of the brew. Labatt claims consumers are being misled into believing Red Baron Lime and Bud Light Lime are connected, and furthermore, seeks punitive damages of $500,000 because Brick shows a "" of passing off its wares as those of other companies. Brick attempts to itself by saying that it doesn't make sense to use a lime graphic without also using the colour green.

Professor , an associate professor at Osgoode Hall, speculates that Labatt may be making an to claim ownership to a common symbol, and perceptively notes there are only so many ways to design a lime slice before it no longer looks like a lime. and , both Canadian companies, also this summer, but escaped the wrath of Labatt by using different coloured bottles and labels that are visually distinct from Bud Light Lime.

If this case does not settle, it could be years before it is resolved. Croft has stated that Labatt is "" for thinking they can trademark a lime slice or the colour green, and that Brick is "" this time, but rather to take a stand against the beer giant. At this rate, it looks like this lawsuit will not end in an amicable settlement.

The post Lime beer sparks another round of lawsuits between Labatt and Brick appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The first study visit was to the law firm of , Patent and Trademark lawyers. During this study visit, I learned more about patentability requirements in Germany. To begin, the invention has to be , meaning that it is not part of the prior state of the art, which includes earlier publications by the inventor himself (i.e. in conference papers or scientific journals). Secondly, the invention must be susceptible of industrial application. This step only requires that an invention be able to be carried out in any field of industry. It is worth noting that medical treatment are not susceptible to industrial application for policy reasons - a doctor must be able to freely choose any treatment without being limited by patents. While medical treatments cannot be patented, medical products, like surgical instruments and medical dressings, can be patented. Lastly, the patent must involve an inventive step, meaning that the new invention be a sufficient improvement over the current state of the art, and that the invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. The is 20 years; however, the average life of a patent is approximately 9-10 years, as technology changes so quickly that it is often not worth spending money on keeping out-dated patents.

I was also able to visit the (the Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, DPMA) where I learned about the patenting process in Germany. More than 700 patent examiners work at the DPMA and examine and grant patent applications, as well as dealing with patent oppositions. The DPMA registers patents, trademarks, utility models and industrial designs. Interestingly, the highest number of annual applications shifts between trademarks and patents. In 2003, patent applications were the most prevalent with slightly more than 60, 000 patent applications; however, since that time, the number of trademarks applications has annually surpassed ��the number of patent applications, rising to about 80, 000 trademark applications in the 2008, compared to the 62,000 patent applications in the same year. Several large companies file several applications in the DPMA. For example, in 2008, BMW filed over 600 patent applications and Siemens filed approximately 2,000 patent applications. Furthermore, GM Global Technology Operations, a US company, filed almost 1,000 applications, and Denso, a Japanese corporation, filed over 700 applications. It is interesting to note that the DPMA received about 4, 000 patent applications from US companies, and about 3,500 from Japanese companies. Lastly, the class of "motor vehicles" receives the highest number of patent applications at the DPMA, which represents approximately 10% of the total number of applications.

In addition to academic activities, I had the opportunity to visit many of Munich's most famous sites, including the BMW factory and museum, the Olympic park and several royal castles, including Neuschwanstein, which was the inspiration for Walt Disney's Sleeping Beauty castle in Disneyland. My time in Munich was wonderful and I very much enjoyed the opportunity to learn about Intellectual Property law in Germany.

The post Intellectual Property in Munich, Germany appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In September 2006, Hotels.com appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). After considering the evidence, including of the terms "accommodation", "reservation", "hotels" and ".com", as well as the fact that the term "hotel" is used in several other domain names (for example, web-hotels.com), the TTAB upheld the decision that the term hotels.com was generic. On appeal, Hotels.com argued that the literal element "hotels.com" and the bellman design are unitary and cannot be separated. The TTAB did not focus on whether or not the elements could be separated, but rather declined to find unity because there was a clear distinction between the words and the design, and because the words "hotels.com" frequently appeared , or entirely . Furthermore, the TTAB held that the addition of the ".com" to the generic word "hotel" .

In , Hotels.com submitted of a "national blind telephone survey" to the TTAB in an attempt to overcome the prior ruling. In the telephone survey, answered that "hotels.com" was a brand name. Hotels.com argued that this showed that the term "hotels.com" had become associated with its company and that the term is not viewed by the public as being generic. The TTAB criticized the survey for not clearly determining whether the participants were able to appreciate the difference between a domain name and a brand name. Survey expert t of the TTAB because people tend to assume that since ".com" names can only be used by one company, it must follow that the ".com" name therefore indicates a specific source. The TTAB found the survey evidence and upheld its previous decision. Hotels.com to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In late July 2009, the United States decided that "hotels.com" is not able to be registered as a service mark, affirming the original decision of the trademark examiner and the TTAB, and the Court held that the TTAB had to make this finding. were surprised by this decision, citing the fact that as a reason why the company should have been allowed to register the mark. As stated by Mr. Poret, this is a common misconception that many people hold - simply because there can only be one owner of a domain name does not necessarily mean that the term legally indicates source. Unfortunately, this is a lesson that Hotels.com had to learn the hard way.

The post "Hotel" is a generic word appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In March, Wikipedia volunteer Derrick Coetzee was able to use special software to thus allowing him to capture the whole portrait in high resolution. Coetzee was able to capture about , which were then uploaded to the online encyclopedia . The NPG requested that Wikipedia remove the images from its database, but when Wikipedia did not do so, NPG for breach of copyright against Coetzee, unless he both from Wikipedia and from his own hard drive by July 20^th. ��As of Tuesday, the portraits were still available on . The portraits themselves are part of the public domain, as their term of copyright protection has expired. In , photographs of public domain works are not copyrightable, but under , copyright may subsist in a photograph of a public domain painting.��

Erik Moeller, the deputy director of the Wikimedia Foundation, states that the gallery is to materials for the sake of earning extra revenue. The NPG responded that they will only be able to meet their goal of having their entire collection online through , and having the images available online at Wikipedia the use of its images. Moeller two German photographic archives donated 350,000 copyrighted images to be used on Wikipedia; however, the NPG pointed out that these archives had supplied the images in medium-resolution and that the NPG had offered similar material to Wikipedia.

The digital rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation has that this dispute could negatively affect U.S. web companies who make their content available world-wide, and the group��has not ruled out the possibility of bringing a declaratory judgment against the NPG. On the other side of the dispute, the NPG has stated it has no intention to sue Wikipedia; however, since the July 20^th deadline has passed and the images are still available on Wikipedia (and presumably Coetzee's hard drive)��it will be interesting to see if the NPG takes any legal action against Coetzee.

The post Wikipedia: Advancing the public interest, or stealing copyrighted photographs? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Google AdWords has come under fire for and terms that are registered or common law trademarks of other companies. In 2007 the company , a US company providing on-site computer service and sales, sued Google for trademark infringement and dilution under the . ��Rescuecom had registered their trademark; however, through advertising with Google, Rescuecom's competitors were able to purchase Rescuecom's trademark, resulting in users trying to find Rescuecom's website being directed to a search results page full of links and ads for the competitors' sites. Rescuecom's action was dismissed because Google did not "use" Rescuecom's trademark "in commerce" within the meaning of of the Lanham Act as the competitor's ads did not display Rescuecom's trademark.

So far in 2009, several new lawsuits have been filed against Google, including , the focus of which is to recover damages and punitive fees from Google for trademark infringement. Any damage award or settlement would be split between class members. In May 2009, commenced a Google, MySpace, YouTube and others. ��The will be whether Google's sponsored links are sufficient to cause confusion among Internet-users. Firepond claims that the practice of sponsored links confuses their customers and re-directs a portion of their business to the competitors with ads on Google. Firepond argues that Google is aware that this practice will cause problems for trademark owners. In , Firepond was able to find a financial prospectus in which that their new policy of no longer disabling ads, even if they display registered trademarks of third-parties, would likely lead to more trademark infringement lawsuits. Some think the class action suit could be risky; if court does not find Google to be liable, then the class members are bound by the decision and cannot sue Google in their own action.

In the past, Google has required advertisers either own the mark, or have a licence from the trademark owner, before being able to use it in their ads. Obviously undeterred by the trademark infringement lawsuits, Google has recently , allowing businesses to use trademarks in text advertisements without having permission from the owner. It will be interesting to learn the outcome of the class action suits and if this outcome, whether or not it is favourable for Google, will cause Google to change their policies in order to avoid future lawsuits.

The post Google AdWords: Facilitating advertising, or trademark infringement? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

As , the US Congress is debating whether fashion designs are in need of copyright protection. ��Currently, there is no intellectual property protection for fashion designs in the US because garments are considered "useful articles". Intellectual property protection would require a very . On one hand, the protection would have to be adequate to provide an incentive for new works; but that must balanced with the need to ensure that materials and designs are still available for subsequent designers.

��

There are several very compelling arguments for granting IP protection. One argument is that the unregulated mass copying of fashion designs . The prevalence of "", or knockoffs, of fashion designs has increased due to the at which copies can quickly be made (over 50 comparisons of original designs and knockoff's can be seen at 's "Adventures in Copyright"). For example, "" copyist Forever 21 can make thousands of copies of a design in , and knockoffs of Oscar dresses can be on store shelves in as little as . Similarly, stores like Zara and H&M avoid directly copying a design, but are still able to produce their own interpretation in . Mass copying is problematic because it undermines the market for the original design; consumers may not want to pay for the original when it is easy to get an identical copy for much less money. However, copying is not equally harmful to all producers of fashion design, and it is argued that midrange designers are actually harmed more by mass copying, particularly in terms of lost profits. For example, Forever 21 had made a copy of a fairly simple dress ��by F&C. The original dress sold for a few hundred dollars, and when compared to the thousands of dollars that famous designers sell their clothing for, this particular dress was more easily within the spending range of Forever 21's customers. The original dress was relatively affordable; however, not all consumers are willing to pay for the original when they can get a fairly convincing, and cheap, knockoff. F&C's profits are reduced because people who likely would have bought the dress directly from F&C decided instead to get it from Forever 21. Furthermore, in this type of situation, customers may be more likely to be confused into thinking that Forever 21 is selling the original dress, but at a lower cost than buying directly from the designer.

��

It is also argued that providing copyright protection would help to . Small and independent designers do not have the same access to trademark protection as the high-end designers, like , and , do, and these luxury designers already have legal protection under trademark law. Trademark law allows for the protection of logos and certain designs, such as 's interlocked "G's". By registering a trademark, Gucci is able to stop others from creating designs that replicate their logo, and more importantly, by featuring their logo prominently in their designs, Gucci is able to deter copyists as having to omit the logo would make the copied garment significantly different from the original and therefore, less appealing to consumers. Furthermore, luxury dresses are usually not in the same market as the copyists' version, as people who tend to buy knockoffs from stores like Forever 21 are not able to afford to buy the original designs, thus making it so that Forever 21 is not directly taking profits away from the high-end designer. Lastly, luxury designers often use that are costly and uncommon, thus making it harder for copyists to create cheap, low-cost knockoffs. It is argued that these imbalances result in luxury designers being able to continue to innovate, whereas independent designers who do not have protection against copyists see a disproportionate negative effect on their profits.

��

It is clear that copyright protection for fashion design should at least be considered. While it is true that fashion design has existed for many years without copyright protection, the speed and volume at which copies can be created may indicate a need to re-visit copyright law in order to grant protection for fashion designs.

The post IP Rights: The New Designer Label appeared first on IPOsgoode.

In late 2008, it was that the first picture of Emily, which appeared in 1991 in conjunction with skateboards, bore a striking resemblance to an image of a character named , a young girl seen occasionally in the 1970s book series "Nate the Great".�� In this particular , Emily is pictured with her cats and the text reads: "Emily didn't look tired or happy. She looked like she always looks. Strange." The image of Rosamond, which predates that of Emily by more than a decade, shows Rosamond with her cats, and the text: "Rosamond did not look hungry or sleepy. She looked like she always looks. Strange." Cosmic Debris acquired Emily the Strange from original creator Nathan Carrico after this initial image had been featured on stickers that were distributed at concerts and skateboard shops. The similarity between the characters was brought to Rob Reger's attention in 1998.��Reger claimed he was not aware of the Rosamond character and that he has never drawn inspiration from the Nate the Great series; however, once the similarity was brought to Reger's attention this particular depiction of Emily was phased out and discontinued by 1998 and the creative team of Cosmic Debris then worked to further distinguish Emily.

��

Rosamond, who was created by and is a young girl, with long straight black hair, who wears a black dress and who has four cats. Emily is also a young girl, with long straight black hair, who wears black dresses and who also has four cats; however, Cosmic Debris argues that is where the similarities between the two characters end, claiming that Emily wears only black, is always pale and sullen, and never spends any time with any other children, whereas Rosamond is often rosy-cheeked and smiling, wears dresses of different colours and often plays with other young children.

��

Interestingly, throughout the almost 20 years that Emily has been openly promoted and publicized, Sharmat and Simont have Rob Reger or Cosmic Debris concerning a claim to any rights in the image associated with Emily the Strange; however, once the similarity began to be publicized on the internet, Sharmat and / or Simont began to contact businesses who had agreements with Cosmic Debris claiming that Emily the Strange somehow infringes copyrights in Rosamond and the "Nate the Great" series. Cosmic Debris that these actions are interfering with their ability to conduct business and on May 18^th, Cosmic Debris launched a requesting that defendants Sharmat and Simont be barred from recovering damages regarding Emily the Strange and that the defendants be restrained from claiming that Emily infringes on their work.

��

In their , Cosmic Debris also argues that no one, including Sharmat and Simont, should be able to claim rights in the idea of a young girl with long dark hair, pale skin and a short dark dress, who is accompanied by cats since this idea was not created by Sharmat and Simont and has been part of popular culture for decades. The complaint includes several examples of this common , including Vampira, Morticia and Wednesday Addams, Elvira, and Lydia from Beetlejuice. Cosmic Debris there is nothing illegal about creating a unique variation of a concept, and that Emily is their individual interpretation of "Goth Girl" image. Interestingly, it has been that Emily's strong anti-conformist, pro-individuality message is very much at odds with what Cosmic Debris is claiming in their complaint for declaratory relief; the creators of Emily claim that she, a character who has become popular based on the fact that she is different from everyone else, is actually just like every other gothic female character to have been created.

��

There are who strongly criticize Cosmic Debris because of the one comparable image of Emily and Rosamond, claiming that Cosmic Debris has Sharmat and Simont. While the first image of Emily was similar to one particular depiction of Rosamond, that image has long since been discontinued and it is clear that Cosmic Debris has spent 18 years and millions of dollars making Emily and her universe as unique as possible. Furthermore, as shown by several examples, the notion of a "Goth girl" is hardly a novel concept, or a concept unique to Rosamond. Lastly, Sharmat and Simont did not issue any complaints about any possible similarity between Emily and Rosamond for almost two decades. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this complaint and whether Cosmic Debris will be successful in halting Sharmat and Simont's belated attempt to stop Cosmic Debris from licensing or exploiting Emily the Strange.

The post Emily the Strange, or Emily the Plagiarized? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The Design Piracy Prohibition Act would provide copyright protection for fashion designs, an area that traditional intellectual property laws have failed to protect due to the functional nature of clothing. Under the Act, designs would be treated as if they were original pieces of art, as opposed to functional pieces of clothing. Damages for breach of the Act are set at the greater of $250,000 or $5 per copy. Specifically, the would amend the U.S. to provide a 3-year term of protection for registered fashion design. Interestingly, this is a very short term of protection, especially when compared to the granted to registered fashion designs in Europe; however, one could argue that given the rapid turnover in fashion trends, a garment could be out of style long before the three years of protection lapsed.

The Act would protect only unique, original designs registered with the US Copyright Office, and would stop stores from selling clothing that is "" to an existing article of clothing. The Act would not stop the reproduction of a fashion trend, so it is, and will remain, legal for stores like H&M to sell garments "" famous fashion designers. Instead, the Act aims to stop stores, like Forever 21, which make almost exact knockoffs of famous designs because almost-identical copies may discourage people from buying the original articles which, in turn, may dissuade designers from creating new pieces. The "inspired by" designs take major fashion trends, for example ruffled blouses, and then create a variation of that trend, whereas knockoffs would take a ruffled blouse designed by a famous designer and reproduce that blouse almost exactly, but at a fraction of the cost of the original. But how do you draw the line between what constitutes an "inspired by" and a knockoff? One entertaining suggestion is the "" which proposes that "if you have to squint to see the difference between a copy and the original, something is wrong, and copyright protection should kick in". While the squint test may be useful, it is probably not the most legally sound test. Of course, practically, drawing the line between "inspired by" and knockoffs is a very difficult exercise. How much of a design is "closely and substantially similar" and how would retail stores like H&M and Forever 21 know when they had crossed the threshold into knockoff territory? While the addition of the word "closely" somewhat narrows the scope of "substantially similar", it would seem as though it is nearly impossible to draw any bright line tests. Even under the Act, fashion design lawsuits may still have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

��

In Canada, designers of mass-produced clothing do not receive full protection under the by virtue of which states that once a useful article has been reproduced with the copyright owner's permission more than 50 times, it will not be considered copyright infringement if others make further copies of that article. The definition of "useful article" is generally accepted to , but recent case law has indicated that the "usefulness" of an article of fashion will turn on the facts of each case. Despite section 64, all is not lost for fashion designers; "protects an artistic work used as a trade-mark or for material that has a woven or knitted pattern that is suitable for piece goods or the making of wearing apparel" and purports to protect works used as a trade mark, even when used with a useful article. Under the , a passing off action may be used to protect fashion designs, or, as attempted by Crocs Canada Inc., a claim that the features of the clothing are a as long as the designer can show that the features are not purely functional or utilitarian. Lastly, designers could also turn to the , which grants the owner a monopoly on the use of that design for up to 10 years. In order to achieve protection, registration with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office is required and the application for registration must be filed within a year of the design becoming public. The Industrial Design Act will only protect ornamental and non-utilitarian features of the article.

��

The Design Piracy Prohibition Act is supported by several major fashion designers, largely because it is their designs that are most often copied; however, it is not always the major labels who are the victims. Recently, a strong similarity was discovered between a cocktail jacket designed by Toronto fashion designer Mercy and a jacket designed by the legendary Diane von Furstenberg (DvF). Mercy's Spring 2008 collection consisted of original pieces in vintage-looking rose print and the cocktail jacket, carried at several New 91��ɫ stores and featured on one magazine cover, was the most popular piece. In Spring 2009, DvF introduced a , which received a great deal of publicity and was featured on several magazine covers and was part of a storyline on the popular MTV show "The City". ��The similarity between the jackets was brought to the attention of DvF and, to her credit, Ms. von Furstenberg , firing the staff member responsible for taking Mercy's design. DvF voluntarily compensated Mercy for an undisclosed amount. ��

��

DvF is not the only famous designer who has been accused of copying someone else's design. In early 2008, a Swedish man claimed that Marc Jacobs had copied a souvenir depicting a Swedish village that was originally made by his father in the 1950s. It has been argued that the image and the scarf are not actually protected by copyright, but rather are part of the public domain and thus allowed to be copied. Although there does not seem to be any reported outcome to this situation, it should be remembered that even if the Design Piracy Prohibition Act were to be passed, scarf designs would��need to be��registered and��would only receive protection for three years.

��

The Design Piracy Prohibition Act is supported by the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA), an organization whose Board of Directors is comprised of fashion heavyweights, such as Oscar de la Renta, Ralph Lauren, Vera Wang and Nicole Miller.����The is none other than Ms. Diane von Furstenberg.�� Ms. Von Furstenberg aggressively protects her designs, which have a strong celebrity following, and DvF has filed several lawsuits in the past. In 2007 DvF unsuccessfully fashion chain Forever 21 for copyright infringement after Forever 21 sold an almost identical version of a DvF dress (it's interesting to note that Forever 21 has been sued for copyright violations!). Lawyers for DvF argued that customers were more likely to be confused into thinking they were buying the high-end designer version at a retail outlet, as opposed to buying a counterfeit knockoff on a street corner. While this may be a reasonable argument, it seems as though the court was reluctant to grant intellectual property protection to fashion designs. The Design Piracy Prohibition Act specifically intends to stop retail chains from selling almost exact knockoffs, so if the bill is passed, Forever 21 may want to start selling clothing that was "inspired by" famous designers, instead of selling clothing that rips off designers.

��

With such recent outcry by fashion designers in the US, it is almost surprising that Canadian designers have been relatively silent on the issue. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act and whether it will inspire Canada to create additional intellectual property protection that specifically covers fashion design.

The post Does Fashion Need Copyright Protection? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The program began with an informative overview of IP law presented by the Program Chairs, Mala Joshi and Paul Lomic, both associate lawyers at Ridout & Maybee LLP.�� All of the presentations were extremely informative; however, one in particular stood out to me: Antonio Turco, an Associate at Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, gave a presentation about "Intellectual Property and the Internet". Mr. Turco began his presentation by discussing some of the broad issues in IP law and the internet, such as the policy goal of balancing the goals of content owners with those of internet users. An example discussed in the presentation was that of use of user-generated content which also incorporates copyright material, such as people creating videos of themselves to put on YouTube which incorporate songs that are copyrighted. This is a good demonstration of the need to balance the rights of the user to post videos of themselves on the internet with the rights of the copyright owner to determine how their work is used.����

Mr. Turco also discussed the rise of "cybersquatting", which is an attempt to capitalize on the goodwill of a business or trade-mark through the registration of an identical or confusingly similar domain name. This may be done with the intent, or desire, to re-sell the domain name to the trade-mark owner. It is important to remember that there are no filters to registering domain names. This is different from trade-marks, which must go through an approval process by the Registrar of Trade-marks. As a remedy, domain names are only able to be cancelled or transferred once the name has been registered.

One of the most interesting topics of the day was Mr. Turco's discussion of generic Top Level Domain names (gTLDs). Currently, there are 21 generic top-level domain names, including <.com> and <.org>. ��In 2008, the board of the (ICANN), a private sector, non-profit corporation that coordinates the naming system on the internet, decided to expand the available gTLDs in order to better achieve their goal of promoting competition and choice. ��Under ICANN's "Expansion Plan", any public or private established entity from anywhere in the world can submit an application for a new gTLD; however, the entity will have to show that they have the organizational and financial capabilities to manage the gTLD. Mr. Turco discussed how it is expected that applicants will apply for targeted strings, such as a geographic location (i.e. <.nyc> for New 91��ɫ City) or registered trade-marks (i.e. <.disney>). Applications will be subject to an evaluation process and can be objected to on the grounds that the proposed gTLD is offensive, or is confusing with another string. It is hoped that this Expansion Plan will curb cybersquatting; however, it has also been argued that the new gTLDs will merely create more domain names that trade-mark owners will have to try and protect from cybersquatters.����

After hearing about the range of intellectual property issues which are interlaced through several areas of law, it was very clear that IP law has far reaching implications for both businesses and individuals. The conference was extremely informative and I felt very fortunate to have had the opportunity to attend.

The post OBA Conference: "Intellectual Property Issues in a Non-IP Context" appeared first on IPOsgoode.