Having just completed my second year of study, I was acutely aware of the fact that I had only one year remaining within which to complete my Osgoode Public Interest Requirement (OPIR). Students at Osgoode Hall Law School, beginning with the class of 2010 and on, are required to complete OPIR hours in order to graduate. Rather than regarding this requirement as a chore, I tried to find something that I would be genuinely interested in. Every time I received one of the Professor Leiper's emails advertising various OPIR positions, I kept my eyes peeled for something that would capture my attention. When the email advertising a position at the Trade-marks Opposition Board (TMOB) came along, I jumped at the opportunity and was ultimately selected for the position. I knew that I wouldn't be completely in the dark, having recently taken courses in intellectual property and patents.

Immediately following exams, I packed up my car and made the trek to Gatineau, Quebec where the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) is located. Not sure what to expect, I was quite surprised on my first day when I was immediately given my own s.45 summary expungement file and instructed to draft a decision. For those who are unfamiliar with this area of the law, anyone may ask the Registrar of Trade-marks to require a registrant (owner of a mark) to demonstrate "use" of their registered mark, within the definition of the Trade-marks Act, or else face summary expungement, whereby the registrant's mark is deleted from the register.Ěý The rationale behind s.45 of the Trade-marks ActĚý is the clearing of "deadwood" from the register.

I immediately got to work and delved into endless volumes of the Canadian Patent Reporter to conduct my research. The s.45 and Opposition Officers were also extremely helpful in answering all of my questions and providing guidance in an area of trade-mark law that I knew virtually nothing about prior to my arrival at the TMOB. Initially, I was nervous about having to decide the fate of this poor unfortunate registrant whose file I'd been given. As I worked on my assignment, however, I became more confident in myself. Five days and three drafts later, my draft decision was complete.Ěý Not only was this a crash course in a very specific area of the law, but it was also a challenging exercise in judicial writing.

During breaks from working on the draft decision, I was invited to attend a policy meeting as well as sit in on an opposition hearing. I can honestly say that I learned more in my time at the TMOB than I would have in a classroom setting. While the work could have been done remotely, I am glad that I chose to spend my time at the TMOB and take advantage of the available resources and the knowledge of the Officers.Ěý I was not only able to complete my OPIR hours, but also capitalize on a unique educational opportunity.

The post You can't spell "OPIR" without "IP" - My experience with the Trade-marks Opposition Board appeared first on IPOsgoode.

As the Games become bigger and better, and each host country strives to outdo the last, there must inevitably be someone footing the bill. The operating costs of the Vancouver 2010 Games are estimated at $1.63 billion, the bulk of which is generated through enormous sponsorship agreements and the auctioning off of the Olympic brand by way of merchandizing and broadcasting deals. Those who are not official sponsors, yet still make use of a protected mark or engage in ambush marketing tactics, face the wrath of the IOC (International Olympics Committee) and its Canadian crony, VANOC (Vancouver Organizing Committee). Several small businesses operating under a name that includes a protected Olympic mark have already been targeted by VANOC, which has attempted to force them to change their names or else face legal sanctions. It does not stop there, however. Non-official sponsors whose brands make it into Olympic venues are also subject to censorship. In Beijing, the IOC’s ‘duct tape patrol’ inspected the venues with a fine tooth comb, swiftly removing or covering up any offending brands with duct tape.

As if existing Canadian intellectual property legislation was not enough, the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act was enacted to afford greater protection of the Olympic brand. More recently, VANOC has even managed to successfully trademark certain lyrics from “O Canada” to serve as Vancouver 2010 mottoes.Ěý “With glowing hearts” and the French “des plus brillants exploits” are just the latest items that have been appropriated by VANOC. Other items that comprise the Olympic brand include “2010”, “winter games”, “Canada 2010”, and the list goes on. But don’t worry- you won’t have to look over your shoulder when singing the national anthem. VANOC makes it clear that it will only challenge those who use the mottoes for commercial gain. Still, there is just something disconcerting about the commercialization of parts of the national anthem that leaves a bad taste in many people’s mouths.

While it is understandable that hosting the Olympics is expensive, the actions of the IOC and VANOC tread the fine line between justified protection of the exclusivity of the Olympic mark and creating a stifling environment for those who are not official corporate sponsors. The overzealous protective measures dampen the Olympic spirit by shifting the focus away from the actual sporting events and creating a climate of uncertainty and fear of infringement. The IOC and VANOC are sending a clear message through their actions: if you want a piece of the Olympic pie, you’d better have deep pockets.

The post Selling the Olympic Spirit to the Highest Bidder appeared first on IPOsgoode.