In March 2022, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”)  its first artificial intelligence (AI)-authored copyright registration of a painting co-created by the AI tool, RAGHAV Painting App (“RAGHAV”), and the IP lawyer who created RAGHAV, Ankit Sahni. RAGHAV is the first non-human “author” of a copyrighted work. However, Canadian courts  that “[c]learly a human author is required to create an original work for copyright purposes” (para 88). Though the AI tool is a co-author with a human, the registration suggests that both RAGHAV and Ankit Sahni can constitute an author under the copyright regime and  amongst Canadian artists. Though the landscape in Canada is still unclear, the US Copyright Office (“Office”)  a clarification on March 16, 2023, about its practices for examining and registering works that contain material generated by artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

The Human Authorship Requirement

The Office  that the term “author,” used in both the US Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans. To qualify as a work of ‘authorship,’ a work must be created by a human being and works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author are not registrable. This threshold reflects the Canadian copyright regime,. The author  significant original expression to the work that is  to be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise.

The US Copyright Office’s Approach to AI-Generated Work

The Office provided important  on assessing the protectable elements of AI-generated works. It begins by distinguishing whether the ‘work’ is one of human authorship, with the AI tool merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the protectable elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.

If the machine produced the expressive elements of the work, it is not copyrightable. This guidance is critical for  surrounding Chat-GPT, where the AI tool receives a prompt from the user, and the user does not exercise ultimate creative control of the output. The Office provided an  where a user instructs an AI tool to “write a poem about copyright law in the style of William Shakespeare”. Given that the user contributes little to no expressive elements to the AI-generated output, the output is not a product of human authorship or protected under the US Copyright Act.

However, the Office also  that, in some cases, AI-generated works might contain sufficient human-authored elements to warrant copyright protection. This may apply in cases where the human selects or arranges the AI-generated elements or modifies the AI-generated material to a degree where it constitutes original expression. The analysis seeks to determine whether a human had ultimate creative control over the expression and formed the traditional elements of authorship.

This guidance is in response to a recent review by the Office of a  titled “Zarya of the Dawn” containing human-authored elements combined with AI-generated images. While the Office  that the author, Kristina Kashtanova, owned the work’s text and the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the work’s written and visual elements, copyright protection did not extend to the images generated by the AI tool, Midjourney. Though Kashtanova edited the Midjourney images, the Office held that the creativity supplied did not constitute authorship.

How will this apply in Canada?

Given the registration of RAGHAV as an author under Canadian copyright law last year, it remains to be seen whether CIPO will follow a similar assessment as the US Office and revisit the decision to register an AI-generated work as a work of joint authorship. However,  question whether moral rights, which are not part of the US regime, will extend to AI authors and if AI authorship will alter the copyright term of the last living author’s death plus 70 years. The increasing traction of AI warrants similar guidance from CIPO regarding the status of AI authorship under Canadian copyright law.

The post The US Copyright Office Clarifies that Copyright Protection Does Not Extend to (Exclusively) AI-Generated Work appeared first on IPOsgoode.

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

On February 22, 2023, it was that Google is blocking news content on its platform for under 4% of Canadian users in a five-week test as a potential protest of Bill C-18. While Parliament referred to this secret news blocking test by the tech giant as “,” this reality of Bill C-18 does not come as a surprise to critics who voiced these concerns throughout the legislative process.

Bill C-18, the , was first passed by the House of Commons in April 2022 and aimed to respect online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada. This would provide news publishers with a framework to strike deals with tech giants, such as Google and Meta, to share the revenue they receive when reposting news content from publishers.

Parliament stressed that Bill C-18 will help recoup financial losses sustained by the news media industry in Canada. However, there is great concern as to whether Google and/or Meta will limit or fully shut down its news aggregation services to avoid payments. These concerns are warranted, as Google its Google News outlet in Spain for eight years to avoid paying for links and snippets citing stories from Spanish newspapers and other outlets. Google also conducted similar news blocking tests in response to the attempting to pass a code similar to Bill C-18 which sought to promote negotiations between news publishers and tech giants. Even more recently, Google Google News snippets in Czechia in response to Czech Copyright Act reform seeking to compensate Czech news publishers.

The costs of Bill C-18 to Google and Meta are not insignificant, with the estimating news businesses to receive a total compensation of $329.2 million CAD per annum from digital platforms. Given that both and generate upwards of $100 billion USD per annum, the costs of Bill C-18 appear to be a drop in the bucket for the tech giants. However, the backlash from Google to a lack of input from the Parliamentary Budget Officer as to how this figure was calculated. Parliament consulted the Australian Communication and Media Authority to learn more about its Bill-C18-like legislation implementation in Australia, so the estimates may have been based on Australian data.

Google’s news blocking test in Canada illustrates that the reality of Bill C-18 may go against its very purpose by digital platforms to link to news materials. This will not only limit access to online news content in Canada, but, more significantly, will further drive the losses suffered by Canada’s news media industry. , more than 450 news outlets in Canada have closed, with 64 closures in the past two years. With the second reading of Bill C-18 now in progress at the Senate, Parliament may need to reconsider its legislative approach to avoid further backlash from Google and Meta.

The post The (Not-So) Secret Side of Bill C-18: Google Tests Blocking Online News Content for Canadians appeared first on IPOsgoode.

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

The Ministry of Energy, Commerce and Industry of the Republic of Cyprus (“Cyprus”) lost its latest attempt to obtain trademark protection for its famous cheese, “Halloumi,” in a dated January 20, 2023. The Quebec Court of Appeal (QCCA) dismissed the appeal and agreed with the trial judge, ruling in favour of the Canadian dairy company, Saputo Produits Laitiers Canada S.E.N.C. (“Saputo”).

Halloumi, also commonly spelt as “Haloumi” or “Halomi”, is often associated with the Mediterranean island of Cyprus where it was first manufactured . It is the second most important export for Cyprus and its popularity in Canada has over the past 20 years, with many Canadian dairy manufacturers, including Saputo and President’s Choice, producing and selling halloumi cheese.

In 1995, Cyprus filed an to register “Halloumi” as a certification mark for cheese of the following defined standard: “the cheese is produced only in Cyprus using the historic method unique to that country, namely: traditionally, it has been produced from sheep's and/or goat's milk. In the case of mixtures, cow's milk is also allowed.” are a type of trademark that can be licensed to manufacturers as an indication to consumers that its products meet the owner’s defined standard. Common examples of certification marks include for Ontario wine, , and .

While this certification mark was registered in the , the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) the mark on the basis that there was evidence of commercial use of “Halloumi” or similar terms in Canada already and thus, the mark is not distinctive to cheese “produced only in Cyprus.” The TMOB’s decision was upheld by both the and , with leave to the dismissed in 2012.

Cyprus entered into a with Saputo in 1999 and 2004, stipulating that Saputo “shall not use the trademark HALOMI on its products, or any other trademark confusingly similar with HALLOUMI or HALOMI.” Cyprus Saputo for breach of contract and requested a permanent injunction preventing Saputo from making further use of “Halloumi” or similar marks on its packaging. The Superior Court of Quebec ruled in favour of Saputo given that the law in Canada is settled that “Halloumi,” or similar words, could not be used as a trademark and therefore, the above contractual provision does not apply. On appeal, the QCCA agreed with the trial judge.

Canada’s rejection of trademark protection for “Halloumi” raises important questions surrounding cultural appropriation, a controversy recently brought up in the UK for the trademark “Taquería” (see ). Halloumi cheese is integral to Cyprus’ since its preparation is “directly linked to the traditional rural life and social solidarity that characterizes even today the villages of Cyprus.” However, the now widespread recognition of halloumi cheese in Canada presents a significant hurdle to Cyprus in protecting its historic cheese-making methods. To distinguish halloumi produced in Cyprus from that of Canadian retailers, Cyprus will likely need to seek a more fanciful certification mark that goes beyond the mere description of “Halloumi” (or similar terms).

The post Quebec Court of Appeal Sears “Halloumi” Trademark (Again) appeared first on IPOsgoode.

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

On December 26, 2022, the Japanese IP High Court dismissed an appeal from Christian Louboutin (“Louboutin”), a shoe designer known for its iconic red-bottom heels, in its action against Japanese shoe designer, Eizo Collection Co., Ltd. (“Eizo”), to shut down Eizo’s use of red soles on high-heeled shoes.

In May 2019, Louboutin sued Eizo under the Unfair Competition Prevention Law, seeking a permanent injunction against Eiko’s production of red-soled high heels and damages of approximately CAD 43,500. The Tokyo District Court ruled against Louboutin by finding red soles insufficient as a source indicator, and that the likelihood of confusion among consumers is therefore low. The IP High Court affirmed the judgment and placed particular emphasis on the to assess the likelihood of confusion:

1. The relevant consumers in the Japanese shoe market (women from their 20s to 50s) are likely to try on multiple shoes before purchasing ones that fit in a physical store;
2. The market can be divided into three categories: (i) luxury brand products, (ii) affordable brand products, and (iii) inexpensive no-name products;
3. The shoes in question, as well as most high-heeled shoes, bear a brand name or logo on the insole so that consumers can distinguish between trade sources; and
4. E-commerce websites post images of ladies’ shoes and identify the trade source for the respective goods in advertisements ().

While Louboutin’s products retail for and over and fall within the luxury brand market, Eizo’s shoes occupy the affordable or no-name brand markets, with an average retail price of JPY17,000 ($130). As such, the court ruled that, despite the resemblance of the colour of Louboutin and Eiko’s outsoles, the likelihood of confusion amongst consumers is low since each company occupies a different position in the market.

Relying on the fact that Louboutin is not the exclusive supplier of red-soled high heels in Japan and only 51.6% of targeted women in their 20s to 50s residing in major Japanese cities recognized Louboutin at the sight of a red-soled high-shoe, the IP High Court Louboutin’s assertion of its remarkable reputation amongst consumers. The court also took with Louboutin’s market research. The 3,149 individuals surveyed were luxury retail shoppers and were only presented with Louboutin’s products, not Eizo’s.

This loss for Louboutin follows several years of from the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and JPO Appeal Board to register its trademark for a colour mark consisting of a red (Pantone 18-1663TP) coloured in soles for use in high heels filed on April 1, 2015 (TM App no. ). In April 2015, Japan opened the gate for non-traditional trademarks, including colour, sound, and motion . As of November 2020, however, the JPO only registered out of 543 applications for colour marks. The JPO based on Article 3(1)(iii) of the Japan Trademark Law, stating that Louboutin’s colour mark lacks distinctiveness to be deemed as an indicator of source for Louboutin in the Japanese market.

(Alt Text: EIZO shoes with red soles; Source: ()

The post Japanese IP High Court Steps on Louboutin’s Toes (Again) Over its Red Sole Mark appeared first on IPOsgoode.

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

On January 10, 2023, Justice Pratter of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that storing melted rink ice from championship hockey matches in a piece of memorabilia is not copyrightable. Justice Pratter confirmed that the scope of copyright law extends only to the expression of ideas, but not the ideas itself.

The , William Grondin, sued sports merchandise company Fanatics Inc. (“Fanatics”) for copyright infringement. Mr. Grondin alleged that he owns copyright for “Slice of the Ice”, a Stanley Cup-shaped piece of hockey memorabilia incorporating melted ice from championship hockey games. He also alleged that Fanatics unlawfully copied his work in its own ice-filled hockey puck-shaped memorabilia. To establish copyright infringement, the following criteria must be met:

1. Grondin owns valid copyright in “Slice of the Ice”; and
2. Fanatics unlawfully copied the original, protectable elements of Mr. Grondin’s work.

While the court found evidence that Mr. Grondin owned valid copyright in “Slice of the Ice”, Fanatics succeeded in its motion to dismiss on the basis that the elements allegedly copied from Mr. Grondin’s work were not copyrightable.

Justice Pratter relied on the longstanding notion in copyright law (as early as ) that copyright does not protect ideas, only the expression of ideas. The sole element which Mr. Grondin alleged Fanatics copied was the “hockey puck-shaped piece with a hollow cavity into which melted rink ice is placed.” The idea of storing melted rink ice in hockey memorabilia is not protected by copyright. The question became whether Mr. Grondin’s specific expression of this idea in “Slice of the Ice” is copyrightable and if Fanatics substantially copied this expression.

The court Fanatics’ argument that the use of a hockey puck to express the idea of storing melted ice in memorabilia is inevitable and simply inherent in the underlying idea. This argument was supported by the fact that Fanatics also stored melted ice in Stanley Cup- and snow globe-shaped memorabilia. However, Justice Pratter that hockey pucks are inseparable and indispensable from the sport of hockey. Allowing Mr. Grondin to establish substantial similarity merely on the shared use of this element would effectively provide him a monopoly on the underlying idea of hockey memorabilia. The court also held that the elements of the hockey pucks in both works, notably its clarity and hollow cavity to hold melted ice, are merely utilitarian features which permit the idea of a water-filled puck. These utilitarian features are not protected by copyright. Since the sole element by which Mr. Grondin alleged copying by Fanatics is an idea not within the scope of copyright protection, the court held that there was no basis for a copyright infringement claim.

Interestingly, the court granted the without prejudice. This ruling leaves open the possibility that the action could be amended. Alternatively, Mr. Grondin could allege copying of other aesthetic or non-utilitarian features from which substantial similarity might be established against Fanatics or other sports companies.

(Alt Text: Comparison of Mr. Grondon’s work with the allegedly infringing hockey memorabilia; Source: )

The post Hockey Memorabilia Iced Out of the Scope of Copyright Law appeared first on IPOsgoode.

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

Vogue’s publishers have rappers Drake and 21 Savage for unauthorized use of Vogue’s trademarks and false representations in marketing their newest album, “Her Loss”. This follows Vogue’s controversial asking a small English pub called “The Star Inn at Vogue” to change its name.

Condé Nast, the owner of Vogue Magazine, filed a for trademark infringement and false advertising against Drake and 21 Savage on November 7, 2022, in the United States District Court after the artists released a parody promotional cover of the widely acclaimed Vogue Magazine, featuring a photo of Drake and 21 Savage atop the Vogue logo and multiple fake story headlines. The magazine was part of a , including a fake NPR Tiny Desk Concert and a fake Saturday Night Live performance. Drake and 21 Savage jointly promoted the fake magazine on their Instagram with the caption:

“Me and my brother on newsstands tomorrow!! Thanks @voguemagazine and Anna Wintour for the love and support on this historic moment”

The artists also mimicked Vogue’s promotional activities by distributing copies of the fake magazine in North America’s largest metropolitan areas, including New 91��ɫ, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Miami, Houston, and Toronto, and plastering posters of the counterfeit cover along streets and buildings in these cities.

This lawsuit followed a week of repeated demands to Drake and 21 Savage from Vogue and its counsel to cease their allegedly infringing activities and take remedial actions to curtail further public confusion. Given that the artists refused to take action and continued to benefit from the social media posts, Vogue requested and was immediate injunctive relief to prevent Drake and 21 Savage from using fake covers to promote their album. This injunction also prevents Drake and 21 Savage from using Anna Wintour’s likeness, including a doctored photograph of Vogue’s long-serving editor-in-chief and Drake, a full-page feature in the fake magazine. Vogue also requests statutory damages of up to $4 million US, though the court has yet to address these damages.

Though the post containing the counterfeit magazine was taken down from Instagram and the posters of the counterfeit cover along streets and buildings were removed because of the injunction, distributed copies of the fake magazine remain and are now being sold for upwards of on e-commerce sites. Ample evidence demonstrates that this false representation caused confusion, including various online articles from which claim that Drake and 21 Savage landed the December Vogue cover and social media posts indicating users’ excitement for the fake cover.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff agreed with Vogue and Condé Nast that there was sufficient proof that consumers were being confused and the publisher had been "irreparably harmed”, a temporary injunction for the production and distribution of the fake magazine. On Drake and 21 Savage agreed to this preliminary injunction and also agreed to stop using Vogue trademarks for their album promotion.

The counterfeit marketing that went into promoting “Her Loss” may have paid off, with the album reaching during its first week and a . However, it is unclear if these sales can offset the potential damages of up to $4 million US requested by Vogue and other remedies that NPR and NBC may seek for the artists’ fake Tiny Desk and Saturday Night Live performances, respectively.

(Photo Credits: ) (Alt text: Screen capture of Drake’s now-deleted Instagram post containing multiple copies of the impugned magazine cover)

The post Drake and 21 Savage May Have More (Legal) Issues Than Vogue 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.

Entering the new year, conversations continue in many jurisdictions around copyright reform, including modernizing the way copyright disputes are dealt with in the digital age. In the U.S., artists and other independent content creators continue to mobilize around otherwise known as the CASE Act.

Passed by the House of Representatives in late October of 2019 before being stalled in November, the CASE Act proposes the creation of a Copyright Claims Board devoted to hearing copyright disputes in what is essentially a small-claims context. The proposed legislation caps any damages awarded by the Board at $15,000USD per individual work, up to a total of $30,000USD per claim.

who, the Act states, should be lawyers experienced in copyright law and alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The CASE Act’s proposal for an ADR mechanism for copyright comes after years of discussion on the topic and the introduction of other similar legislation.

The CASE Act is largely drawn from the draft legislative proposal found within a on copyright small claims. In 2011, at the request of Congress, the U.S. Copyright Office into the topic. The inquiry sought submissions and commentary from stakeholders on their experiences in pursuing copyright claims with small economic value, as well as input on proposed alternatives to the traditional system for adjudicating these types of disputes. After public hearings in 2012, the U.S. Copyright Office released their findings in September 2013, describing what they identified as the challenges content creators and other American copyright owners face in their attempts to “vindicate their rights and deter continuing violations”.

see it as a vital piece of legislation aimed at protecting the livelihood of independent content creators who might otherwise be unable to enforce their rights. As described in the U.S. Copyright Office’s 2013 report, the cost of litigation in the traditional system can outweigh any monetary recovery for lower-value copyright claims. Loss of time that could otherwise be put towards income-generating activities was identified as another major barrier to traditional adjudication, essentially leaving independent creators with claims of small economic value with no viable recourse.

the Act does not do enough to protect artists. The voluntary nature of the process, allowing parties to opt-out, puts independent creators at a disadvantage when a power imbalance might exist between two parties, one of whom may be better able to bear the time and monetary cost of traditional litigation. Critics also worry about the possibility of misuse, such as with frivolous claims or those brought against ill-informed internet users who may be unwittingly posting copyrighted work on social media, and the difficulties the Act’s opt-out requirement may pose for those caught in a claim with penalties reaching into the tens of thousands of dollars.

This last line of reasoning has been the primary argument of those opposing the bill, which is currently on hold as of January 2020. In November of 2019, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Or) put a hold on the bill, citing concerns about “” in the bill as it is currently drafted.  

Here in Canada, , and many similar critiques apply. In Ontario, recovery is capped at $25,000CAD and there is no process of discovery. Equitable remedies are not typically awarded by small claims courts, so if an individual is seeking something other than monetary recovery, they may still be forced down the road of traditional adjudication. Still, having the small-claims option available allows an individual to decide which route may be best for them in their particular circumstances.

As negotiations continue between proponents of the bill and those senators blocking the full vote, the CASE Act will be one to keep an eye on this year.

Meghan Carlin is a first-year student at Osgoode Hall Law School. With her time spent working in music licensing for film and television informing her legal studies, Meghan also acts as a 1L rep for the Osgoode Entertainment and Sports Law Association.

The post Small Claims for Copyright: A Check-in on the CASE Act appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Recently, on December 29, 2019, ahead their divisional wild card playoff game, the Minnesota Vikings football team filed a trademark for “” and “”. The Vikings went on to win their divisional wild card game, but were knocked out this past weekend by the San Francisco 49ers. With the Vikings now out of the playoffs, could an ambitious filing be to blame for their early departure?

In sports, strategic and opportunistic trademarks are nothing out of the ordinary. Earlier this year, rookie basketball sensation Zion Williamson uttered the words “Let’s dance” during an interview after being drafted first overall by the New Orleans Pelicans. Less than 24 hours later, both Williamson and the New Orleans Pelicans filed competing applications for the mark “”. Other notable examples include, Marshawn Lynch’s trademark for “” and Johnny Manziel’s “”.

There are certainly plenty of benefits of a trademark . However, in the deeply superstitious world of sports, history has shown that applicants might want to think twice about when they file for protection. Here are two examples of trademark applications gone wrong in sports:

Pat Riley’s “three-peat”

With five NBA Championships, Pat Riley is one of the greatest NBA coaches of all time. However, in November 1988, ahead of the 1988-89 season, and following back-to-back championships with the Los Angeles Lakers, Pat Riley got a little overconfident and registered the words “” with the US Patent and Trademark Office. While the Lakers made it to the NBA Finals that season, they were swept by the Detroit Pistons, ultimately never completing the “three-peat”.

As fortune would have it, Riley would have a second chance at the “three-peat” years later as an executive with the Miami Heat. Again, following back-to-back championships in 2012 and 2013, the Heat fell to the San Antonio Spurs in 2014.

The New England Patriots and “19-0”

The New England Patriots might be closest thing to football perfection since Tom Brady joined the team in 2001. Since 2001, the Patriots have not had a losing season, have only missed the playoffs twice, and have won six Super Bowls. However, despite plenty of opportunity, the Patriots have never completed the fabled 19-0 perfect season. The closest the Patriots came to a perfect season was the 2007-08 season where they finished the regular season a perfect 16-0.

However, a couple weeks before Super Bowl XLII, the Kraft Group, owners of the New England Patriots, applied for trademark protection for “19-0”, a nod to their then perfect season. In one of the biggest Super Bowl upsets of all time, the 2007 Patriots fell to the underdog New 91��ɫ Giants 17-14. Ultimately, the mark was not used in the way it was intended, but the application was , and registered in 2016.

What these examples tell us, is that in the world of sports, particularly when championships are on the line, it might be best to develop notoriety in a mark prior to filing for protection.

Written by Alexandre Dumais, IPilogue Editor and JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Alexandre is also the Director of Sports, Osgoode Entertainment and Sports Law Association.

The post Trademarks, Sports, and Superstition: Why a Premature Filing Could Cost You appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Only one post remains on the and it is tellingly tagged "RIP" and "the dion effect." Dion's lawyers sent Nick Angiolillo, the New 91��ɫ blogger who runs the satirical Tumblr site which mocks silly photos of the singer, letter that him to remove all the original posts.

Angiolillo claims that he is likely in the right, but that he doesn't have the financial resources to engage counsel to respond; a wise choice on his part. There are a lot of issues at play here. Firstly, there may be a marked difference between the privacy rights and image/likeness sovereignty that can be demanded by an average citizen as opposed to a celebrity. Another issue here is practically a staple of many IP dilemmas: one nation's protection may be different than another’s, but a URL is, for the most part, international.

What about the fact that they are in many cases the work of photographers? What would be most interesting to know is whether or not Angiolillo purchased the images and rights from photobanks or simply cribbed them off a Google search. If the latter, then Celine Dion's cease and desist letter may only have been the first of several to arrive.

This brings us to an interesting point: attributing the rights of a photo to the photographer may be an outdated and archaic way of organizing online property. Indeed, now that one cultivates, fosters and monitors their online presence, one’s reputation seems to be more valuable than a single photo (or in this case, many). When photographs were primarily utilized by print sources, their regulation and distribution could be easily controlled by the Copyright Act. The world of Internet, however, leads one to ask: what are the rights of the subjects of these photos?

And finally, on the self-expression side, is there any sympathy for the fact that the blog was a genuine piece of tongue-in-cheek parody and not some kind of explosive and commercialized meme? A similar, but intensely more sophisticated site, , has t-shirts and advertising and thus the bloggers in this case are making money by making fun of celebrities. Angiolillo's grassroots site stands in remarked contrast.

Canadian courts have the 'parody defence' of material subject to the Copyright Act. This case, however, would likely be subject to US standards of 'fair use', where using material for parody purposes has been established a .

The ultimate lesson, however, is that in the early days of any legal arena with many suits pending and little precedent work – as most certainly the case with digital intellectual property and likeness law – those with the money to engage lawyers have the upper hand.

The post Celine Dion Takes On Satirical Blogger In David And Goliath Fight (Spoiler: Goliath Wins) appeared first on IPOsgoode.