On December 6, 2021, the federal ministers of Defence, Public Safety, Emergency Preparedness and International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business, and Economic Development (the Ministers) released anĚýĚýto Canadians discussing the rise of ransomware attacks and offering guidance for organizations to curb this trend. Among the resources included in the letter, the Ministers refer to aĚýĚýrecently published by the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (the Cyber Centre).

In the open letter, the Ministers discussed the significant rise of ransomware threats targeting small and medium-sized businesses, health care organizations, utility organizations, and municipalities. During these attacks, threat actors would lock the organization out of its systems and only allow access once a payment is made, usually in a form of digital currency. To assist Canadians in this matter, the Ministers are working to provide the public with specific advice and guidance.

The Cyber Centre’s Ransomware Playbook is one of the newly released resources for Canadian organizations to better prepare against ransomware. The Playbook provides organizations with a basic understanding of the landscape and guidance on important issues, such as whether they should pay a threat actor’s ransom. It also includes suggestions on proper measures for organizations to mitigate the impact of these incidents. The Playbook is organized into the following two sections:

1. How toĚýdefendĚýagainst a ransomware attack, such as using
   1. cyber defence planning strategies like the implementation of backups systems and incident response plans; and
   2. cyber security controls throughout the organization’s network to add further protection.
2. How toĚý°ů±đł¦´Ç±ą±đ°ůĚýfrom a ransomware attack, including
   1. immediate response actions to bring an organization’s system back under control after an attack; and
   2. recovery actions that will help an organization successfully rehabilitate its business for the long-term.

In closing the letter, the Ministers urged Canadians to take cyber security seriously and develop a proper protective infrastructure with updated technology measures that will make them well-prepared in their response to such incidents.

The post Canadian Ministers Issue Open Letter On Ransomware And Ransomware Playbook appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Junghi Woo is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School

Ěý

On June 8^th, the Federal Court of Australia ruled that AGL Energy, Australia’s largest electricity generator, , an international environmental activist organization.Ěý The decision was an impressive win for Greenpeace as the Federal Court found that all but 3 of Greenpeace’s uses of AGL’s logo failed to amount to trademark and copyright infringement. Therefore, no damages were awarded to AGL.

One of the key uses of AGL’s trademark and copyright was Greenpeace’s tagline, “Australia’s Greatest Liability”. From 2019 to 2020, AGL produced of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions and operated Australia’s top two power stations in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

An interesting reason for the Court’s judgement was that it found such uses amounted to parody and thus did not fall afoul of copyright laws, as it also added,

This case alone represented intellectual property (“IP”) law’s interesting relationship with freedom of expression, with a surprising decision in favour of the “little guys”.

Parody in Canada

The idea of using one’s logo or name to create parody does not solely create legal implications. As seen in the Greenpeace case, it can intersect with one’s freedom of expression, namely, to criticize. The balance between protecting the interests of IP owners and its “users” is a century-old struggle. ,

“The protection of authors, whether of inventions, works of art, or of literary compositions, is the object to be attained by all patent and copyright laws … On the other hand, care must always be taken not to allow them to be made instruments of oppression and extortion.”

Despite no specific legislation addressing the use of IP rights in parodies, the court has addressed the issue in prior cases using existing legislation. In copyright law, the defence of fair dealing can . In fact, this is found in where it states:

“Fair dealing for the purpose of research, private study, education, parody or satire does not infringe copyright.”

In trademark law, a trademark owner can invoke s. 22(1) of the Trade-marks Act to argue that such parody will be , after having to establish that their trademark was pursuant to s.4 of the same Act.

The likely Canadian outcome?

The same decision in favour of Greenpeace’s use of AGL’s trademark may be supported by [“Michelin”], where the court ruled that to successfully establish a s. 22 claim, In Michelin, former employees

In terms of copyrights, some uncertainty still exists as to how courts will address Greenpeace’s use as the court in Michelin emphasized that parody is not included in the defence of fair dealing, or even within the scope of criticism due to the intention of the copyright use being to However, it should be emphasized that Greenpeace’s position differs in that it posed true criticism of AGL’s non-environmentally friendly actions, which is beyond mere mockery.

Overall, I believe this Australian step may not lead to drastic changes in Canadian legislation, but I can safely say it is an important precedent for protecting freedom of expression and parody.

The post Parody Law: Greenpeace Tackles "Australia's Greatest Liability" appeared first on IPOsgoode.