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

Many people have voiced their concerns about the abysmally low rates for ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program) and OW (Ontario Works). In response, Ontario NDP MPPs have taken it upon themselves to conduct a to better understand the challenges that some of Ontario’s most vulnerable residents face. However, in addition to the low rates, some social assistance applicants and recipients are facing technological hurdles due to or “modernization,” an initiative led by the province to promote employment and independence for those on social assistance.  

The rationale for change is that our social assistance systems’ processes are “too bureaucratic, too paper-heavy" and “focused on enforcement and technical aspects” rather than on the activities that would actually contribute to independence for those relying on social assistance. To tackle these issues, modernization proposes “more digital and self-serve options” to allow for faster decision making and a more streamlined experience for those applying to or on social assistance. As encouraging as this sounds, digitization of social assistance services has unfortunately left many behind.

Lower income and less likely to own computers

Persons with disabilities tend to have than persons without a disability, often making costs for digital devices or connectivity services burdensome. of 1502 US adults, those with a disability were less likely to own a desktop or laptop computer than those without a disability. “Some people with low incomes have inconsistent access to internet or phone. When there’s an emphasis on digitized services, some folks won’t be able to access the benefits and the services that they are entitled to,” said Sara Ageorlo, a staff lawyer at . Sara mainly assists clients with their social assistance matters and observes the technological challenges they face on a regular basis. 

She exclaimed that some clients also find it challenging to set up their online account on , an online service that allows OSDP and OW recipients to check payments and communicate with their caseworkers. Additionally, the emphasis on applying online negatively affects newcomers, who often face a language barrier and are unaware of a lot of the free services available to assist them. With the push toward digitization, more clients may feel helpless because they believe there is no one to ask questions to or to tell them whether they are submitting the right information.

“We’re talking about people with low income, they’re busy to make ends meet … it should be easier for folks in those positions.”

Encouraging access to alternatives and education

Sara strongly believes that individuals who can’t access digital services should have alternatives, with a particular emphasis on obvious alternatives. Alternative options should not have to be searched for – they should be made obvious, instead of being hidden in separate links or tabs. Moreover, online applications should also avoid discouraging applicants from applying for benefits they may be entitled to – this is the case when applicants see pop-up messages indicating their ineligibility after choosing an option on a drop-down menu. To ensure user friendliness, these digital services should also be developed in consultation with those who will be using them. Moreover, there must be an emphasis on workshops that will introduce applicants to this new platform and help with the integration process. Government programs that recognize the digital literacy issue within specific communities, such as the , which will invest $17.6 million to promote digital literacy skills among Canadians who face barriers to participating in the digital economy, represent a crucial step towards closing in on the digital divide between those with and without disabilities.

The post Digitizing Social Assistance: How Technological Barriers are Impacting Our Most Vulnerable appeared first on IPOsgoode.

A group of thirty-seven professors and leading scholars of intellectual property, information law and digital economy, including IP Osgoode's own , signed a response regarding Article 11 of the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, entitled 'Protection of press publications concerning digital users'.  To read the full response click .

The post Professors and Leading Scholars Respond to the IPO's Request for Views on Modernising the European Copyright Framework appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Beyond a suggested resurgence of the principles that were last year, C-56 contains many backdoor revisions to the Trade-marks Act that do not pertain to counterfeiting. In addition to an extensive list of remedies (see Adam Stevenson's article ), including the creation of multiple (and stricter) , C-56 would extensively broaden the definition of a trade-mark. The proposed amendment to the definition reads:

“49. If a sign or combination of signs is used by a person as a trade-mark for any of the purposes or in any of the manners mentioned in the definition “certification mark” or “trade-mark” in section 2, no application for the registration of the trade-mark shall be refused and no registration of the trade-mark shall be expunged, amended or held invalid merely on the ground that the person or a predecessor in title uses the �ٰ������-����������or has used it for any other of those purposes or in any other of those manners.” [underlined text indicating proposed amendments]

One key addition here would be the “combination of signs”, which would vastly expand the scope of what can comprise a trade-mark beyond the traditional forms. As of the first reading of the bill, signs would now include: “a word, a personal name, a design, a letter, a numeral, a colour, a figurative element, a three-dimensional shape, a hologram, a moving image, a mode of packaging goods, a sound, a scent, a taste, a texture and the positioning of a sign.” These changes would mean that you could register trade-marks for purely intangible sensory phenomena such as scents, tastes, and sounds (which has been ). Also, in a semantic modernization, the entire Trade-marks Act would be amended to replace “wares” with “goods”, to reflect common modern language.

The bill also suggests clarity of the registration of marks related to utilitarian features. Specifically, it would amend s. 12(2) to prohibit the registration of trade-marks where “its features are dictated primarily by a utilitarian function”. Moreover, s. 20 would provide clarity that trade-marks can not be used to prevent others from using utilitarian features affiliated with the trade-mark. Another change associated with promoting public use and progressiveness is the proposed s. 18.1 which would allow application to the Federal Court to expunge a registered trade-mark that “unreasonably limits the development of any art or industry”. This would bring the trade-mark system in Canada more in line with the underlying principles of the as a matter of public interest. These suggested provisions would represent a shift more toward “user rights”, which was also seen with the expansion of fair dealing provisions in the Copyright Act last year with .

A number of the proposed amendments to the Trade-marks Act pertain to the power of the Registrar, reflecting recent caselaw. The Registrar would have the right to refuse an application with respect to one or more of the goods or services specified and accept it with respect to others. He would also have the power to strike any part of an improperly pleaded Statement of Opposition, so long as it was done prior to the filing of the applicant’s  counterstatement (s. 38). The application process would be substantially changed, including the power being assigned to the Registrar to set regulations to establish the dates of registration for divisional applications to be re-merged (another new aspect of the Act; s. 39.1). Further clarity into the role of the Registrar includes the right to destroy records related to stale applications and registrations, within 6 years of the date of the final decision (s. 29.1) and a right to keep electronic records (s. 64). Finally, while the Registrar typically exercises no jurisdiction over correcting obvious errors in the records (it is presently subject to application to the Federal Court), ss. 41 and 48 would allow the Registrar to correct obvious errors within 6 months of entry and to remove registration of improper transfers, respectively.

Undoubtedly, the proposed amendments to the Trade-marks Act represent a modernization of the Act similar to that imposed by C-11 on the Copyright Act. However, a problem lies in the intention of the bill, which is purported to target counterfeiting. In my opinion, this bill mirrors the type of ‘omnibus’ legislation that drastically and broadly reformed the , in the form of the wildly controversial . While some of the reforms suggested here will be welcomed to update archaic or out-of-date aspects of the legislation, the overall package of Bill C-56 is bound to be controversial. The , but I think that is unlikely the Conservative majority will waver. One thing is certain: the drama will be intriguing.

Ryan Heighton is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform appeared first on IPOsgoode.