|
Highlights
COPYRIGHT
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada
– Supreme Court Defines "Originality" and Specifies the
Limits of "Fair Dealing"
James Tumbridge
The Supreme Court of Canada has recently handed down its decision in the
important case between The Law Society of Upper Canada and CCH and other
law report publishers. The litigation arose from the desire of various
publishers of Law Reports to receive a royalty every time a photocopy of
a report was made. James Tumbridge gives a detailed analysis of the
background and findings in the case, contrasting this latest and
important decision with the law in other jurisdictions, who likewise
have grappled with the meaning of "originality" in the digital
age.
PATENTS
Summary Judgment: Finally an Alternative
James Tumbridge
James Tumbridge examines the historical development
of summary judgment law in Canada, and focuses on changes in the Federal
Court Rules and their interpretation, which have led to somewhat
startling recent changes in the Court's approach to deciding issues of
infringement and validity on summary judgment motions. In an appropriate
case, summary judgment can be an effective and relatively inexpensive
procedure for disposing of a case that does not merit a full-blown
trial.
DOMAIN NAMES
The Divergence in Assessing "Confusingly Similar" .ca
Domain Names
Minami Ganaha
Under the Canadian Internet Registration Authority
domain name dispute resolution policy ("CDRP"), a complainant
must, in addition to proving bad faith and evidence that the registrant
had no legitimate interest in the domain name, prove that the domain
name is "confusingly similar" to a mark in which the
complainant has rights. Minami Ganaha discusses a number of recent CDRP
decisions which diverge on what exactly is meant by "confusing
similarity.
COPYRIGHT
Statutory Damages in Copyright Cases
Trent Horne
A recent decision of the Ontario Court, Ritchie
v. Sawmill Creek Golf & Country Club, has provided guidance as
to when statutory damages can be elected, and what will be awarded. The
case also indicates that an oral license from a copyright owner can
constitute a defence to subsequent claims for infringement. Trent Horne
discusses the case and its implications for copyright owners.
| |
Board
Daniel R. Bereskin, QC
Editor-in-Chief
Bereskin & Parr
David A. Aylen
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Sheldon Burshtein
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Ronald E. Dimock
Dimock Stratton Clarizio LLP
Wendy Gross
Torys LLP
Carol Hitchman
Hitchman & Sprigings
Roger T. Hughes, QC
Sim, Hughes, Ashton & McKay LLP
Robert J. Lesperance
Lesperance Mendes Mancuso
Hugues G. Richard
Léger Robic Richard
Cynthia Rowden
Bereskin & Parr |
