Five years ago, Canada enacted legal protection for technological protection measures (TPMs) as part of the Copyright Modernization Act. The Federal Court has now rendered the first decision interpreting these important rights. In short, the court made it clear that legal protection for TPMs were meant to foster innovation in the creative industries and that businesses blatantly engaging in industrial scale TPM circumvention activities will be dealt with harshly by the courts.
Canada’s latest trade deal is set to expand the protection of geographical indications to a wide array of agricultural products.
On October 30, 2016, Canada and the European Union signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (“CETA”). A day later, the Government of Canada tabled Bill C-30 (the “Bill”) for the purpose of implementing CETA into the country’s legislative landscape. One of the primary operative effects of CETA, as a trade agreement, is that it will eliminate 95% of all existing tariffs applied to goods traded between the two jurisdictions. Apart from the direct economic impact … Continue Reading
Although CASL has been in force since July 1, 2014, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) has conducted its investigations and levied its penalties in a generally non-public manner. Until now, the CRTC’s Compliance and Enforcement branch had publicly commented on only one Notice of Violation (“NoV”) under CASL. We understand that an undisclosed number of other NoVs have been issued without public comment.
All other public CASL enforcement actions have taken the form of negotiated “undertakings” which are forms of settlements reached in confidential, closed door negotiations with the enforcement branch. This atmosphere of secrecy has made … Continue Reading
Regular readers of this blog will be aware that, last fall, the Court of Justice of the European Union struck down the Safe Harbour framework which permitted the lawful transfer of personal information from the EU to the US through a self-certification model. Negotiations between the European and US authorities to update or replace the framework were already underway prior to this decision, but the Court’s intervention raised the stakes dramatically. The Article 29 Working Party (WP29) had set a deadline of the end of January after which European Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) might begin coordinated enforcement actions against organizations … Continue Reading
On Friday, October 16, 2015, the Article 29 Working Party (“WP29”) released a statement on the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the case Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner (C-362-14), the landmark decision which invalidated the decision of the European Commission underpinning the Safe Harbour framework by which personal information was permitted to move from the EU to the United States.… Continue Reading
On October 6, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) declared that the US-EU Safe Harbour framework is invalid, striking it down in the highly anticipated case of Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner. The decision is effective immediately, with far-reaching and widespread implications for entities with multinational data flows.
Since EU data protection laws purport to apply to the processing of personal data regardless of whether the individuals affected are EU citizens or not, or are physically present in the EU or not, the potential impacts of this decision go beyond those organizations with … Continue Reading
Careful observers of the United States Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision yesterday in American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. et al v. Aereo, Inc. may have detected a small Canadian flavour in the majority’s reasoning. As will be revealed, this was no coincidence, and McCarthy Tétrault played a small role by filing an amicus brief on behalf of a coalition of international rights holders and copyright scholars that drew the Court’s attention to the need to interpret the US Copyright Act in a technologically neutral way, as similar copyright laws have been construed by the Supreme Court of Canada and the European Court … Continue Reading
On January 28, 2014, the Government of Canada signalled its intent to transform its intellectual property regimes by tabling five intellectual property law treaties in Parliament. If implemented into domestic law, these treaties would harmonize Canada’s trade-mark, patent and industrial design legislation with its major trading partners. Following a 21-sitting-day waiting period, the Government will be able to introduce legislation to implement these treaties. Such legislation will transform important aspects of the trade-marks practice in Canada, and will lead to significant changes in the industrial designs field as well.
Some key points and concerns about the treaties include the … Continue Reading
Although it may seem arbitrary to a layperson, the gap in legal treatment between trade-marks for goods and trade-marks for services is treacherous for trade-mark owners. This gap can result in the loss of valuable rights, or the inability to enforce important trade-mark registrations. The recent NetJets case discussed below highlights how even a valuable mark can be deemed “abandoned” because it falls between the cracks of use for goods and use for services. While NetJets is a U.S. case, a very similar result could arise under Canadian law.
Use for Goods – A Strict Standard
To understand how this … Continue Reading
This morning, the Supreme Court of Canada released Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, 2013 SCC 62, an important decision relating to the intersection of freedom of expression and protection of privacy and, in the process, struck down Alberta’s Personal Information Protection Act, SA 2003, c. P-6.5 ( “PIPA”). At issue were the privacy rights created by the PIPA and the right to free expression, which is constitutionally enshrined as section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”).
The case arose from a strike in 2006, at … Continue Reading
The government of Manitoba recently enacted the Personal Information Protection and Identity Theft Prevention Act (“PIPITPA”) to regulate the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by the private sector in Manitoba. The statute has not come into force but this enactment is momentous, as it will enable Manitoba to join the ranks of Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec, which all have their own private sector privacy legislation that is “substantially similar” to the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”). Manitoba is also the first province to move in this direction … Continue Reading
The Liberal government in Ontario has introduced significant new amendments to its health privacy legislation, the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA).
While there are many important aspects to the new legislation, one key aspect involves significant new responsibilities imposed on “prescribed organizations” or “PO”s in the proposed amendments to PHIPA. Sections 55.1 and 55.12 of the proposed amendments appear to contemplate a process by which Lieutenant Governor in Council may regulate the organizations responsible for “creating or maintaining [an] electronic health record”. A definition in s. 55.1(1) suggests that this means to:
- administer, create, integrate, manage, maintain or
As followers of the Canadian trade-marks scene will almost certainly have learned, last week Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer succeeded in a long-running battle with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office in getting a trade-mark registration for its longstanding “roaring lion” sound mark. As was widely reported, the Federal Court issued an order setting aside the decision of the Trade-marks Office refusing MGM’s application. The Office then quickly issued a new sound mark practice notice indicating that it would accept other sound mark applications.