Copyright Infringement and Functional Objects: Effects of New Sections 64 and 64.1 of the Copyright Act on Interlocutory Injunction Proceedings



COPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENTANDFUNCTIONALOBJECTS:EFFECTSOFNEW
SECTIONS64AND64.1OFTHECOPYRIGHTACTONINTERLOCUTORY
INJUNCTIONPROCEEDINGS

BobH.Sotiriadis*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.:(514)9876242-Fax:(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

Introduction.Inthisessay,weshalldiscussthepracticalapplicationof
newsections64and64.1oftheCopyrightAct.
1Thesesectionsofthe1988Act
wereParliament’sresponsetowhatwasseenasanunsettlingevolutionof
CanadianandevenBritishjurisprudenceonthequestionofcopyrightand
infringementofcopyrightwithrespecttotheutilitarianfeaturesofuseful
articles.Thechangeswereintendedtosettleinteraliathequestionof
copyrightinfringementbyreverseengineering.
Theseamendmentswillplayanextremelyimportantroleintheoutcomeof
applicationsforinterlocutoryinjunctionsinthecopyrightfield.Itisnosecret
thatcopyrightregistrationiseasilyobtainedunderCanadianlegislation,
especiallywhencomparedwiththedifficultyofobtainingotherintellectual
propertyprotectionwhetheritbeforapatent,anindustrialdesignoratrade
mark.Therearenoformalitiesforeseenfortheobtainingofcopyright
protectionundertheCopyrightAct.Thenamedauthortoanapplicationis
notevenobligedtoprovideevidenceoftheworktobeprotected.Infact,
copyrightprotectionexistsbythemerefactofcreation.Despitethis,the
legislationgrantstheownerofacopyrightaprimafaciemonopolywhich
lastsmuchlongerthanthatgrantedbytheotherintellectualproperty
protectionlaws:anextraordinaryperiodequaltothelifeoftheauthorplus50
years.



















































*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,1990.
Lawyer,BobH.SotiriadisisaseniorpartnerinthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andin
thepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Publishedat(1990),7Business&theLaw
13-16.Publication116.001.
1WeshallrefertotheCopyrightActas”the1988Act”,sincesections64and64.1thereofwere
introducedintheCopyrightAmendmentAct(S.C.1988,c.15,s.II).ThelatterActamended
the1921versionoftheCopyrightAct(1970,c.C-30).Sections64and64.1wereoriginally
introducedassections46and46.1respectivelyofthe1988Act,butfurtheradditionstoit
requiredachangeinnumbering.



EffectofCopyrightRegistration.Section53(2)ofthe1988Act,asinthe
previouscopyrightlegislation,declaresthatacertificateofregistrationof
copyrightisprimafacieevidencethatcopyrightsubsistsinthework
mentionedtherein.Therefore,notonlyisitrathersimpletoobtaincopyright
protectioninanundisclosedwork,butthecertificatesoobtainedalsoserves
asprimafacieevidenceinadrasticexceptionalrecoursewhichisoften
decidedonjustthat:primafacieevidence.Wearereferring,ofcourse,to
therecourseforanorderofaninterlocutoryinjunction.
Plans,Designs,andFunctionalObjects.Evenbeforetheproclamationofthe
1988Act,Canadianlawyershadbeenabletoconvincethecourtsthatthe
copyrightsubsistinginaplanordrawingcouldbeinfringedwithoutthe
necessityofactuallycopyingthesaidplanordrawingeveniftheplanor
drawingdepictedafunctionalorutilitarianobject.Ineffect,thecourtsfound
thatwhenapartycopiedtheactualthree-dimensionalobjectthrough
reverseengineering,itamountedtothecopyingoftheplansorthedrawings
fromwhichsuchthree-dimensionalobjectsstemmed,resultinginthe
infringementofthecopyrightoftheauthorinthesaidplansordrawings.
Thecombinedeffectofthepreviouslymentionedtrendinthejurisprudence
andtherelativeeasewithwhichacertificateofcopyrightrelatingtoplans,
drawingsorfunctionalobjectsmaybeobtained,madetheapplicationfor
aninterlocutoryinjunctionanallthemoreformidablemeansofenjoininga
competitorfromcarryingonhistrade.
Oftentheseplans,drawings,orfunctionalobjectsrelatetoindustrialor
manufacturedproducts.Itisironicthatarightnotentitled”industrialdesign”
or”patent”,butmoreover”copyright”withitsintellectualorliterary
connotation,hasbecomeusedasaweapontolimitcompetitioninindustry
withrespecttosuchfunctionalobjectsasship’shulls,
2amoldforaFrisbee,3
pumpcouplers
4andautomobilemufflers.5
InterlocutoryInjunctions.Theapplicationofsections64and64.1ofthe1988
Actbecomecrucialtothepositionofanydefendanttoanapplicationfor
interlocutoryinjunctionwhenthecopyrightallegedrelatestoanyarticle
definedintheabove-mentionedsections.Giventheactualtendencyofthe



















































2
BaylinerMarineCorp.v.DoralBoatsLtd.(1985),5C.P.R.(3d)289(Fed.T.D.)infirstinstance,
and(1986),10C.P.R.(3d)289(Fed.C.A.),onappeal.
3WhamO.ManufacturingCo.v.LincolnIndustriesLtd.(1985),R.P.C.127(C.A.NewZealand).
4Spiro-FlexIndustriesLtd.v.ProgressiveSealingInc.(1986),13C.P.R.(3d)311(B.C.S.C.).
5BritishLeylandMotorCorp.Ltd.v.ArmstrongPatentsCo.Ltd.(1986),12F.S.R.221.



courtstoapplythelessstringent”arguablecase”6testtosuchapplications,it
isobviousthatmoreandmoredefendantstosuchapplicationswillinvoke
thesesectionswhenapplicable,inordertoavoidacondemnationwhich
oftenterminatesthecaseandremovesoneofthepartiesfromthemarket.
Thesenewsectionsarealsoimportantsinceinanapplicationforan
interlocutoryinjunction,itisonethingtoproveprimafaciethatacopyright
subsistsinawork,however,itisanothertodemonstratethatsuchrighthas
indeedbeeninfringed.
Evenifthearguablecasetestisinvokedbytheplaintifftoanapplicationfor
aninterlocutoryinjunction,thecourtwillstillbeobligedtodeterminewhether
theapplicant’ssubstantiverightisclear.Itshallberequired,therefore,tofind
thatcopyrightsubsistsinaworkformingtheobjectoftheproceedings,and
thatsuchcopyrighthasbeeninfringed.Itis,afterall,theinfringingactivity
which,intheory,givesrisetosuchproceedings.Thesanctionsoughtrelates
tothiselementofthesubstantiverightallegedbytheapplicant.
Sections64and64.1ofthe1988Acthaveastheirverypurposetheexclusion
ofcertainactsfromthenotionofinfringement.Thisbeingso,thesesections
mayandoughttobeinvokedonceitisestablishedthatthearticleprotected
bycopyright,andwhichformstheobjectoftheapplicationforan
interlocutoryinjunction,fallswithinthepurviewofthevariousdefinitionsfound
insection64(1)ofthe1988Act.
Analysis.Sections64and64.1ofthe1988Actreadasfollows:
64.(1)Inthissectionandsection64.1,
“article”meansanythingthatismadebyhand,toolormachine;
“design”meansfeaturesofshape,configuration,patternorornament
andanycombinationofthosefeaturesthat,inafinishedarticle,
appealtoandarejudgedsolelybytheeye;
“usefularticle”meansanarticlethathasautilitarianfunctionand
includesamodelofanysucharticle;
“utilitarianfunction”,inrespectofanarticle,meansafunctionother
thanmerelyservingasasubstrateorcarrierforartisticorliterarymatter.

6
AmericanCyanamidCQv.Ethicon(1975),A.C.396(H.L.)and,inCanada:TurboResources
Ltd.v.PetroCanadaInc.(1988),17F.T.R.28(Fed.T.D).



(2)Wherecopyrightsubsistsinadesignappliedtoausefularticleorin
anartisticworkfromwhichthedesignisderivedand,byorunderthe
authorityofanypersonwhoownsthecopyrightinCanadaorwho
ownsthecopyrightelsewhere,
(a)thearticleisreproducedinaquantityofmorethanfifty,or
(b)wherethearticleisaplate,engravingorcast,thearticleisusedfor
producingmorethanfiftyusefularticles,
itshallnotthereafterbeaninfringementofthecopyrightorthemoral
rightsforanyone
(c)toreproducethedesignofthearticleoradesignnotdiffering
substantiallyfromthedesignofthearticleby
(i)makingthearticle,or
(ii)makingadrawingorotherreproductioninanymaterialform
ofthearticle,or
(d)todowithanarticle,drawingorreproductionthatismadeas
describedinparagraph(c)anythingthattheownerofthecopyright
hasthesolerighttodowiththedesignorartisticworkinwhichthe
copyrightsubsists.
(3)Subsection(2)doesnotapplyinrespectofthecopyrightorthe
moralrightsinanartisticworkinsofarastheworkisusedasorfor
(a)agraphicorphotographicrepresentationthatisappliedtothe
faceofanarticle;
(b)atrademarkorarepresentationthereoforalabel;
(c)materialthathasawovenorknittedpatternorthatissuitablefor
piecegoodsorsurfacecoveringsorformakingwearingapparel;
(d)anarchitecturalworkofartthatisabuildingoramodelofa
building;
(e)arepresentationofarealorfictitiousbeing,eventorplacethatis
appliedtoanarticleasafeatureofshape,configuration,patternor
ornament;
(f)articlesthataresoldasaset,unlessmorethanfiftysetsaremade;or
(g)suchotherworkorarticleasmaybeprescribedbyregulationofthe
GovernorinCouncil.
(4)Subsections(2)and(3)applyonlyinrespectofdesignscreated
afterthecomingintoforceofthissubsection,andsection46ofthisAct
andtheIndustrialDesignAct,astheyreadimmediatelybeforethe
comingintoforceofthissubsection,aswellastherulesmadeunder



them,continuetoapplyinrespectofdesignscreatedbeforethat
comingintoforce.
64.1(1)Thefollowingactsdonotconstituteaninfringementofthe
copyrightormoralrightsinawork:
(a)applyingtoausefularticlefeaturesthataredictatedsolelybya
utilitarianfunctionofthearticle;
(b)byreferencesolelytoausefularticle,makingadrawingorother
reproductioninanymaterialformofanyfeaturesofthearticlethatare
dictatedsolelybyautilitarianfunctionofthearticle;
(c)doingwithausefularticlehavingonlyfeaturesdescribedin
paragraph(a)ordoingwithadrawingorreproductionthatismadeas
describedinparagraph(b)anythingthattheownerofthecopyright
hasthesolerighttodowiththework;or
(d)usinganymethodorprincipleofmanufactureorconstruction.
(2)Nothinginsubsection(1)affectsthecopyrightorthemoralrightsin
arecord,perforatedroll,cinematographfilmorothercontrivanceby
meansofwhichaworkmaybemechanicallyreproduced,performed
ordelivered.

ThesaidsectionsreceivedroyalassentonJune8,1988.Section64,
paragraphs2and3,applytodesignscreatedafterthatdate.Section64.1,
however,isdeclaratoryinnature.Itwasthelegislator’swayofstatingwhat
thelawonthequestionsraisedthereinhadalwaysbeenoroughttohave
been.Itisforthisreasonthatsection64.1wasgivenretroactiveapplication.
Thekeywordsfoundinthetwosectionsdiscussedinthepresentessay,areof
course”article”,”design”,”usefularticle”and”utilitarianfunction”.Onceanyor
acombinationofthesedefinitionsbecomerelevanttothesubjectmatterof
thecopyrightarguedbytheplaintiffinaproceedingfortheinterlocutory
injunction,thedefendantwillhavetheadvantageofavoiding
condemnationbydemonstratingthatsections64(2),64(3)or64.1(1),are
applicabletoitscase.
ApplicationofNewSections.Thefirstthingthedefendantmustestablishis
thatsection64(3)isnot
applicabletothecopyrightunderscrutinybythe
court.Onceitisestablishedthatsection64(3)isnotapplicable,thenthe
defendantisfreetoattempttodemonstratethattheconditionsforeseenby
section64(2)areapplicabletoitscasebydemonstrating,firstly,thatthe
copyrightwhichformstheobjectofthelitigationsubsistsinadesignapplied
toausefularticle,orinanartisticworkfromwhichthedesignisderived.



Thedefendantwillthenhavetodemonstratethatthearticlesare
reproducedinaquantityofmorethan50,orwherethearticleisaplate,
engravingorcast,thatthearticleisused
forproducingmorethan50useful
articles.Asstatedpreviously,an”article”isanythingmadebyhand,toolor
machineforthepurposesofthesection.Thenextstepintheapplicationof
section64(2)wouldbetodemonstratethatthe”reproduction”referred-toin
subsections2(a)and2(b)ofsection64areinfactcarriedoutby
theownerof
thecopyright,orunderhisorherauthority.
Oncetheabove-mentionedconditionshavebeenmet,subsection2(d)of
section64ofthe1988Actallowsforthereproductionofthedesignofthe
articleoranythingsimilartheretothroughtheactualmakingofthearticle,or
themakingofadrawingorotherreproductioninanymaterialformofthe
article,andsubstantiallytodoanythingthattheownerofthecopyrighthad
thesolerighttodowiththedesignorartisticworkinwhichthecopyright
subsists.
Section64.1(1),removesthepossibilityofafindingofinfringementof
copyrightormoralrights,whenonecopiespurelyutilitarianfeaturesofan
article.Italsoallowsapersontomakedrawingsofutilitarianfeaturesofan
article.Section64.1confirmsthatnoprotectionisgrantedbythe1988Act
withrespecttofeaturesappliedtoausefularticle,andwhicharedictated
solelybyautilitarianfunctionofthearticle,norwithrespecttothemethodor
principleofmanufactureorconstructionofthearticle.
Conclusion.Sections64and64.1ofthe1988Actshouldaffecttheoutcome
ofanumberofapplicationsforinterlocutoryinjunctions.Thesesectionsform
thetestbywhichtheplaintiff’ssubstantiverightswillbeevaluated,prima
facie,whentheapplicationconcernsanyworkreferredtodirectlyor
indirectlybythedefinitionsfoundinsection64(1)ofthe1988Act.The
modificationscurtailthescopeofprotectionaffordedbycopyrightinthe
industrialdomainandindirectlyrespondtoLordScarman’scommentsinthe
LeylandMotorCorp.case,previouslycited.
7

7
Supra,note5,page227:”Butfurtheritwouldbehelpfulifthecurrentreviewofthelaw
couldleadtoincorporatingintheCopyrightActtheprinciplelatentinourlawbutnotfully
discussedorexpresseduntilthepresentcasethatthemanufacturerofanarticlesuchasa
motorvehicleorother”consumerdurable”cannotbytheexerciseofCopyrightprecludethe
userofthearticlefromaccesstoafreemarketforsparesnecessarytomaintainitingood
workingorder.”



ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD