Copyright Protection for Designs Applied to Useful Articles



COPYRIGHTPROTECTIONFORDESIGNSAPPLIEDTOUSEFULARTICLES

by
HuguesG.Richard*
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
A)HISTORY
Sections64and64.1oftheCopyrightAct(R.S.C.1985,c.C-42)intheircurrent
wording,wereintroducedbytheCopyrightAmendmentAct,1988(S.C.1988,
c.15,s.11).
Priortothisamendment,somecourtshadheldthatcopyrightsubsistingina
planordrawingdepictingfunctionalorutilitarianfeaturesofathree-
dimensionalobjectcouldbeinfringedwithoutthenecessityofactually
copyingthesaidplanordrawing,butsimplybyreproducingwithout
authorizationthethree-dimensionalobject.Thissituationarosefromthe
wordingoftheCopyrightAct(R.S.C.1970,c.C-30)andtheIndustrialDesign
Act(R.S.C.1985,c.I-9)asthenexistingandwasgenerallyconsideredas
unreasonableandgoingbeyondwhatwasoriginallyintendedbyParliament:
seegenerallyHAYHURST(WilliamL.),IntellectualPropertyProtectionin
CanadaforDesignsofUsefulArticles:Sections46and46.1oftheCopyright
Act(1989),4IntellectualPropertyJournal381;HITCHCOCK(P.Dan),Clear
SailingforCopiersafterDoralBoatsv.BaylinerMarineCorp.?(1988),3
IntellectualPropertyJournal305.
Thecontroversyovertheprotectionofplansanddesignsapplicableto
functionalobjectsandoftheobjectsthemselves,wasinpartcausedbythe
wordingofsection46oftheCopyrightAct(R.S.C.1970,c.C-30,thereafter
section64ofR.S.C.1985c.C-42).Asnotedabove,thesaidprovisionstated
thatanydesign,capableofbeingregisteredasanindustrialdesign,was
removedfromthescopeoftheCopyrightAct.However,italsoprovidedan
argumenttotheeffectthatadesignhavingonlyuseful,andnotornamental,
featureswasnotcapableofbeingprotectedbytheIndustrialDesignAct.As



















































©LEGERROBICRICHARD,1994-2003.*OfthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andofthepatent&trademarkagencyfirm
ROBIC,g.p.Publishedat(1995),2-3IntellectualProperty89.Publication173.004.



such,itwasarguedthatthismeantthatthedesignwasnotexcludedfrom
theprotectionundersection46oftheCopyrightAct.TheCopyrightActwas,
therefore,invokedtoobtainprotectionunavailableundertheIndustrial
DesignActorthePatentAct(R.S.C.1985,c.P-4).
Thecourtswentsofarastoholdonoccasionthatwhenapartycopieda
three-dimensionalobjectthroughreverseengineering,itamountedtothe
copyingoftheplansordrawingsfromwhichthethree-dimensionalobject
stemmed,whichthereforeresultedintheinfringementofcopyrightinthe
plansordrawings:see,forinstance,BaylinerMarineCorporationv.Doral
BoatsLtd.(1985),[1986]3F.C.346(F.C.T.D.);rev’donothergrounds(1986),
[1986]3F.C.421(F.C.A.);seealsoSpiro-FlexIndustriesLtd.v.Progressive
SealingInc.(1986),13C.P.R.(3d)311(B.C.S.C.).TheCopyrightAct,therefore,
becameatoolfortheprotectionofpurelyfunctionalcharacteristicsof
variousobjects.
B)COMINGINTOFORCEOFSECTIONS
Sections64and64.1cameintoforceonJune8,1988.
Subsection64(4)providesthatsubsections64(2)and(3)applyonlytodesigns
createdafterJune8,1988.Designscreatedbeforethisdatearestillgoverned
bytheformerprovisionoftheCopyrightAct(R.S.C.1970,c.C-30)andbythe
IndustrialDesignActandtheRulesthereunder.
Itshouldbefurthernotedthatsection64.1isdeclaratoryinnatureand,as
such,hastobegivenretroactiveapplication:seeCOTÉ(Pierre-André),The
InterpretationofLegislationinCanada,2nded.(Cowansville,Blais,1992),at
pp.427-435.
Finally,theinfringementsofcopyrightthatoccurredbeforeJune8,1988,are
governedbyspecifictransitionalprovisions:S.C.1988,c.15,s.24;R.S.C.1985
(4thSupp.),c.10,s.26.

C)CONDITIONSOFAPPLICATION
GENERAL
Bothsections64and64.1setoutaseriesofactswhich,whentheconditions
oftheappropriatesubsectionsaremet,aredeemednottoconstitutean
infringementofcopyrightormoralrightincertaindesignsorfeaturesapplied
tousefularticles.



Thequestionofinfringementwillonlyariseifthesubsistenceofcopyrightisfirst
establishedinthework:seesection5.Section64isnotconcernedwiththe
subsistenceofcopyrightassuch,butwiththeinfringementofsame.Thisisto
becontrastedwiththeprovisionsofformersection46whichwasmainly
concernedwiththesubsistenceofthecopyrightitselfandnotwiththeextent
ofprotectiontobeaffordedtoworksprotectedbysuchcopyright.
EXCEPTIONS:Section64(3)

Subsection64(3)providesforalistofexceptionstothenon-infringement
situationreferredtoinsubsection64(2).Itisinterestingtonotethatthe
languageusedinsubsection64(3)istotheeffectthattheexceptionsapply
onlytoartisticworks:seesection2forthedefinitionofartisticwork.
Iftheexceptionsofsubsection64(3)donotapplytoone’scase,thenthe
defenceprovidedforinsubsection64(2)maybeinvoked.Insodoing,itis
necessarytogiveampleconsiderationtothedefinitionssetoutinsubsection
64(1).
D)DEFINITIONS

Forthepurposeofsections64and64.1only,keytermsaredefined,namely,
“article”,”design”,”usefularticle”,and”utilitarianfunction”.

Asthesedefinitionsusetheterm”means”,theyshouldbeunderstoodas
exhaustive:seeCOTÉ(Pierre-André),TheInterpretationofLegislationin
Canada,2nded.(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.55-58;DRIEDGER(ElmerA.,
ConstructionofStatutes,2nded.(Toronto,Butterworths,1983),atpp.18-22;
PIGEON(Louis-Philippe),DraftingandInterpretingLegislation(Toronto,
Carswell,1988),atpp.32-35.Therefore,”article”,”design”,”usefularticle”and
“utilitarianfunction”arestrictlydefinedandtheconceptshouldnotbe
extendedbeyondthetermsindicatedinthedefinitions.
Consideringthesedefinitions,itcanbesaidthatan”article”isaphysical
objectwhichbyimplicationhasthreedimensions,anda”design”isa
combinationofvisualcharacteristicsofafinishedarticle.TheCopyrightAct
doesnotdefinewhata”finishedarticle”is.Byimplication,itcanbeeithera
usefularticleoranon-usefularticle.Theimportantthingtonoteisthata
designcannotbecreatedundersections64and64.1untilthefeaturesof
shape,configuration,patternorornamentareincorporatedtoaphysical
object.Suchfeatures,whicharenotincorporatedintoaphysicalobject,
mayconstituteanartisticworkfromwhich,however,adesigncanbe
derived:seesubsection64(2).



Thisdistinctionisimportantconsideringthatsubsection64(4)statesthat
subsections64(2)and64(3)applyonlyinrespectofdesignscreatedafter
June8,1988.Undersections64and64.1,designsandartisticworksarenot
thesame.Anartisticworkcanexistindependentlyfromafinishedarticle,itis
notsowithadesign,thelatterstartstoexistwhenappliedtoafinishedarticle,
thisiswhenthedesigniscreatedforthepurposesofsection64(4).
However,adesignmaybederivedfromanartisticwork(seesection64(2))
alreadyinexistenceandinwhichcopyrightsubsists.Thereforetheexception
providedforinsection64(3)wouldapplytodesignsappliedafterJune8,
1988toausefularticle,butderivedfromanartisticworkrealizedpriortothat
date.Itisnoteworthythatsection64(4)referstothedateofcreationofthe
designandnotoftheartisticworkfromwhichitmaybederived.
E)DEMONSTRATINGNON-INFRINGEMENT:section64(2)

GENERAL
Noninfringementwillbedemonstrableinthecaseofsection64ifitisfirst
shownthatthecopyrightunderrevieweitherdoesnotsubsistorsubsistsina
designappliedtoa”usefularticle”orinanartisticworkfromwhichsucha
designisderived.
BURDENOFDEFENDANT
Onceitisshownthatthecopyrightunderreviewsubsistsinadesignapplied
toa”usefularticle”orinanartisticworkfromwhichsuchdesignisderived,the
defendantwillhavetodemonstratethatthearticleisreproducedina
quantityofmorethan50,orwherethearticleisaplate,engravingorcast,
thatthearticleisusedforproducingmorethan50usefularticles.Asstatedin
thedefinitionsfoundinsubsection64(1),an”article”is,forthepurposeof
sections64and64.1,anythingmadebyhand,toolormachine.
REPRODUCTIONUNDERAUTHORITY
Thenextstepintheapplicationofsubsection64(2)istodemonstratethatthe
“reproduction”referredtoinparagraphs64(2)(a)and64(2)(b)isinfactcarried
outbytheownerofthecopyright,orunderhisauthority.
ACTSPERMITTED



Oncetheabove-notedconditionshavebeenmet,paragraphs64(2)(c)and
64(2)(d)allowforthereproductionofthedesignofthearticleoranything
similartheretothroughtheactualmakingofthearticle,orthemakingofa
drawingorotherreproductioninanymaterialformofthearticle,and
substantiallyanythingthattheownerofthecopyrighthadthesolerighttodo
withthedesignorartisticworkinwhichthecopyrightsubsists.
F)DECLARATORYNATUREOFSECTION64.1
Bothsections64and64.1cameintoforceonJune8,1988.Subsections64(2)
and(3)applytodesignscreatedafterthatdate.However,section64.1is
declaratoryinnatureandshouldhavearetroactiveapplication:seeCOTE
(Pierre-André),TheInterpretationofLegislationinCanada,2nded.
(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atpp.426-435.Assuch,itconsistsofParliament’s
statementastowhatthelawoughttohavebeenwithrespecttothe
protectionofcopyrightinfeaturesthataredictatedsolelybyautilitarian
function.Itthereforeappliestoalldesigns,eventhosecreatedpriortoJune8,
1988.
APPLICATIONOFSECTION64.1
Thetermsofthisprovisionexpresslystatethatitappliestoaworkinwhich
copyrightormoralrightssubsist.Assuch,itisnotaprovisionthatdealswith
thesubsistenceofcopyright;itisinfactaprovisionwhichallowscopyrightto
subsistinaworkbutpermits,undercertainconditions,severalactstobedone
withrespecttoaprotectedworkwithoutinfringingthecopyrightormoral
rightstherein.
Inapplyingsection64.1,itisnecessarytointerpretitinaccordancewiththe
definitionssetoutinsection64.
ACTSNOTCONSTITUTINGINFRINGEMENT
Thefundamentaldifferencebetweensections64and64.1(besidesthe
retroactivityofsection64.1)isthatsection64.1dealswithfeatureswhichare
dictatedsolelybyautilitarianfunctionofausefularticletowhichthese
featuresareapplied,whilesection64dealswithdesignsthatcanbe
ornamental(ornotsolelydictatedbyautilitarianfunction),whicharealso
appliedtousefularticles.Essentially,section64.1statesthatitisneveran
infringementofcopyrightormoralrightstoreproducefeatureswhichare
solelydictatedbyautilitarianfunctionofthearticletowhichtheyareapplied



ortouseamethodorprincipleofmanufactureorconstruction.Whetherthe
articleisorisnotproducedinaquantityofmorethan50isirrelevantunder
section64.1.
Therefore,section64ismainlyconcernedwithornamentalfeatures,while
section64.1isstrictlyconcernedwithfunctionalfeatures.Inbothcases,the
featuresareappliedtousefularticles.Ifadesignisnotappliedtoauseful
article,thenneithersection64norsection64.1appliesandaninfringementof
copyrightormoralrightsmaybepossible.Infact,insuchcircumstances,
suchadesigncouldevenbeprotectedbyboththeCopyrightActandthe
IndustrialDesignAct(R.S.C.1985,c.I-9).
EXCEPTIONS
Inapplyingsubsection64.1(1),itisfirstnecessarytoensurethattheexceptions
foreseenatsubsection64.1(2)arenotrelevanttoone’scase.
Itisnecessary,therefore,tofirstdeterminewhetherthecopyrightormoral
rightsrelatetoa”contrivancebymeansofwhichaworkmaybe
mechanicallyreproduced,performedordelivered”.Thelanguageof
subsection64.1(2)suggeststhatrecords,perforatedrollsandcinematograph
filmsaremerelyexamplesofsuchcontrivances,andthattheexception,
therefore,isapplicabletovirtuallyanycontrivancewhichpermitsthe
mechanicalreproduction,performanceordeliveryofawork.



ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,
droitsvoisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;
biotechnologies,pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-
howetconcurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerce
électronique,distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,
litigeetarbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdansle
monde.Lamaîtrisedesintangibles.
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