Differences Between U.S and Canadian Law Regarding Intellectual Property

1
D
IFFERENCESBETWEENU.S.ANDCANADIANLAWREGARDINGINTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY

BobH.Sotiriadis*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,
L.L.P.
Lawyers,PatentandTrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria–BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)987-6242-Fax(514)845-7874
info@robic.com-www.robic.ca
Ihavebeenaskedtoprovideasummaryexplanationofpatent,trade-mark
andcopyrightlawinCanadaandtoexplaincertaindistinctionsbetweenthe
CanadianandAmericansystems.IntellectualpropertyprotectioninCanada
isverysimilartothatoftheUnitedStates.Iwillthereforelimitmycommentsto
somebasicelementsoftheCanadiansystem.Iwillalsoprovidesome
distinctionsthatappearfrommyexperiencetobemostrelevanttoU.S.
practitionersandcompanies.Iwillprovidemoredetailedexamplesto
attendeesduringtheverbalpresentation.
1.Patents
Canadahasafirst-to-filepatentsystemandisasignatoryoftheParis
ConventionandthePatentCooperationTreaty.Assuch,Canadianpatent
applicationsarelaidopenforpublicinspectioneighteen(18)monthsafterthe
applicationdateorearlierifrequestedincertainsituations.Contrarytothe
UnitedStatestherefore,thereisnowaytokeepaCanadianpatent
applicationconfidential.
Apatentapplicationmustbefiledinrespectofaninventionwithintwelve(12)
monthsofthepublicdisclosureoftheinvention,similartotherulesinthe
UnitedStates.Thisgraceperiodisnotsomethingoneshouldcountoninother
jurisdictionswhereabsolutenoveltyisrequired.Inotherwords,inmany
importantjurisdictions,thereisnograceperiodatall.
IhavenoticedthatU.S.practitionersandtheirclientssometimesconfusethe
twelve-monthgraceperiodandthedelaywithinwhichonemustfilean

©CIPS,2006.*Lawyer,BobH.SotiriadisisapartnerofLEGERROBICRICHARD,L.L.P.,amultidisciplinaryfirm
oflawyers,andpatentandtrademarkagents.Notesforaconferencepronouncedforthe
2006-03-29MCLEDoingBusinessinCanada.Publication345

2

e
quivalentpatentapplicationinCanadatobenefitfromaU.S.prioritydate.
Thetwelve-monthgraceperiodonlyregulatesthequestionofthetimeperiod
onehastomakeafilinginCanadaoncetheinventionhasbeendisclosed
anywhereintheworld.Itappliescompletelyindependentlyofthepriority
periodoftwelvemonths.Justbecauseoneiswithinone’stwelve-month
prioritydelay,itdoesnotmeanthatthetwelve-monthgraceperiodcanbe
extended.Thissimplymeansthatoneshouldfileapatentapplicationin
Canadaassoonaspossiblewhenadisclosurehasoccurred.
AninventionundertheCanadianPatentActisdefinedasfollows:
“invention”meansanynewandusefulart,process,machine,
manufactureorcompositionofmatter,oranynewanduseful
improvementinanyart,process,machine,manufactureorcomposition
ofmatter
TheCanadianPatentOfficeandtheCourtshavebeenmorerestrictiveintheir
interpretationofwhatpatentablesubjectmattercanconsistof.Forexample,
higherlifeformsarenotpatentableinCanadacontrarytothesituationinthe
UnitedStates.Further,contrarytotheUnitedStates,itisverydifficultand
sometimesimpossibletopatentbusinessmethodsinCanadaunlessoneusesa
greatdealofstrategyincraftinganapplication.U.S.-styleclaimswillnot
necessarilywork.
Traditionally,computer-implementedinventionswerefrowneduponbythe
CanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice.However,recentchangesinthe
MOPOP,followingmorerecentcaselaw,hasmadeiteasiertopatentthese
typesofinventions.Forexample,claimsdirectedtoacomputerprogram
embodiedonacomputerreadablemediumareacceptable,providedof
coursethattheprogramordatastructureisaninventivecombinationifthat
medium,whenusedinacomputer,causesthatcomputertofulfillanewand
non-analogoususe.ContrarytotheUnitedStates,signalclaimsare
acceptableinCanada.
Therearecertaindistinctionsinthemannerbywhichtheclaimsofapatent
areconstruedinCanadaandintheUnitedStates.InCanada,patentsare
construedfromtheperspectiveofskilledpersonssufficientlyversedintheart
towhichthepatentpertainstoenablethemtoappreciatethenatureand
descriptionoftheinvention.Thereisnoinherentcommonlawrighttoa
patent.Patentsarestatutoryrights,nomore,noless.InCanada,apatentis
consideredtobeaunilateralstatementbythepatentee,inwordsofhisown
choosing,addressedtopersonsskilledintheart,thatispeoplelikelytohavea
practicalinterestinthesubjectmatteroftheinvention,bywhichheinforms

3

t
hemwhatheclaimstobetheessentialfeaturesofthenewproductor
processforwhichtheLettersPatentgrantthemonopoly.
Eachpatentendswithaclaimorclaims,likeintheUnitedStates,andthese
claimsmustclearlydefinedtheforbiddenfield.Anythingthatisnotclaimedis
disclaimed.
Apatentistobeconstruedbeforeconsiderationisgiventotheissuesof
infringementorvalidityandoneisnottoattempttointerprettheclaimsofa
patentbybasingoneselfonacommercialembodimentoroftheDefendant’s
product.
InCanada,patentconstructioniscarriedoutasofthedateofthepublication
ofthepatentapplication.Thefilingdateordateofthepriorityapplicationis
relevantforthequestionofthepatentabilityoftheinvention.
InCanada,extrinsicevidenceisinadmissibleforthepurposeofconstruinga
patentspecification.Expertevidenceishoweveressentialtoeverypatent
casesinceitisadmittedforthepurposeofexplainingthemeaningofterms
usedinthepatentandinordertohelptheCourtunderstandwhattheterms
wouldhaveconveyedtoapersonskilledintheartattherelevanttime.
TheSupremeCourtofCanadahasrecentlystatedthattheprimacyofthe
languageoftheclaimsisakeyelementofourcaselawandtheprotection
affordedbytheclaimshastobefairandreasonablypredictable.Thescope
oftheprohibitionmustbemadeclearsothatmembersofthepublicmay
knowwheretheycangowithimpunity.
OurCourtsareentitledtolookattherestofthespecificationofapatentto
understandwhatismeantbyawordintheclaimsbutnottoenlargeorrestrict
thescopeoftheclaimaswrittenandunderstood.Ifaninventorhasmisspoken
orcreatedanambiguity,thenthisisconsideredtobeaself-inflictedwound
whichisinterpretedagainstthepatentee.TheSupremeCourthassaidthat
theingenuityofapatentdoesnotlieintheidentificationofadesirableresult
butinteachingoneparticularmeanstoachieveit.Claimscannotbe
stretchedtoallowapatenteetomonopolizeanythingthatachievesa
desirableresult.
TheSupremeCourtsetouttheseprinciplesasfollows:
(a)ThePatentActpromotesadherencetothelanguageofthe
claims.
(b)Adherencetothelanguageoftheclaimsinturnpromotesboth
fairnessandpredictability.

4
(
c)Theclaimlanguagemust,however,bereadinaninformedand
purposiveway.
(d)Thelanguageoftheclaimsthusconstrueddefinesthemonopoly.
Thereisnorecoursetosuchvaguenotionsasthe“spiritofthe
invention”toexpanditfurther.
(e)Theclaimslanguagewill,onapurposiveconstructions,showthat
someelementsoftheclaimedinventionareessentialwhileothers
arenon-essential.Theidentificationofelementsasessentialor
non-essentialismade:
(i)onthebasisofthecommonknowledgeoftheworker
skilledinthearttowhichthepatentrelates
(ii)asofthedatethepatentispublished;
(iii)havingregardtowhetherornotitwasobvioustothe
skilledreaderatthetimethepatentwaspublishedthata
variantofaparticularelementwouldnotmakea
differencetothewayinwhichtheinventionworks;or
(iv)accordingtotheintentoftheinventor,expressedor
inferredfromtheclaims,thataparticularelementis
essentialirrespectiveofitspracticaleffect;
(v)without,however,resorttoextrinsicevidenceofthe
inventor’sintention.
(f)Thereisnoinfringementifanessentialelementisdifferentor
omitted.Theremaystillbeinfringement,however,ifnon-essential
elementsaresubstitutedoromitted.
OnecannotethatoneofthekeydifferencesbetweenCanadianandU.S.
patentpracticeisthatthereisnorecoursetothefilewrapperinthe
interpretationofclaimsinCanada.ThefilewrapperoftheCanadianorany
otherrelatedapplicationisinadmissibleevidenceattrialinaCanadian
patentcase.Thereisnofilewrapperestoppel.
Furthermore,allpatenttrialsinCanadaareheardbyajusticeofeitherthe
FederalCourtortheSuperiorCourtofoneoftheprovinces,dependingonthe
choiceoftheparties.Therearenojurytrialsinintellectualpropertycasesin
Canada.
SummaryjudgmentisavailableintheFederalCourtandintherulesof
procedureofcertainprovincesbutitisextremelyrarethatsummaryjudgment
isgrantedinpatentcasesinCanada,especiallywhenexpertevidenceis
involvedorwhenthereiscontradictoryevidenceonkeypoints.Onlyvery
technicalissuesappeartobeacceptedassubjectmatterforsummary
judgmentbyourCourts.ThistimidapproachcontrastsclearlywiththeU.S.
systemwheresummaryjudgmentisamoreroutineproceduralevent,evenin
patentcases.

5

I
nterlocutoryinjunctionsandprovisionalinjunctions(interiminjunctions)are
availablebutarerarelygrantedinpatentcasesgiventheonusonthePlaintiff
tonotonlyallegebutprove
irreparableharmintheabsenceofan
interlocutoryjudgment.Theothermajorcriteriaisofcoursethebalanceof
inconveniencebutagreatmanyinterlocutoryinjunctionapplicationsare
dismissedinintellectualpropertycasesbasedonthestumblingblock
representedbytheirreparableharmcriteria.Thisisespeciallysoinpatent
caseswheretheCourtspresumethatthedeterminationofdamagesiseasily
arrivedat.
Insummary,theremediesforpatentinfringementinCanadainclude
provisional,interlocutoryandpermanentinjunctions.Italsoincludesdamages
oralternativelyanaccountingofprofits.Reasonablecompensationisalso
availablefordamagessufferedfor“infringement”betweenthepublication
dateandthegrantdateofapatent.
DamagesaresoughttocompensatethePlaintiffforlossesdirectlycausedby
theinfringingacts.Plaintiffhastheburdenofproofofitsdamages.
Anaccountingofprofitsisanequitableremedy.Itmustbespecifically
claimedbythePlaintiffandgrantedbytheCourt.Itisaclaimfortheprofit
improperlyearnedbytheinfringerduetoitsuseofthePlaintiff’sproperty.
Damagesandanaccountingofprofitsaremutuallyexclusive.Theprincipleof
differentialaccountingisusedindeterminingprofits.Theburdenofproofinan
accountingforprofitsisontheDefendanttoprovethedirectcostsitwishesto
deductfromitsgrosssales.
PatentinfringementactionscanbeheardbyeithertheCourtofgeneral
jurisdictionofeachprovince,ortheFederalCourtofCanada.However,only
theFederalCourtofCanadahasjurisdictiontoinvalidateapatent.A
judgmentofaSuperiorCourtininvalidationhastobeconfirmedbythe
FederalCourt.
Apatenteeandallpersonsclaimingunderit,suchasexclusiveandnon-
exclusivelicensees,cansueforpatentinfringement.
TheCanadianPatentActcoverstheimportationanduseinCanadaof
productsmadeabroadbyapatentedprocess.Thiscanapplyto
intermediariesfortheproduct.
Thereisno“Markman”typeprocedureavailableinCanada.Claim
constructionistriedatthesametimeasvalidityandinfringement.

6

2
.Trade-marks
Trade-markslawinCanadaevolvedfromthecommonlawofEngland.Under
thecommonlawandtheearlytrade-marksstatutes,useofatrade-markin
commercewasnecessarytoacquirerightsinthetrade-mark.Commonlaw
trade-marksrightswerebasedonthenotionthatthetrade-markwasan
indicationoftheoriginorsourceofthegoods.Trade-markscouldonlybesold
orassignedalongwiththegoodwillofthebusiness.Licensingwasconsidered
deceptiveandrenderedthetrade-marknolongerdistinctiveoftheowner.
Bothcommonlawtrade-marksandearlyregisteredtrade-marksweresubject
tothisrule.
DistinctivenesshasremainedthekeyelementofCanadiantrade-markslaw.
ThelawhasevolvedinCanadatoallowforaconsiderabledegreeofflexibility
inthecommercialisationofatrade-mark.Foramarktooperateasatrade-
markinCanada,itmustactuallydistinguishthewaresorservicesoftheowner
fromthoseofanotherorbeadaptedsoastodistinguishthem.Distinctiveness
canbeacquiredandlost.Whendistinctivenessislost,commonlawrightsare
lostandaregistrationinthecaseofaregisteredtrade-markcanbe
expunged.
Brieflyput,theCanadianTrade-marksActallowsfortheregistrationoftrade-
markswithwaresorservices.Italsopermitsthelicensingoftrade-marksaslong
ascertaincontrolsareputintoplace.Veryimportantly,incomparisonwiththe
U.S.system,atrade-markwhetherregisteredornot,maybeassigned
separatelyfromthegoodwillofthebusinessinrespectofsomeorallofthe
wares.Trade-marksthatarenotinherentlydistinctivecanbecomedistinctive
throughwide-spreadusethroughtheacquisitionofsecondarymeaningin
associationwiththetrade-mark.Also,trade-markapplicationscanbebased
onintentiontouseandsoon.
Itisimportantfortrade-markownersinothercountriestounderstandthe
advantagesofboththeCanadiancommonlawtrade-marksystemandthe
registeredtrade-marksystem.Trade-marksareacquiredatcommonlaw
throughuseofatrade-mark,aslongasthetrade-markacquiressignificance
asanindicatorofasource.Sourcesignificanceisoftenreferredtoas
distinctiveness.Atcommonlaw,atrade-markthathasacquiredsignificance
asanindicatorofasourcebecomespartofthegoodwillofthebusinessofthe
personthatusesthetrade-mark.Itiswhatisreferredtoinpassing-offactionsas
the“reputation”associatedwiththetrade-mark.Thetrade-markisusedto
createanddevelopgoodwill.

7

G
enerallyspeaking,thetrade-markownerwillbeconsideredtohavegoodwill
andthereforeanexclusivityinthegeographicalareainwhichhecan
demonstratedistinctiveness.Inabsenceofatrade-markregistration,the
ownerofthetrade-markmustsueinpassing-offandfirstprovegoodwillor
reputationinthetrade-markinaspecificgeographicalarea.
Hemustalsoprovetheexistenceofarepresentationwhichleadsorislikelyto
leadthepublictobelievethatthegoodsorservicesofthetrade-markowner
arethoseofsomebodyelseorthattheircommercialisationunderthetrade-
markhasbeenauthorisedbythetrade-markowner.Inotherwords,likelihood
ofconfusionisrequired.
Thirdly,thePlaintiffmustprovethatdamagesarelikelytobesuffered.Thisthird
criteriaispresumedsinceifonehasagoodwillorreputationinone’strade-
markandtherehasbeenconfusion,thentypically,therehasbeendamages.
Theexistenceofdamagessetsuptherecourse,butitisthenthePlaintiff’s
burdentoprovetheactualamount.
Thetrade-markcanthereforebeseenasaconduitforthecommercial
reputationorgoodwillitbringstothebusiness.Theamountofevidence
requiredonthepartofthePlaintiffdependsonthedistinctivenessofthe
indiciausedinassociationwiththewares,servicesorbusiness.Themore
distinctivetheindicia,theeasieritistoprovereputationandevenlikelihoodof
confusion.Thecontraryisalsotrue.
ThecommonlawinCanadaallowsfortheprotectionofwordsandlogos,but
alsoofnumbers,letters,words,names,shapes,designs,packages,get-up,but
doesnotextendasfaraswhatisprotectableintheU.S.system,suchas
sounds,smells,kineticmarks,hologramsandother“non-traditional”trade-
marks.
TheCanadianTrade-marksActfunctionsinaccordancewiththeParis
Convention.ItcontainstheprioritysystemsetoutintheConvention.Underthe
Convention,anapplicantfortheregistrationofatrade-markinonecountry
(suchastheUnitedStates)canfileanapplicationinCanadawithinsix(6)
monthsoffilingofthepriorityapplication.Theapplicationwillbetreatedasifit
hadbeenfiledwhentheoriginalapplicationwasfiled.
Notwithstandingthecommonlawsystem,thereareseveraladvantagesto
registeringatrade-markinCanadaincludingthefactthatenforcementofa
trade-markcanbemadeunderthecommonlawandundertheTrade-marks
Actsimultaneously.Thethree(3)provisionsthatcoverthetrade-markowner’s
rightsaresections19,20and22whichreadasfollows:

8
1
9.Subjecttosections21,32and67,theregistrationofatrade-markin
respectofanywaresorservices,unlessshowntobeinvalid,givestothe
ownerofthetrade-marktheexclusive
righttotheusethroughout
Canadaofthetrade-markinrespectofthosewaresorservices.
20.(1)Therightoftheownerofaregisteredtrade-marktoitsexclusiveuse
shallbedeemed
tobeinfringedbyapersonnotentitledtoitsuseunder
thisActwhosells,distributesoradvertiseswaresorservicesinassociation
withaconfusing
trade-markortrade-name,butnoregistrationofatrade-
markpreventsapersonfrommaking
(a)anybonafideuseofthispersonalnameasatrade-name,or
(b)anybonafideuse,otherthanasatrade-mark,
(i)ofthegeographicalnameofthisplaceofbusiness,or
(ii)ofanyaccuratedescriptionofthecharacterorqualityofhiswaresor
services,
insuchamannerasisnotlikelytohavetheeffectofdepreciatingthe
valueofthegoodwillattachingtothetrade-mark.
22.(1)Nopersonshalluseatrade-markregisteredbyanotherpersonina
mannerthatislikelytohavetheeffectofdepreciatingthevalue
orthe
goodwill
attachingthereto.
CanadadoesnothaveanAnti-dilutionActoranyotherparticularstatute
whichspecificallyprotectswell-knownorfamoustrade-marks,evenwhen
thereisnolikelihoodofconfusion,contrarytothesituationintheUnitedStates.
Alltrade-marksaresubmittedtothesametestsunderthesethree(3)provisions
andunderthecommonlaw.Thestrengthofthetrade-markwillmakeiteasier
toproveapassing-offortrade-markinfringementcase,butthePlaintiffstillhas
togothroughallthestepsofprovingthereisalikelihoodofconfusionbased
onthecriteriaofsection6.(5)(a)to(e)oftheTrade-marksActwhichreadas
follows:
6.(5)Indeterminingwhethertrade-marksortrade-namesareconfusing,
thecourtortheRegistrar,asthecasemaybe,shallhaveregardtoallthe
surroundingcircumstancesincluding
(a)theinherentdistinctivenessofthetrade-marksortrade-namesandthe
extenttowhichtheyhavebecomeknown;
(b)thelengthoftimethetrade-markortrade-nameshavebeeninuse;
(c)thenatureofthewares,servicesorbusiness;
(d)thenatureofthetrade;and
(e)thedegreeofresemblancebetweenthetrade-marksortrade-names
inappearanceorsoundorintheideassuggestedbythem.

9

T
heTrade-marksActprovidesexclusiverightsfortheuseofthetrade-mark
throughoutCanadawhethertheownercanshowgoodwillinallofCanadaor
inonlyaportionofthecountry,contrarytothesituationunderacommonlaw
mark.Thereareno“State”or“Provincial”trade-marks,althoughinexceptional
casesatrade-markregistrationcanberestrictedtoonegeographicalarea.
Applyingforregistrationprovidestherighttoapplyforatrade-markinother
membercountriesthroughtheuseoftheprioritysystemwementionedearlier.
Aregistrationisalsoadefencetoanactioninpassing-off.Thisfurtheraddsto
theadvantagesofregistration.
TheCanadianActallowsfortheregistrationofthreedimensionaltrade-marks
incertaincircumstancesinadditiontoofficialorprohibitedmarks,trade-marks
ofgeographicalindicationandcertainplantdenominations.Manyofthe
criteriaforregistrationaresimilartothatintheUnitedStates.
Oneparticularadvantageoffilingforatrade-markregistrationinCanadais
thecost.Thereisnoseparatefeeperinternationalclassofgoodsorservicesto
whichthetrade-markpertains.Ifatrade-markapplicationisnotopposed,itis
notunusualthatthetotalcostofobtainingthetrade-markregistrationin
Canadabeapproximately$1,500Canadianfundsinclusiveofstatutoryfees
andtaxes.
Applicationsfortrade-markregistrationsinCanadacanbebasedonuseof
thetrade-markinCanada,makingknownofthetrade-markinCanada,
correspondingregistrationorapplicationinaParisConventioncountryora
memberoftheWTOanduseanywhereintheworldandintenttousethe
trade-markinCanada.Dependingonthesituation,thesebasescanbeused
concurrentlyoralternatively.TheCanadiansystemisextremelyefficientand
thefirstexaminer’sreportisusuallysentoutwithineight(8)monthsofthe
application.Therearenonotarisationorlegalisationrequirementsandno
particularformrequired.Itusuallytakesapproximatelyeighteen(18)to
twenty-four(24)monthstoobtainafinalregistrationintheabsenceof
oppositionproceedings.
Canadahasaspecialcancellationproceeding(section45)wherebyatrade-
mark,whichhasbeenontheregisterforoverthree(3)yearscanbe
expungedifthetrade-markownercannotdemonstratethatthetrade-mark
hasbeenusedinassociationwiththegoodsandservicesithasbeen
registeredforinthepreviousthree(3)years.
Canadadoesnothavethesection8requirementorthesection9requirement
oftheU.S.system,nordoesithavetheincontestabilityaffidavitrequirementof
section15.Inotherwords,oncetheCanadianapplicationisregisteredthe

10

t
rade-markownerhasnoobligationtodemonstrateuseoranyparticular
interestinthetrade-markuntiltherenewaldatearisesfifteen(15)yearslater.
Ofcourse,thetrade-markcanbeexpungedinthemeantimeontheinitiative
ofathirdpartyundersection45asmentionedabove,orunderthevarious
cancellationproceedingsforeseenbytheFederalCourtandtheTrade-Marks
Act.
Non-traditionaltrade-marksaremuchmoredifficulttoregisterinCanadathan
intheUnitedStates.
AsconcernswhatU.S.practitionersandCourtsusuallycall“tradedress”,there
issimilarprotectioninCanada.Underthecommonlaw,tradedressinCanada
isusuallyreferredtoas“get-up”.UndertheTrade-marksAct,thetermis
“distinguishingguise”.Theprotectionforget-upextendstotheshape,size,
colour,packaging,decorationsandlabelsofwares.Itcanalsoapplyto
services,includingsuchthingsasrestaurantdesignforexample.Theshapingof
waresandtheirconfigurationcanbeprotectedundertheTrade-marksAct
throughtheregistrationofa“distinguishingguise”,butonlyifithasbecome
distinctive.Thismeansthatonecannotapplyforadistinguishingguiseonthe
basisofintenttouse.Furthermore,theActforeseesthatadistinguishingguise
mustnotbelikelytounreasonablylimitthedevelopmentofanyartorindustry.
Adistinguishingguisedoesnotprotectutilitarianorfunctionalfeatures.
Aswithpatents,theFederalCourtofCanadahasjurisdictiontohearany
actionorproceedingundertheTrade-marksActandtheSuperiorCourtofthe
provinceshaveconcurrentjurisdictiontohearTrade-marksinfringement
proceedingsundersections19,20and22andpassing-offandunfair
competitionproceedings.Asalreadystated,theFederalCourthasexclusive
jurisdictionregardingchangestotheregisteroftrade-marks.
3.Copyrightlaw
InCanada,copyrightlawprotectstheoriginalexpressionofideasintheform
ofliterary,artistic,dramaticandmusicalworksand,forsomepurposes,sound
recordings,performer’sperformancesandbroadcastsignals.Canadaisa
signatoryoftheBerneConventionand,assuch,copyrightarisesinCanada
uponcreationofawork.ContrarytotheUnitedStates,thedurationof
copyrightisrathershort,mainlythelifeoftheauthorplusfifty(50)yearsplus
thebalanceofthecalendaryearinwhichthecopyrightwouldotherwise
expired.
ThemoralrightssysteminCanadadiffersfromthatoftheUnitedStates.It
relatesmainlytotherighttomodifyaworkandtherighttopaternityinthe

11

w
ork.Moralrightssubsistinallcategoriesofcopyrightworks,notjustforvisual
arts.
AworkmustbeoriginaltobenefitfromtheCopyrightAct.Thisissetoutinthe
Act.TheU.S.statutoryrequirementoffixationisnotspecificallyfoundinthe
CanadianAct,butithasbeenestablishedinCanadiancaselaw.Protected
worksareoriginalworksfixedinanytangiblemediumofexpression.Aworkwill
usuallybeconsideredoriginalinCanadaifitisindependentlycreated,as
opposedtocopiedfromotherworksandifitpossessesatleastaminimal
degreeofcreativity.
TheCanadianCopyrightActforeseesaregistrationsystem.Theregistrationis
notcompulsorysinceasalreadymentioned,copyrightsubsistsuponcreation
ofthework.Nevertheless,registrationfacilitatestheestablishmentoftitleina
copyright.Italsocreatescertainpresumptionsastothevalidityofcopyright
andtheveracityoftheinformationfoundontheregistrationcertificatein
additiontotheknowledgeofthirdpartiesofthesubsistenceofcopyright
protection.InCanada,registrationisnotaprerequisitetothetakingofan
infringementaction.
U.S.companiesoftenneglecttoregistertheircopyrightsinCanada.This
removessomeofthestatutoryadvantagesofregistration,increasesthe
burdenofproofofthePlaintiffinrespecttosuchthingsastheknowledgeof
theallegedinfringerandmakestheclaimforrecoursesotherthanan
injunction(suchasdamages)moredifficult.ItalsoallowstheDefendantto
raiseissuesthatcannotberaisedinthepresenceofacopyrightregistration.
CopyrightregistrationalsoentitlesaPlaintifftostatutorydamageswhenitis
difficulttoestablishactualdamages.
TheSupremeCourtofCanadahasprovidedforaslightlygreaterambitof
protectionaffordedtocompilationsascomparedtotheUnitedStatesinthe
Feistcase.InCanada,compilationsarenotlimitedtotheoriginal
characteristicsofthecompilationssuchasselectionandorganisation.
ThereisnocommercialconnotationtothenotionofpublicationinCanadaas
thereappearstobeintheUnitedStates.
TheremediesinCanadiancopyrightlawincludedamages,accountsof
profits,exemplaryorpunitivedamages,AntonPillarOrders,seizurebefore
judgment,destructionofcopies,injunctions,criminaloffencesandconversion.
Itisnotnecessarytoproveactualorspecificdamagesbecausedamagesare
atlarge.

12

A
sconcernsmorespecificallythemoralrightsdoctrine,anauthormaywaive
hismoralrightsinwholeorinpartinCanada.However,moralrightscannot
underanycircumstancesbeassigned.
U.S.copyrightownersandtheircompetitorsshouldbeawarethatthefair
dealingexceptioninCanadianlawisextremelylimited.Itappliestosuch
thingsascritiques,thepress,newsreporting,librariesandsoon.Researchand
privatestudyarealsocovered.
TheSupremeCourtofCanadahasrenderedseveraldecisionsinthelast
coupleofyearsconcerningcopyrightlawwhichareworthsummarisinghere.
Inonecase,theSupremeCourtheldthatcopyrightinfringementofadigital
workcanoccurwhentheinfringementhasa“realandsubstantial
connection”toCanada.Thistypeofinfringementcanoccurwhetherornot
thesupplier,hostorreceiverofthecopyrightedmaterialislocatedinCanada.
Itwasalsoheldthatpassiveinternetserviceprovidersarenotliablefor
copyrightinfringementperpetratedbytheirusers.
Asspecificallyconcernscompilations,asalreadymentionedabove,the
SupremeCourtrejectedthetraditional“sweatofthebrow”criteriaandthe
“creativitystandardoforiginality”criteria.TheSupremeCourtstatedthat
copyrightsubsistsinacompilationwhichwasthesubjectofanexerciseof“skill
andjudgment”.Infact,theSupremeCourthaspositioneditselfsomewhere
betweenarequisitefororiginalityrequiringsomeformof“skill,judgmentor
labour”andthestandardofcreativity.ItwasruledthatoriginalityinCanadian
copyrightlawrequiredfirstthatthework“mustbemorethanamerecopyof
anotherwork”.Theworkmustalsoreflect“anexerciseofskillandjudgment
whichinturnincorporatessomeformofintellectualeffort”.ThecasewasCCH
CanadianandconcernedthePlaintiff,alawbookpublisher.Thequestionof
originalityrelatedtothecasesummaries,headnotes,topicalindicesandcase
reports.TheSupremeCourtdistinguishedbetweenthereportedjudicial
decisioncompletewithcasesummaryandheadnotesandtheeditedreason
forjudgment.
IntheCCHCanadiancase,Defendantwasfoundliableforauthorising
copyrightinfringementbecauseofitsplacementoffree-standingphotocopy
machineswithinitsGreatLibrarybytheFederalCourtofAppeal.TheSupreme
Courtfoundthatapersondoesnotauthorise
infringementbyauthorisingthe
mereuseofequipmentthatcanbeusedtoinfringecopyright.Infact,that
SupremeCourtevendiscussedthefairdealingexemptionintheCCHcase
andsetoutvariousfactorstobeconsideredinafairdealingdefencewhich
include:

13

1)thepurposeofthedealing;
2)thecharacterofthedealing;
3)theamountofthedealing;
4)alternativestothedealing;
5)thenatureofthework;and
6)theeffectofthedealingonthework.
Inanothercase,thequestionwaswhethertheprocessofremovingtheink
fromthepaperbackingofpostersthatreproducedartworks,andtransferring
theinktoacanvassamountedtoafurtherreproductionoftheartisticwork
andwhetherthiswasaninfringementofthecopyrightintheoriginalworkof
art.TheSupremeCourtsaidthatitdidnotconsistofaninfringementsince
therewasnoreproductionofthework.TheCourtsaidthatitwasasimple
transubstantiationofexistingcopies.
4.I.P.litigation
Canadahasratifiedmostoftheimportantintellectualpropertytreatiesinthe
fieldsofpatentsandcopyright.TheFederalCourtisgenerallyconsideredto
befriendlyormorefavourabletorightsholders.ItisveryrarethatourCourts
invalidateapatent,unlesstherearegoodsubstantivereasonstodosoand
verystrongevidence.This,combinedwiththemorelimiteddiscoveryhelp
shieldthevalidityofpatentstoagreaterextentinCanadathanintheUnited
States.
TheCanadianlitigationsystemislesscomplexandlesscostlythantheU.S.
system.IntheCanadiansystem,therighttodiscoveryismorelimitedthanthe
UnitedStates.Inprinciple,oneisentitledtoexamineonerepresentativeofthe
opposingparty.Scopeofdiscoveryisverywide,butitisnotpossibleto
examinemorethanonerepresentativewithoutleavefromtheCourtand
leaveisveryrarelygranted.Thesameappliesfortherighttoexaminethird
partiesoutofCourtondiscovery.
TheFederalCourthasintroducedthenotionofspecially-managed
proceedingswhereonejudgeisresponsibleforthebasicadministrationand
managementofthecaseandtohearmostifnotallpretrialmotions.However,
casemanagementdoesnotnecessarilyoccurearlyinthecaseandremains
theexception,asopposedtotherule.TheCanadiansystemishowevercost
effective,focussedandfairlypredictable.
InsomeI.P.cases,thepartiesagreetoaconsentorderbywhichtheparties
gototrialonlyonthequestionofliability,thatisthequestionofvalidityand

14

i
nfringementoftheintellectualpropertyrightsandnotdeterminethequestion
ofcompensation.ThisbifurcationsometimesallowsthepartiestogettoCourt
fasterandnottowastetimemakingevidenceondamagesandprofitsifthe
endresultisthatthePlaintiffisfoundtohavenorights.IfthePlaintiffwins,the
partiesproceedtoareferenceonmonetarycompensation.
OneparticularityoftheCanadiansystemisthatthelosingpartyinacasemust
expecttopayatleastaportionofthewinningparty’sreasonablelegalcosts.
Ordinarily,thelosingpartypaysapproximatelytwenty-fivepercent(and
sometimesmore)oftheopposingparty’sactualcosts.Solicitorandclient
costs,whichmeanspaymentofthefullcostsoflegalrepresentationare
awardedwhentherehasbeenunusuallyunacceptableconductonthepart
ofaparty.Costsextendtothecostsofexpertevidence.
IntellectualpropertyactionsinCanadaaremostofteninstitutedintheFederal
Courtsinceitsordersareenforceableacrossthecountry.ItisalsotheCourt
withexclusivejurisdictionfortheexpungementofregistrationsofintellectual
propertyrights.However,whentheprincipalquestioninthelitigationisnot
withinthestatutoryjurisdictionoftheCourt,suchastradesecretlitigationor
contractualquestionsrelatedtointellectualproperty,therelevantSuperior
Courtistheproperforum.
ThelimitationperiodsinCanadaaredifferentdependingonwhetheroneis
involvedinacopyright,trade-mark,industrialdesignorpatentsituation.They
alsodifferfromthoseprevailingintheUnitedStates.
Whenaforeignparty,suchasaU.S.company,seekstheinvalidityofa
Canadianpatentbyimpeachmentaction,itmustpostsecurityforcosts.
Furthermore,securityforcostshastobefiledasamatterofcoursebyany
PlaintifftakingalawsuitinCanada,exceptincertainspecificcircumstances.
AlthoughI.P.disputescansometimesbedifficulttomediatebecausethey
ofteninvolveclaimsforexclusivitytoamarket,thereisaveryefficient
mediationsysteminplaceintheCanadianFederalCourt.TheFederalCourt
offersmediationwithoutchargetolitigants.Themediationisaveryinformal
processandallactivitiesinthemediationarecarriedoutwithoutprejudice
andoffrecord.Mostoften,itisanactualjudgeoftheFederalCourtwhohears
thepartiesprovidetheir“bestcase”inaninformalsettingorthroughamini-
trialwithveryspecificconstraints.Thejudgecaneithertrytogiveanideaof
whathisdecisionwouldbeifhewouldhearthecaseonthemeritsoruse
breakoutsessionstoencouragethepartiestosettle.Themediationjudgeis
notentitledtohearthecaseattrial.

15

M
ypersonalexperienceinmediationhasbeenratherpositiveinthatIhave
settledeverycasethatIhavehadthatwenttomediation.
Inthecontextofinterimandinterlocutoryinjunctions,trade-marksare
sometimesenforcedthroughaspecialtypeofinterimordercalledan“Anton
PillarOrder”.AntonPillarOrdersarealsooftenusedtoenforcecopyright.An
AntonPillarOrderallowsthePlaintiffanditssolicitorstoenterthepremisesofa
suspectedinfringertoinspect,preserveorevenremovegoods,packaging
andbusinessrecordsforuseasevidence.TheDefendantisobligedtoallow
Plaintiff’srepresentativestoenteritspremisesandsearchandidentifyitems
thathavebeenallowedbytheCourt.AntonPillarscanbegrantedagainst
unidentifiedDefendantsandarecommonlycalledJohnDoeorders.
ThepurposeofanAntonPillarOrderistopreserveevidenceforuseattrial.
Plaintiffmustdemonstrateaparticularlystrongcaseonthemeritsand
convincingevidencethatwithouttheAntonPillarOrder,theevidenceof
infringementwilldisappear.Obviously,AntonPillarOrdersaremostoftenused
inthecaseofcounterfeitingastheyareoftentheonlyeffectiveremedy
againstsuchactivities.
TheseapplicationsrequesttheCourttoexerciseagreatdealofdiscretionin
favourofthePlaintiffandthusobligesthePlaintifftoactwithcompletecandor
andtoprovidefulldisclosureofthecircumstancesofthecaseandevenpost
securitytoguaranteeagainstanydamagestheDefendantmightsufferinthe
eventtheAntonPillarisfoundtohavebeenimproperandcancelled.
Thequestionofcounterfeitgoodsisparticularlyrelevanttoadiscussionof
trade-marksandoncopyright.AparticularproblemariseswhenU.S.
companiesattempttoobtaininformationonCanadianinfringerswhoare
operatingintheUnitedStatesthroughlitigationinCanada.Itshouldbeborne
inmindthatdiscoveriesinCanadaaregenerallysubjecttotheruleofimplied
undertaking.Brieflyput,thisruleprohibitstheuseofinformationgatheredin
theproceedingsforpurposesotherthantheproceedinginwhichthe
informationwasgathered.Inotherwords,onecannotcommunicate
informationforthepurposesofinstitutingorboostingotherlitigation.In
principle,inordertodoso,onerequiresleaveoftheCourt.InQuebec,thereis
anadditionalrestrictiononthefreemovementofinformationobtainedin
litigation.ThereisQuebecStatutewhichprotectsagainsttheremovalofany
businessinformationofaQuebecbasedcorporationfromthejurisdictionof
theprovinceofQuebec.Itisveryimportanttodevelopstrategiesforthe
managementofinformationobtainedinCanadianlitigationpriortoactually
institutingproceedings.

16

5
.Informationsources
TheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOfficewebsitecontainsagooddealof
informationconcerningpatents,trade-marksandcopyrights.Theinformationis
wellpresentedandconsistsofanexcellentbasiccourseontheseareasoflaw.
Foryourinformation,thereisalsoadiscussionofindustrialdesigns.Thesitecan
beaccessedat:
http://cipo.gc.ca/.

17

O
neofthemostpracticalreferencebooksinCanadaistheHughesseries.I
recommendthree(3)particularbooks:HughesonPatents
1,Hugheson
CopyrightsandIndustrialdesigns
2andHughesonTrade-marks3.
Ourfirmalsopublishestwo(2)exhaustiveworksontrade-marksandcopyright.
OneistheROBICTrade-marksActAnnotatedandtheotheristheROBIC
CopyrightActAnnotated.
ThewebsitesofCanada’sleadingI.P.boutiquesallcontainnumerousarticles
intheareaofintellectualpropertylaw.Thewebsitesofourfirm(
www.robic.ca)
andthoseofGowlings(
www.gowlings.com),Smart&Biggar(www.smart-
biggar.ca)andBereskin&Parr(www.bereskinparr.com)areallexcellent.
Inclosing,perhapsthebestadvicetofollowwhenitcomestonavigating
throughtheCanadianI.P.systemistoplanstrategybeforehandinordertobe
abletotakeintoaccountthelimitedbutsometimesimportantdifferencesand
distinctionsinthetwo(2)systemswhichIhopetopointoutinmoredetail
duringtheverbalpresentationIwillbegivingattheMCLEconferenceDoing
BusinessinCanadaonMarch29,2006.

1Hughes&Woodleyonpatents,Markham(Ontario),LexisNexisButterworths2HughesoncopyrightsandIndustrialdesigns,Markham(Ontario),LexisNexisButterworths3HughesonTrade-marks,Toronto(Ontario),Butterworths