Fair Dealing: Criticism, Review and Newspaper Summaries


FAIRDEALING:CRITICISM,REVIEWANDNEWSPAPERSUMMARIES

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

ADEFENSETOCOPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT
Paragraphs27(2)(a)to27(2)(m),ascompletedbysubsection27(6)ofthe
CopyrightAct(R.S.C.1985,c.10),(theAct),enumerateactswhichdonot
constituteinfringementofcopyright.Otherexceptionsarealsofoundelsewhere
intheAct,suchasundersections28,28.01,and64.1,andsubsection64(2).
Itisnotthepurposeofthisworktomakeanexhaustivereviewofallthese
defensesbutrathertoconcentrateononeoftheaspectsofthefairdealing
exception,thatwhichrelatestothepurposesofcriticism,reviewornewspaper
summary,asprovidedbyparagraph27(2)(a.1).
AswasstatedbyFox,”[p]atentsandcopyrightsrestonthetheorythattheresult
oftheoriginallabouroftheauthororinventorare,bothonthegroundofjustice
andpublicpolicy,tobeprotectedagainstpiracy”.
1Asaresultofthesenotions,
theonusofshowingthatareproachedactfallsunderoneofthestated
exceptionsfallsuponthedefendant.
2



*
©LEGERROBICRICHARD,1994..
Lawyerandtrademarkagent,HuguesG.RichardisaseniorpartnerinthelawfirmLEGERROBIC
RICHARD,g.p.andinthepatentandtrademarkagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Thismaterialwas
designedforthepurposeofaconference,whichwasgivenduringtheseminar”Copyrightin
Transition”organizedbytheCanadianIntellectualPropertyInstitute,whichwasheldinOttawa
on1994.10.14..Itwasmeantfordiscussionanddoesnotconclusivelystatetheopinionofthe
authororthemembersofhisfirmonthesubjectmatternordoesitprovideanexhaustivereview
thereof.Publication146.
11.Fox(HaroldGeorge),TheCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrialDesigns2nded.
(Toronto,Carswell,1967),atp.3.
2.Sillitoev.McGraw-HillBookCompany(U.K.)Ltd.(1982),[1983]9F.S.R.545(Ch.D.)DavisJ.,
atp.558.


Asderogationstothegeneralprincipleofstatutoryprotectionofcopyright,itis
submittedthattheexceptionsprovidedinsubsection27(2)shouldbe
interpretedrestrictively:
3
Althoughitismostoftenassociatedtoliteraryworks,thefairdealingexceptionis
alsoapplicabletoartistic,dramatic,literaryandmusicalwork,aswellastothe
mechanicalcontrivencesreferredtoinsubsection5(3)oftheAct.
A.THENATUREOFFAIRDEALING
Fairdealingiscompletelyunrelatedtotheexistanceofconsentorauthorization
onbehalfoftheownerofthecopyright.Itconstitutesadefensetoan
infringementaction,therefore,eventhoughthebehaviourhasalltherequired
elementstoconstituteinfringement,thefairdealingexceptionsallowsoneto
escapeliabilityinthespecificcircumstancesenumeratedbytheactifthe
dealinginquestionwasinfactfair.
TheCopyrightActdoesnotprovideuswithadefinitionofwhatexactlyis
impliedby”fairdealing”.Whetheradefendant’sdealingwithaworkfallsinto
oneofthefiveaforesaidcategoriesofpurposes(i.e.privatestudy,research,
criticism,reviewornewspapersummary),andwhetheritwas”fair”,isleftto
judicialinterpretationuponthefactsofeachcase.Bytakingthisapproachthe
legislatorhasavoidedthedifficulttaskofhavingtoarriveatadefinitionwhich
wouldlikelybeeithertoorigidtoapplytothemultitudeofscenarioswhichare
boundtoarise,ortooaccomodatingtobeeffective.Thecourtsaregiventhe
freedomtotailortheirdecisionstothefactswhichareplacedbeforethem
withouthavingtoworktheirwayaroundanimpracticaldefinition.
Thecourtshavedeterminedthatthefactorswhicharerelevanttodetermining
thefairnessofthedealingincludethelengthoftheexcerptswhichhavebeen
apropriatedfromthework,therelativeimportanceoftheexcerptsinrelation
tothecritic’sorjournalist’sowncomments,theusemadeofthework,andthe
natureoftheuse,beitcriticism,revieworsummary.
Whilethetakingofasubstantialpartofaworkdoesnotautomaticallyexclude
thepossibilityofrecoursetothedefenseoffairdealing,itisaveryrevealing
factor.Sincesubstantialityastobothquantityandqualitymustbeconsidered,


3
.Coté(PierreAndré),TheInterpretationofLegislationinCanada,2nded.(Cowansville,Blais,
1992),atpp.415-416.


evenaveryshortexcerptmaynotqualifyasafairdealingifitconsistsofthe
“vital”partoftheinitialwork.
4
ThebearingofsubstantialityonthefairdealingdefenseissummarizedbyLaddie
asfollows(footnotereferencesomitted):
For,althoughitispermissibletotakeasubstantialpartofthework(if
not,therecouldbenoquestionofinfringementinthefirstplace),in
somecircumstances,thetakingofanexcessiveamountwould
negatefairdealing.So,ifthedefenseallegedisfairdealingforthe
purposesofcriticismofthework,thetakingoflargeamountofthe
workandtheadditionofbriefcriticalnoteswouldnotpresagea
successfuldefense,andviceversa.Ontheotherhand,therecan
existcircumstanceswhereitwouldbepropertoquotetheentire
work,particularlyifitisashortone.Perhapsthemostimportantfactor
tobetakenintoaccountiswhethertheallegedfairdealingisinfact
competingwithorrivallingthecopyrightwork.
5

Astounpublishedwork,Laddiewrote(footnotesomitted):
TheCourtshavebeenreluctanttoacceptsomethinginvolvingthe
publicationofanunpublishedworkasfairdealing,unlessthe
copyrightworkhashadsomesignificantprivatecirculation,butthe
factthatitwasunpublisheddoesnotnecessarilydestroythe
defense;so,inonecase[i.e.Fraserv.Evans[1969]1Q.B.349(C.A.)],
wherethedefendantsproposedtoprintshortextractsfroma
confidentialreportforthepurposeofreportingcurrenteventsinthe
newspaper,theCourtdeclinedtoprejudgewhetherthatwouldbe
fairdealingandrefusedtograntaninterlocutoryinjunction.Andthe
pointhasmuchlessforcewhereitisadramaticormusicalwork
whichisbeingcriticizedif,althoughunpublished,ithasbeen
performedinpublic.
6

OneBritishauthorityarguesthat”[t]heActnowhereprohibitsthecopyingofthe
fulltextofaworkfrombeingafairdealinginit,althoughitwouldhavebeen


4
.Johnstonev.BernardJonesPublications,(1938),[1938]lCh.599(Ch.D.)MortonJ.,atp.
603,andLandbroke(Football)Ltd.v.WilliamHill(Football)Ltd.(1962),[1980]R.P.C.539,
DenningJ.(C.A.).
5.NewEraPublicationsInternationalAPSv.Key-PorterBooksLtd.(1987),18C.I.P.R.(3d)569
(F.C.T.D.-Interlocutory)CullenJ.,atp.568.
6.Laddie,(Hugh)etal,TheModernLawofCopyright(London,Butterworths,1980),atNo.
2.110.


easyforParliamenttodoso.Accordingly,itisclearthat,ifthecircumstances
arefair,thereproductionofanentirebookcanconstituteafairdealing…”
7
“Fairdealing”shouldbedistinguishedfrom”fairuse”.Thislatterexpression,
broaderinscope,isfoundundersectionl07oftheUnitedStatesCopyrightAct,
l976.Eventhoughthecriteriaoffairnessreferredtoinsection107areappealing,
theyshouldonly,butwithcaution,beimportedintoCanadianlaw.Alsoof
interestisl990’sBillC-316entitled”AnActtoAmendedtheCopyrightAct”(fair
use),whichsoughttoamendparagraphs27(2)(a)and(d)inordertobetter
define”fairdealing”,thereinreferredtoas”fairuse”,whichwaslaterwithdrawn.
Fairdealingisultimatelyamatterofimpression
8.Thedealing,itissubmitted,
mustbefairforoneofthepurposesexpressedinsection27(2)(a.1)andnotfor
someotherpurposes.TheActprovideswhatseemstobeanexhaustivelistof
purposes.Thelistbeinganexhaustiveoneimpliesthat,asopposedtoitsU.S.
counterpart,theActlimitsthesituationsinwhichthefairdealingdefensemay
beusedtothosefoundunderparagraphs27(2)(a)and(a.1).
B.CATEGORIESOFPURPOSES
i)Criticism&Review:
Itwouldseemthattheword”review”inthesenseinwhichitistobe
understoodiscognatewiththeword”criticism”.Itmaybesaidthat
oneistheprocessandtheotheristheresultofthecriticalapplication
ofmentalfaculties.
9
Fairdealingforpurposeofreview”requiresasaminimumsomedealingwiththe
workotherthansimplycondensingitintoonabridgedversionandreproducing
itundertheauthor’sname”
10
Thepurposeof”criticism”isnotlimitedtocriticismofthestyleormannerof
expressionofawork,butcanextendtotheideasortheoriescontained
therein
11.Thefairdealingdefenseisequallyavailabletoonewhocriticizesthe
workitselfasitistoonewhocriticizesthesubjectmatterofthework.Basedon
thisinterpretationoftheAct,oneisfreetomakeuseofexcerptsofaworkin


7
.Phillips(Jeremy)etal,WhaleonCopyright4thed.(London,Sweet&Maxwell,1993),atp.
79.
8.NewEraPublicationsInternationalAPSv.Key-PorterBooksLtd.(1987),18C.I.P.R.(3d)569
(F.C.T.D.-Interlocutory)CullenJ.,atp.568.
9.ibid.
10
TheQueenv.JamesLorimer&Co.Ltd.,77C.P.R.(2d)262at272.
11
.Hubbardv.Vosper(1971),[1972]2W.L.R.389(C.A.)DenningJ.,atp.394.


ordertocriticizetheviewsexpressedbytheauthoraswellasthemannerin
whichtheseviewsareexpressed.Therefore,byvirtueofthefairdealing
exceptionprovidedforthepurposeofcriticism,onecanreproduceexcerpts
fromthewritingsofanauthorinordertoctiticizebothhispoormasteryofthe
Englishlanguageandthemoronicviewswhicharethesubjectofthework.
Criticism,asapurposewithinthecontextoftheAct,isnotconfinedtoliterary
criticism
12.Asmentionedabove,thefairdealingdefenceisavailableincases
ofcopyrightinfringementpertainingtoallvarietiesofworks,asdefinedbythe
Act,eventhoughhistoryhasdemonstratedthatthevastmajorityofcasesin
whichthedefenceisconsideredareregardingliteraryworks.
Subsection30(l)oftheU.K.Actprovidesthatthequotedworksneednot
necessarilybetheworkundercriticism;useoftheexpression”anywork”inthe
Canadianstatutemayalsobeconducivetosuchaninterpretation.Although
suchareadingoftheActhasnotyetbeenthesubjectoffinaljudicial
determinationbeforetheCanadiancourts,itisforeseablethatasituationin
whichtwoworksarejuxtaposedinorderthatonebesubjectedtocriticism
wouldbeconsideredtofallwithhinthescopeofthedefense.
“Fairdealing”,withrespecttocriticism,isaquestionoffact.Inthisrespect,Drone
wrote:
Whetherthelimitsoflawfulquotationhavebeenexceededisa
questiongoverned
13bythecircumstancesofeachcase.Itistobe
determinednotbytheintentionofthecriticorreviewer,butbythe
characterofitspublicationandthepurposewhichitserves.The
controllinginquirieswillbe,whethertheextractsareofsuchextent,
importance,orvaluethatthepublicationcomplainedofwill
supersedetoaninjuriousextenttheoriginalwork.Isamaterialand
valuablepartofthecontentsoftheoriginalcommunicatedbythe
compilation?Willthelattertendtodiminishthesaleoftheformer,by
reasonofbeingwhollyorpartlyasubstitute?Ifso,theresultsofthe
originalauthor’slabourareappropriatedtohisinjury,andhisrights
areinvaded.
14

Toreproduceintotalityanarticlefromaliteraryjournalforthepurposeof
reviewingitwasheldnottobefairdealing.
15TheCourtperceivedthedealing
asbeingexcessive,andthereforeunfairforthepurposeofreviewinthegiven


12
.Sillitoev.McGraw-HillBookCo.(U.K.)Ltd.,Opcit.No.40atp.559.
13

14
.Drone,(EatonS.),ATreatyontheLawofPropertyinIntellectualProductionsinGreat
BritainandtheUnitedStates(Boston,Little,Brown&Co.1879)atp.388.
15
.Zamacoisv.Douville(1943),[1944]Ex.C.R.208(Ex.Ct.)AngersJ..


case,becausethedefendanthadreproducedtheentireworkwithoutthe
authorizationoftheauthor.Tosaythatthisdecisionistobeinterpretedasbeing
thestandardwhichistobeappliedacrosstheboardwouldbeinacurate,butit
doesrepresentthedominantviewasexpressedbyCanadiancourts.
ii)NewspaperSummaries:
Thefairdealingprovisionofparagraph27(2)(a.1)applicabletonewspaper
summariesisnotaffectedbytherequirementsofparagraph27(2)(e)which
readsasfollows:
ThePublicationinanewspaperofareportorlecturedeliveredin
public,unlessthereportisprohibitedbyconspicuouswrittenor
printednoticeaffixedbeforeandmaintainedduringthelectureator
aboutthemainentranceofthebuildinginwhichthelectureisgiven,
and,exceptwhilethebuildingisbeingusedforpublicworship,ina
positionnearthelecturer,butnothinginthisparagraphaffectsthe
provisionsinparagraph(a)[sic],astonewspapersummaries.

Amazingly,itwouldappearthatwhilethereportofapubliclectureina
newspaperwouldbeforbiddenunderthecircumstancessetforthinparagraph
27(2)(e),thepublicationofasummaryofthesaidlecturewouldbeallowed
underparagraph27(2)(a.1).Moreover,thereportinanewspaperofaparticular
speech(i.e.addressofapoliticalnature)willnot,inviewofsection28,
constituteinfringementofthecopyrightthatmaysubsistinsuchaspeech.
Inordertodecidewhichofparagraphs27(2)(a.1)or27(2)(e)toapply,thecourt
wouldhavetoidentifytheworkasbeingeitherasummaryorareport.
AccordingtotheCanadianeditionoftheWebster’sEncyclopedicDictionary,a
report,inthiscontext,isdefinedasa”aformalaccountofwhathasbeensaid
seenordone”,andasummaryis”ashortstatementoftheessentialpointsofa
matter”.
16Basedonthesedefinitions,theessentialdifferencebetweenthese
twotermsisthethoroughnessoftheaccountofthelecture.Therefore,a
relativelythoroughaccountwouldlikelyconstituteareport,andasaresultbe
subjecttoparagraph27(2)(e),whilealessthoroughaccountwouldfallunder
theheadingofsummaryandbesubjecttoparagraph27(2)(a.1).Itgoes
withoutsayingthatitwillbeuptothecourtstomakethisdistinction.
Afactorwhichfurthercomplicatesmattersisdiscoveredbycomparingthe
FrenchandEnglishtextsofparagraphs27(2)(a.1)and27(2)(e),andsection28:
onenotesthatthewords”review”and”report”havebothbeentranslatedbythe
singleexpression”compterendu”intheFrenchtext.Whatisperplexingabout
thissituationisthatwhiletheuseoftwodifferenttermsintheEnglishtextimplies
thatadistinctionwasintended,theuseofasingletermintheFrenchtextimplies


theexactopposite.Thelogicalexplanationforthiscontradictionislikelyapoor
translationoftheoriginalEnglishtext.
Anotherfactorworthyofnoteisthatthefairdealingprovisionregarding
newspapersummariesisnolongerfoundunderparagraph(a),asisstillstatedat
paragraph27(2)(e),butratherunderthenewparagraph(a.1).Thereappears
tohavebeenanoversightonbehalfofthedraftersofthelatestamendmentsto
theActwithregardstomakingtheappropriatechangestoparagraph27(2)(e)
inorderthatitreflecttherecentseverenceofwhatwasparagraph(a)into
whatarenowparagraphs(a)and(a.1).
C.RECENTCHANGES
Upuntilthebeginingof1994,saveforgrammaticalchanges,the”fairdealing”
provisionofparagraph27(2)(a)hadremainedessentiallythesamesinceits
introductionintheCopyrightAct,1921,whereitwasadoptedasamere
duplicationofparagraph2(1)(i)oftheUnitedKingdomAct,1911.Asaresultof
thecomingintoforceoftheNorthAmericanFreeTradeAgreement(NAFTA),
theCanadianlegislatorhashadtoamendtheActaspartofitsoverallplanto
liveuptoitsobligationsunderNAFTA.Onesuchamendmentconsistsofhaving
seperatedintotwoparagraphsthefivefairdealingpurposeswhichwereall
foundunderparagraph27(2)(a)priorto1994.Thenewlyamendedparagraphs
(a)and(a.1)readasfollows:
(2)Thefollowingactsdonotconstituteaninfringementof
copyright:
a)anyfairdealingwithanyworkforthepurposesofprivate
studyorresearch;
(a.1)anyfairdealingwithanyworkforthepurposesofcriticism,
reviewornewspapersummary,if
(i)thesource,and
(ii)theauthor’sname,ifgiveninthesource,arementioned;
Theobjectivebehindthesechangesappearstohavebeentheadditionof
conditionstothefairdealingdefensesrelatedonlytothepurposesofcriticism,
reviewandnewspapersummarywithouthavingthemapplytothepurposesof
privatestudyorresearch.Itisonlylogicalthattheadditionalrequirements
relatingtoacknowledgementonlybemadetoapplytothepurposeswhich,by
theirverynature,implyacommunicationofthereproducedexcerptstothe
public,whichisnot,assuch,thecasewithprivatestudyorresearch.
TheAct’snewacknowledgementrequirementssharecertainsimilaritiestothe
notionof”sufficientacknowledgement”foundintheU.K.Actanddefinedat
section178whichreadsasfollows:


178.InthisPart-
(…)
“Sufficientacknowledgement”meansanacknowledgement
identifyingtheworkinquestionbyitstitleorotherdescription,and
identifyingtheauthorunless-
(a)inthecaseofapublishedwork,itispublishedanonymously;
(b)inthecaseofanunpublishedwork,itisnotposibleforapersonto
ascertaintheidentityoftheauthorbyreasonableinquiry;

ThesuccessofthefairdealingdefensesofbothActsareconditionalonthe
existenceofasufficientdegreeofacknowledgement.Whatappearstobethe
distinguishingfactorbetweenthetwostatutesisthenatureofthe
acknowledgementeachrequires.WhiletheCanadianCopyrightActrequires
thatthe”source”andtheauthor’snamebeprovided,itsBritishcounterpart
requiresthatthe”work”beidentifiedandthattheauthor’snamebeprovided,
wherepracticable.
Whatremainstobeseenisthemannerinwhichthecourtsshallinterpretthe
term”source”,foundatparagraph27(2)(a.1)oftheAct..Accordingtothe
CanadianeditionoftheWebster’sEncyclopedicDictionary,source,inthis
context,isdefinedas”theplaceorthingfromwhich,orpersonbecauseof
whom,somethingbeginsorarises”.Ifthedealinginquestionpertainstoan
excerptfromalargerwork,itisevidentthatthewholeoftheworkconstitutes
the”source”.Butifthedefenseisalsoapplicabletoreproductionsofentire
works,asisthecaseaccordingtocertainauthors,thenthequestionastowhat
exactlyconstitutesthe”source”isunclear,forthesourceofaworkisnormallynot
theworkitself.Togivesuchasensetotheword”source”wouldbetodistortits
truemeaning.TheU.K.Act’sterminologyismoreaccomodatinginthisrespect
foritcanbeinterpretedclearlyineithersituation.Theworkwhichistobe
grantedacknowledgementwillalwaysbetheworkwhichistheobjectofthe
dealing,beittheentireworkorsimplyanexcerptfromthewhole.
Ontheotherhand,thepresenceoftheterm”source”inparagraph27(2)(a.1)of
theAct,anditsapparentincompatabilitywithfairdealinginrelationtoentire
works,canbeinterpretedineitheroftwoways:asanindicationthat
reproductionsofentireworksarenotmeanttobecoveredbythefairdealing
defenseorasasimpleoversightonthepartoftheparagraph’sdrafterswhodid
notenvisagesuchanimplication.Asdiscussedearlier,theprioristhatwhichis
moreconsistentwiththeZamacoisv.Douvilledecision
17,whichappearsto
reflectthepositionmostoftenadoptedbyCanadiancourts.Ifthedrafters
employedtheterm”source”inordertoprohibitfairdealingwithregardstoentire
works,thisprohibitionwouldonlybeapplicabletothepurposesfoundunder


17
.ibid.


paragraph27(2)(a.1),andtherebyimplyingthatsuchdealing,withregardsto
thepurposesenumeratedunderparagraph27(2)(a),ispermissable.
Paragraph27(2)(d)alsomakesreferencetotheacknowledgementof”the
sourcefromwhichpassagesaretaken”.Underthisparagraph,thereisno
obligtationtogivetheauthor’sname.However,itissuggestedthatafair
interpretationoftheword”source”inparagraph27(2)(d)shouldincludethe
nameoftheauthorandtitle,oranyotherusefuldescriptionofthework.
CONCLUSION
Therearethreeelementswhichmustbeshownbythedefendantinorderto
benefitfromthedefenseoffairdealingunderparagraph27(2)(a.1)andthey
arethefollowing:(i)thatthedealingisforthepurposeofeithercriticism,review
ornewspapersummary;(ii)thatthedealingis”fair”withregardstothepurpose
inquestion;and(iii)thattheappropriateacknowledgementsaremade.


ENDNOTES

1.Fox(HaroldGeorge),TheCanadianLawofCopyrightandIndustrial
Designs2nded.(Toronto,Carswell,1967),atp.3.
2.Sillitoev.McGraw-HillBookCompany(U.K.)Ltd.(1982),[1983]9F.S.R.545
(Ch.D.)DavisJ.,atp.558.
3.Côté(Pierre-André),TheInterpretationofLegislationinCanada,2nded.
(Cowansville,Blais,1992),atp.415-416.
4.Johnstonev.BernardJonesPublications,(1938),[1938]1Ch.599(Ch.D.)
MortonJ.,atp.603,andLandbroke(Football)Ltd.v.WilliamHill(Football)
Ltd.(1962),[1980]R.P.C.539,DenningJ.(C.A.).
5.Laddie,(Hugh)etal,TheModernLawofCopyright(London,Butterworths,
1980),atNo.2.110.
6.Ibid.
7.Phillips(Jeremy)etal,WhaleonCopyright4thed.(London,Sweet&
Maxwell,1993),atp.79.
8.NewEraPublicationsInternationalAPSv.Key-PorterBooksLtd.(1987),18
C.I.P.R.(3d)569(F.C.T.D.Interlocutory)CullenJ.,atp.568.
9.DeGarisv.Neville.JeffressPidlerPtyLtd.(1990),95A.L.R.625(F.C.Austr.)
BeaumontJ.,atp.628-629,630-631:
10.TheQueenv.JamesLorimer&Co.Ltd.,77C.P.R.(2d)262,at272.
11.Hubbardv.Vosper(1971),[1972]2W.L.R.389(C.A.)DenningJ.,atp.394.
12.Sillitoev.McGraw-HillBookCo.(U.K.)Ltd.,Opcit.No.40atp.559.
13.Drone,(EatonS.),ATreatyontheLawofPropertyinIntellectual
ProductionsinGreatBritainandtheUnitedStates(Boston,Little,Brown&
Co.1879)atp.388.
14.Zamacoisv.Douville(1943),[1944]Ex.C.R.208(Ex.C.C.)AngersJ.
15.WebsterDictionary,NewLexiconWebster’sEncyclopedicDictionaryofthe
EnglishLanguage:CanadianEdition(Lexicon,PublicationsInc.NewYork).


16.Seenote15.
17.Seenote14.





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