The Federal Court of Appeal had the occasion to review the so-called non-use cancellation action under section 45 of the Trademark Act in the context of the acquisition of the trademarks by a new owner in the case Comité interprofessionnel du vin de champagne v. Coors Brewing Company^[1].

Section 45, and more specifically subsection 45(3), authorizes the Registrar of Trademarks, at the request of any person or on the Registrar’s own initiative, and following a proceeding initiated by a notice to the registered owner under subsection 45(1), to expunge from the Register of Trademarks the registration of . . . [more]

The Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) took action^[1] to establish a framework to limit botnet traffic before they reach consumers’ devices.

The CRTC plays a limited role in regulating telecommunications service providers (TSPs) under the Telecommunications Act and protects Canadians from online harms under the Canadian Anti-Spam Legislation (CASL).

Botnets are networks of computers, cellular phones, and other devices that have been infected with malware, allowing third parties to control the devices without the knowledge or consent of the owners.

After consulting with various organizations, the CRTC gathered input on blocking techniques and which activities to block to establish . . . [more]

It is rare that a term of imprisonment is given for breach of a Court Order, such as an injunction. The Federal Court issued an Anton Pillar order in a case of copyright infringement involving a pirate IPTV streaming service. After the persistent refusal of the defendant to comply, the Court was forced to consider a term of imprisonment as an inducement to seek compliance with its orders.

Since such enforcement action is fairly rare in copyright infringement cases, the Court reviewed the options for enforcing contempt of Court in Bell Media Inc. v. Marshall Macciacchera (Smoothstreams.tv), 2025 FC . . . [more]

The Copyright Act imposes liability for circumvention of technical protection measures (TPMs). Technical protection measures are defined in Section 41 of the Copyright Act as any effective technology, device or component that (a) controls access to a work; or (b) restricts the exercise of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner, such as reproducing or publishing the work. A person circumventing a TPM can be found liable, regardless of whether the circumvention is for an infringing or non-infringing purpose.

The liability for unauthorized access or circumvention of a TPM may be substantial. The Federal Court awarded over $ 12 million . . . [more]

The Canadian Patent Office has a procedure for the “re-examination” of a granted patent. However, this procedure is rarely used in Canada for several reasons. Less than half a dozen re-examinations are filed each year.

Anyone, including the owner of the patent may request re-examination on the basis of prior art, namely patents, patent applications and printed publications (see s. 48.1 of the Patent Act). The patent office forms a panel that determines whether the request raises “a substantial new question of patentability”.

If so, the patentee is notified and the patentee can respond to the request, including providing . . . [more]

The number one issue facing scholarly publishing today is research integrity. The crisis is associated with paper mills selling authorships to fabricated papers; reviewer cabals colluding with special issue guest editors; predatory journals, sans reviewers and editors, acting as auto-publish clubs; and papers rife with image and data manipulation. In response, publishers and editors are scrambling to retract thousands of corrupted papers, close complicit journals, and cease special issues. The publish-or-perish culture, often backed by cash incentives (now banned in China), can be blamed, as can publishers pushing papers through to capture open access fees. It all reflects how, in . . . [more]

Can the Alberta Privacy and Information Commissioner limit a foreign corporation from collecting images of Albertans for use in facial recognition software? That was the issue that came to the Court of Kings Bench of Alberta on the application by Clearview AI Inc. (“Clearview”) for judicial review of the decision of the Alberta Privacy and Information Commissioner.

Clearview obtains images of Albertans and Canadians by scraping publicly available data from web pages and social media sites on the internet. The privacy commissions of Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec, and Canada investigated Clearview’s practice of scraping images from the internet. A joint . . . [more]

Claims for infringement of a patent have an unusual place when it comes to limitation periods. A recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal has provided some clarity to this issue but there is still uncertainty as to limitation periods for infringement claims.

Most provinces have legislation that impose a limitation period on claims. For example, in Ontario, the Limitations Act provides that, “a proceeding shall not be commenced in respect of a claim after the second anniversary of the day on which the claim was discovered.” Similarly, in Alberta, “if a claimant does not seek a remedial . . . [more]

This is a case of not closing the barn door after the horse is out, to use a pre-twentieth-century expression for a twenty-first-century issue. But, more precisely, I want to argue for propping the barn door open to enable the rest of the horses to run free after a good number have been questionably sold off.

Let me explain. Think of those sold-off horses as the research studies that at least three major research publishers – Taylor & Francis, Wiley, and Oxford University Press with more deals pending – have rented out to AI giants, such as Microsoft, for the . . . [more]

In file 9110-2023-0067 the CRTC reports on enforcement action taken against the Hudson’s Bay Company for allegedly violating Section 6(2)(c) and Sections 11(1) and 11(3) of CASL Canada’s Anti Spam Law.

Since CASL came into force in 2014 a large portion of enforcement action has been taken on the need to include in commercial electronic messages (CEMs) an unsubscribe mechanism that could be readily performed.

The investigation led to an allegation that the Hudson’s Bay Company sent CEMs between January 1, 2022, and November 30, 2023, without including an unsubscribe mechanism that could be readily performed.

The Hudson’s Bay Company . . . [more]

Section 73(3)(b) of the Patent Act permits the Commissioner of Patents to reinstate a patent that is deemed to be abandoned if he receives a proper application on time and if “the Commissioner determines that the failure occurred in spite of the due care required by the circumstances having been taken and informs the applicant of this determination.”

The Manual of Patent Office Practice sets out the due care standard.^[1] This standard was introduced by the Patent Law Treaty, which Canada adhered to and implemented with amendments to the Patent Act and Patent Rules on October 31, 2019.

The . . . [more]

The Federal Court of Appeal took the occasion of an appeal of the order of the Patented Medicines Prices Review Board (the “Board”) that required a patentee to share reports on medicines that were no longer under patent, to reaffirm the jurisdiction of the Board.

Courts have consistently held that the Board’s jurisdiction is limited to patented medicines and does not extend to medicines for which the patent has expired.^[1]

The Board ordered Galderma Canada Inc. (“Galderma”) to provide reports on sales for six years after the patent had expired.

Galderma had provided the reports while the medicine was . . . [more]