Tag Archives: Supreme Court of Canada

“Making Available”– The Supreme Court Rules That There Is Only One Royalty Fee To Be Paid

picture of the the entrance of the Supreme Court of Canada, or Cour Supreme du Canada, in Ottawa. The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada

Fasken successfully represented several of the respondents before the Supreme Court of Canada in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Entertainment Software Association, 2022 SCC 30. In its recent decision, the Supreme Court conclusively rejected attempts by SOCAN to “double dip” on copyright royalties via the making available of copyrighted works and in the process helped clarify a number of important legal issues. Some of these issues are unique to copyright law, while others have broader relevance, including issues related to determining the standard of review post-Vavilov and how treaties should be used to interpret statutes.

Continue reading »

Trademark Year in Review: Notable Trademark Decisions in 2021

(French version available at bottom of article)

The past year has brought forward several important decisions in Canada trademark law. From depreciation of goodwill claims, objections founded on bad faith and lack of distinctiveness, several cases have highlighted certain challenges that trademark owners may face in enforcing their rights.

Continue reading »

Cease and Desist Letters: Use with Care

Cease and desist letters are an important part of a lawyer’s tool kit: they notify the recipient of a claim, and ideally lead to the client resolving an issue without litigation. However, receiving such a letter can be unpleasant. They may even seem excessive, as if they were intended to achieve the maximum possible threatening effect. In Fluid Energy Group Ltd. v. Exaltexx Inc. (“Fluid v. Exaltexx”), Justice McHaffie of the Federal Court found that that indeed appeared to be the intention of Fluid’s letters, taking the unusual step of issuing an injunction ordering Fluid not to communicate with Exaltexx’s suppliers with respect to such suppliers’ alleged infringement of Fluid’s patents.

Where is the line between an appropriate cease and desist letter and one worthy of an injunction? In the case of letters alleging patent infringement, strangely enough, the answer may lie in section 7(a) the Trademarks Act, which was the basis for Exaltexx’s motion for the interlocutory injunction. That section reads: “No person shall … make a false or misleading statement tending to discredit the business, goods or services of a competitor…” This provision, however, must be read down so as to include only statements relating to the competitor’s intellectual property.

Continue reading »