Lakehead District School Board v. Mauro et al., 2024 ONSC 5174
2024-09-18
Read full decision. Summary prepared by Alan Macek:
The plaintiff School Board alleges that the defendant infringed its copyright by producing and selling clothing featuring the names, mascots, logos, and colour schemes of schools operated by the Board without authorization. The plaintiff moves for summary judgment ... In my view, the Board’s authority, as granted by the Education Act, to “perform all duties” conferred or imposed by the Act necessarily extends to corporate control and proprietary interest in artwork developed to identify schools – past and present – under its administration. On a balance of probabilities, I infer that the original creation of the artwork identifying the high schools was made in an employment context, under the authority of the Board. ... I find that copyright subsists with the Board, which has a moral and a statutory right extending to names, mascots, and logos for all of its current and former schools. ... The combined use of historic school colours, mascots, logos associated with the schools, and the school names or abbreviations, such as “FWCI” or “PACI”, was designed to identify these specific schools and evoke nostalgia in the Thunder Bay community, which was Ms. Mauro’s intended primary market. In a small city, such as Thunder Bay, the touchstones for these schools would immediately be understood, not only by the former students and staff at these high schools, but in the broader community. It is evident that Ms. Mauro did not seek permission from the Board prior to creating her high school nostalgia line of clothing and offering it for sale. In failing to do so, I find that Ms. Mauro infringed the Board’s copyright, as well as and the Board’s moral rights with respect to the integrity of its work identifying high schools that it had administered. ... In the face of a claim for disgorgement of profits, the onus of proof is on the defendant to prove her net profits. She has not done so. The plaintiff shall have judgment against the defendant for damages in the amount of $23,891.52.