Costs

The Federal Court has published for consultation in the Canada Gazette, proposed amendments to the Federal Courts Rules relating to the costs regime. The proposed changes include: i) separate sections for actions, applications, motion and appeals; ii) only three columns (instead of five currently); iii) additional assessable items; and iv) an overall increase of about 25% to costs awarded under the tariff. The changes also include replacing “Prothonotary” with “Associate Judge” in the Rules. Continue reading Costs

Trademarks

One new and one amended trademark practice notice were published today. A new notice clarifies the practice before CIPO as an Office of Origin when the Registrar of Trademarks is unable to certify an application for international registration (AIR) under the Madrid Protocol or one is withdrawn. An updated notice is directed to exclusionary wording in statements of goods or services.

Continue reading Trademarks

US Supreme Court

Earlier today, the US Supreme Court agreed to take up Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC on “whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims”. The defendant sells a “Bad Spaniels” squeaky dog toy.

Supreme Court

Today, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Nova Chemicals Corp. v. Dow Chemical Co., 2022 SCC 43 regarding the quantification of an accounting of profits as a result of patent infringement. The majority dismissed the appeal with a focus on the ‘non-infringing option’: “a non-infringing option helps courts isolate the profits causally attributable to the invention from the profits which arose at the same time the infringing product was used or sold, but which are not causally attributable to the invention.” The majority also upheld springboard profits, saying, “a portion of such post-expiry profits may be causally attributable to infringement of the invention.” Continue reading Supreme Court

Canadian Intellectual Property