Intellectual Property Cases.docx

Intellectual Property 4/22/2013 7:12:00 PM Intellectual Property  Property law – the struggle over who gets what rights and who owns which things  Property – a relationship between people with respect to things  Economic arguments: o If we want people to create new things, we must give monetary incentive o The creator has the right to profit from his or her work because they were the one who created it  Terms: o Interlocutory injunction – a court order to compel or prevent a party from doing certain acts pending the final determination of the case o Permanent injunction – a final order of a court that a person or entity refrain from certain activities permanently or take certain actions (usually to correct a nuisance) until completed o Accounting remedy – a type of equitable remedy most commonly used in cases of breach of fiduciary duty  An action taken against a defendant to recover the profits taken as a result of the breach of duty Cases COPYRIGHT Delrina Corp. v. Triolet Systems Inc., Court of Appeal for Ontario – copyright for almost identical ideas  Facts: o The respondent was employed by the company to create the program Sysview to assess the efficiency of a computer  The program was made successfully o After leaving that company, they respondent began to design Assess, a program that was similar to Sysview in order to compete directly with Sysview’s customers  Court said the if an idea can be expressed in only one or in a very limited number of ways, then copyright of that expression will be refused because it would give the originator a virtual monopoly Gould Estate v. Stoddart Publishing Co., Court of Appeal for Ontario – using copyrighted images for later purposes  Facts: o Suing for breach of copyright – certain images were only to be used for certain purposes  Question was if there was an actual breach of copyright o Is one person allowed to gather information for one purpose and then use them later on for a different purpose? o Any potential limits  If someone gathers pictures/information for a specific purpose, then they are allowed to use the information/picture for that purpose o Court said that if there is no restriction, then the person who gathered the pictures can use them later because they had the rights in the first place Neudorf v. Nettwerk Productions Ltd. et al., Supreme Court of BC – drummer wanted his name on Sarah McLachlan’s creative work too  Facts: o Sarah McLachlan and her drummer collaborated on many works and both contributed their hard work o The drummer said that he wanted his name on those works  Courts said there needs to be original contribution, there has to be a significant contribution and there had to be shared mutual intent in sharing authorship o Said there was no intent in this matter Cselko Associates Inc. and Ernie Cselk v. Zellers Inc. and Display Industries of Canada (Eastern) Ltd., Ontario Court of Justice – the Zeddy bear  Facts: o Someone intents to paint a picture of the Zeddy bear for $16,000 o Zellers finds out that this Zeddy bear could be a goldmine o The artist tries to come back and say he wants more money after he sees the success of his artwork  Court said there were no original limitations or restrictions and that he traded his rights to the work for money so it belonged completely to Zellers PARODY Compagnie Generale des Establissements Michelin-Michelin & Cie. v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Federal Court – fair dealing issue with Michelin man  Facts: o Union for Michelin put up a poster with the Michelin man stomping on a worker – Michelin sued because they weren’t allowed to use their logo o Fair dealing – can be used as an exemption from copyright claims, must fall within one of the categories of criticism, review, private study or news reporting  Must still be used fairly/appropriately o Union said it was parody/satire and that it was criticism  Court said satire/parody was fair dealing in the US but not in Canada o Today, satire/parody are now fair dealing in Canada, however Michelin still would’ve won because fair dealing wasn’t used fairly/appropriately MORAL RIGHTS/ECONOMIC RIGHTS Theberge v. Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain Inc., SCC – reprinted work as copyright infringement on moral rights  Facts: o Moral rights – the rights of an offer not to be humiliated or embarrassed as well as having the right to having their name associated with their work  These rights cannot be transferred, they remain with the author o Author created a poster and transferred the rights to someone else  The author was offended by how the people who they gave the rights to reprinted their work on a canvas  Court said it was okay because there was no reproduction of the original work o They had the right to make copies onto paper so they had the rights to put it on canvas so they didn’t alter it in any way o Minority said that it was an infringement of moral rights Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. 348803 Alberta Ltd. et al., Federal Court of Canada – licenses for playing music in bars  Facts: o SOCAM – gives licenses to play music in a bar o This performer didn’t pay the license fees, so he can’t play other peoples’ work without paying  He ended up having to pay much more than the basic fees R. v. AFC Soccer, Provincial Court of Manitoba – selling copyrighted material without a license  Facts: o The company knowingly sold infringed copies of accessories and clothes from the Adidas, Umbro and Fubu  Courts recognized that fine had to take into account the scope of the activity as well as the profits that were made off of selling the copyrighted items without a license BREACH OF CONFIDENCE/TRADE SECRET Pastor v. Chen, Provincial Court of BC – confidential choreography  Facts: