|
March 22, 2016
Fully Autonomous Artificial Super-intelligence. Is it a Threat to the Human Race or a Blessing? How Can it be Controlled?
A Nathanson Centre guest lecture featuring Jean-Gabriel Castel. Click for details.
March 22, 2016
Cutting Edge Developments – U.S. Copyright Law
ALAI Canada event featuring Prof. David Nimmer. Click for details.
March 22-23, 2016
Intellectual Property Rights and Innovation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution
Organized by the International Law Research Program (ILRP) of the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI). Click for details.
April 6-8, 2015
31st Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference
American Bar Association – Section of Intellectual Property Law event. Click for details.
April 14 &15, 2016
Software IP – IP Protections for Computer Programs: Past, Present and Future
20th Annual Berkeley Centre for Law & Technology and the Berkeley Technology Law Journal Symposium. Click for details.
| |
| Gowling WLG Best Blog in IP Law & Technology Prize
DEADLINE: April 8, 2016
Award for best blog and comment by an Osgoode students. Click for details. July 1, 2016
Canada’s IP Writing Challenge 2016
The Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC) and IP Osgoode invite submissions from law students, graduate students, and professionals. Click for details.
| |
|
On March 16, WIPO issued a press release highlighting what has been a strong year for worldwide intellectual property filing growth. The release accented two key features of the past year: [1] the United States' extension of "its long-standing position as the top source of international patent applications via WIPO"; and, [2] Samsung Electronics, with 1,132 designs, displaced Swatch AG (511 designs) as the leading depositor of the Hague System's international industrial design applications.
| |
|
| The IPIGRAM (22 March 2016)
Feature Posts
| |
|
Tariffbusters: Does the CBC v SODRAC decision debunk the “Mandatory Tariff Theory
Introduction to the panel
After two exciting and lively debates on the principle of technological neutrality (see Sebastian Beck-Watt’s coverage here) and reproduction rights (see Paul Blizzard’s coverage here), IP Osgoode’s Unpack SODRAC symposium turned to a new panel to ‘unpack’ the paragraphs of CBC v SODRAC [SODRAC] concerning the mandatory (or not) nature of tariffs set by the Copyright Board.
| |
|
Shifting technological neutrality into reverse: UNPACK SODRAC
Should all copies be treated the same way for the purposes of Copyright? If the CBC’s internal content management system creates incidental copies of audio works during the creation or broadcast of a television program or movie, does it enage the owner’s Copyright under s 3(1)(d) of the Copyright Act [the “Act”]? What incentives do Canada’s Copyright regime create for new technologies?
| | | |
| | | A Copy is a Copy is a Copy: Reproduction Rights In CBC v SODRAC
| | |
| RECENT POSTS
What Would You Do For a KitKat Bar?
Is there any chocolate bar more recognizable than the KitKat? Maybe, but that does not make it special according to the recent decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in Société des Produits Nestlé SA v Cadbury UK Ltd [Nestlé]. Nestlé has produced the KitKat chocolate bar for over 80 years. In 2010, the company filed an application to register the 3-D shape as a trademark. The Trade Marks Registry of the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”) initially registered the mark. Cadbury filed an objection to that application. In June 2013, the examiner of the UKIPO found the shape of the proposed trademark devoid of inherent distinctive character and that it had not acquired that character from the use that had been made out of it.
| |
|
