B – Les droits intellectuels dans l’ordre normatif
Pour les civilistes surtout, la classification des droits intellectuels est particulièrement problématique. Droits réels? Droits personnels? Nombreux sont les auteurs qui en appellent à une catégorie de droits totalement nouvelle. Pour tous, il devient évident que la propriété intellectuelle doit avoir ses propres règles. Car elle est une propriété bien singulière, sujette à la législation nationale, limitée dans le temps, étroitement liée aux évolutions technologiques et à la réglementation internationale. Sa place dans l’ordre juridique canadien n’est pas non plus évidente, de quelle tradition relève-t’elle? Le droit civil est-il encore d’application?
|
USA :
“The United States Congress is empowered “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”. - United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
“The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has solemnly adjudged in Great Britain to be a right at Common Law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals.” James Madison, “Federalist 43”
|
Canada:
91. …the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say:
22. Patents of Invention and Discovery.
23. Copyrights.
- The Constitution Act
| 1 - L’internationalisation de la propriété intellectuelle
De nombreux traités encadrent la propriété intellectuelle. Leur ratification par le Canada a amené un certain nombre d’amendements dans les disciplines concernées. Nous présenterons brièvement les instruments internationaux pertinents et certains principes qu’ils ont amenés avec eux dans l’ordre interne.
|
Objectif : situer les droits de propriété intellectuelle dans l’ordre normatif global
Blakeney, “International intellectual property jurisprudence after TRIPs” |
A. Int'l law and IP rights
IP rights exists as nationally enforceable property rights, but some of these rights are int'l in their origin. Condition of admission into WTO.
1. Legal sources
Statute ICJ A 38
(a) Treaty law.
(b) Customary law - area has developed very fast, makes it hard for custom to develop and take hold.
(c) Precedents - also not too important
(d) Legal writings - CML courts more amenable to doctrinal writing.
(e) General principles – second most important source. Integrated into TRIPs (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Proprty Rights: WTO) , e.g. provisions on fair and equitable enforcement of rights.
2. Int'l Orgs
Proliferation globally and regionally. Sometimes IO’s appear to conflict, UNDP says TRIPs might violate two Int'l Covs.
3. Interpretation of agreements
Treaty of Vienna. Context matters; subsequent agreements, practices, other rules of law
US-India pharma patent protection: dispute over meaning of required means to file new inventions for patents. India needed to establish a temporary mechanism to protect.
US-Canada: Cda's 17 year protection for patents granted prior to 1989 called into quesiton.
|
Thèmes principaux a - le principe du traitement national et les questions de droit international privé
Turner Entertainment Co. v. Huston (1994) |
Jurisdiction
|
Court of Appeal (France)
|
Facts
|
French channel, La Cinq, wants to broadcast colorized version of black and white American movie. Movie is owned by Turner Entertainment which had it colorized. Movie director’s heirs object to the broadcast.
|
Issues
|
Can heirs of movie's creator prevent broadcast?
|
Holding
|
Yes.
|
Reasoning
|
Appication immédiate du dt FR qui protège les droits moraux des créateurs. Cette reconnaissance des droits ne permet pas aux propriétaires des droits économiques de modifier l'oeuvre original. Toute violation des droits moraux est reparable par l'auteur de préjudice, et ce même aux héritiers du créateur en virtu d'une provision spécifique du droit français qui sont applicable même aux oeuvres créées ou conçus à l'extérieur de la France mais encore dans un autre pays-membre de l'Union de Berne.
Very important that CoL was decided in favour of French law, probably by une loi de police.
Successors of an American who created a black and white film can prevent the owner of the film from colorizing it as attempts to do so violate the author’s moral rights and incur the civil liability of the owner.
Rights conferred by French law extend to those who create works abroad if those countries are signatories of the Berne Convention. (In this case, the principle significantly increases the level of protection accorded to the creator's estate).
Moral rights are non-transferable, so there is no commercial way out of this. Nor are they prescriptable.
| b - la priorité en droit des marques
Loi sur les marques de commerce, art.34.1 / Trade-marks Act
|
Date of application abroad deemed date of application in Canada
34. (1) When an application for the registration of a trade-mark has been made in or for any country of the Union other than Canada and an application is subsequently made in Canada for the registration for use in association with the same kind of wares or services of the same or substantially the same trade-mark by the same applicant or the applicant’s successor in title, the date of filing of the application in or for the other country is deemed to be the date of filing of the application in Canada, and the applicant is entitled to priority in Canada accordingly notwithstanding any intervening use in Canada or making known in Canada or any intervening application or registration if:
(a) the application in Canada, including or accompanied by a declaration setting out the date on which and the country of the Union in or for which the earliest application was filed for the registration of the same or substantially the same trade-mark for use in association with the same kind of wares or services, is filed within a period of six months after that date, which period shall not be extended;
(b) the applicant or, if the applicant is a transferee, the applicant’s predecessor in title by whom any earlier application was filed in or for any country of the Union was at the date of the application a citizen or national of or domiciled in that country or had therein a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment; and
(c) the applicant furnishes, in accordance with any request under subsections (2) and (3), evidence necessary to establish fully the applicant’s right to priority.
(2) The Registrar may request the evidence before the day on which the application is allowed pursuant to section 39.
How and when evidence must be furnished
(3) The Registrar may specify in the request the manner in which the evidence must be furnished and the period within which it must be furnished.
“country of the Union” means
(a) any country that is a member of the Union for the Protection of Industrial Property constituted under the Convention, or
(b) any WTO Member
| c - l’influence du droit international dans la jurisprudence en propriété intellectuelle BMG Canada Inc et al v John Doe |
Jurisdiction
|
Federal Court
|
Facts
|
Motion brought by recording companies for disclosure of identities of certain users by their internet service providers. Recording companies allege that certain individuals have downloaded more than 1000 songs over which they have c/r, and want to identify them to seek recourse against them.
|
Issues
|
What legal test should the Court appyl?
Have the plaintiffs met this test?
If an order is issued, what should be the scope and terms of the order?
|
Holding
|
The legal test is based on 5 criteria discussed below, and the plaintiffs have failed to meet the test. No order is issued.
|
Reasoning
|
What legal test?
Based on the idea that parties who become mixed up in the tortious acts of others have a duty to assist the party wronged by the tort by giving him information and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers.
Involves considerations of public policy, which may support non-disclosure.
The test for granting equitable bill of discovery has the following criteria:
the applicant must establish a prima facie case against the defendant;
the person from whom discovery is sought must be more than a mere bystander;
the person from whom discovery is sought must be the only practical source of the information desired;
the person from whom discovery is sought must be reasonably compensated for the expenses of providing the information in addition to his legal costs, and
public interests in favour of disclosure must outweigh any legitimate privacy concerns.
Have the plaintiffs met this test?
The prima facie case faces three deficiencies:
their affidavits are based largely on hearsay
there is no evidence to connect pseudonyms of users to IP addresses that the ISPs could provide.
There is no evidence of c/r infringement and only evidence of: installing download/upload software; copying music files to shared directories; using peer-to-peer applications; and making files available for downloading (does not demonstrate reproduction of recordings, authorization of their reproduction, distribution of unauthorized copies, or possession of unauthorized copies). Placing personal copies in shared directories is not the same thing as distributing copies.
CCH is the precedent for authorization: no difference between having books and a photocopier in proximity and making a personal copy of a work available online: a person does not authorize c/r infringement merely by authorizing the use of equipment which could be used to infringe
More than a mere bystander?
ISPs are not mere bystanders. They provide a service essential to the activity in question.
Are ISPs the only practical source of information?
The Court does not have enough evidence to be able to say.
What compensation would ISPs require if they had to provide the information sought?
It is difficult for ISPs to associate the name and address of an account holder with an IP address. It involves significant cross checking of databases and would be costly.
Does the public interest in disclosure outweigh legitimate privacy concerns?
It is agreed that users would normally expect that their IP address will not be disclosed.
C/r holders are entitled to enforce their rights but in this case the Court is not confident that forcing disclosure would produce reliable information.
|
Les droits spéciaux n’évacuent pas complètement le droit commun qui demeure pertinent dans certains domaines directement liés à la propriété intellectuelle.
|
Share with your friends: |
