Objectif : être capable de comprendre l’interpénétration des droits spéciaux et du droit commun
a - le droit des contrats
Loi sur les droits d'auteur art. 13 / Copyright Act
Ownership of Copyright
Ownership of copyright
13. (1) Subject to this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.
Engraving, photograph or portrait
(2) Where, in the case of an engraving, photograph or portrait, the plate or other original was ordered by some other person and was made for valuable consideration, and the consideration was paid, in pursuance of that order, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the person by whom the plate or other original was ordered shall be the first owner of the copyright.
Work made in the course of employment
(3) Where the author of a work was in the employment of some other person under a contract of service or apprenticeship and the work was made in the course of his employment by that person, the person by whom the author was employed shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright, but where the work is an article or other contribution to a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, there shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be deemed to be reserved to the author a right to restrain the publication of the work, otherwise than as part of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical.
Assignments and licences
(4) The owner of the copyright in any work may assign the right, either wholly or partially, and either generally or subject to limitations relating to territory, medium or sector of the market or other limitations relating to the scope of the assignment, and either for the whole term of the copyright or for any other part thereof, and may grant any interest in the right by licence, but no assignment or grant is valid unless it is in writing signed by the owner of the right in respect of which the assignment or grant is made, or by the owner’s duly authorized agent.
(5) Where, under any partial assignment of copyright, the assignee becomes entitled to any right comprised in copyright, the assignee, with respect to the rights so assigned, and the assignor, with respect to the rights not assigned, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as the owner of the copyright, and this Act has effect accordingly.
Assignment of right of action
(6) For greater certainty, it is deemed always to have been the law that a right of action for infringement of copyright may be assigned in association with the assignment of the copyright or the grant of an interest in the copyright by licence.
Exclusive licence
(7) For greater certainty, it is deemed always to have been the law that a grant of an exclusive licence in a copyright constitutes the grant of an interest in the copyright by licence.
D, L and C collaborate on children’s books. L was manager and majority shareholder in C. D drew, L wrote text for books. Between 1989 and 1995, D/L and C enter into contracts re publication of illustrations of Caillou character. D=author and L=publisher. In 1993, parties sign contract licensing use of Caillou. D and L assign certain reproduction rights to C with no stipulation of term. D and L waive moral rights. Authorize C to grant sub-licences to third parties without their approval. In 1996: difficulties interpreting and applying licence contract. C brings motion to secure its reproduction rights. D brings motion seeking to have the parties referred to arbitration (s. 37 of the Act respecting the professional status of artists in the visual arts, arts and crafts and literature, and their contracts with promoters). Arbitrator decides his mandate includes interpreting all the contracts. Says Caillou was work of joint authorship by D and L. With respect to license, concluded that C held the reproduction rights and was alone authorized to use Caillou in any form and on any medium.
Issues
(1) what were the limits of the arbritator's competence?
(2)(a) can copyright disputes be decided by an arbitrator? (b) what measure of judicial control is there for an arbitrator's decision in this field?
Holding
Arbitrator acted correctly and his disposition stands.
Reasoning
Purely textual analysis of communications between parties not sufficient to determine copyright and its ownership, as well as arbitrator's mandate which includes everything that is closely connected with that communication. S. 37 of Copyright Act does not prevent an arbitrator from ruling on the question of copyright. Has two objectives:
to affirm jurisdiction that provincial courts have in respect of private law matters concerning copyright
to avoid fragmentation of trials concerning copyright that might result from division of jurisdiction between federal and provincial courts in this field.
An error in interpreting mandatory statutory provision not a basis for annulling award as violation of public order, unless outcome of arbitration in conflict with fundamental principles of public order.
S. 37 of Act respecting the professional status of artists in the visual arts, arts and crafts and literature, and their contracts with promoters recognizes legitimacy of transactions involving copyright, and validity of using arbitration to resolve disputes arising re such transactions.
Court of Appeal erred that decision re copyright may be set up against entire world (and that its effects on third parties bar arbitration). Arbitrator ruled as to ownership of copyright to decide as to rights and obligations of parties to contract. Arbitral decision is authority between parties, not binding on third parties.
Parliament declared that moral rights may not be assigned, but waiver still permitted
Quebec legislation recognizes legitimacy of transactions involving copyright, and the validity of using arbitration to resolve related disputes: s. 37 of the Act respecting the professional status of artists, legislature has expressly provided that in the absence of an express renunciation, every dispute between an artist and a promoter shall be submitted to an arbitrator. Contracts between artists and promoters contain stipulations relating to copyright.
c - la responsabilité délictuelle et la propriété intellectuelle
Groupe Pages jaunes Cie c. 4143868 Canada inc., 2011 QCCA 960 (CanLII)
Jurisdiction
QCCA
Facts
Cartotek makes a jacket for the Yellow Pages. They sell advertisements on the jacket (brilliant!).
Issues
Is parasitic competition caught under CCQ 1457?
Holding
Yes. Parasites!
Reasoning
Baudouin: “Il m'apparaît rassurant que les bonne vielles règles civilisites de la responsabilité civile sont suffisament souples et adaptables pout régler avec efficacité le contentieux du parasitisme, sans qu'il soit besoin de créer marginalement un régime juridique spéciaux.”
- C usurping the work and product of YP to make a profit - abuses YP's rights. Ordered to stop and pay damages.
3 – Les limites du monopole et le droit de la concurrence
« Pourtant, force est de constater que le monopole des briques est terminé et que les enfants canadiens peuvent posséder dans leurs coffres à jouets des MEGA BLOKS et des briques LEGO qu'ils utilisent indistinctement pour construire dragons, châteaux ou chevaliers […] L'appelante n'a plus droit à la protection de son produit contre la concurrence. Elle doit désormais affronter les rigueurs du marché libre et de son processus de destruction créatrice. »
Objectif : comprendre la tension qui existe entre les objectifs de la loi sur la concurrence et les micro-monopoles des droits intellectuels
a - « plus qu’un exercise simple »
Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc. (F.C.A.), 2005 FCA 361, [2006] 2 F.C.R. 478
Jurisdiction
FCA
Facts
EL has portfolio of 8 patents. 4 were assigned to EL by Shionogi (S). EL then granted S a non-exclusive license of the patents assigned. A says that this decreases competition
Issues
(1) can assignment unduly lessen competition by virtue of assignee's ownership of related patents?
(2) did assignment by S to EL lessen competition?
Holding
Yes sir. On both accounts.
Reasoning
(1) Assignment as lessening of competition
Claim here is that assignment allowed EL to control all commercially viable processes for making patented antibiotic.
S. 45 Competition Act and s. 50 Patent Act must be read harmoniously. s. 50 does not immunize parties from s. 45.
“The monopoly granted to the patentee is the recompense for ingenuity and the public disclosure of invention.” This is the reason why it makes a difference that the patents were assigned.
This reading is also consistent with the Competition Bureau's Guidelines, which distinguish between harm stemming from mere exercise of patent and some other arrangement.
(2) Was competition lessened? There is evidence to show this.
Patent Act s. 50(1):
Every patent issued for an invention is assignable in law, either as to the whole interest or as to any part thereof by an instrument in writing.
Competition Act s. 45(1):
Everyone who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with another person ...
(d) to otherwise restrain or injure competition unduly… is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine not exceeding 10 million dollars, or both.
b - l’abus de droit – misuse
Assessment Technologies Of Wi, Llc, V. Wire Data, Inc.,
AT says WD infringed its c/r over database it created. WD only wants data from database. AT has no c/r over data itself. Data normally available to the public according to WI law. AT's software (Market Drive) compiles data entered by municipal tax assessors. When WD requests data from municipalities, some refuse - they are AT's licensees.
Issues
Can holder of c/r block access to data that is not copyrighted, not copyrightable, and not created or obtained by the copy right holder?
Holding
No way.
Reasoning
Market Drive is original enough to be copyrighted. WD wants raw data entered into it. Data is separate logically from the program/software.
AT couldn't protect this data even if it could not be extracted without making a copy of the program. Intermediate copying, i.e., for the purposes of reverse engineering, is fair use (purpose would be to extract non-copyrighted material, not to compete against CR'd program). To try to prevent this is c/r misuse.
AT has no ownership or other legal interest in the data. Its licenses for the software are irrelevant.
Misuse: prevents c/r holders from leveraging their limited monopoly to control areas outside of the monopoly. It is abuse of process to use infringement suit to obtain property protection that the law does not normally confer.
Euro‑Excellence Inc. c. Kraft Canada Inc., [2007] 3 R.C.S. 21
Jurisdiction
SCC
Facts
EE imports and sells Toblerone and Cote d'Or chocolate. Kraft Canada is supposed to be the exclusive distributor of KFS and KFB, the two European entities who make these products. To allow Kraft to bring an action, KFS and KFB obtain c/r in the Kraft logo and license it to Kraft Canada. Kraft wants to prevent parallel importation of products bearing Kraft’s logos.
Issues
Can s. 27(2) of the Copyright Act, prohibiting parallel importation of copyrighted works, be used by KCI to prevent EE from importing chocolate bars on the basis that the logos on the bars are copyrighted?
Holding
No. That would be crazy.
Reasoning
Rothstein+3(Departures from Bastarache):
Bad Bastarache: going beyond what is authorized by the law when drawing distinction between c/r and its acessory elements; creates equitable doctrine of “legitimate economic interest”
Departure from settled principles of interpretation and law. Contrary to legislative intent. Remedies provided by Copyright Act are exhaustive.
Poor use of Kirkbi: cannot be basis of doctrine for abuse of rights or copyright misuse. In Kirkbi, SCC said TM’s can't be used to address issues meant to be captured by patents.
S. 63(4)(b) of C/R Act says TM and C/R can co-exist.
TM = dos not attempt to prevent competitive usage of a product but rather to distinguish it as to its source.
Agrees logos are covered by c/r.
Purposive interpretation of C/R Act:
Kraft has to show that EE imported works which would have constituted a violation of copyright if they had been produced in Canada by the persons who produced them (s. 27(2)(e)). In this case, that would mean that the licensee (Kraft Canada) would have recourse against the licensor (KFS and LFB) - KFS and LFB cannot violate their own copyrights.
The objective of 27(2)(e) is to prevent foreign holders of c/r from making a product abroad, covering it with c/r, and then selling it at low cost in Canada. This would negate the value of a c/r issued in Canada.
Fish:
Agrees with Rothstein but doubts whether C/R Act can be transformed into law regulating IP for the purpose of controlling trade. Bastarache+2: Can a bar of chocolate be the object of a copyright by virtue of protected works on its packaging?
Purpose of C/R Act
Theberge: promotion de la création et de la diffusion des oeuves artistiques et obtention d'une juste recompense pour le créateur. On doit maintenir une équilibre entre ces valeurs et ne reconnaît que «les intérêts économiques légitimes»
Pour avoir une oeuvre, il faut exister l'exercice du talent et du jugement d'un créateur.
Kirkbi: il y a des distinctions fondamentales entre des diverses formes de propriété intellectuelle et leurs fonctions économiques et politiques. Donc: DDA protège les gains économiques résultant de l'exercice du talent et du jugement. TM protège les parts de marché et biens commerciaux.
Protection offert par le DDA peut uniquement s'appliquer aux intérêts économiques qui ne sont pas liés accessoirement à l'oeuvre protégé par le DDA.
Objet de la legislation:
Protection pour les intérêts économiques légitimes qui résulte du talent et jugement. Il faut séparé le DDA d'un bien qui porte une oeuvre protégée. Les gains qui viennent de la vente du bien sont à ne pas confondre avec les intérêts économiques légitimes du titulaire de DDA.
- oeuvre peut être accessoire à un bien en commerce
- cf marques de commerce qui servent à distinguer les produits
Interprétation de la législation:
S. 27(e): forbids importing into Canada any copy of a work the production of which would constitute a violation of copyright if the copy had been produced in Canada by the person who produced it and if it had been imported into Canada under one of the acts targetted by 27(2)(a-c)
Protection accordé est limité à l'auteur en tant que l'auteur. L'espècese distingue des cas où l'oeuvre elle-même est mise en circulation.
Le test: Si un consomateur raisonnable qui effectue une opération commerciale ne croit pas que c'est l'oeuvre protégée par le droit d'auteur qu'il achète ou utilise, il est probable que l'oeuvre est simplement un élément accessoire du bien de consommation visé par l'opération.
Autres:
Pas nécessaire de décided sur l'abus de droits.
Application:
Oeuvres sont simples éléments accessoires des tablettes de chocolat. Oeuvre n'est pas important pour l'action que fait le consommateur. Oeuvre ne sert qu'à identigier la provenance de produit.
Abella+1: Est-ce que le titulaire d'une licence exclusive sur un droit d'auteur peut exercer les recours prévus par la Loi sur le DDA lorsuqe l'oeuvre protégée par le DDA figure sur l'étiquette d'un produit importé dans les circonstances envisagées au par 27(2)(e)?Oui.
Il n'y a aucune différence entre vendue et mise en circulation. Le terme vente doit être interprété dans une sens large.
Établir une exception pour des logos pour le motif qu'ils sont accessores va créer l'incertitude
This is a very statutory part of the law and protections offered by the legislature cannot be decreased by the courts. SCC has recognized that principles outside of the legislative texts, notably in civil liability, don't apply.
Licence confère droit même contre titulaire: language of Act is clear - allows licensees to exclude even holders of copyrights in s. 2.7, for example. Licenses allow for total or partial cession of rights, see s. 13(7) para 115.
S. 27(2) C/R Act
It is an infringement of copyright for any person to
(a) sell or rent out,
(b) distribute to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
(d) possess for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c), or
(e) import into Canada for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c),
a copy of a work, sound recording or fixation of a performer’s performance or of a communication signal that the person knows or should have known infringes copyright or would infringe copyright if it had been made in Canada by the person who made it.
Access International Automotive v. Volkswagen(2001 FCA)
Jurisdiction
FCA
Facts
VW Canada est le seule entité autorisée par VW AG à importer des voitures VW et Audi, pièces authentiques et accessoires. Access International importe des produits authentiques avec le logo VW et Audi, mais qui provenait d’une autre source que VW Canada – donc en dehors des réseaux de distribution autorisés (grey market distribution). VW AG (premier titulaire du logo VW) transfert à VW Canada ce titre déclenche un argument de violation du droit d’auteur dans les logos – demande d’injonction permanente.
Issues
Holding
Access International ne peut pas utiliser s. 32 du Competition Act pour se défendre
Access International peut faire un argument de « unclean hands » pour sa défence basé sur s. 32
Reasoning
Pas de remède prévu pour un counterclaim (rétorsion) dans la Loi, cependant cela ne veut pas dire qu’il n’y a pas de défense équitable : le comportement d’un titulaire de DA dans s. 32(1) peut éventuellement donner lieu à une base de défense AI ne peut pas utiliser s. 32 comme une épée, mais peut peut-être l’utiliser comme un bouclier.
S. 32 Competition Act (1) In any case where use has been made of the exclusive rights and privileges conferred by one or more patents for invention, by one or more trade-marks, (or) by a copyright ... so as to ...
(d) prevent or lessen, unduly, competition in the production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation or supply of any such article or commodity...
(2) The Federal Court, on an information exhibited by the Attorney General of Canada, may, for the purpose of preventing any use in the manner defined in subsection (1) of the exlusive rights and privileges... make one or more of the following orders
(b) restraining any persons from carrying out or exercising any or all of the terms or provisions of the agreeement, arrangement or licence...
4 – La délocalisation de la propriété intellectuelle
a - Les secrets commerciaux (art. 1612 C.c.Q, 1472 C.c.Q.) , l’information confidentielle
Tri-tex Co. inc. v. Ghaly, 1999 CanLII 13314 (QC CA)
Jurisdiction
QCCA
Facts
T alleges that G breached its copyright in a chemical formula. Also claims secret information obtained via ex employee. Alleges ownership of chemical formulae and confidential information. Got seizure before judgment. Seizure was partially quashed. Appeal to have it not quashed and cross-appeal to have the whole thing quashed.
Issues
1. Are T's chemical formulae protected by c/r?
2. Is confidential information “moveable property” that can be seized before judgment (CCP 734(1))?
3. Can T seize property of another that contains its confidential info?
Holding
Of course not. No. And no.
Reasoning
1.
C/R Act grants advantages to person who expresses idea in original form: has right to recover copies. There can be no copyright in ideas or information themselves.
Formulae not subject to copyright. They are ideas.
Formuale may be trade secrets, but need to have contractual protection or protection under Patent Act.
Even if copyright over formulae, does not create copyright over compounds. Formulae are instructions to produce something. What is produced is not the same as the expression of how to produce it. C/r protects the expression of an idea but not the idea itself.
2.
Seizure before judgment is exceptional remedy, law needs to be followed strictly.
Trial judge said T owned material, but this is incorrect. For criminal purposes, it seems that property in information refers more to obligations arising from good faith or fiduciary interests than actual property. JP in QC civil law is mixed. Doctrine suggests that trade secrets can be the object of sui generis rights that are incomplete and not compatible with property because they are subject to restrictions inimical to property. CCQ does not settle the matter.
Would be up to T to prove that it is property - they have not done so.
Confidential info is not moveable property.
3.
T alleges ownership of information in materials in the possession of G. No legal basis in C/R Act, no right of ownership alleged, and not moveable property.
I.G.P. Agneau de Charlevoix et Loi sur les appellations réservées et les termes valorisants, L.R.Q., chapitre A-20.0.
Art 63Loi sur les appellations réservées et les terms valorisants «il est interdit d'utiliser les appellations réservées reconnue ou un terme valorisant autorisé sur un produit, sur son emballage, sur son étiquetage ou dans la publicité, dans un document commercial ou dans la présentation de ce produit à moins d'être inscrit auprès d'un organisme de certification accreédité et à moins que ce produit ne soit un produit certifié conforme au cahier des charges ou au reglement le concernant, par un tel organisme. Celui qui est visé au cahier des charges ou à un règlement autorisant un terme valorisant, ou dont l'activité est contrôlée par ce cahier ou ce règlement, et qui contrevient au premier alinéa commet une infraction et est passible des amendes prévues à l'art 68.»
Homologation du cahier des charges: must ensure that products have the name of the region, are of a fixed quality, have characteristics in keeping with those typical of the region.
Recognition by Minister of Agriculture required.
Applies to non frozen carcasses, pieces of meat.
To put products on the market, need to have accreditation, can't cause confusion with name of Agneau de Charlevoix.
Loi sur les appellations réservées et les termes valorisants CHAPITRE I -- OBJET ET PRINCIPES
La présente loi vise à protéger l'authenticité de produits et de désignations qui les mettent en valeur au moyen d'une certification acquise à l'égard de leur origine ou de leurs caractéristiques particulières liées à une méthode de production ou à une spécificité
Dans la présente loi, on entend par «produit» un produit alimentaire issu notamment de l'agriculture ou de l'aquaculture destiné à la vente à l'état brut ou transformé.
Les appellations réservées appartiennent à l'une des trois catégories suivantes:
celles relatives au mode de production, telles que le mode biologique;
celles relatives au lien avec un terroir, telles que l'appellation d'origine ou l'indication géographique protégée;
celles relatives à une spécificité.
Les termes valorisants identifient une caractéristique particulière d'un produit, généralement liée à une méthode de production ou de préparation, recherchée par le consommateur
Les produits qui peuvent être désignés par une appellation réservée doivent être certifiés conformes à un cahier des charges par un organisme de certification accrédité. Les produits qui peuvent être désignés par un terme valorisant doivent être certifiés conformes aux normes définies par règlement du ministre par un organisme de certification accrédité.
La reconnaissance d'une appellation réservée ou l'autorisation d'un terme valorisant confère à ceux qui sont inscrits auprès d'un organisme de certification accrédité, aux conditions établies par ce dernier, le droit exclusif d'utiliser, selon le cas, cette appellation ou ce terme.
