Ronald E. Dimock

A freelance author brought a class proceeding alleging copyright infringement arising from newspaper publishers' republication of articles in electronic databases and CD-ROM archives.

The Court held that databases presenting articles as decontextualized individual works did not reproduce the publishers' collective newspaper work and therefore infringed freelance authors' copyrights absent consent, but that the CD-ROM product sufficiently preserved the linkage to daily editions and was a valid reproduction of the newspaper.

The Court further held that only exclusive licences require writing under the Copyright Act, and that staff writers should not have been included in the class because they had no cause of action unless they had exercised their statutory right to restrain publication.

The appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed only with respect to the CD-ROMs.

Kirkbi held patents for LEGO construction sets.

When the patents expired in Canada, Ritvik began manufacturing and selling interchangeable bricks.

Kirkbi claimed an unregistered trade-mark in the 'LEGO indicia' (the pattern of raised studs) and sued for passing off under s. 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act.

Ritvik challenged the constitutionality of s. 7(b).

The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 7(b) is intra vires Parliament as a valid exercise of the general trade and commerce power.

However, Kirkbi's passing-off claim was dismissed because the doctrine of functionality bars purely functional designs from being the basis of a trade-mark, whether registered or unregistered.

The appellant, a freelance author, wrote articles published in The Globe and Mail.

The newspaper subsequently placed these articles in electronic databases (Info Globe Online, CPI.Q, and CD-ROM).

The appellant sued for copyright infringement.

The Court of Appeal held that the databases did not constitute a 'newspaper or similar periodical' and did not reproduce a substantial part of the newspaper's collective work.

The court also found that the oral licence granted by the appellant did not convey a proprietary interest and thus did not need to be in writing.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a judgment confirming a Master's report on an accounting of music royalties for the song 'When I Am With You'.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the corporate publisher's appeal regarding the calculation of co-publishing revenues and prejudgment interest.

However, the Court allowed the appeal of the corporation's directing mind, finding no basis to pierce the corporate veil and hold him personally liable.

The Court also allowed the respondents' cross-appeal, finding that performing rights royalties should be included in the calculation of co-publishing revenues based on the plain meaning of the agreement and the parties' prior conduct.

The appellants appealed a finding that they infringed the respondents' patent for a dual action washing machine agitator with flexible vanes.

The appellants argued the patent was invalid due to double patenting, asserting that an earlier patent already covered the invention or rendered it obvious.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the patent and the finding of infringement.

In doing so, the Court established that 'purposive construction' is the proper approach to patent claims construction for both validity and infringement analyses.