In a new series, we review the basics of Canadian trade-mark, copyright and patent law.

• Canadian Trade-marks: Trade-marks protect the rights to brand names, such as a word, logo or design. A trade-mark is used in the marketplace to identify products of one company, and distinguish these products from others in the marketplace. Trade-marks can be extremely valuable assets of a company, and represent the company’s reputation with consumers. If mishandled or left unprotected, trade-mark rights can be eroded or lost. In Canada, trade-marks can be registered through the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, and a Trade-mark Agent can assist with screening searches and registration services.
• Best Practices:
• Registration – Seek registration for your core brands. This extends your rights to that mark, in connection with your products, across Canada. Unregistered marks do not enjoy the same scope of protection.
• Screening Searches – Make better business decisions with better information. Searches are critical, particularly before launching a new brand. This helps assess risk and provides insight about potential competitors in the marketplace.
• Notation –  Mark your brands with the â„¢ symbol or the ® symbol for registered marks. Consider establishing brand guidelines for your organization.
• Licensing – Marks used within a large corporate group, or between a parent company and its subsidiaries, licensees or franchisees, should be properly licensed. Otherwise, a company risks losing its rights to unlicensed marks.
• Trade-marks on the Internet: Trade-mark policing and enforcement is challenging in the context of the internet, since infringement can easily occur in any jurisdiction, and from any server. Establish a strategy that’s suitable and cost-effective in your industry, coordinating with your domain names and your national and international brand portfolio.
• Trade-marks Outside Canada: If you have or are seeking customers outside Canada, then get advice on trade-mark protection in those markets, whether in the US, China, the EU, or developing markets in South America. Trade-mark rights are governed country-by-country, so remember that trade-mark rights in Canada will not provide any protection in the US or elsewhere. Prioritize your brands and markets and seek assistance from professionals who can help establish a strategy for brand protection beyond Canada’s borders.

For more information and assistance with your trade-mark needs visit Field’s Intellectual Property & Technology Group. 

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

In our earlier posts [Amazon Business Method Case to be Appealed] we reveiwed the case of the (infamous) Amazon 1-click patent, a case which is currently on appeal. The appeal was heard in Toronto this summer and a decision may come down in late 2011. In light of the Federal Court decision in Amazon.com Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents 2010 FC 1011 , the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) has revised its practices. New practice guidelines are now in effect, replacing the contrary guidance in the MOPOP…. until the Federal Court of Appeal hands down its own decision. Stay tuned.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

If the health of an industry is measured by the litigation it spawns, then the app and gaming economy is going strong:

• Copyright: Fantasy Flight Publishing has sued a European app-developer, Puffin Software, for alleged infringement of copyright in a medieval-themed game (Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. v. Puffin Software et al. U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota Case No. 11-cv-01928, Filed July 15, 2011). Fantasy Flight claims that Puffin’s iPad title “Viking Lords” is an infringement of copyright in the board game BattleLore owned by Fantasy Flight. In the claim, Puffin allegedly approached Fantasy Flight to pitch an iPad version of BattleLore, and when there was no uptake, Puffin decided to go ahead and publish the game under its own title.  The case will involve an analysis of the elements of each game, and a breakdown of functional and original elements, as in the Sony case (below).
• Patent: App-developer Zynga has been sued in Segan LLC v. Zyna Inc. for alleged infringement of Segan’s U.S. Patent No. 7,054,928, which was issued for a system for accessing “enhancement content” on the internet. The claim alleges that Zynga titles such as FarmVille, PetVille, and FrontierVille infringe the patent.
• Copyright: In Dath v. Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower-court decision in a copyright infringement case involving the Sony PS2 and PSP title “God of War”. The plaintiffs alleged that Sony infringed copyright in their written works about war between Sparta and Athens. The plaintiffs could not show actual copying, so they had to rely on the US concept of access and substantial similarity. Remember, copyright does not protect ideas, but merely the form and expression of ideas. In this case, there was no substantial similarity of expression of ideas. In this analysis, the court reviewed elements of expression such as plot, themes, dialogue, mood, settings and characters, and concluded that the works were not similar and no infringement occurred. 

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

A patent owner, VS Technologies LLC, claims that Twitter has infringed its patent, and the company sued Twitter in the State of Virginia.

When Twitter users sign-on, they agree to certain Terms of Service. These Terms of Service specify that any claims by a user must be litigated in California. The inventor of the patent signed-on as a Twitter user, so Twitter claimed that the patent infringement suit should be moved from Virginia to Twitter’s home jurisdiction of California, based on the forum selection clause in the Terms of Service.

A recent US decision VS Technologies LLC v. Twitter Inc. has blocked this transfer request, reasoning that these Terms of Service do not govern patent infringement claims, that VS Technologies never assented to the Terms of Service, and that the patent owner is not seeking to enforce the Terms of Service. The court also made it clear that it did not want to establish a precedent that would apply to all social networking patent infringement claims.  

Business lessons? Online service-providers, social-networking sites and cloud-computing services should take note that forum-selection clauses do not necessarily provide blanket coverage. Forum-selection clauses have been upheld for other purposes – for example, if the claim arises in connection with a complaint over some part of the service itself – but this type of clause should not be relied upon as a defence against patent claims.

Calgary – 07:00 MT

 

Apple Inc. has a well-known family of iMarks registered in Canada, the US and around the world, including iTunes, iMac, iPhone, iPod and iPad. In Canada, it has even applied to register the iPad screen as a trade-mark under Application No. 1488599 (the IPAD TRADE DRESS ICON SCREEN Design) as well as the iPhone graphic (shown at right), under Application No. 1481515.

• The latest addition to the family is the iCloud mark. In the US, a company called iCloud Communications has sued Apple for alleged trade-mark infringement in the US District Court in Arizona. (See a copy of the Complaint Here). iCloud Communications claims use since 2005, though it does not have any registered marks. Prior to launching its new iCloud service, Apple bought the domain name icloud.com from Xcerion AB, a Swedish cloud-computing company, and there’s a pretty good bet that Apple has also acquired Xcerion’s registered US mark for ICLOUD which claims a priority date of November 29, 2007, for use with information management software.  Though the registration is still in the name of Xcerion, an Apple inhouse lawyer is named as the attorney of record. This strategic acquisition would allow Apple to rely on the earlier use claimed by this mark.
• In a recent Canadian case, Apple was the earlier user – in this case, it used its family of registered iTunes marks to oppose the application for the mark TUNECARDZ by Digi Media Cardz Inc., a BC company, for use with collectible cards allowing the card owner to download music. In the decision released by the Trade-marks Opposition Board (TMOB) (Apple Inc. v Digi Media Cardz Inc., 2011 TMOB 72 ), Apple prevailed by showing confusion between TUNECARDZ and its registered Canadian marks ITUNES and ITUNES MUSIC CARD for music downloads.

Apple has a long history of fighting strategic trade-mark battles, including for its core brand APPLE, starting in 1978, against Apple Records), against Cisco for its now-iconic iPhone trade-mark , and against Fujitsu, for the iPad trade-mark. Lessons for business? In many of these cases, the mark was already owned by someone else when Apple decided it was going to be an Apple brand.  This history is, in many ways, a reflection of the company’s approach to business: they did not invent tablet computing, smartphones, online music sales or the MP3 player. They simply stepped in, elbowed the early movers aside, and took over the top position. 

Calgary – 07:00 MT

 

Here’s something that we’re likely to see more of: the app patent dispute. Mobile apps are regularly mixed up in copyright or trade-mark complaints, trade secret disputes (occasionally), and privacy issues (often). In Lodsys LLC. V. Combay Inc. et al., an allegation of patent infringement has been levelled at a group of iPhone, iPad and Android app developers, including the publishers of the popular titles “Twitterific”, “Quickoffice” and “Mega Poker Online Texas Holdem”. According to the complaint, the targeted apps infringe a method patent owned by Lodsys, entitled “Methods and systems for gathering information from units of a commodity across a network” (US Patent #772,078). One defence to such an allegation is that the patent is licensed by the alleged infringer, and that’s where Apple comes in. Apple has reportedly intervened to raise the defence that the use by the app developers is covered by a license that Apple previously negotiated with the patent owner.  Another defence is that the patent in question is invalid and another company in an unrelated lawsuit is challenging the validity of Lodsys’s patent portfolio.

Calgary – 07:00 MT

 

My article Software Licensing in the Cloud  [PDF copy] is published in the May 6th edition of The Lawyers Weekly, which addresses the legal issues arising in the use of “cloud computing” services: including data handling, jurisdictional issues, warranties and service levels, customization and subcontracting, and licensing models.

Contact me at the Intellectual Property and Technology Group at Field LLP for advice on your cloud computing licenses.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

As a follow-up to our earlier post (To hack or not to hack…), here’s a reason NOT to hack. Evony LLC, a maker of multi-player online games, has successfully sued Philip Holland, a “botter” who had developed a task automator for one of Evony’s games. By circumventing the copy protection measures in one of Evony’s titles, Mr. Holland developed a bot that automatically completed tasks and effectively played the game for players.

In Evony, LLC v. Holland, Dist. Court, WD Pennsylvania 2011  the company obtained a permanent injunction, an order for impoundment and destruction of copies of the game and bots, as well as damages of $300,000, plus lawyers’ fees, costs and interest.  The judgement came so swiftly (they only filed their claim in January 2011) because Mr. Holland failed to file a defence. The case was based, in part, on breach of Evony’s Terms of Use.

Related Reading: our post on a World of Warcraft botter: Apps, Bots and Workarounds – Part 1

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

 

That is the business question for many in the software industry, including Microsoft, Sony and Twitter.

Software companies have to consider whether to embrace the hacking (…or shall we say “custom development”) culture of their customers, or gird for battle against the hackers. Mashable’s interesting article (Xbox Kinect vs. Sony PS3: How 2 Companies Handle Hacking) reviews the different approach taken by Microsoft which is (uncharacteristically) opening up its popular Kinect gaming console, and Sony which is suing customers who hack into PlayStation 3 [Link to Sony’s Complaint against hacker George Hotz is here 1MB PDF ].  Big old multinationals like Microsoft and Sony aren’t the only ones who have to face this question. New technology upstarts like Twitter are also wrestling with the problem: Twitter recently told developers to back off, after complaints of privacy violations and fragmented user experience. Companies offering software of any kind are finding that customers – both individual consumers and corporate users – are accessing the code, unlocking, jaibreaking and building their own functionality, whether or not the vendor has approved this.  My recent article on Software Licensing in 2011 [PDF] reviews the issues for software vendors.

Related Reading: Apps, Bots and Workarounds

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

We’ve all agreed to releases and waivers. We do it on paper, before bungee jumping, skiing or attending a kids’ birthday party. Or we agree online, before booking an event, ordering a product or downloading software. This is the fine print that essentially says that the operator or vendor has no liability or limited liability for any injury, damages or loss. Do these hold up in court?

In a recent case (Loychuk v. Cougar Mountain Adventures Ltd., 2011 BCSC 193) the BC Supreme Court had to consider this question in connection with an injury from ziplining. Prior to booking the activity online, the participants were advised on the website that a waiver of liability was required in order to participate in the activity. It was a one-pager entitled “RELEASE OF LIABILITY, WAIVER OF CLAIMS AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK AGREEMENT”. The participants signed a paper copy of the release before ziplining, and an injury occurred. The court dismissed the personal injury lawsuit on the basis of the release, confirming a long line of cases upholding such clauses.

Vendors and operators who wish to make use of such clauses in their online agreements should take care in drafting and implementing the terms. 

 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 

Answer: Forum Selection.  The concept of “forum selection” can be summed up as follows: where 2 parties are entering into a contract and they are located in different jurisdictions (different countries, provinces or states), then they can choose the “forum” or the location where their disputes will be settled. This choice usually covers both law and location – for example, the law of Alberta and the courts located in Calgary. Or the law of B.C. and arbitration in Vancouver. These clauses are also referred to as “mandatory jurisdiction” or “choice of law” clauses. There are subtle differences between them, but generally they all serve the same purpose.  As an online consumer, you may have agreed to be bound by the laws of Washington State (Microsoft), California (Apple) and Ontario (BlackBerry).

In the US, forum selection clauses are respected by the courts: a recent decision (Evans v. Linden Research, Inc., E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2011) upheld the provisions of the Second Life online user agreement, confirming California as the proper venue pursuant to the forum selection clause.

In Canada, courts will generally hold the parties to their contract, which includes their choice of law and forum. So these clauses will be upheld, unless there is “strong cause” or convincing evidence to satisfy the court there is a really good reason not to uphold the forum selection clause. Sounds a bit circular – (courts will uphold the clause…unless they won’t) – but this gives Canadian courts the flexibility to weigh the surrounding circumstances. In the recent case of Hudye Farms Inc. V. Canadian Wheat Board, 2011 SKQB 29 (CanLII), an online sign-up process for a Canadian Wheat Board grain-handling contract incorporated certain standard terms. These standard terms specified that disputes would be governed by the courts of Manitoba and the application of Manitoba law.  Although no-one actually signed those terms, the court agreed that they were binding on the parties through a series of agreements and click-through screens.  The clause was upheld, and the lawsuit transferred to Manitoba.

Related Reading: E-Commerce & Internet Jurisdiction

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 

We have compiled a few recent open-source software (OSS) stories:

• GPL in the App Store: A recent article on ZDNet reviews the differences in treatment of apps subject to the General Public License (GPL) in Apple’s App Store compared with Google’s Android Market. It argues that Apple’s closed system is incompatible with the GPL and so apps built from open-source kernels can’t be sold through Apple’s store, whereas the Google marketplace is compatible with GPL-licensed apps. When Apple pulled the VLC player last year, OSS enthusiasts complained that iPhone users would be deprived of OSS apps like GNU Go and the VLC media player (See: App Law Update – Part 2: Breach of GPL).  However, it’s worth remembering that the apps were pulled because of complaints from the OSS community, who levelled copyright infringement allegations at Apple. It was in response to those complaints that the apps were pulled.  It should be noted that the GPL is merely one of many species of OSS licenses, and other forms of OSS license will not necessarily be incompatible with Apple’s App Store terms.
• OSS and M&A: Lexology has a review of the OSS issues to consider in the context of mergers and acquisitions. In particular, when buying IT assets, business owners should work closely with legal counsel to review the software issues and the risks, and arrive at a practical way of mitigating those risks. Depending on the scope of the transaction, this may involve everything from simple representations and disclosure schedules in the asset purchase agreement, to detailed code-reviews by technical advisors. A “fear” of OSS need not kill an otherwise sensible transaction, as this article points out.
• Enforceability of the GPL: This story from the UK articulates an interesting argument about the enforceability of the GPL. It’s worth a read.

 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 

Here is the last case in our trio:

MLS Database – As a follow-up to our earlier post ( Data Mining Decision), you may recall the story of a real estate broker who tried to repackage the MLS listings controlled by the Toronto Real Estate Board (TREB).  The TREB controls the database for residential resale listings (the MLS database) for its approximately 25,000 member real estate agents and brokers.  Fraser Beach was one such broker who developed a workaround to pull the data from TREB’s database, and then redisplay it to the public through his own site.  The TREB cut off his access and Mr. Beach sued the TREB. The court agreed that the TREB was justified in terminating access since this “end-run” violated the authorized use terms that Mr. Beach had agreed to as a member of the TREB. In Fraser Beach v. Toronto Real Estate Board, 2010 ONCA 883, decided in December 2010, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld this decision. 

Lessons for business? The TREB’s well-drafted Authorized User Agreement specified that use of the database was permitted “for the purposes expressly specified in this Agreement and for the exclusive and internal use by Authorized User“. This was critical to the court’s conclusion that Mr. Beach’s use was a violation of these terms. Companies in the business of licensing database access should take care to have their licenses and authorized use terms reviewed to keep up with technological advances and new methods of obtaining unauthorized access to the data.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

Here is the next case in our trio:

BlackBerry – Consider the problems faced by Canada’s world-leader in mobile devices. You open an app store to compete with Apple, so the little guys can develop interesting apps. The problem is, little guys keep developing interesting apps. In Research in Motion Ltd. v Kik Interactive Inc. [Statement of Claim available here], filed in November, RIM sued Kik, an upstart messaging service that had grown wildly popular in the previous several weeks (over 2 million Kik users reportedly signed up within the space of a month). In its suit, RIM alleges patent and trade-mark infringement as well as misuse of confidential information – (the principal of Kik is a former employee of RIM) – and privacy violations.  This shows the difficulty of controlling ex-employees and independent developers, and RIM is not alone. Apple has booted apps that mimic its own core services or threaten the bottom-line (most famously, Google’s VOIP apps). 

Moving to India, RIM faces another challenge in the form of Bharatberry, an app created by an independent Indian developer that provides an “India-compliant solution to the existing users of the BlackBerry® service in India”, and appears to piggy-back on BlackBerry hardware to run a parallel email and messaging service through its own servers, rather than through RIM servers.  This service was developed in the wake of concerns that the BlackBerry service would be disrupted in India if RIM did not solve the Indian government’s demands to have access to RIM’s encrypted e-mail traffic.

 

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

We’ll review a trio of cases that illustrate the line drawn by the law when software users try to do an end-run around a software owner:

World of Warcraft (WoW) – Blizzard is the publisher of the popular WoW multiplayer game. MDY sold an autopilot bot marketed as “Glider“ that automatically played the lower levels of WoW, to enable a player to graduate to higher levels and earn points.  In a fascinating case (MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment), Blizzard sued MDY for sales of this “Glider” bot. In the course of the cat-and-mouse tactics between Blizzard and MDY, Blizzard prohibited the use of bots in its Terms of Use, and then deployed bot-detection software to block Glider-users. The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that the antibot provisions were covenants rather than conditions. “A Glider user violates the covenants with Blizzard, but does not thereby commit copyright infringement because Glider does not infringe any of Blizzard’s exclusive rights. For instance, the use does not alter or copy WoW software.” Thus, Blizzard failed in its copyright claims. 

However, the court decided that MDY was liable for a DMCA violation with respect to WoW’s “dynamic non-literal elements”. The term “dynamic non-literal elements” refers to the copyright-protected elements of the game other than the written code that are created in the course of dynamic play by user. The court upheld the permanent injunction against MDY.

Lessons for business? In Canada, we don’t have an equivalent of the DMCA, though the proposed changes to the Canadian Copyright Act contain anti-circumvention rules of the type that caught MDY in the WoW case. Software publishers and vendors should ensure that their end-user terms or acceptable use policies are well-drafted and up-to-date to guard against this type of indirect access. This may not allow a software vendor to access copyright infringement remedies, but will provide a contractual remedy.

Cases 2 and 3 up next. 

Calgary – 07:00 MST