The Supreme Court of Canada has denied leave to appeal of the Ontario (Energy) v Quality Program Services Inc.1 Federal Court decision, thereby bringing finality to whether public authorities are immune to trademark infringement claims arising from use of their official marks. This Federal Court case law confirms that registered trademark owners will continue to enjoy the rights conferred upon them under the Trademarks Act (the “Act“), regardless of whether a public authority is involved and suggests that the strength of an official mark is greatly dependant on when public notice is given.
Quality Program Services Inc. (“QPS“) brought a Federal Court action against the Government of Ontario, specifically the Minister of Energy (the “MOE“), seeking damages and other relief for trademark infringement, passing off and depreciation of goodwill under the Act. QPS is the registered owner of the “EMPOWER ME” trademark, registered in 2014 in association with energy awareness, conservation, and efficiency services.2 In 2015, QPS became aware that the MOE had launched a website with the name/mark “emPOWERme” to educate Ontario residents about the province’s electricity system.3
When granted with a patent right, the patentee may file a request for amending the description, claim(s) or drawing(s) of the granted patent. Hence, once an alleged infringer has presented prior evidence sufficient to establish that the patent at issue lacks patentability in a patent infringement litigation case, the patentee is likely to file post-grant amendment requests with the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office during the litigation proceedings in order to overcome the defects in the validity of the patent at issue. At this point, pursuant to Article 32 of the Intellectual Property Case Adjudication Rules, “trial and adjudication of the principal case may directly proceed if the amendment application obviously shall not be granted or if the amended scope of claim(s), once approved, does not constitute an infringement of right.”
At heart, and still, I am a non-singing Jersey Boy, and one who grew up 
In Greece the main legislative instruments regulating copyright and related rights are:
Recent changes in consumer behaviour due to the COVID-19 pandemic mean that few businesses can afford to ignore the internet, and the opportunities for efficiencies and scale that it offers. Operating a business online presents tremendous opportunities for growth by opening up new geographical markets, however it also creates new challenges for businesses in ensuring that their key intellectual property assets, which are made available online, are adequately protected.
“Use it or lose it” is a staple expression known to Canadian trademark lawyers. Once a business successfully registers a trademark in Canada, it must “use” its registered mark in Canada or it may lose the protections provided by the Trademarks Act (the “Act“). With the advent of e-commerce, many non-Canadian businesses can now advertise their services to Canadians online. Demonstrating use of the mark in association with such services online by the non-Canadian business may prove challenging.
Suppose that you have expressed your work into a tangible form such as a short expression of words and artistic designs. Although your copyright exists upon the moment of creation, does the work contain a sufficient amount of authorship on which to base a claim for a copyright registration? Should you register the copyright on the work with the U.S. Copyright Office? The answer is YES!
The global food and beverage 
The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on April 23, 2020, by unanimously holding in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., et al. that a brand owner is not required to prove that a trademark infringer acted willfully in order for the owner to be awarded the infringer’s profits.
Connect with ILN
Firm of the Month
ILN Members Twitter Feed