<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Litigator - Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; Intellectual Property</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-litigation/intellectual-property/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law,  Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:52:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>CRTC cannot make cablecos pay for local TV signals, SCC says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 03:17:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CRTC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cable and satellite television companies won an important victory when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on December 13, 2012, that the CRTC has no jurisdiction to force them to pay to redistribute local television broadcasts to their audiences. This decision may herald a trend to confining subordinate bodies like the CRTC more narrowly to&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Cautionary Tale in Comparative Advertising</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1814</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[National Energy Corporation was recently ordered by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to stop distributing a comparative advertising brochure which contained false and misleading statements about the services and products of its competitor, Direct Energy Marketing Limited. National Energy&#8217;s brochure misled consumers by overstating the price increases Direct Energy had imposed on its customers&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hollywood studios successfully enforce breach of copyright judgment against Ontario website operator</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/04/hollywood-studios-successfully-enforce-breach-of-copyright-judgment-against-ontario-website-operator/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hollywood-studios-successfully-enforce-breach-of-copyright-judgment-against-ontario-website-operator</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/04/hollywood-studios-successfully-enforce-breach-of-copyright-judgment-against-ontario-website-operator/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 21:35:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enforcement of Foreign Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accounting for profits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beals v. Saldanha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict of laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cross-border]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[downloading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial comity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movie studios]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[order and fairness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real and substantial connection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SOCAN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twentieth Century Fox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Universal Studios]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[websites]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=259</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Citing the Internet's unique potential to cause harm anywhere and everywhere, Madam Justice Lax of Ontario's Superior Court of Justice enforced a New York District Court judgment earlier this month against the operators of Ontario-based websites that facilitated the illegal copying and downloading of movies.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/04/hollywood-studios-successfully-enforce-breach-of-copyright-judgment-against-ontario-website-operator/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intellectual property is not exempt from Competition Act’s reach</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2005 03:39:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[assignment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusive dealing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[industrial design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[market allocation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sherman act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc. On November 2 2005, the Federal Court of Appeal held that where an agreement to assign a patent increases the assignee&#8217;s market power in excess of that inherent in the patent itself, the provision in the Patent Act (s. 50) allowing the assignment does not prevent the agreement&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/intellectual-property-is-not-exempt-from-competition-acts-reach/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
