http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=30 A Blog dedicated to news, laws and trends involving the parallel market. Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:33:21 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=30&cpage=1#comment-2 LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® » Blog Archive » Canada: Copyright law not meant to protect distribution networks Wed, 15 Aug 2007 03:07:18 +0000 http://espinosaiplaw.com/wordpress/?p=30#comment-2 [...] The Gray Blog reports that the Canadian Supreme Court has rejected an attempt — the sort made all day all over North America — to utilize copyright law as a “guaranteed distribution network protection act.” It’s the “grey market” or “parallel market” issue: Does a company have the right to demand that its goods be sold only through “authorized dealers”? The law is pretty clear that it can’t, but firms cook up all sorts of causes of action — tortious interference with contract, trademark infringement and dilution — to try to make get around the free market and to protect their distributors. This, in turn, protects their ability to control both retail prices and brand placement.  These are completely legitimate business goals, but misusing the IP laws to achieve them is crooked.  Unfortunately, the courts — typically dizzied by the assertion of the strong trademark rights that companies big enough to have this isue are likely to have — go along with this all too often. Copyright, if you can make it work, is the best for this, because it has those famous teeth: Attorneys’ fees and statutory damages. The prospect of losing a copyright case is devastating for a small business.  So big firms claim that all sorts of things, such as product descriptions, labels, the way the sun reflects off the bottle — are “protected works.” [...] [...] The Gray Blog reports that the Canadian Supreme Court has rejected an attempt — the sort made all day all over North America — to utilize copyright law as a “guaranteed distribution network protection act.” It’s the “grey market” or “parallel market” issue: Does a company have the right to demand that its goods be sold only through “authorized dealers”? The law is pretty clear that it can’t, but firms cook up all sorts of causes of action — tortious interference with contract, trademark infringement and dilution — to try to make get around the free market and to protect their distributors. This, in turn, protects their ability to control both retail prices and brand placement.  These are completely legitimate business goals, but misusing the IP laws to achieve them is crooked.  Unfortunately, the courts — typically dizzied by the assertion of the strong trademark rights that companies big enough to have this isue are likely to have — go along with this all too often. Copyright, if you can make it work, is the best for this, because it has those famous teeth: Attorneys’ fees and statutory damages. The prospect of losing a copyright case is devastating for a small business.  So big firms claim that all sorts of things, such as product descriptions, labels, the way the sun reflects off the bottle — are “protected works.” [...]

]]>