On Monday February 22, 2016 local members of CIRA were invited to a meeting for an update on the activities of CIRA. We were advised that CIRA is dealing with a number of problems. A first problem is a shortage of IP addresses. Internet Protocol Version 4 (IPV4), one of the core protocols of the Internet, uses 32-bit addresses which limits the address space to about 4.3 billion addresses. There is currently a move to Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPV6). With IPV6 the platform has been increased to128-bit addresses. This will provide enough IP addresses for the foreseeable future. However, one cannot move seamlessly from IPV4 to IPV6, as the technologies do not talk to each other. IPV4 will be supported for a number of years to allow users to switch over to IPV6 and then IPV4 will be discontinued. Of 2.4 million .ca websites, only 40,000 have been built on the IPV6 platform to date. There are websites still being set up using IPV4. If you are working with websites, it is important that IPV6 be used, as IPV4 will be obsolete in a number of years. The transition to IPV6 will be slow, as IPV6 is not compatible with some hardware. There is, of course, a reluctance to spend the money to upgrade hardware, until the date for discontinuing IPV4 is drawing near. The incentive for switching to IPV6 is that it reduces network access bottlenecks that currently are experienced. A second problem relates to routing. The Canadian internet uses many United States based internet exchange points. This results in most Canadian internet traffic being routed through the United States. There was a discussion regarding further developing more Canadian peer to peer shortcuts so that Canadian internet traffic can be more autonomous. A third problem relates to domain name system security. There are individuals who make their living by “highjacking” domain names. They change domain name system authorization information and then redirect internet traffic. To avoid having your domain name “highjacked” CIRA has provision for “locks” to secure your information. There is a configuration test you can perform at the CIRA website to determine whether your information has been “locked” [dntests.CIRA.ca]. Security can also be upgraded by using “anycast” as opposed to “unicast” systems. There are digital signatures that can be used for authentication. There is a configuration test you can perform at the CIRA website to check to see whether digital signature authentication (DNSSEC) is enabled [performance.CIRA.ca].https://cira.ca/soi
A client of our office is launching a Kickstarter campaign at 6pm on March 3 with respect to a family of cable organizers. There is one cable organizer that handles the power cord for a smart phone. There is another cable organizer that handles the earphones that are used with a smart phone. We are happy to help “get the word out” . The Kickstarter campaign will run just over 30 days. We ask that you give this new product a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcLyLsXLc1s
Venture capitalists are generally not interested in business “start-ups”. With business start-ups there are too many unanswered questions regarding the product or service, and the market. That is why “angel” investors are needed to bridge the gap and assist the entrepreneur, both financially and with business advice, until a track record is developed. If things go well, there will likely come a stage when the business needs a major injection of funds to take the business to the next level. Rapid growth can be a curse. Without adequate financial backing, rapid expansion of a successful business can involve an immediate increase in costs with a delayed increase in revenue, and may result in bankruptcy. The venture capitalist is looking for a business with rapid growth potential and is prepared to provide the funds to fuel that growth. I compare angel investment to a small stakes poker game played among friends and compare venture capital investment to a high stakes poker game played with people whose only interest is the game. In the small stakes game, it is real money; but the small stakes moderate the tone. Within limits, the angel investor will try to accommodate the entrepreneur when problems are encountered. In the high stakes game, the amount of money at stake increases the intensity of the players. To make matters even more intense, expectations are sky high. There are also time limits, as the venture has a monthly “burn rate” and must reach set milestones before the allocated funds are exhausted. The venture capitalist is gambling. He or she knows that out of ten businesses that receive investment capital, only one or two will realize their potential. The potential return must, therefore, be multiples on the investment to cover the losses on businesses that do not succeed. Those multiples can be between ten and thirty times investment funds. It is not acceptable for the business to merely create a living for the entrepreneur and jobs for a handful of employees. The investment must result in the business “scaling up” to provide significant returns. If the entrepreneur does not have the skill set to guide the business to the next level, he or she may be demoted and replaced by someone who does. If the business is unable to meet expected milestones, the business will be cut off from further funding. Those are the rules of the game. Sorry, it is just business.
I love social media. I will not pretend that I am as heavily involved as many of you, but I can say that I enjoy the exchanges. Every day there is some Facebook posting by a friend that shows up on my smart phone. This keeps me informed as to what my friends are up to, so I don’t lose touch. I also like interesting articles and videos that my friends post on Facebook or bring to my attention through a “tweet”. In turn, I like to reciprocate. When I encounter something interesting, I make my friends aware of it on social media or sometimes I attach it to a text or email. I am aware of the paramount rule, that you don’t post anything through social media that might place you in a bad light with your employer, members of your church, and persons you care about. One of my outlets is in preparing articles (occasionally videos) that are posted on the Thompson Cooper website. However, I avoid the possibility of copyright infringement; as I have been consulted numerous times by persons facing “cease and desist” letters with respect to content on their websites. Copyright includes the copyright owner’s exclusive right to make copies of, or publish, a work or any substantial part thereof, and, subject to some exceptions (discussed below), it is infringement of copyright to do these things without the permission of the copyright owner. For that reason, all articles posted on our firm website are written by either myself or my partner, Michael Cooper. All posted photos are taken by myself or I obtain permission and confirm that permission by email. Once the articles are completed, I disseminate them via social media. The platforms I use for business are generally LinkedIn, Google plus, and Twitter. To date I have been reserving Facebook for friends, but I am told that I should establish a business presence on Facebook. This brings me to the point of the article. The other day a friend emailed a wonderful video with a Xmas theme. I loved it and did not hesitate to forward it to selected friends, although I did not post it on social media. I was subsequently looking for an end of the year message to post on the Thompson Cooper website. I immediately thought of that wonderful video with the Xmas theme, but then I stopped in my tracks and pulled out my copy of the Copyright Act. Section 29 of the Copyright Act sets out exceptions to infringement. As I review the “fair dealing” exception found in Section 29, it is for the purpose of “research, private study, education, parody or satire”; clearly not applicable. As I review the “reproduction for private purposes” exception found in Section 29.22, can I say it is for “private purposes” if it is for my business? I think not! I note that even the section on “private purposes” does not apply if the copy that has come into my possession is “an infringing copy”. In many cases, I have no idea whether the copy sent to me by friends is or is not an infringing copy. To make matters worse, it ceases to be for “private purposes” if I share it. What is the take away for the reader? The advice I give to you is the advice I give to myself. I will continue to circulate interesting articles and videos to my friends and my business contacts. If I have concerns about possible liability, I will ensures that two conditions are met. The first condition is that I must receive the article or video directly from the source, so I know it is not an infringing copy. The second condition is that I must receive the article or video in circumstances under which it is reasonable to assume that I am authorized to pass it along. By way of example, if I send an article that I have written out on social media via LinkedIn, Google plus or in a tweet; it is reasonable to infer that I have given you permission to retweet the article to your contacts. However, when a friend emails you a video from an unknown source, you are taking a small risk in forwarding it on to a handful of persons and a huge risk in posting it on your business website for all the world to see.
I recently had lunch with a banker friend . He related some of his daily struggles in approving loans and summed up by indicating that his bank hired him to fund viable businesses, not “dreams”. The reality of the banking business is that a banker will only grant you a loan to launch an innovative project if you have the pre-existing financial strength to financially back the new business. After the business has being operational for two years or more, the financial performance of the business over that period will clearly indicate whether or not you have a viable business rather than just a “dream”. Persons who do not have such financial strength are forced to seek assistance from investors. The quest for investors usually starts with family members and personal acquaintances who trust and believe in you. There are some investors, referred to as “angel” investors, who invest in projects of complete strangers for fun and profit. The angel investors that I have known are relatively wealthy and have a past history of entrepreneurial success. Their angel investments are like a hobby to them. The number one criterion of the angel investor is that he or she must like you and feel he or she can work with you. If you are difficult to work with, it takes the fun out of the project and the angel investor doesn’t want or need the hassle. The number two criterion is that the angel investor must believe that the project has substantial growth potential and is not merely a “create a job” project. The ultimate object of the investment is to make some money at the end of the project. Ideally, the angel investor has contacts or knowledge that can contribute to the project and help make that happen. The number three criterion is that there must be some logical jumping off point at which the angel investor can cash in on his investment. If you have a good fit with an angel investor, you may well develop a life-long friendship. You will have to do most of the work, but at critical times the angel investor will be there to assist you. The angel investor will give you advice which will help you avoid mistakes you would otherwise have made. As he or she gets to know you, the angel investor will assess your strengths and weaknesses and get others to help cover your weak areas. The angel investor will set and expect you to meet performance milestones. Consider it tough love. It is for your own good. A controlling interest (over 50% of the venture) is not essential to the angel investor, although the angel investor can exercise a measure of control by simply withholding additional funds if he or she does not approve of the way the business is being run. If all goes well, the relationship with the angel investor ends at the planned exit position. On small projects, this is often the sale of the business, at which time you both “cash in”. On large on-going projects, you will progress to the “next stage of financing” in which a venture capitalist steps into the shoes of the angel investor and puts serious money into the business to take it to the next level. I have nothing but respect for angel investors, the ones I have worked with are special people indeed. There are a number of differences between angel investor funding and venture capital funding. Those differences will be explored in a separate article.
Awards are a time to stop our hectic pace and recognize how far we have come (regardless of how far we may yet have to go). I was delighted to hear that the one of our clients, AVI Inc was nominated as a finalist for the LAMP awards (Lighting Architecture Movement Project). I attended the LAMP Awards, which were held in Vancouver on November 12, at the invitation of Matt Kennedy, the President of AVI Inc. I met the other members of the AVI team including accountant Michael Manley, photographer Darryl Bueckert, and SR&ED consultant Ken Bell. The theme of the LAMP Awards for 2015 was “Crystallize”. I urge you to see some of the marvelous entries at www.welovelamp.ca . I have attached a photo of the AVI entry. I would like to thank Darryl Bueckert for allowing me to use this photo. If you like Darryl’s work, check out his website www.darrylbueckert.com. I will post some further material on how you can purchase the products of AVI Inc and about the Crowdfunding campaign of AVI Inc at a later date. Matt Kennedy has been a great guy to work with and I look forward to continuing to work with him in future.
I have just returned from the annual convention of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC). This is two-day event with numerous educational workshops for Patent Agents, Trademark Agents and IP Lawyers. There were plenary sessions that everyone attended and breakout sessions where the audience broke into smaller groups. The plenary sessions included an address in which Mr. Justice George Locke of the Federal Court provided “tips for having a better relationship with your Judge”, an address by the President of the Canadian Bar Association, Janet Fuhrer, concerning the future of the profession entitled “Reimagining the Ways We Practise”, a panel of experts discussing Crowdfunding, and a panel discussing the issues and opportunities which are being created by 3D printing. I find Crowdfunding interesting in its various forms. You can Crowdfund through social media to solicit pre-orders for your product. You can Crowdfund by making an emotional appeal through social media to solicit donations. Subject to legal limitations imposed by securities regulators, you can also use social media to Crowdfund by selling small equity interests in a start-up venture. 3D printing is considered a “disruptive” technology, because it has the potential to dramatically change the way we do things. For example, currently there are numerous people employed in the transportation industry. However, shipping costs can be avoided entirely by simply having a 3D “print shop” in your neighbourhood. Instead of shipping a replacement part for one of your motor vehicles or household appliances, the part can be “printed” for you. As with the current issues related to genuine and “pirate” internet sites for music and videos; there will soon be a problem with genuine and “pirate” internet sites that supply the files necessary to print out these parts. The patent breakout sessions included: a review of key court decisions concerning “the promise of the patent” which have changed the way patents should be prepared; and a session called “Gotcha” which reviewed patent infringement remedies in Canada and the United States. The trademark/copyright breakout sessions included: a review of changes which are coming to Trademark Law as a result of Canada having signed a number of treaties ( Nice, Singapore and Madrid); and several sessions on dealing with copyright and trademark issues in light of the Internet and social media. It was explained that in this age of social media, the old approach of sending a nasty “cease and desist” letter may backfire. An unnecessarily heavy-handed cease and desist letter may well be posted on social media and attract comment. Before one can stop it, the matter may go “viral” with the possibility of substantial negative publicity. An example that was discussed as an alternative approach, was a dispute between the makers of a juice called “Pom Wonderful” and a television host by the name of John Oliver. The humorous (although somewhat off colour) video can be viewed on YouTube a link for which will be provided below. Why am I relating this information to you? I believe that by reviewing issues being discussed by IP professions today, you gain insight as to issues which will be touching our lives tomorrow.
Red Label Vacations v. 411 Travel Buys (2015 FC 19) is a recent decision of the Federal Court of Canada that clarifies trademark law as it relates to the use of metatags on websites. A metatag is a word or small phrase that is embedded in a website but is not visible on the actual webpage(s). When a person types a phrase into a search engine, such as Google, the search engine uses an algorithm to search the Internet for web pages containing the particular words. Metatags are merely one of the factors that affect search results. However, generally, the greater the number of times a search term appears in metatags and in the text of the webpage itself, the greater the likelihood that a search engine will rank the website higher in the search results (page 1 of the results list as opposed to page 6, for example). Red Label is a travel business that offers online travel information services and bookings through its website redtag.ca. Red Label has three registered trademarks: “redtag.ca”, “redtag.ca vacations” and “Shop. Compare. Payless!! Guaranteed”. 411 Travel is an online travel agency offering information to customers through its website. Red Label uses Google Analytics to monitor traffic on its website. When Red Label experienced a lull in web traffic, their investigation revealed that 411 Travel had been using Red Label’s registered trademarks as metatags. As a result, some people searching for the Red Label website, instead ended up at the 411 Travel website providing the same travel services. Red Label alleged lost revenue of $760,000. US trademark law has a doctrine of “initial interest confusion”, under which trademark confusion (and thus infringement of a registered trademark) occurs when a customer seeking a particular brand of goods or services, is drawn to a competitor’s business through the competitor’s use of the first company’s trade name or trademark to misdirect the customer’s initial interest. The judge in the Red Label case, Justice Manson, held that the doctrine of “initial interest confusion” does not apply in Canada. Justice Manson concluded that a search engine merely gives the consumer a choice of independent and distinct links that he or she may choose from, rather than directing a consumer to a particular competitor. Rankings may affect the choice to be made, but nevertheless, such a choice exists. Justice Manson declined to find that the use of metatags alone constituted “passing off” or “trademark infringement”. Here, there was no use of any of Red Label’s trademarks or trade names on 411’s visible website. The website was clearly identified as 411 Travel Buys’ website. There was no likelihood of deception as to the source of the services provided on the 411 Travel Buys website, and the consumer was free to select the link to the Red Label website and disregard the 411 Travel Buys website. Please drop the writer an email at email@example.com if you have any comments as to whether this was a “just” result.
A number of our clients have been asking about crowdfunding as a possible way to finance their new ventures. Here is what we have learned. Crowdfunding is a form of funding made possible by social media, in which a large number of people contribute small amounts toward a venture. In order to avoid onerous securities regulations directed to public share offerings, in crowdfunding campaigns, the contributors do not obtain an ownership interest in the venture. Each contribution is akin to a donation and typically, in exchange for a contribution, each contributor is given some form of thank you “perk”, depending on the amount of the contribution. Most contributions in a crowdfunding campaign will be under $25 and the average contribution will likely be in the $75 range. For contributions under $10 the contributor may just receive a thank you message, for contributions of $25 the contributor may receive a key chain, and for contributions of $75 the contributor may receive a t-shirt. In addition, there are usually product discounts and early purchase incentives. Generally, the amount contributed represents approximately 5 times the value of the perk. Crowdfunding was initially used for “arts” funding, relating to music, theater, art, film/video, dance, etc. Statistics released by one crowdfunding platform indicate there have been 49,000 campaigns relating to music, of which 40% reached their target goal and 84,000 campaigns relating to film/video projects, of which 24% reached their target goal. The use of crowdfunding by small business is relatively new, with only 20,000 campaigns, of which a relatively dismal 3% reached their goal. The reason for the low success rate is that initial campaigns were ill prepared. Successful campaigns tend to set forth a very specific project with a targeted appeal to contributors that have personal reasons to support it. The target should be a relatively small and reasonably attainable goal. The average campaign is conducted over a period of 35 days. It is critical that 30% of the target be obtained within the first 3 days of the campaign (presumably through existing contacts) in order to create a “momentum” that will encourage members of the public to get on board. There is much to do in advance of a crowdfunding campaign. The party seeking crowdfunding should have a website, a 3 minute video that tells a compelling story, 7-9 levels of attractive perks, over 900 Facebook friends and a full-blown publicity campaign to get the word out as the launch date approaches. In order to raise just $25,000 at an average contribution of $75, will require 334 contributors of which a third will typically be Facebook friends. There must be something about the new venture that spurs to action members of the public who were not previously aware of the venture. Perhaps the new venture sells a safety product and the campaign is targeted toward friends and family of workers who are frequently exposed to the very danger the safety product addresses. In summary, if the project is one that inspires the target audience to proudly wear t-shirts to demonstrate their support, crowdfunding may be suitable. If the project is more difficult for the public to relate to, we recommend against crowdfunding, as most of us really do not need another t-shirt and, if we did, could purchase one for less than $75.
You have an idea that has potential and decide to become an internet entrepreneur. You secure a domain name. You hire a programmer to write the code to make your website function, a graphics firm to create a logo and a web design firm to set up the content and “look and feel” of the website. You raise some money from investors, create a start-up corporation and approach a large corporation about “partnering”. Initial discussions are positive, and you are told that a legal firm for the large corporation will be contacting your lawyer to make some due diligence inquiries. The first group of questions the lawyer is going to ask relate to the domain name. Is it owned by the start-up corporation or is it still sitting in your personal name? It should be owned by the start-up corporation. Did you have any searches performed in Canada and the United States in order to determine whether your use of the domain name could potentially infringe someone else’s rights? The large corporation does not want any problems. Have you taken steps to file a Trademark in Canada and the United States to protect the domain name? The large corporation wants protection against copycat websites. The second group of questions the lawyer is going to ask relate to the content of the website. Do you have an agreement transferring all rights in the software code from the programmer to the start-up corporation? Do you have an agreement transferring all rights in the logo from the graphics firm to the start-up corporation? Do you have an agreement transferring all rights in the website content from the web design firm to the start-up corporation? Many of the contracts used by programmers, graphics firms and web design firms, make them the owners of the copyright. Moral rights prevent alteration of copyright materials without express permission from the creator. Have “waivers” of these moral rights been obtained, so changes can be made in future? Is there patent protection, or has this at least been explored before public disclosure deadlines preclude patent protection? The third group of questions the lawyer is going to ask relate to employees, subcontractors, and shareholders. Did the subcontractors sign non-disclosure agreements with non-compete provisions? Do the employees have employment contracts with non-disclosure and non-compete provisions? Is there a shareholder agreement in place, with termination provisions in the event of a dispute with non-compete provisions? It all comes down to whether the Intellectual Property and Contractual provisions that the large corporation expects to see are in place. If so, are the Intellectual Property and Contractual provisions with the correct legal entity, i.e. the start-up corporation? Look at your own business. Are you ready for the call?