Supreme Court of Canada Decisions regarding Intellectual Property

It used to be that decades would go by without any Intellectual Property cases being considered by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).   The fact that there have been two significant SCC decisions on Intellectual Property within a period of 3 days at the end of June, is indicative of the importance of Intellectual Property in the new economy.

It is difficult to “police” the internet, due to the fact that the internet is worldwide and Court orders are unenforceable outside of the nation that granted them. On June 28, 2017 the SCC decided the Google Inc v. Equustek Solutions Inc. case.  In that case, Equustek (E) obtained an interim injunction prohibiting an infringer, D, from selling infringing products. D disappeared and, in a blatant breach of the injunction, continued sales over the internet.  A lower Court ordered that Google de-index the website of D from the search results on Google.  Google immediately complied, de-indexing the website of D from the Canadian search results available to Canadians through the Canadian default website, google.ca.   However, D continued its infringing activities and the website of D continued to be available on Google, except for google.ca.  E sought a Court order directing Google to de-index D’s websites from ALL Google search results worldwide and not just the Canadian search results.  Google resisted on the basis that the Canadian Court Order should not be given effect outside of Canada. The matter was appealed first to the British Columbia Court of Appeal and then to the SCC.

The SCC upheld the lower court order that required Google to de-index D’s website from search results worldwide, stating as follows:
“Where it is necessary to ensure the injunction’s effectiveness, a court can grant an injunction enjoining conduct anywhere in the world. The problem in this case is occurring online and globally. The Internet has no borders — its natural habitat is global. The only way to ensure that the interlocutory injunction attained its objective was to have it apply where Google operates — globally. If the injunction were restricted to Canada alone or to google.ca, the remedy would be deprived of its intended ability to prevent irreparable harm, since purchasers outside Canada could easily continue purchasing from D’s websites, and Canadian purchasers could find D’s websites even if those websites were de‑indexed on google.ca.”

“Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would result in Google violating the laws of that jurisdiction, is theoretical. If Google has evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary the interlocutory order accordingly.”

A number of patents have been found to be “invalid” by lower Courts based on the so-called “Promise Doctrine”.   The Promise Doctrine created a higher threshold for utility based on the “promises” in the patent. Under the Promise Doctrine, where the specification of a patent does not promise a specific result, a “mere scintilla” of utility is sufficient; but where the specification sets out an explicit “promise,” utility will be measured against that promise. On June 30, 2017 the SCC decided the AstraZeneca Canada v. Apotex case.  A lower Court held that the AstraZeneca patent was invalid for lack of utility under the Promise Doctrine, as it promised more than it could provide. The matter was appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and then to the SCC. AstraZeneca argued its patent was improperly invalidated on the basis of the Promise Doctrine.

In the result, the SCC found the Promise Doctrine to be unsound and characterized it as an interpretation of the utility requirement that is incongruent with both the words and the scheme of the Patent Act. The SCC held that the Promise Doctrine is excessively onerous in two ways: (1) it determines the standard of utility that is required of a patent by reference to the promises expressed in the patent; and (2) where there are multiple expressed promises of utility, it requires that all be fulfilled for a patent to be valid.  To determine whether a patent discloses an invention with sufficient utility, courts must first identify the subject matter of the invention. Second, courts must then ask whether that subject matter is useful, that is, whether it is capable of a practical purpose. The Act does not prescribe the degree of usefulness required, or that every potential use be realized. Therefore, a single use related to the nature of the subject matter is sufficient, and that utility must be established by either demonstration or sound prediction as of the filing date.

These decisions by the SCC are most welcome by the patent profession.  A patent holder no longer has to be concerned about an attack on the validity of the patent based upon the Promise Doctrine.  Should an infringer ignore a Court injunction obtained by the patent holder, steps can be taken to have companies that control search engines, such as Google, de-index the infringer’s website so that they no longer appear in the search results.

CAT CHASES DOG (DANGERS ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLICLY ACCUSING A COMPETITOR OF INFRINGEMENT)

A client called me the other day to discuss some steps he wished to take against a competitor who was infringing his patent.    The client wanted to write letters to some major companies that were purchasing product from the competitor, to make them aware of the infringement and advise them that he would be forced to sue them if they continued to purchase the competitor’s product.  The second step he wished to take was to place an advertisement in a magazine widely read in the industry, to inform companies in the industry of the alleged infringing activity by the competitor.  I advised my client that there were some practical reasons why taking these steps might end in disaster.   Firstly, when you threaten companies with legal action, they are not inclined to do business with you.  In other words, it is bad for business to sue customers.  Secondly, when you make statements tending to discredit the business of a competitor you are “potentially” breaching section 7 (a) of the Trademarks Act which reads:
“No person shall make a false or misleading statement tending to discredit the business, wares or services of a competitor.”
My client protested that everything he was going to place in the letters and the advertisement was absolutely true.    In the recent Federal Court case of Excalibre Oil Tools V. Advantage Products, a businessman with the same attitude as my client found out the hard way the risks of making statements about a competitor that turned out to be false.   Advantage sent letters to customers of Excalibre alleging infringement of three patents. However, when the patent infringement action subsequently proceeded to Court, Advantage Products lost; the Court found key claims to be invalid and the remaining valid claims not to be infringed by Excalibre.  The case is presently proceeding to the “damages” phase to determine the amount Advantage Products is going to have to pay as compensation to Excalibre for making false and misleading statements that discredited the business of Excalibre.   Why give your competitor grounds to counter-claim?  If you believe your competitor is infringing, communicate directly with the competitor and, if the matter remains unresolved, sue.

Breaking News for Online Businesses

There have been some recent court decisions that will be of interest to online businesses. Once an “online” business is successful, it is just a matter of time before competitors try to divert traffic intended for the successful business to their own competing websites.  One way of diverting traffic is through the use of websites with similar names.  With the rapid rise of social media, such as FACEBOOK, aggressive competitors are also establishing social media accounts with similar names.   Another way, a more legitimate way, is through the acquisition of “sponsored” links, such as GOOGLE ads.   These sponsored links appear in the search results whenever keywords associated with the successful business are entered into the search engine.

The old news is that in the case Michaels v. Michaels Stores Procurement Co, decided March 15, 2016, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal stated that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to order the transfer of a confusing domain name.  The new development is that in the case of Thoi Bao Inc v. 1913075 Ontario Ltd, decided December 7, 2016, Madam Justice McDonald of the Federal Court went a step further and ordered the defendant to transfer to the plaintiff his FACEBOOK account, his TWITTER account and “any other social media accounts under his ownership or control” that were confusing with the business of the plaintiff.   In light of this decision, a successful business now has a remedy to use against competitors who are diverting traffic through the use of confusingly similar social media account names.

The other development relates to “passing off”, the court-created protection against trade misrepresentations.  In order to be successful in an action for “passing off”, among other things, the plaintiff must show that there has been misrepresentation creating confusion in the public.  The old news is that purchasing sponsored links, in and of itself, does not constitute “passing off”.   This was established in the Federal Court decision in Vancouver Community College v. Vancouver Career College (Burnaby) Inc., in which the Trial Judge held that the time frame for determining whether there was confusion was when the consumer reached and viewed the defendant’s website.   The Trial Judge found that there was nothing confusing at the defendant’s website and thus that any confusion was not sufficient to meet the requirements for “passing off”.  The new development is that on January 26, 2017 the Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the Trial Judge’s decision.  The Appeal Court determined that the Trial Judge had erred and that the correct time to assess confusion was when the consumer viewed the search engine results page.  The Court of Appeal noted that the sponsored link merely indicated VCCollege.ca, without any content that would distinguish the defendant’s business from that of the plaintiff.  In the circumstances, the sponsored link was confusing and constituted passing off.  If your successful business has been the target of intentionally confusing sponsored links, you now have a remedy.  Conversely, if your business pays for sponsored links, you must ensure that your sponsored links identify your business and are not confusing.

Copyright, Design and Trademark – A Cautionary Tale

There is a relationship between copyright, design and trademark as they apply to physical products.  Copyright protects “works of artistic craftsmanship”.   Design protection can be obtained for features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament of useful articles.  Trademark rights may extend to the shaping of wares (products) with such unique shapes being referred to as “distinguishing guises”.  (The old-style glass bottle used by Coca Cola is a good example of a distinguishing guise trademark; the consumer knows what the product is merely from the container.)   It is possible for a product to be subject to all three, copyright, design and trademark at some time during the product’s life cycle.  However, copyright, design and trademark each have their limitations.

When an entrepreneur launches a new product, he or she does not know how successful the product may become.  Sometimes public apathy toward a new product is deflating.  At other times, the response exceeds even the entrepreneur’s expectations.  For that reason, it is not unusual for an entrepreneur to introduce a product into the marketplace and to wait and see how the product sells before seeking protection.

The Court decision rendered on December 14, 2016 in the case of Corocord Raumnetz v. Dynamo Industries is a cautionary tale that helps explain aspects of the relationship between copyright, design and trademark.  Corocord is a manufacturer of playground equipment. Some years ago, Corocord introduced into the market a new playground structure.  Under Canadian law, the playground structure was protected by copyright as a work of artistic craftsmanship at the time of introduction into the marketplace.  Copyright protection does not require any active steps to file paperwork with a government office, although there are advantages in doing so.

Fast forward ahead several years.  By that time, Corocord’s playground structure had become quite successful.  The law suit against Dynamo Industries was triggered when Dynamo introduced a similar product into the marketplace and they ended up bidding against each other on a contract for a playground installation. Corocord sued Dynamo.

Corocord tried to enforce their copyright against Dynamo.  Unfortunately for Corocord, copyright is only intended to protect “works of artistic craftsmanship” that are sold in limited quantities.  The right to sue Dynamo under copyright law was lost, due to the fact that the playground structure had been reproduced in quantities exceeding fifty (50).  Corocord had been too successful to continue to rely upon copyright.  Corocord could have sued Dynamo under design law.  Unfortunately for Corocord, an application must be filed with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office for design protection within 12 months of the playground structure being introduced into the marketplace.  The time had passed, Corocord had waited too long. Corocord tried to sue Dynamo under trademark law, which does not have a time deadline. In order to succeed Corocord had to establish that their playground structures had become so well known that the relevant market would automatically associate the distinctive shape of the playground structure with Corocord.  Unfortunately for Corocord, they had not, as yet, become successful to the extent that the distinctive shape of the playground structure was associated with them.

What could have or should have Corocord done?  It was okay for Corocord to rely upon copyright in the beginning.  Within 12 months Corocord knew that their playground structure was achieving success in the marketplace.  It was a fatal error of Corocord to not apply for design protection before the 12 months deadline for doing so expired.  With design protection, Corocord could have stopped similar products from entering the market.  Subsequently, when design protection was about to expire, they could have applied for trademark protection  in the hope of extending their protection indefinitely on the basis that the distinctive shape of the playground structure had become well know and is associated solely with Corocord.  However, now their ability to obtain trademark protection in future is doubtful.  The distinctive shape of the playground structure will no longer be associated solely with Corocord.  Dynamo is in the market providing playground structures with the same distinctive shape and other competitors may soon follow.

Nagoya Protocol

The other day I was asked a question about the Nagoya Protocol.  In order to answer the question, I had to review the text of the Protocol.  Although the Protocol has been around since 2011, it has recently received attention due to the announcement that the Trudeau Liberal government intends to move forward to implement the Protocol.  The Protocol has as its focus the use of biological systems and living organisms to make products and processes for use.  The Protocol seeks to promote a “fair and equitable” sharing of the benefits arising from utilization of genetic resources.  It also seeks to provide funding for the conservation of biological diversity.  An example of the need for conservation of biological diversity is the rapid rate of destruction of the rain forests and conversion to farmland.   It is hoped that funding can be secured that will provide financial incentives to preserve the rainforests.  The knowledge of genetic resources is often held by indigenous and local communities as “traditional knowledge”, and the Protocol contemplates domestic legislation to establish rights of indigenous and local communities over such genetic resources.  The Canadian government will be seeking prior and informed approval and involvement of our indigenous peoples to the use of their traditional knowledge upon mutually agreed terms that will see the indigenous peoples compensated.  The Nagoya Protocol goes hand in hand with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP).  Article 24 of DRIP provides “Indigenous peoples have the right to their traditional medicines and to maintain their health practices, including the conservation of their vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals. Indigenous individuals also have the right to access, without any discrimination, to all social and health services”. Article 31 of DRIP provides “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions”.  The passing of a law to implement the Nagoya Protocol in Canada should be relatively straightforward.  Other Countries have already adopted the Protocol and a review of their law should be of assistance in preparing equivalent Canadian legislation.  What may be interesting is the negotiations with our indigenous peoples that will follow the passing of the Canadian legislation into law.  Once a spotlight is placed on the rights of indigenous peoples, there may also have to be put in place protection of the “traditional cultural expressions” of the indigenous peoples as contemplated by Article 31 of DRIP.  I suspect we will discover there are many “traditional cultural expressions” that we have come to take for granted, such as the Cowichan blanket.

Myths that drive IP Lawyers Crazy

Clients often have misconceptions about patents and trademarks. For example, a client contacted me the other day and asked that I make every effort to expedite his patent application. He wanted it granted as soon as possible, and pressed me for a best case scenario about how quickly I could obtain his patent. The client was frantic because a competitor was threatening to sue him for infringement of a patent the competitor had obtained. The client thought that obtaining a patent would make him safe from the threatened legal action. Unfortunately, it is a myth that your patent will save you from being sued by a competitor. You can obtain a patent and still be sued for infringing a patent owned by a competitor. For example, it is possible to obtain a patent for an improvement to an existing product or method, if the improvement is new and unobvious. However, if the improvement relates to something that is patented, and if in order to use the improvement it is necessary to use the subject matter of the original patent, then use of the improvement would infringe the original patent unless the owner of the original patent gave permission for such use. Thus, it is possible to obtain a patent for an invention but to be unable to work the patent without the permission of the owner of a patent for some underlying technology. When there is an allegation of patent infringement, you must either negotiate your way out of the problem (perhaps by cross-licensing) or “design around” the problem. Fortunately for my client, the client’s product is in the early stage of development and the allegation of infringement came up at the first tradeshow where the product was displayed. The client is now considering what changes can be made to the product to avoid the competitor’s patent. If the “design around” attempt is not successful or will take too long, the client has patents on some other technologies that can be used as bargaining chips in a negotiation. That same day, one of our Trademark Agents, Laura Duckett, came into my office to discuss two Trademarks a client had asked us to apply for two years previously. The Trademarks had been allowed by the Trademark Office. The problem was that, in the intervening period, the client had changed the Trademarks. With respect to one of the Trademarks, the client had asked us to apply for a Trademark consisting of two words. However, he had dropped one of the words and was now using a single word. To make matters worse, the single word was a “generic” term for the product that we will be unable to register. With respect to another of the Trademarks, the client had also asked us to apply for a Trademark consisting of two words. However, in the intervening period, he had made a substitution replacing one of the words with another word he liked better. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending upon your point of view), the Trademark Office grants you protection for the Trademark you apply for. It is a myth that the Trademark office will accommodate changes should your Trademark “evolve”. If you make material changes to your Trademark, you have to start the Trademark registration process all over again. When you get involved with Intellectual Property issues, instead of relying upon myths communicated to you by well meaning friends, seek the assistance of a Registered Patent Agent or Registered Trademark Agent in your area. A list of licensed agents is maintained on the Canadian Intellectual Property Office website at cipo.gc.ca.

2016 Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC)

convention-brochureOne can gain an understanding of issues that the profession is wrestling with by reviewing the titles of the presentations from the 2016 IPIC annual meeting.  Continuing Professional Development: “The Skill Set of the IP Practitioner of the Future – Where will IP be in 20 years?”  Trademarks: “Trademarks in Metatags and Keywords – A summary of the Current State of the Law in Canada as Contrasted with the U.S. and Europe”, “Brand Boot Camp”, “Best Practices before the Trademark Office”.  Patent Issues: “Patent Issues that Keep In-House Counsel Up at Night”, “Patentability:  Dealing with Challenges in IT and Life Sciences”, “Best Practices before the Patent Office”.  Online Issues: “Managing Online Content: Tips, Traps, and Tariffs for IP Practitioners”.  Rights Issues: “Publicity Rights: Guidelines for Giving Clients Practical Risk Assessments”.  Litigation Issues: “Remedies – Quick Results in Trademark Cases: Myth or Reality”, “Top IP Cases of the Year”, “Appellate Advocacy in Specialized Area of the Law”.
Many of the above issues I deal with on a regular basis and have written articles about over the past year.  However, the presentation of “Futurist” Jeremy de Beer was of general application and may be useful to the reader.  Mr. de Beer described an approach to predicting the future using a “grid”.  He creates this grid by placing a first line that represents a trend that one can see today, such as automation (self driving cars, smart homes with remotely controlled appliances).  One end of the line represents the present and the other end of the line represents the future, if the trend continues. He then places a second line crossing the first line at 90 degrees to create his “grid” having four quadrants.  The second line represents a second trend that one can see today, such as the increasing capability of smart phones. Again, one end of the line represents the present and the other end of the line represents the future, if the trend continues.  A first quadrant will predict what happens if neither trend continues, a second quadrant will predict what happens if the first trend continues and the second does not progress, a third quadrant will predict what happens if the second trend continues and the second trend does not progress, a fourth quadrant will predict what happens if both trends progress.  Mr. de Beer indicates when you extrapolate what may happen some of your “predictions” (especially in the fourth quadrant) should appear to be ridiculous.  If this does not occur, you are not pushing the trend far enough. Self driving cars and everyone carrying miniature computers that connect to the internet would have sounded ridiculous 20 years ago. It is not viewed as being ridiculous today.

 

Comment:  I received some comment from Keith Sketchley that I felt should be shared.  He indicated that one should beware of overly simplistic methodologies.  He identified two fundamental flaw, in the futurists approach that he described as follows:

1. Trends do not continue indefinitely, in part because people change behaviours. In technical things that’s called “feedback”.  For example, increasing prices of a product will be met by reduced consumption in response to prices, demand drops, suppliers lower their prices.
2. It is difficult to predict new products and services, and some predictions fall far short. For example, a professor gave a Mr. Smith a C, sneering at his idea that people would pay a premium for assured delivery timing of documents. Mr. Smith went on to start an industry, he called his company “Federal Express

Rules for settling legal disputes

Some time ago, I travelled to Calgary to try to settle a legal dispute through mediation.  In mediation, a mediator attempts to guide the parties to a negotiated settlement. However, in this case the arrangement was that if the parties could not arrive at a settlement, the mediator would change roles and become an arbitrator, that is, authorized to impose a settlement upon the parties. My client and I travelled to Calgary for the weekend, in the expectation that we would fly back Sunday night having resolved the dispute.  My client’s view was the same as mine, that even a poor settlement would be better than a great lawsuit.  Time was also important, as my client had to resolve the dispute with the Calgary Company, before he would be free to enter into a new agreement with another company that was waiting in the wings for the dispute to be resolved. The mediation did not go well.  Every time we made progress, the opposing lawyer would inflame the discussions with allegations of “facts” that my client strongly disputed.   The point was reached where my client told me that he had had enough and he wished to move on to the arbitration phase. The matter then took an unexpected turn.  Instead of hearing submissions and rendering a prompt decision, the arbitrator  required a “Statement of Claim” to be prepared and served by a first date, a “Statement of Defence” to be prepared and served by a second date, an exchange of relevant documents to take place by a third date, examination of the parties under oath by a fourth date, and a “trial” at the Alberta Law Society Offices in Calgary on a fifth date, and indicated that a written decision would be rendered by him by a sixth date.  Under the schedule set forth by the arbitrator, it took another 11 months for the dispute to be resolved.  In another matter, I attended a settlement meeting in Edmonton with the General Manager of a biotech company.  The General Manager had to report to a wealthy individual who was the major shareholder and financial backer of the biotech company.  On the other side of the negotiating table was a person from the University’s commercialization office and a person heading up a biotech research team.   The person from the University’s commercialization office had to report to a University oversight committee.   The people in the room rapidly had a meeting of the minds and reached agreement on all issues, subject to approval of the persons to whom we reported.  It was in the reporting back that the agreement fell apart.  The major shareholder and financial backer, and the University oversight committee repeatedly came back with further conditions which made the job of settling the matter more difficult.  The first settlement meeting gave rise to a second and then a third settlement meeting, as each side tried to cope with shifting and evolving instructions.  I recently read an article regarding Federal Court Prothonotary (type of judicial officer) Mireille Tabib’s experiences as a mediator, which inspired this commentary.  The article, along with my own experiences, provides the following “rules” to follow when entering into negotiations of a legal dispute.  The first rule is to start at an early stage, where the focus is still on business concerns and has not yet shifted to “winning” the legal case at all costs.  The second rule is to focus on commercial realities, that is, what will “work” as a settlement and not the details of the claim that are often in dispute.  The third rule is that everyone doing the actual negotiating must have full authority to settle.

Limitations of Non-Disclosure Agreements

Non-Disclosure PhotoI recently read an article entitled “The scope and limitations of Non-Disclosure Agreements”.  The article explained that a non-disclosure agreement is an agreement in which a party receiving information (Receiving Party) agrees to take reasonable precautions to protect from disclosure information received from a party disclosing information (Disclosing Party).   The article then went on to list a series of matters that must be addressed in a well drafted non-disclosure agreement, including: identifying the information that is to be protected, identifying that the information is being disclosed in order to permit the Receiving Party to complete a specified task for the Disclosing Party, setting forth rules regarding disclosure to employees and safe storage of the information while the task is being undertaken and  requiring the destruction or return of the information when the Receiving Party has completed the specified task.  The article also touched upon remedies available to the Disclosing Party in the event of a breach of the agreement.  Although the article was well written, in my opinion, the author neglected to touch upon a significant limitation of non-disclosure agreements.   Most non-disclosure agreements contain the following provision: “The Receiving Party shall have no obligation with respect to such information where the information has become publicly known through no wrongful act of the Receiving Party”.   Entrepreneurs carefully go around and have non-disclosure agreements signed by parties who are assisting them by manufacturing and supplying components.   Non-disclosure agreements are also signed by parties who are assisting in the preparation of business plans, creating brand names and logos, setting up websites, and setting up marketing plans.  Finally, non-disclosure agreements are signed by parties being approached for investment capital and by parties being approached to assist in marketing and wholesale distribution.   Then on the day of the launch of the product or service, all of the Receiving Parties who signed non-disclosure agreements are released from their obligations, as the Disclosing Party has publicly released the information and thus that information has become “publicly known through no wrongful act of the Receiving Party”.     Non-disclosure agreements are fine for having preliminary discussions, but  once the Receiving Party is working with you, a further agreement needs to be put in place that prevents the Receiving Party from competing with you while they are working with you and for a period of time (for example 2 years) after they cease working with you.  As a practical matter, one or more of the parties you are relying upon as a member of your team may have better connections and more resources than you do.  Once they are released from their obligations under the non-disclosure agreement by your public disclosure, they may come to the realization that they are in an excellent position to deliver the product or service and they no longer need you.  Of course, they will delay acting until they have the opportunity to gauge the market response to your new product or service.  Get the additional agreements signed.  After you have taken all the risks and proven there is a market for the product or service, there will be imitators.  Make sure the imitators are not parties who you thought were members of your team.

THE NAME GAME – OBTAINING A TRADEMARK

This is a SLIDESHARE presentation given to the Better Business Bureau at a “Lunch N Learn” on August 17, 2016.    Some names that businesses choose are simply NOT PROTECTABLE.  This presentation is intended to make persons selecting business names aware of the rules used by the Trademarks Office in reviewing and approving Trademarks.  Included is an overview of unregistered and registered Trademarks.  If you are only acting locally and have no internet presence, it is not critical that you register your Trademark.  If you are doing business over the internet, it is critical that you obtain Trademark protect in Canada and in many cases also in the United States. http://www.slideshare.net/ThompsonCooperLLP/the-name-game-protecting-product-or-business-names