Canada: How 2004’s Court Decisions Have Changed IP Law

Last Updated: April 14 2005
Article by Jessica Lumière

Published in Managing Intellectual Property's World Contacts Handbook 2005.

In 2004, a number of developments, in the form of both legislative and judicial action, made an impact on Canadian law.


In Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser ([2004] 1 SCR 902), the Supreme Court of Canada considered the patentability of genes and cells. At issue was whether Monsanto’s patent to modified canola genes and cells was valid, and whether Percy Schmeiser, a farmer, infringed Monsanto’s patents by planting seeds and growing plants containing the patented genes and cells, even though Monsanto’s patent did not claim canola plants or seeds themselves. This decision was closely followed by the biotechnology and agriculture industries in Canada. They were concerned that the Court might extend its reasoning in the 2002 case of Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) ([2002] 4 SCR 45) (Harvard Mouse) to invalidate the Monsanto patents; in Harvard Mouse, the Supreme Court had held that higher life forms were unpatentable.

The Court, in a split decision, upheld Monsanto’s patent and held that Schmeiser’s activities had constituted an infringement. The majority rejected Schmeiser’s argument that the modified gene and cell claims of Monsanto’s patent are unpatentable subject matter because granting such a patent would amount to granting a patent on a whole plant. The majority noted that the patentability of genes and cells was not questioned in Harvard Mouse and that only higher life forms could not be patented. As a result of this judgment, gene and cell claims should be allowable in Canada without being limited to isolated material.

The harsh consequences of the decision in Barton No-Till Disk Inc v Dutch Industries (2003 FCA 121) (Dutch Industries) were again highlighted in Johnson & Johnson Inc v Boston Scientific Ltd (Johnson & Johnson) (2004 FC 1672), in which the Federal Court invalidated a number of Johnson & Johnson’s patents on the basis that at the time of the application, small-entity fees were paid in error in place of the large-entity fees. Following the Federal Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Dutch Industries, the trial court held that a top-up payment at a later time would not remedy the situation.

Shortly after the Johnson & Johnson decision, Bill C-29 was tabled in the House of Commons, proposing to amend the Patent Act by incorporating a provision that top-up payments made after the payment of a small-entity fee would be deemed made at the same time as the payment of the smallentity fee. Under the bill, corrective payments would be acceptable up to a year after payment of the small-entity fee. To become law, however, the bill must still move through the legislative process.

The government of Canada has also proposed amending the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations and the Food and Drug Regulations. The amendments are particularly important to pharmaceutical companies because these regulations, in combination with the Patent Act, form the regulatory structure governing the protection of pharmaceutical patents in Canada.

The Minister of Health maintains a patent register that lists patents for medicinal products that have been approved for use in Canada. As part of the marketing approval process, a generic drug manufacturer wishing to market a product by comparing it to a medicinal product that has related patents listed on the register must either wait until the listed patents expire or serve the patent holder with a notice of allegation specifying why it should be allowed to market its comparable product before the listed patent expires. If the patent holder commences legal proceedings in response to that notice, there is an automatic stay of marketing approval for up to two years.

The proposed amendments would restrict the type of patents listed on the patent register to those that include claims to the compound, formulation or use for which approval is being sought – that is, to patents whose commercial product embodies the patent. The amendments would exclude from the register patents that have typically been eligible for inclusion for activities such as brand name changes, manufacturing site changes, process changes and quality control changes. Moreover, under the amendments, a generic company must address in its notice of allegation only patents that were listed as a result of a patent holder’s submission for marketing approval filed before the generic company’s request for marketing approval of its product. The generic companies would also have broader bases of allegations. On the other hand, the amendments propose to extend the protection for data submitted by patent owners to the Minister of Health from five to eight years (eight and a half for paediatric studies), as part of the procedure for obtaining approval for a new drug. These proposed changes have not yet become law, so the final regulatory changes are still awaited.

In addition to proposing new patent legislation, the Canadian legislature approved Bill C-9, which, although not yet in force, aims to implement a World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement, making Canada the first country to do so. Bill C-9 amends patent laws to allow Canadian generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to obtain licences to make specified generic versions of patented medicines and export them to certain developing countries. The bill makes the acquisition of compulsory licences by generic drug manufacturers a relatively uncomplicated process, subjecting the generic companies only to straightforward regulatory approval. Some safeguards against the abuse of this process are provided, but these safeguards are limited. For example, no opportunity exists to make submissions to the Patent Commissioner regarding the appropriateness of the grant of a licence.


Copyright holders and internet service providers (ISPs) will be interested to learn of the new developments in Canadian copyright law in 2004. On June 30 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Association of Internet Providers (2004 SCC 45), on the issue of imposing a copyright tariff on the use of streamed musical works on the internet. The Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada argued that all parties involved in the online transmission of music, which included ISPs, should pay a royalty. In opposing the tariff, the ISPs cited the intermediary exception in the Copyright Act, whereby intermediaries are deemed not to infringe copyright because they merely facilitate the transmission of the material in question. The Court decided in favour of the ISPs. However, when it can be shown that an intermediary, such as an ISP or a host server, acts as a content provider rather than as a conduit for that content, or effectively authorizes infringement – for example, by failing to remove infringing material after being notified that it is transmitting such material – the ISP may be found liable, irrespective of its location. The Court went on to say that caching, the temporary copying and storing of information, is also covered by the intermediary exemption because the practice allows for faster and more economic service. Lastly, the Court decided that it is impractical to expect an ISP to monitor whether the material it transmits infringes copyright.

On March 4 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada also released its decision in the case that pitted three Canadian legal publishers against the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) in CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada (2004 SCC 13). The LSUC operates a legal reference and research library that provides self-serve photocopiers as well as a photocopying service. The legal publishers argued that the photocopying constituted either authorized infringement in the former case or actual infringement in the latter case. The Court found that, although the photocopied works were original copyright-protected works, the LSUC was not liable for copyright infringement because the photocopying was for research purposes, triggering the fair dealing exemption in the Copyright Act. A central issue in the case was the degree of originality required for a work to be protected by copyright. The Court found that to be original, a work must be by an author and must not have been copied from another work; it must also be some product of the author’s exercise of skill and judgment that is more than just a purely mechanical exercise.

As a result of the Federal Court’s decision in BMG Canada Inc v John Doe (2004 FC 488), Canadian online peer-topeer file swappers may, temporarily at least, continue to swap music over the internet. Several recording labels brought suit against 29 unnamed defendants for copyright infringement due to online swapping of music files. The Federal Court refused to order ISPs to disclose the names and addresses of their customers, preventing the plaintiffs from naming the defendants personally in the action. In any event, the Court found that the act of using filesharing programs to swap music online did not infringe copyright so the case for copyright infringement had not been made.

Trade marks

Although no major changes were made to Canadian trade mark law in 2004, the Federal Court of Appeal was active in the area. Famous marks do not appear to be recognized in Canada, but this issue is likely to arise in the appeal that was granted on November 18 2004 to the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision, handed down on April 22 2004, inVeuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v Les Boutiques Clicquot Inc Ltée (2004 FCA 164). Veuve Clicquot is in the Champagne business and owns several registered marks in Canada that incorporate the word clicquot. Les Boutiques Clicquot sells women’s clothing under the brands Boutiques Clicquot and Clicquot, and co-defendant Mademoiselle Charmante Inc owns two registered marks that include the word clicquot. The Court upheld the decision of the lower court, which found not only that no trade mark infringement had occurred, but also that no connection existed between the parties’ activities, even though Veuve Clicquot sold articles of clothing. The Court found no risk of confusion between the marks despite the fact that Veuve Clicquot’s Clicquot marks were inherently distinctive and well known, and that the co-defendants’ marks were found to resemble the plaintiff’s.

The Federal Court of Appeal also confirmed that the Registrar of Trademarks does not have the authority to amend the register of trade marks under section 38 of the Trade-marks Act. In Bacardi & Company Limited v Havana Club Holding SA (2004 FCA 220), the issue arose because the Registrar changed the name of the owner of the mark Havana Club from Jose Arechabala SA to Jose Arechabala SA Nacionalizada after the Cuban government nationalized the company’s assets in the 1960s. Title to the mark eventually resided with Havana Club Holding, which then filed new applications for similar marks under section 15 of the Act, which allows registration of a potentially confusing mark where all marks are in the name of the same entity (and are then referred to as associated marks). Bacardi argued that the Registrar had no authority to amend the register, because section 57 of the Act gives that power to the Federal Court exclusively. Bacardi argued that, as a result, Havana Club Holding could not have proper title to Havana Club and that it could not rely on section 15 of the Act to register further similar marks. Although the Registrar and Federal Court of Appeal agreed with Bacardi, the decision meant that the Registrar also could not correct the error and it was found that Bacardi should have properly brought the action under section 57 of the Act rather than as an opposition proceeding.

Also of interest in 2004 was the decision, on April 29 2004, by the Supreme Court of Canada to allow the appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Kirkbi AG v Ritvik Holdings Inc (2003 FCA 297). At issue in this case was whether the shape of the surface of a LEGO piece attracted the distinguishing guise provision of the Trademarks Act, a provision that grants trade mark protection to the shape or packaging of a product. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court’s decision that the characteristics of the mark were primarily functional and not the proper subject for trade mark protection. The Supreme Court decision is eagerly awaited due to the recent addition of an issue not previously raised in this case – the constitutional validity of section 7(b) of the Act. This provision is the statutory embodiment of the common law action for passing off, and a finding of unconstitutionality could limit the Federal Court’s jurisdiction in deciding future trade mark matters.

Domain names

On August 6 2004 in the case of Glaxo Group Limited v Defining Presence Marketing Group Inc (Manitoba) (CDRP Case 00020), the panel charged with deciding cases under the Canadian Internet Registry Authority’s Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (CDRP) found in favour of the complainant under each of the three tests under the CDRP bad-faith registration provision. The registrant had registered the domain name, which linked the user to a website advertising pharmaceuticals, including Glaxo’s Zyban product. The panel found that the registrant had registered the domain name to sell it for a profit, that the registrant had a history of registering domain names to which it was not entitled because they comprised third party trade marks, and that the registrant was Glaxo’s competitor and had registered the domain name to disrupt Glaxo’s business. As a result, Defining Presence Marketing Group was found to have registered the domain name in bad faith, and the registration was ordered transferred to Glaxo.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.