Accounting of Profits in Intellectual Property Cases in Canada (2007)
The Canadian Intellectual Property Review (CIPR) is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. It is sent to over 1,800 IPIC members at no cost and can be purchased by non-members for a fee. If you would like to browse the articles included in the CIPR, please consult our database below.
Any author, member or non-member can submit an article for consideration in the CIPR. The CIPR Editorial Board welcomes both short pieces (2,000 to 5,000 words) that may be included in the Notes section of the issue or longer, more in-depth articles. The maximum length of articles, including references, is 20,000 words. Articles may be submitted in French or English. Each article should be accompanied by a 150-word abstract.
All submissions undergo a double-blind review process: the reviewers are not given the authors' identities and the identities of the reviewers are shielded from the authors. Additionally, articles submitted must be original and must not have been previously published elsewhere.
If you would like to submit an article for an upcoming issue of the CIPR please contact admin@ipic.ca.
Canadian Intellectual Property Review
Share
Accounting of Profits in Intellectual Property Cases in Canada (2007)
Issue: Volume 24 no 1
Author(s): Norman V. Siebrasse, Alexander J. Stack, and the Cole & Partners IP Litigation Support Group
Abstract:
An accounting of profits is a monetary remedy measured by the profits made by the defendant. It is available in Canada for copyright, patent, and trade-mark infringement and has been the dominant monetary remedy for patent infringement in Canada since the groundbreaking Teledyne case in 1982. In its 2004 decision in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted an approach that is a significant shift from the way in which remedy had been commonly understood since Teledyne. This article reviews the law respecting this remedy with emphasis on comparing the changes implied by the Schmeiser decision with the common understanding before Schmeiser, arguing that in many cases these views may be reconciled. It is an updated version of an article published in 2001, which reviewed Canadian law respecting this remedy as it was then understood.
Not Just About Famous Trade-marks: A Review of Other Issues Raised by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin and Mattel Decisions
0
$4.99 + tax
10 Decisions in 60 Minutes: An Overview of Recent Significant U.S. Trade-mark Developments
0
$4.99 + tax
Accounting of Profits in Intellectual Property Cases in Canada (2007)
0
$4.99 + tax
Appeal of Orders of Prothonotaries in Federal Court: Examination of the Standard of Review as Stated in Merck & Co. v. Apotex Inc. and Ca nada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd
0
$3.99 + tax
How to Draft Software and Business Method Applications to Get Them Through the EPO
