Substantial Similarity After Cinar Corp v Robinson
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
Substantial Similarity After Cinar Corp v Robinson
Issue: Volume 31
Author(s): Cameron J. Hutchison
Abstract:
In recent years, the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered a series of illuminating and balanced judgments in the area of copyright law. Cinar Corp v Robinson is a departure from this tradition. The court’s endorsement of a holistic approach, and its refusal to consider the use that is made of the borrowing in the alleged infringing work, appears to strengthen substantial similarity doctrine in favour of copyright holders; however, the impact of these rulings will likely turn on how lower courts interpret the ambiguities of the judgment. On one view, copyright protections will be bolstered even more by expanding the enquiry to include latent or structural elements of a work without in any way limiting the scope of this broader analysis, as well as the failure to provide any meaningful guidance on making substantial similarity comparisons. On another view, the court’s silence on key issues, together with the ambiguity in how it executed the substantial similarity assessment, provides an opportunity for lower courts to refine the substantial similarity analysis in a more balanced fashion.
