Pauline Wong is the Assistant Director of IP Osgoode.
David Vaver, Professor of Intellectual Property Law at Osgoode Hall Law School, has authored a recently released, updated and expanded edition of his textbook entitled, Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-Marks, 2nd ed.
Published by Irwin Law, a description of the textbook can be found online and is reproduced here:
Since the publication of the first edition in 1997, David Vaver’s Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-Marks has become one of the most important treatises on the subject in Canada. It has been relied upon by scholars, practitioners, policy analysts and students alike, as well as those who use or rely on intellectual property, and has been cited as a leading authority by all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada. Now, nearly fifteen years later, Professor Vaver has produced a new and greatly-expanded edition that not only takes account of developments that have occurred in domestic and international law, but also provides an in-depth and engaging discussion of the profound changes in the social, economic, and technological environments in which intellectual property law operates.
Already, the second edition has been cited by the country’s highest court. In Masterpiece Inc. v. Alavida Lifestyles Inc., 2011 SCC 27, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law relating to geographic scope of trade-mark rights and priority as between registered and unregistered rights. Mr. Kelly Gill, co-counsel to the appellant before the Supreme Court of Canada and member of IP Osgoode’s Advisory Board, blogged on the decision (read “A Masterpiece of Trade-mark Clarity”). Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Rothstein cited Professor Vaver’s text for the legislative intent to provide a national scope of protection for registered trade-marks in Canada (para. 33 of the decision, p. 536 of the textbook).
Justice Rothstein also referenced Professor Vaver extensively at para. 49 of the decision:
As Professor Vaver points out, if the marks or names do not resemble one another, it is unlikely that even a strong finding on the remaining factors would lead to a likelihood of confusion. The other factors become significant only once the marks are found to be identical or very similar (Vaver, at p. 532). As a result, it has been suggested that a consideration of resemblance is where most confusion analyses should start (Vaver, at p. 532).
With such a fine reception within the first week of its release, we can only imagine what lies next for Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patents, Trade-Marks, 2nd ed. Kudos!
