WHOSE LAWS ARE THEY ANYWAY?
JURISDICTION REPORT: CANADA
Victoria Carrington
Shapiro Cohen
Since mid-2009, Canada has been participating in negotiations with the European Union towards an economic partnership agreement known as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). In addition to the strong ties between the EU and Canada as investment partners, the EU is Canada’s second-largest export market aſter the United States, with two-way merchandise trade totalling almost $91 billion in 2008. A joint study by the EU and Canada indicates that bilateral trade could potentially increase by over 20 percent through the liberalisation of trade between the parties. Accordingly, the intent is to negotiate an ‘ambitious’ agreement that covers a very broad range of areas, including trade in goods, technical trade barriers, trade facilitation, customs procedures and rules of origin, trade in services, investment, regulatory co-operation, competition policy and intellectual property.
Two formal rounds of negotiations have occurred, in October 2009 in Ottawa and in January 2010 in Brussels. Tree further rounds are planned, with the next one originally scheduled to take place in April 2010. Te goal is to conclude the agreement this year.
Te substance of the negotiations to date has not been widely publicised by Canada’s government, despite the important implications for many areas of Canadian law and policy. However, the draſt intellectual property chapter of CETA, which includes proposals from both the EU and Canada, has been made available online and is raising concerns in the Canadian IP community insofar as the EU proposals appear to require substantial changes to be made to Canadian intellectual property laws in all areas, including copyright, trademarks, patents, databases and plant variety rights. Te sweeping nature of the reforms, including making provisions for a variety of new rights that would have to be implemented by Canada if it were to sign up to the CETA in its current form, have led some commentators to warn that Canada would effectively be relinquishing jurisdiction over its own intellectual property laws if it complies with the EU proposals.
For example, the EU proposals include many major changes in the area of copyright, including extending the term of copyright in Canada from life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years, new resale right for works of art, new exclusive rights for fixation of broadcasts (not limited to wireless broadcasts), new distribution rights, and the extension of reproduction rights to performers and broadcasters. Canada’s regime for enforcing IP rights would also require an overhaul to bring it in line with EU law, for example, in the area of Internet service provider (ISP) liability and new criminal sanctions proposed by the EU. With respect to trademarks, changes to the Canadian trademark registration process, the introduction of protection for well-known marks and the requirement that Canada comply with the Trademark Law Treaty (1994), and accede to the Singapore Treaty as well
www.worldipreview.com
“ THE SUBSTANCE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS TO DATE HAS NOT BE WIDELY PUBLICISED BY CANADA'S GOVERNMENT, DESPITE THE IMPORTANT IMPLICATIONS FOR MANY AREAS OF CANADIAN LAW AND POLICY”
as the Madrid Protocol, are also included among the EU proposals. In the area of patents and designs, the EU is seeking to require Canada to comply with Articles 1 to 16 of the Patent Law Treaty (which Canada has signed but not implemented) and to accede to the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, in addition to new data protection for plant protection, new rights for registration of designs and further protection regarding disclosure to third parties of pharmaceutical data submitted to regulatory authorities.
Similar concerns have also been raised about the implications of CETA for Canadian cultural policy, not only in areas that intersect directly with intellectual property rights (in particular, copyright), but also on issues such as the right of foreign investors to challenge decisions by governments in Canada, including those affecting culture, and restrictions that limit foreign firms from establishing in Canada or acquiring Canadian companies in film, broadcasting, publishing and the music industries, all of which are also are relevant to IP.
Te potential commercial benefits to Canada and many sectors of Canadian industry that would result from liberalising trade between the EU and Canada are clearly attractive. However, the cost of strengthening such ties in terms of the impact on intellectual property rights holders in Canada remains to be seen.
Dr. Victoria Carrington is a partner at Shapiro Cohen. She can be contacted at:
vcarrington@shapirocohen.com
World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2010
53
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80