On this appeal, the court considered the appropriateness of a “Counsel’s and Expert’s Eyes Only” protective order designation where the appellant’s president and sole employee would not have access to any material so designated.

The applicant, Hi-Star Franchise Systems, is the owner of Canadian trademark registration no. TMA 761,343 for the mark “WE’VE GOT YOUR BACK” in association with the services “real estate, mortgage and insurance brokerage services.”

The Registrar of Trademarks issued a s. 45 notice to the appellant, Cosmetic Warriors Limited at the request of Riches, McKenzie & Herbert LLP. The registrar held that the appellant had demonstrated use of the trademark under s. 4(1), but this finding was overturned by the Federal Court. The appellant appealed that decision to the Federal Court of Appeal.

This case pertains to the ability to protect jewellery and a methodology of creating it, under the Copyright Act. The plaintiff relied on the Copyright Act to seek damages, injunction and a declaration that the copyright was infringed in certain wax seal jewellery and methods of creation contrary to ss. 3(1) and 27 of the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42 [Act].

The case is about allegations of illegal downloading and sharing of movies. Under the “notice and notice” regime, the plaintiffs sent notice to TekSavvy that some TekSavvy subscribers had illegally downloaded and shared movies over which the plaintiffs say they have copyrights.

Apotex Inc. v Pfizer Canada Inc., 2019 FCA 16

Genentech, Inc. v Celltrion Healthcare Co., Ltd., 2019 FC 293.

Quality Program Services Inc v Canada, 2019 FC 19

Canadian National Railway Company v BNSF Railway Company, 2019 FC 281.

Bedessee Imports Ltd. v GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare (UK) IP Limited, 2019 FC 206