PitbLAWg may be AWOL on January 18, 2012.
In a USA Today article “TwitPic, WordPress to go dark for online SOPA protest” Yamiche Alcindor reported that WordPress, along with other websites will not available on Wednesday January 18, 2012 to protest the proposed US legislation, Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Act.
WordPress is the host site for PitbLAWg. If WordPress is not available then PitbLAWg will not be online for the day. However, we expect that WordPress and PitbLAWg with be back up and running on Thursday January 19th.
PitbLAWg takes no position on the proposed legislation or on the blackout. Thanks for following PitbLAWg and we hope to see you back on January 19th.
Two Minutes for Unnecessary Tweeting
The NHL is preparing to drop the puck on a league-wide Social Media Policy.
CBC reports the policy will include “a social media blackout window before, during and after games, as well as during practice and any other team obligations”.
Like any other legal document, the impact of the NHL’s Social Media Policy will depend on its more minute details, such as the duration of its blackout windows, and what constitutes “any other team obligation”.
You might be wondering why it’s taken the NHL so long to develop a Social Media Policy, especially given the highly publicized headaches social media has caused other professional sporting leagues.
The reality is that, while an employer might feel entitled to control what its employees are saying on social media, and when they say it, restricting employees’ social media usage creates a handful of legal issues in areas such as labour and employment law, intellectual property law and privacy law (to name a few). Most fundamentally, any restriction on employees’ social media usage constitutes a restriction on expression rights, which are given constitutional protection by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
All of which is to say that implementing a Social Media Policy requires a heck of a lot of legal stickhandling. At Pitblado Law, we understand Social Media Policies, and we’d be happy to help your organization draw up its own social media gameplan.
If you have any questions or if you would like assistance, please contact me via email at buck@pitblado.com.
I’ll show you mine…: Confidentiality Agreements
The contestants on American Idol apparently sign them.
So do the participants in the opening ceremonies for the 2010 Winter Olympics.
A confidentiality agreement (CA) or non-disclosure agreement is an agreement by which one or more parties disclose confidential information (CI) to one or more parties, and perhaps vice versa. They are often signed at the beginning of commercial relationships, so people want to sign the thing and get going.
Before you reach for your fancy pen, read the CA and ask yourself these questions:
- Who is disclosing CI and who is receiving CI? If one party is disclosing to another, it should say this. If both parties are both disclosing and receiving, it should say this.
- How does the CA define CI? What is CI? What isn’t CI? If one party makes notes about the other party’s CI, does that become part of what the agreement defines as CI, or not?
- What use can be made of the CI? Perhaps the CA should also address what the CI cannot be used for?
- How long do the obligations under the CA last? If the CA says that the obligations under the CA last two years, the parties have to consider what might happen in two years such that the CI doesn’t need the protections in the CA. If the answer is ‘nothing’, perhaps there shouldn’t be such a time limit.
- Can either party get out of the CA? If there is a way out, does CI have to be returned and/or destroyed? Make sure the agreement is clear, especially if it’s your CI at stake.
- Is there more going on here? Sometimes the parties may be creating things or new CI. Ownership of such things or new CI should be addressed now–in this CA or in a separate agreement.
The above questions are not exhaustive. Each CA is situation specific and must be judged on its merits.
Happy Sharing!
When should businesses use the ® or ™ symbols?
(Previously published on Brian Bowman – On the Cutting Edge on May 13, 2009)
You have probably seen the ® or ™ symbol on products or in advertisements. But what do these symbols mean and when is it appropriate to use them?
Generally, the ® or ™ symbols are used in connection with a trade-mark, which is a word, symbol or design used to distinguish the wares or services of one person or organization from those of others. Trade-marks can be valuable intellectual property.
The Trade-marks Act (Canada) (the “TM Act”) does not contain any marking requirements. However, trade-mark owners often indicate their registration through certain symbols, namely, ® (registered) or ™ (trade-mark). Although the TM Act does not require the use of these symbols, in Canada, the ™ and ® symbols may be used whether the trade-mark is registered or not. However, while this is not a requirement of the TM Act, the ® should be used only if the mark is registered with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. If the ® is used and the mark is not in fact registered, it may be possible for someone to argue its use amounts to false advertising. The ™ suggests the mark is not registered, but can help establish distinctiveness in the mark.
One should be especially careful using the ® outside in Canada. In certain jurisdictions, including the U.S., ® may only be used by the owner of a mark following registration with that jurisdiction’s trade-mark office. For example, if a Canadian company is marketing a product in the U.S. and its mark is not registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it would not be able to use the ® in connection with its mark and could only use the ™, even if the company has been using ® in Canada all along.
Businesses should consider having their intellectual property “audited” by legal counsel with an expertise in the field and, in doing so, developing an appropriate trade-marks business strategy. When I advise my clients on trade-marks matters I often rely on the expert counsel of my friends and colleagues Jolin Spencer (whom I should thank for this blog post), Robert Watchman and Howard Nerman, all of whom have expertise in trade-marks law.
-
Authors
-
Mark Wallace
-
Philip Watts
-
Brant Harvey
-
Caroline Kiva
-
Adam Herstein
-
Andrew Buck
-
Benjamin Hecht
-
Bradley Madison
-
Rob Giesbrecht
-
Ned Brown
-
Candace Everard Grammond
-
Lori Dobbie
-
Darryl Antel
-
Andrew Ogaranko
-
Michael Puchniak
-
Bill Gardner
-
Tracey Epp
-
Richard Buchwald
-
Ron Greasley
-
Administrator
-
Douglas G. Ward, Q.C.
-
Brian Bowman
-
Courtney Chambers
-
Bruce King
-
newmandavidg
-
Subscribe via RSS
