George Nathanael is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

On April 1^st the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided in favour of eBay (for the most part) in their case against Tiffany and Company. The case revolved around the advertisements that eBay had placed for Tiffany jewellery being sold on its site, and the fact that some of the merchandise being sold by its users was counterfeit. Tiffany argued that eBay should be found liable for direct and contributory trademark infringement, dilution, and false advertising.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Famous Marks, Trademarks
Comments: 0

George Nathanael is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and is taking the Patent Law course.

Earlier this week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) released an en banc decision on the case of Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company. Ariad sued Eli Lilly for infringement of its patent that identified a transcription factor that activated gene expression for a particular function. However, Eli Lilly was not held to be liable because it was found that Ariad’s patent was invalid for not fulfilling the written description requirement in its specification; namely, it did not discuss examples of actual compounds required in the process and sounded more like a theory.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Infringement, Patents
Comments: 0

George Nathanael is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Last week, Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi of the European Court of Justice released his opinion on the questions referred by a Dutch court concerning the case of Monsanto Technology LLC v. Cefetra BV and Others. The case involves Monsanto’s attempt to prevent imports of Argentinean soy meal, which has been found to contain the DNA sequence protected by the company’s Roundup Ready soybeans patent.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Cross Border Issues, Infringement, Patents
Comments: 0

George Nathanael is a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Last week an Italian court found three Google executives liable for privacy violations in relation to a video posted on Google Video in 2006. The video showed an autistic boy being bullied by classmates, and it was posted by the classmates themselves. Google actually removed the video after being notified of it, but that was not enough for the judge to decide against convicting its Chief Legal Officer, Global Privacy Counsel, and one of its former Italy board members. As expected, the decision was quite shocking to many, and was even argued by one of the convicted as opening the door to unlimited liability.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Internet, Privacy
Comments: 0