<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>IP Osgoode</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.iposgoode.ca/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.iposgoode.ca</link>
	<description>Intellectual Property Law &#38; Technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 18:48:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Law, Culture, Critique</title>
		<link>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/law-culture-critique/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=law-culture-critique</link>
		<comments>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/law-culture-critique/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 23:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Courtney Doagoo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Dealing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fashion Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feature Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moral Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Music Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Originality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[B.S. Chimni]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Carys Craig]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dan Epstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daniel Gervais]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elizabeth Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Graduate Law Student Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joel Bakan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Culture Critique]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Martin Zeilinger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michèle Beaudoin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nathalie Casemajor Loustau]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Osgoode Hall Law School]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salman Rana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Teresa Scassa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrine Friday]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iposgoode.ca/?p=21090</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On May 10, 2013, York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School Graduate Law Student Association (GLSA) held a two day Graduate Student Law Conference at the Oakham House at Ryerson University in downtown Toronto. The theme of the conference Law Culture Critique was organized into an array of extremely interesting panels that were categorized into various [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/law-culture-critique/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EU Moving Toward New Trade-Mark Regime</title>
		<link>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/eu-moving-toward-new-trade-mark-regime/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=eu-moving-toward-new-trade-mark-regime</link>
		<comments>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/eu-moving-toward-new-trade-mark-regime/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 17:11:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Denise Brunsdon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WIPO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iposgoode.ca/?p=20975</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The European Commission has proposed amendments to the Community Trade Mark (CTM) Regulation and Trade Marks Directive. The primary function is to harmonize EU member trade-mark laws. This bureaucratic hygiene aim – which resulted in a mixture of trade-mark rights expansion and contraction – stands in contrast to the current, controversial and (in my opinion) [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/eu-moving-toward-new-trade-mark-regime/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Cautionary Kudos: Canada Moves Up on USTR IP Watch List</title>
		<link>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/a-cautionary-kudos-canada-moves-up-on-ustr-ip-watch-list/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-cautionary-kudos-canada-moves-up-on-ustr-ip-watch-list</link>
		<comments>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/a-cautionary-kudos-canada-moves-up-on-ustr-ip-watch-list/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:51:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Falconi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharmaceutical Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US-Canada Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WIPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apotex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CETA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eli lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NAFTA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Utility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PhRMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special 301]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UTSR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Watch List]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iposgoode.ca/?p=20988</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this month, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its annual “Special 301 Report,” which evaluates the intellectual property rights (IPR) protection and enforcement of its trading partners. Over the last few years, Canada has been listed on the “Priority Watch List”, which is reserved for countries that have the most deficient IP protection [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/a-cautionary-kudos-canada-moves-up-on-ustr-ip-watch-list/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Step for the Modernization of Copyright Law in the US – Progress or Regress?</title>
		<link>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/new-step-for-the-modernization-of-copyright-law-in-the-us-progress-or-regress/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=new-step-for-the-modernization-of-copyright-law-in-the-us-progress-or-regress</link>
		<comments>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/new-step-for-the-modernization-of-copyright-law-in-the-us-progress-or-regress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 17:13:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pedro Henrique D. Batista</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright function]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iposgoode.ca/?p=20918</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[During the celebration of World Intellectual Property Day on April 24, 2013, the US Committee on the Judiciary announced its intention to promote a comprehensive review of US copyright law in order to modernize copyright protection in the US. This announcement comes at a time when copyright law is being challenged by the digital revolution. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/new-step-for-the-modernization-of-copyright-law-in-the-us-progress-or-regress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reminder: Canada’s IP Writing Challenge 2013</title>
		<link>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/reminder-canadas-ip-writing-challenge-2013-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=reminder-canadas-ip-writing-challenge-2013-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/reminder-canadas-ip-writing-challenge-2013-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 14:57:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>IP Osgoode</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feature Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada's IP Writing Challenge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada's IP Writing Challenge 2013]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iposgoode.ca/?p=21025</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are just under two months left to submit your entry to our 5th annual Writing Challenge. The winner from each category will receive a prize of $1000 (CAD), publication on the IP Osgoode website, and consideration for publication in the Canadian Intellectual Property Review and/or the Intellectual Property Journal.  The deadline to submit is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/reminder-canadas-ip-writing-challenge-2013-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Property in Brands</title>
		<link>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/property-in-brands/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=property-in-brands</link>
		<comments>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/property-in-brands/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 13:54:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dev Gangjee</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feature Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dev Gangjee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ECJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Court of Justice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iposgoode.ca/?p=20701</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This paper traces the emergence of a new res or object of protection within European trade mark law. Proprietary rights in trade marks have conventionally been premised upon the mark’s ability to communicate useful information; namely, indicating the commercial source of goods or services, also referred to as the essential function of a trade mark. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/property-in-brands/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Strike Three, Viacom</title>
		<link>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/strike-three-viacom/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=strike-three-viacom</link>
		<comments>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/strike-three-viacom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 20:41:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ying Cheng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ownership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2nd CIrcuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Millenium Copyright Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Stanton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Viacom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Willful blindness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[YouTube]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iposgoode.ca/?p=20859</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If at first you don’t succeed, Viacom, try try again?  On April 18, 2013, Judge Louise Stanton of the 2nd Circuit District Court effectively wrote the last chapter in the epic one billion dollar copyright battle between Viacom and YouTube. In the case, the court disposed of the remaining issues left undecided from the April [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/strike-three-viacom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Book &#8211; The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law</title>
		<link>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/new-book-the-copyright-pentalogy-how-the-supreme-court-of-canada-shook-the-foundations-of-canadian-copyright-law/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=new-book-the-copyright-pentalogy-how-the-supreme-court-of-canada-shook-the-foundations-of-canadian-copyright-law</link>
		<comments>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/new-book-the-copyright-pentalogy-how-the-supreme-court-of-canada-shook-the-foundations-of-canadian-copyright-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 15:58:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>IP Osgoode</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Book Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Dealing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feature Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Music Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telecommunications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Carys Craig]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Pentalogy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Giuseppina D'Agostino]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Geist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iposgoode.ca/?p=20907</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the summer of 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a series of rulings in five major copyright cases (referred to as the “copyright pentalogy”). A new book has just been released that examines the possible long-term impact of these decisions. The Copyright Pentalogy rocked the foundations of Canada’s media industries, and will have [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/new-book-the-copyright-pentalogy-how-the-supreme-court-of-canada-shook-the-foundations-of-canadian-copyright-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Curious Case of Fake Beijing Olympics Merchandise</title>
		<link>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/the-curious-case-of-fake-beijing-olympics-merchandise/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-curious-case-of-fake-beijing-olympics-merchandise</link>
		<comments>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/the-curious-case-of-fake-beijing-olympics-merchandise/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 17:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Yu</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Feature Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Official Marks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Counterfit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Olympics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[People's Republic of China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peter Yu]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iposgoode.ca/?p=20705</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This chapter closely scrutinizes the intellectual property developments during the Beijing Olympics to determine whether this important world event has provided the much-needed example to show that China could effectively address the counterfeiting problem when national interests are at stake. As this chapter will show, the case of fake Beijing Olympics merchandise is rather curious. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/the-curious-case-of-fake-beijing-olympics-merchandise/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>About the Boundaries of Fairness in Fair Use</title>
		<link>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/about-the-boundaries-of-fairness-in-fair-use/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=about-the-boundaries-of-fairness-in-fair-use</link>
		<comments>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/about-the-boundaries-of-fairness-in-fair-use/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 17:27:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Samora Masi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Dealing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feature Post]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MediaLaws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Medialaws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Meltwater]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.iposgoode.ca/?p=20894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The re-posting of this analysis is part of a cross-posting collaboration with MediaLaws: Law and Policy of the Media in a Comparative Perspective. On the 20th of March this year, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in the person of Judge Denise Cote, emitted a ruling fated to prompt lively debate and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.iposgoode.ca/2013/05/about-the-boundaries-of-fairness-in-fair-use/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
