Industry committee  This is a consequential amendment with respect to the civil amendment that was adopted. The contents originally from section 21 have a new home in section 22. We're just updating the reference from section 21 to section 22. (Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]) (Cl

Industry committee  I would add that, at this point, the courts do have the authority to award those litigation costs as part of the damages. The actual damages pursuant to their trademark has been some set value, but in addition, court costs can be awarded, including those attorney fee costs, as pa

Industry committee  We have. In recent years, within the last year or two years, we've seen a significant increase in the size of damages being awarded by the courts. This includes damages such as punitive damages, so, looking at the bad faith or bad behaviour of the proven-in-court counterfeiters

Industry committee  This is actually a consequence of a previous motion with respect to clause 22 relating to the civil provisions. In this case, we are updating the French language across the board in clause 56, replacing the French term “utiliser” with “employer”. However, because of the modificat

Industry committee  Just to clarify this, the requirement is that the accused knew they were copying and that they didn't have the authorization of the right holder.

Industry committee  That's the idea.

Industry committee  Yes, I believe so. The idea of section 19 and 20 is that they knew, not only that they were copying a mark and they didn't have authorization, but they also knew that it was going to be a civil infringement. So removing that....

Industry committee  They're all very important changes. This language has been duplicated. The language as proposed by the amendment says, “has not consented to having the label or packaging bear the trademark”. We're ensuring consistency with the previous criminal offence relating to labels and p

Industry committee  I believe you may be in the civil section and this is a criminal provision. I want to verify.

Industry committee  Those are the civil provisions.

Industry committee  From the submissions we heard, yes that's true, as well as the current offences relating to fraud. It became very difficult.

Industry committee  Sure.

Industry committee  In essence what we're removing is the knowledge of violating the particulars with respect to 51.01(1)(c), the idea that it violates section 19 or 20. You now don't need to prove the accused knew they had violated those particular civil infringement provisions. But the crown needs

Industry committee  This clause is relating to the Trade-marks Act. You're asking about a cross-over with respect to the Copyright Act. Currently, subsection 27(2) of the Copyright Act deals with importation for the purposes of selling, distributing, or by way of trade, distributing, or exposing fo

Industry committee  They are protected, but they're not necessarily listed explicitly on the registry, so your scope of protection isn't limited only to the wares or services listed on the registry. If my good is a jacket but it would be confusing to sell gloves or mittens as well, then my scope of