Intellectual Property litigation

On July 17, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its decision in Pharmascience Inc. v. Janssen Inc., (2026 SCC 26), dismissing Pharmascience’s invalidity challenge to Janssen’s paliperidone palmitate dosing-regimen patent. While the majority of the SCC confirmed that a doctrine still exists in Canadian patent law under which a method of a medical treatment (MMT) is non-patentable subject matter, they affirmed the analysis and conclusions of the lower Courts that the claims of Janssen’s patent are not directed to a non-patentable MMT.  Background  Treatment of Schizophrenia entails lifelong management with antipsychotic medications, and the effectiveness of such treatment relies significantly on adherence to treatment regimens. A successful approach to improve treatment adherence has been the development of long-acting formulations, known as “depot formulations” or “long-acting injectables”, which gradually release the medication from the injection site and thus entail less frequent administration. Janssen developed such a long-acting injectable type of dosing regimen for the drug paliperidone palmitate for the treatment of Schizophrenia, marketed under INVEGA SUSTENNA.  Janssen’s Canadian Patent No. 2,665,335 (the ‘335 Patent) relates to such a dosing regimen, under which the drug is administered as follows:  Day 1: A first dose via deltoid injection;  Day 8 ± 2 days: A second dose via deltoid injection;  Monthly ± 7 days thereafter: Maintenance doses via deltoid or gluteal injection;  Two regimens are defined depending on renal impairment status, with specified mg-eq doses.  Pharmascience sought to invalidate the patent, arguing that the claims were invalid as impermissible methods of medical treatment.  Procedural History  Federal Court  Pharmascience sought to obtain marketing approval or a “Notice of Compliance” to market a generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA. Under Canada’s pharmaceutical patent linkage regime, this led to proceedings before the Federal Court in which Pharmascience alleged invalidity of the patent. In its decision of August 23, 2022 (2022 FC 1218), the Federal Court (FC) upheld the validity of the ‘335 Patent.  Federal Court of Appeal  On February 1, 2024 (2024 FCA 23), the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) affirmed the FC’s decision and again upheld the validity of the ‘335 Patent. In its analysis, the FCA established that in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an unpatentable MMT, the key inquiry is whether practising the invention calls for the exercise of professional skill and judgment. The FCA drew a distinction between:  skill and judgment applied in deciding how to use a treatment, which points to an unpatentable MMT; and  skill and judgment applied in deciding whether to use a treatment, which does not, on its own, indicate an unpatentable MMT.  Each case turns on its specific facts and the onus remains on the party attacking the patent to establish that the claim encompasses an unpatentable MMT.  Pharmascience then sought leave to appeal to the SCC, where the sole issue being assessed was patentable subject matter - whether the claims impermissibly claim a MMT and do not comply with section 2 (definition of “invention”) of the Patent Act.  Supreme Court The SCC maintained that a doctrine still exists in Canadian patent law under which MMTs are non-patentable subject matter. This doctrine is primarily attributable to the 1972 decision of the SCC in the Tennessee Eastman1 case, at which time it was only possible to patent a drug based on its method of manufacture, not as a pharmaceutical substance per se, as per former section 41(1) of the Patent Act. Following the repeal of former section 41(1), it has been argued that the rationale of Tennessee Eastman hinged on this repealed section and therefore the principles established in Tennessee Eastman should no longer apply. The majority of the SCC now confirms that the rule against patenting MMTs does not rest on former section 41(1) alone and continues to apply, grounded in the long-standing broader principle that “professional skills” are not patentable.  The SCC also affirmed that the ‘335 Patent’s dosing regimen claims do not monopolize professional medical skill and judgment in their implementation and thus do not relate to an unpatentable MMT. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the patent upheld on this ground.  The majority’s test: when does a claim cross the line into an MMT?  A patent impermissibly claims an MMT only if it seeks to monopolize professional medical skill and judgment - i.e., if it “fences in” an area of medical treatment. The analysis is purposive and substance-over-form; it turns on the claims and the evidentiary record.  The majority offered three non-exhaustive guideposts:  Focus on the claimed subject matter, not on the fact that doctors exercise judgment in choosing whether to use it for a particular patient. Clinical judgment in selecting/monitoring treatment generally does not make the invention unpatentable.  Individualization increases risk: the more the claim requires tailoring to individual patient characteristics, the more likely it is an MMT.  Ordinary-course professional development: the more the claimed subject matter is the kind of thing physicians would be expected to develop/improve as part of practice (without patent incentives), the more likely it is an MMT.  Fixed vs. variable dosage is not dispositive. While past Court decisions focused on fixed vs. variable dosages or timing of administration to be determinative factors, the SCC rejected such a categorical bright line; at most, variability may be an evidentiary proxy tied to the central “skill and judgment” question.  Application to Janssen’s dosing regimens  The majority affirmed the lower Courts’ key findings that:  Once the regimen is selected, no professional skill/judgment is required to implement it as claimed.  The renal-impairment split reflects an objective distinction and does not meaningfully constrain professional judgment.  The ± dosing windows and alternate injection sites were supported by evidence as clinically interchangeable / operational flexibility without clinical implications.  Result: the claims were not framed (in substance) as fencing in physicians’ clinical decision-making; they were treated as patentable subject matter.  Concurring reasons  While all of the Justices agreed on the result, two of the Justices disagreed on the doctrine and would have gone further. They:  Disagreed that MMTs are inherently non-patentable subject matter;  Would re-examine/overrule Tennessee Eastman and assess MMT claims like any other invention as defined in the Patent Act, with many failing instead under utility/operability/reproducibility/control concepts (rather than under a subject-matter exclusion).  Despite that doctrinal divergence, they agreed that the ‘335 Patent is valid.  Practical Takeaways  MMT exclusion remains the majority rule: claims that effectively fence in clinical decision-making remain vulnerable on subject-matter grounds.  Dosing regimen patents remain viable: evidentiary record and claim substance will be critical - particularly around whether implementation requires individualized clinical judgment.  No bright-line “fixed vs. range” rule: Rather, the actual role of medical skill/judgment in practicing the claimed regimen is key.  Overall, the SCC’s decision appears to fall in a middle ground between the positions advanced by the parties: confirming a doctrine of non-patentability of MMTs while at the same time confirming the patentability of dosing-regimen-based inventions depending on the facts of a given case, and as a result upholding the validity of the ‘335 Patent.  Tennessee Eastman Co. et al. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1974] SCR 111.

The importance of proactive intellectual property rights management Many companies are unaware that they possess intellectual property1 rights, so they are not proactive in dealing with intellectual property as part of their regular operations. Sometimes, these companies are suddenly faced with the issue when a third party undertakes due diligence on them. This due diligence will inevitably include an intellectual property component, which may lead to a series of corrective measures to solidify, consolidate or recover their rights. In extreme cases, the company may be forced to renegotiate the terms of an agreement in principle, to see the value of the company reduced, or to abort a project or transaction due to its failure to pay proper attention to this category of asset. Third parties do not want to invest in or purchase a company or its shares at a high price if it is likely to encounter issues that could render future projects inoperative. Moreover, case law has taught us over the years that a purchaser cannot rely solely on the representations and warranties and the indemnity provisions of a purchase and sale agreement; they must conduct reasonably adequate due diligence, failing which they may be deprived of certain remedies. This bulletin is primarily aimed to help companies and their leaders properly manage intellectual property to avoid pitfalls. It also provides guidance to companies and institutions required to conduct due diligence in the context of a potential acquisition or financing. However, it does not claim to be exhaustive. Furthermore, we hope that this bulletin will help raise awareness among organizations about the importance of IP and demonstrate that large companies and those with activities heavily focused on intellectual property are not the only ones concerned with these agreements. What is an internal intellectual property legal audit? An internal intellectual property audit is a process conducted by a company to assess all of its intellectual property rights and the protection and defence mechanisms in place. The goal is to identify its rights and gaps, thereby obtaining an overview of the status and scope of its intellectual property rights, tracking their evolution, and determining the necessary actions to identify, prioritize, maintain, protect, defend, expand and enhance these rights. It also allows for an informed assessment of their legal status and prospects. This enables the company to ensure it holds all the intellectual property rights necessary to operate its business and is protected against potential lawsuits for non-compliance with the intellectual property rights of others or any intellectual property-related commitments. Such an audit also helps guide management more effectively in various situations, including commercial and legal, in accordance with the company’s strategy. Frequency of internal audits Proactivity The frequency of an internal intellectual property audit depends, among other factors, on the size and nature of the company, the characteristics, complexity and dynamism of the industry, the strategic importance of the intellectual property assets within the company and the evolution of its assets and ongoing or future projects. Ideally, a company will ensure that this audit is carried out periodically, annually or biannually, by gathering individuals knowledgeable about the intellectual property developed within the company with those capable of making decisions on intellectual property matters. For a company with a strong technological footprint or rapid innovation, a semi-annual or even quarterly frequency may be necessary. A company with a limited intellectual property portfolio may opt for slightly longer intervals, while remaining vigilant to exceptional events. Exceptional events Of course, a company’s proactivity does not shield it from urgent or exceptional situations that may arise during its life and require immediate attention without waiting for the periodic review. There are times in a company’s life when an audit becomes necessary. These situations may occur in various contexts, including: Prior to a liquidity event or change of control of the company, such as a merger, acquisition, arrangement, reorganization, initial public offering (IPO) or asset sale, or during strategic operations such as a joint venture or equity or debt financing During the launch of a new product or a market expansion: This step must be preceded by an intellectual property audit, which sometimes includes an assessment of the freedom to operate (FTO) when the launch or expansion involves an innovation During a major structural change, including the reorganization of the company or a new strategic orientation When a significant change occurs in the market, such as the arrival of a competitor or the imminent launch of a product similar to the company’s, an audit can detect vulnerabilities and prepare the response During significant legislative changes affecting intellectual property During litigation, mediation or negotiations involving intellectual property rights in order to assess the strength of the intellectual property assets, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the case, to facilitate quick decisions in line with the company’s strategic objectives. Additionally, the intellectual property portfolio can serve deterrent or defensive purposes. For instance, in the event of  a patent infringement lawsuit filed by a competitor, it is advisable to check whether that competitor is infringing on any of the company’s intellectual property rights During the negotiation of an intellectual property license, to ensure that the licensor owns the relevant intellectual property rights and that the terms of the license align with the company’s commercial objectives and contractual obligations Addressing intellectual property issues and continuously reflecting on intellectual property through periodic audits, a company that conducts an audit during an exceptional event will be able to respond more easily and quickly to the arising issues What are the advantages of this kind of audit? An internal intellectual property audit allows a company to: Be aware of the status of its intellectual property (IP) rights, their scope, strengths and weaknesses Collect information on the competitive market situation Identify promising IP or IP that the company is relying on to achieve its objectives Determine the projects that need to be undertaken in order to protect IP and highlight priorities Proactively manage intellectual property rights by determining the necessary monitoring Address incomplete documentation, incomplete chains of titles, ambiguous property rights, incomplete coverage of rights, and licenses to be signed Avoid poor management of open-source software Manage uncertainties relating to prior art (any information, publication or document disclosed before the filing date of a patent application relevant for assessing the patentability of the invention, including its novelty and inventiveness) Manage gaps in territorial protection of rights More easily define the direction to take in various situations, including litigation, transactions, contract negotiations, and make decisions in accordance with the company’s strategy Review compliance with laws, such as intellectual property rights marking issues, uses to avoid, and those to encourage Develop the profile of it as a serious and prudent company attentive to intellectual property assets, adding credibility and reassuring co-contractors, buyers and investors Reduce the transaction timeline in the event of an exceptional event What are the main aspects to address during an internal audit? Inventorying the intellectual property Compile an inventory of all intellectual property rights and add any new developments (innovations, new brands) Prioritize intellectual property assets if there are several, in order to allocate resources accordingly for their protection and adhere to established budgets Identify confidential data Identify potential obstacles Identify underutilized or redundant assets Include in this inventory the intellectual property held by third parties for which the company has exploitation rights, including  source codes and open-source software Organizing it in a file Organize all essential documents such as title deeds, certificates, chain of title documents, agreements, licenses, assignments, and expiration and renewal dates of rights. Confirming the ownership of each asset Confirm that official documents designate the correct holder of intellectual property rights that there are no breaks in the chain of title, and that registrations with the intellectual property offices are accurate and correctly attributed to the current holder of the rights. Completing gaps in ownership of rights Identify all relevant parties, as applicable (employees, inventors, designers, contractors, suppliers, partners, third parties) who must sign assignments of rights, confidentiality agreements, waivers of moral rights and licenses. Assessing the validity and strength of intellectual property For patents, trademarks and industrial designs, review the scope of the claims and prior art to determine the legal strength of each patent, industrial design or trademark. Legal risks in intellectual property Analyze whether the company uses intellectual property and technologies that risk infringing third-party intellectual property Assess the risks of damages and establish a strategy for intellectual property infringement by third parties Analyze the scope, validity, and enforceability of any blocking or potentially blocking intellectual property (which hinders the company’s development or commercialization of a technology, invention, or product, creating a market entry barrier) Monitor relevant published IP applications from third parties Regularly update research and analysis of freedom to operate (a study conducted  to ensure that a product or process can be legally developed, manufactured and marketed without infringing existing intellectual property rights held by third parties) Collect all documents related to past or ongoing litigation involving the company’s intellectual property (including court decisions, settlements, negotiations in intellectual property matters, cease and desist letters or notifications to third parties or concerning third-party intellectual property rights, and legal opinions) Assessing the alignment and relevance of intellectual property Determine whether intellectual property rights align with the company’s commercial objectives and the technological advancements being exploited or promising. Reviewing intellectual property contracts Establish an inventory of contracts with an intellectual property (IP) component Such as R&D contracts, collaborative research contracts, material transfer agreements, employment contracts, joint venture contracts, inbound IP licenses (licenses the company has obtained from third parties) and outbound IP licenses (licenses granted by the company to third parties for its own IP), open-source software licenses and third-party components2, franchise agreements, IP-related cost and revenue-sharing agreements, agreements on the allocation of IP rights  (past and new), IP co-ownership and joint exploitation  agreements, IP trust agreements, escrow agreements for source code, cryptographic keys or technical documents, open innovation agreements, non-competition and non-solicitation clauses/agreements related to trade secrets, contracts for services (software development, design, audiovisual), trademark coexistence agreements and consent agreements, co-branding agreements, sponsorship and merchandising agreements (IP aspects), image rights authorizations and other personality elements, publishing contracts, agreements with collective copyright management organizations, commercial agency and representation contracts (use of trademarks, materials), user-generated content agreements (involving interactive user participation contributing  to content, such as social media, video or photo-sharing sites, forums, blogs, etc.), confidentiality agreements, non-competition agreements, and agreements relating to employee inventions and invention disclosures. Verify, among other things: Whether royalty payments have been made Whether there is a need to renegotiate the terms of certain contracts Whether all the conditions are respected Whether all relevant parties have signed the contracts Identify any binding clauses Including clauses related to the following aspects: Use limitations Royalties Co-ownership, non-transferability or limited transferability of contracts Non-exclusivity of granted rights Exclusivity of granted rights Options on intellectual property rights Movable hypothec security interests on intellectual property assets Securitization or monetization of intellectual property Also, verify the conditions attached to the contracts such as the territory, scope and duration, and any restrictions that may hinder a transaction Security and intellectual property Establish or review security protocols for trade secrets and restricted access to company documents and premises. Intellectual property policies Establish or review internal policies and procedures for identifying, protecting and managing trade secrets Establish or review internal policies and procedures to enable/facilitate the development of innovations Establish or review internal policies and procedures for addressing the use of artificial intelligence within the company by employees, subcontractors and contractors Establish or review internal procedures to activate legal verification protocols (to ensure that protocols for conducting legal due diligence are in place) Consolidating developments stemming from R&D Maintain laboratory notebooks (document all the stages of innovation) Dedicate a team to investigate and analyze developments and assess their potential and intellectual property content, and determine the next steps Providing training Provide appropriate training for all the relevant individuals of the company for a better understanding of confidentiality undertakings and the use of AI and to emphasize the importance of documenting every stage of innovation. Monitoring competitors’ rights Monitor relevant published Iintellectual property applications and conduct regular updates of research and analyses of freedom to operate for innovations Review competitors’ new trademark filings Review new competitors’ websites Ensuring alignment between key territories and protection territories Make sure that the company’s intellectual property has protection with the government offices in the territories where it conducts commercial or manufacturing activities, or where intermediaries that are part of its supply chain are located. Also, it should aim for protection in territories where the company intends to expand its activities before entering those markets.  Establishing the scope of protection in these territories This must be undertaken before negotiating with suppliers, future licensees, manufacturers, etc. in a new market and when launching new products, services and innovations. Compliance Establish or review the measures in place, responsible individuals in charge, and the action plan for verifying the compliance of the company’s actions Establish a reporting and detection system for internally developed innovations Verify the company’s compliance with licenses (obligations to disclose sources; codes, copyright notices, compliance with moral rights, etc.). Any use of third-party intellectual property must be documented to ensure the company has the necessary right to exploit these elements in its products Conclusion Organizing, structuring, and managing intellectual property assets is highly advantageous. The question is not whether intellectual property (IP)-related issues will arise in the company’s operations, but when they will occur! A recent audit will help reduce the number of problematic events, and when such an event occurs the response will be faster, with minimal consequences, and may even unveil opportunities. If financing or the sale of the company is planned, conducting an audit is mandatory. In these cases, the audit can be complex, particularly if there are international portfolios or highly technical assets. Being prepared is beneficial, providing ready answers to investors' questions, strengthening the company's image, and optimizing IP valuation. An internal audit offers the company with a comprehensive global perspective on its intellectual property assets, allowing for optimized use while identifying and addressing any potential gaps. This practice mitigates risks and allows precise management of key information to establish intellectual property assets and facilitate commercial transactions involving intellectual property. Intellectual property (IP) includes patents, patent applications, trademarks (registered, pending or used without registration), copyrights, industrial designs, trade secrets, know-how, plant variety protection, domain names and other digital data (databases, software, applications, etc.). Including, in particular: any library, module, software framework, plug-in, SDK (code libraries, debuggers, compilers), script, driver, embedded software (firmware), container image (immutable file), package, and source/object code, and any of their dependencies, that are provided, owned or licensed by a third party, and used, integrated, interfaced, incorporated, distributed, or required for compilation, testing, deployment or execution of tasks, APIs.

At a time when Canada and many other countries are taking steps to protect users from harm online,1 a decision was handed down by the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the “Court”) on January 15, 2024, regarding the conduct of a competitor with respect to complaints about intellectual property infringement made on Amazon’s e-commerce website. Amazon’s platform is similar to many other e-commerce platforms that have a complaint mechanism for third-party use of intellectual property in violation of the rights of the real owners thereof. The complaint mechanism makes it possible for a complainant to submit an intellectual property infringement claim regarding content to which it has a good faith right in order to partially or fully remove the content in question from the pages of the alleged infringing party published on Amazon’s platform. Such a mechanism has its purpose, as it is an effective way of tracking down counterfeiters. As we will see in Keezio Group, LLC v. The Shrunks' Family Toy Company Inc.,2 the mechanism can also be used maliciously. The facts and the plaintiff’s allegations In this case, complaints were lodged by a competitor of the company that was the subject of the complaints, with both entities operating in the inflatable bed industry. Keezio Group, LLC (“Keezio”) markets the “Hiccapop Inflatable Toddler Travel Bed” (the “Hiccapop Bed”), while The Shrunks’ Family Toy Company Inc. (“The Shrunks”) offers inflatable beds consisting of a mattress placed in an inflatable bed frame. Both companies primarily sell their products on the Amazon retail platform. In February 2017, Amazon informed Keezio that it had received a report of trademark infringement regarding the Hiccapop Bed, the complainant being identified as Mr. Cirjak of The Shrunks. Subsequently, in accordance with the applicable process, Amazon removed the product from Keezio’s product-listing pages on its website. It is worth noting that assessing the substantive validity of a complaint is not part of Amazon’s complaints handling process. On or about April 17, 2017, Keezio received another notice. The complaints of 2017 were eventually withdrawn and the page featuring the Hiccapop Bed was restored. In November 2019, Keezio received two more notices of complaints from Amazon regarding violations similar to those received about two years prior. The first of these two notices, sent on November 22, 2019, referred to trademark infringement. Amazon thus removed the page in question, which contained a chart comparing Keezio’s products with The Shrunks’ products. Keezio asked for clarification of this alleged infringement but received no response from The Shrunks. Having received no details about the infringement from The Shrunks, Keezio ultimately changed its webpage to remove all mentions of “The Shrunks”, replacing them with “Rhymes with Skunks”. Although Amazon informed Keezio in a message in November 2019 that it would restore its content, the evidence does not clearly establish whether this was done. The second notice of infringement, dated November 28, 2019, concerned an allegation of copyright infringement on six webpages for the Hiccapop Bed. The pages were delisted on or about November 28, 2019, and eventually reinstated on December 2, 2019. The Shrunks denied having filed the complaints of 2019. However, the Court did not hesitate to conclude that The Shrunks was also behind these complaints. Issues at bar about the complaints There were many issues in this case, and some claims were eventually withdrawn. We will focus on the two complaints made in 2019. Specifically, Keezio argued that the complaints that The Shrunks had lodged with Amazon were unfounded, resulting in a loss of business for Keezio. In particular, the Court analyzed section 7 of the Trademarks Act.3 To succeed in such a claim, the plaintiff must prove (i) that a false or misleading statement was made (ii) that tends to discredit the business, goods or services of a competitor, (iii) resulting in damages. The Court held that the person making the statements need not know of their falsity in order to satisfy these criteria. Findings of the Court (i) The allegation of trademark infringement in the comparative chart The trademark infringement complaint concerned a comparative chart featuring both Hiccapop Bed and The Shrunks products, with comparative data on the features of both products. The data itself was not challenged. The complaint related to the unauthorized use of The Shrunks’ registered trademark in the chart. Basing itself on the landmark decision in Clairol International Corp. et al v. Thomas Supply and Equipment Co.,4 the Court concluded that Keezio’s comparative chart did not amount to “use” of The Shrunks trademark pursuant to s. 4(1) of the Trademarks Act, and that therefore said chart did not constitute trademark infringement. Accordingly, the Court determined that The Shrunks’ complaint that Keezio infringed its trademark was unfounded. The Court further concluded that the comparative chart was not contrary to section 22 of the Trademarks Act:5 The mere depiction of a competitor’s trademark in comparative advertising does not in itself depreciate the value of the goodwill attached to a product. (ii) The allegation of copyright infringement The copyright infringement notice contained six Amazon Standard Internal Catalog Identification Numbers (ASINs), which identified six webpages that were sales pages for the Hiccapop Bed. The Court ruled that the allegation of copyright infringement in question was unfounded, as it related to a bed, which is a useful article sold in a quantity of more than 50. The reproduction of the bed design was therefore not covered by subsection 64(2)6 of the Copyright Act. The Court found The Shrunks liable for the two complaints made in November 2019, which it determined to be false or misleading as the allegations of trademark and copyright infringement were unfounded. The Court stated that the complaints tended to discredit Keezio’s business because they misled Amazon into removing Keezio’s product listing pages. On this point, the Court referred to a passage from the Federal Court decision Yiwu Thousand Shores E-Commerce Co. Ltd. v. Lin.7 With regard to damages, the Court determined that Keezio’s evidence regarding the calculation of damages was inadequate on several counts, but nonetheless awarded damages based on a decrease in Keezio’s sales on the dates of delisting. The Court did not hold The Shrunks’ principal personally liable and did not grant a permanent injunction or punitive damages. It also dismissed The Shrunks’ counterclaim for copyright infringement, and ordered The Shrunks to pay Keezio costs, excluding taxes and disbursements. Comments This decision highlights how crucial it is for complainants to be serious when filing complaints. The complaints mechanism on platforms such as Amazon is an extremely useful and effective tool for reporting rights violations, provided that use of such mechanisms is made in good faith and based on solid legal foundations. Although such a mechanism is easy to use, the rights involved must absolutely be analyzed in advance, as an ill-founded complaint can result in harm—which can be considerable—especially when the platform has a global reach. In such a case, the removal of a webpage can result in significant damages. It is therefore essential to exercise due diligence, as a country-by-country analysis of rights can reveal different legal situations and rights holders from one country to another. Not only must competitors carefully consider and weigh their actions, but e commerce website operators must also be vigilant and respond promptly to requests for removal and geographic restrictions. Amazon recently experienced a situation like this when a UK court ruled against it.8 The decision dealt with a targeting operation on Amazon’s website, where sales offers or advertisements were intentionally directed at consumers in the UK where the trademarks were not owned in that country by the same company offering the products for sale. A word to the wise! See Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, which establishes a regime to address such harm. Keezio Group, LLC v. The Shrunks' Family Toy Company Inc., 2024 BCSC 64. Section 7 of the Trademarks Act: Prohibitions 7. No person shall - make a false or misleading statement tending to discredit the business, goods or services of a competitor; - direct public attention to his goods, services or business in such a way as to cause or be likely to cause confusion in Canada, at the time he commenced so to direct attention to them, between his goods, services or business and the goods, services or business of another; - pass off other goods or services as and for those ordered or requested; or - make use, in association with goods or services, of any description that is false in a material respect and likely to mislead the public as to (i) the character, quality, quantity or composition, (ii) the geographical origin, or (iii) the mode of the manufacture, production or performance of the goods or services. Clairol International Corp. v. Thomas Supply & Equipment Co. 55 C.P.R. 176, 1968 CanLII 1280. Section 22 of the Trademarks Act: 22.Depreciation of goodwill - 22 (1) No person shall use a trademark registered by another person in a manner that is likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill attaching thereto. Subsection 64 (2) of the Copyright Act: 64 (2) Non-infringement re certain designs Where copyright subsists in a design applied to a useful article or in an artistic work from which the design is derived and, by or under the authority of any person who owns the copyright in Canada or who owns the copyright elsewhere, - the article is reproduced in a quantity of more than fifty, or - where the article is a plate, engraving or cast, the article is used for producing more than fifty useful articles, it shall not thereafter be an infringement of the copyright or the moral rights for anyone, - to reproduce the design of the article or a design not differing substantially from the design of the article by (i) making the article, or (ii) making a drawing or other reproduction in any material form of the article, or - to do with an article, drawing or reproduction that is made as described in paragraph (c) anything that the owner of the copyright has the sole right to do with the design or artistic work in which the copyright subsists. Yiwu Thousand Shores E-Commerce Co. Ltd. v. Lin, 2021 CF 1040. See paragraph 58 of this decision: [58] I agree with ThousandShores that the Respondent made false allegations and misstatements to Amazon.ca in the Takedown Requests, at least one of which was made after the Respondent’s receipt of the October 2020 Letter. ThousandShores had no ability to respond directly to his allegations. The absence of any evidence of use of the OHUHU trademark by the Respondent and the likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks means the Impugned Registration is invalid. Accordingly, the Respondent’s statements regarding the Impugned Registration, the inauthenticity of ThousandShores’ OHUHU Goods and its infringement of the Respondent’s rights were false. The statements clearly tended to discredit ThousandShores’ business, the OHUHU Storefront, and the OHUHU Goods. They misled Amazon.ca, causing it to remove ThousandShores’ listings for the OHUHU Goods with a resulting loss of profits. ThousandShores’ only recourse was to provide evidence of authorization or license by the Respondent, or to challenge the validity of the Impugned Registration. Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Amazon UK Services Ltd and others [2022] EWCA Civ 552, upheld by the Supreme Court on March 6, 2024 ([2024] UKSC 8).

Greenwashing is a form of marketing that misrepresents a product, service or practice as having positive environmental effects,1 thereby misleading consumers and preventing them from making an informed purchasing decision.2 Several initiatives have been launched around the world to counter this practice. In California, a law requires business entities to disclose information in support of environmental claims.3 In France, ads featuring environmental claims such as “carbon-neutral” and “net zero” must include a quick response (QR) code that links to the studies and data supporting such claims.4 Within the European Union, a proposal for a directive was published with a view to possibly banning generic terms like “environmentally friendly.”5 In South Korea, the Korea Fair Trade Commission proposed an amendment to its Guidelines for Review of Environment-Related Labeling and Advertising that would simplify the process of issuing fines to businesses engaged in greenwashing.6 The Parliament of Canada seemingly followed suit by tabling Bill C-59,7 which, if enacted, will introduce a provision into the Competition Act8 aimed at improving the means to fight greenwashing. Because the provision will apply to “any person,” all businesses will be subject to it, regardless of their size or legal form. Amendment to the Competition Act The proposed legislative amendment would allow the Commissioner of the Competition Bureau (the “Bureau”) to assess9 the conduct of any person promoting a product using an environmental claim or warranty.10 Insofar as a business or person is unable to demonstrate a product’s benefits for protecting the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological effects of climate change, the Commissioner of Competition will be entitled to apply to a court for an order requiring such business or person to (i)cease promoting the product on the basis of a non-compliant environmental claim or warranty, (ii)publish a corrective notice and (iii)pay an administrative monetary penalty11 of up to, for a legal person, the greater of $10 million and three times the value of the benefit derived from the deceptive conduct, or, if that amount cannot be reasonably determined, 3% of the legal person’s annual worldwide gross revenue. The penalty for each subsequent offence could be as high as $15 million. A “product” within the meaning of the Competition Act may be an article (real or personal property of every description) or a service.12 Moreover, where a false or misleading claim relates to a material aspect likely to play a role in the process of purchasing a product or service covered by such claim, and where the claim was made knowingly or recklessly, criminal proceedings may be instituted.13 This new provision expressly requires any person or business to base their environmental claims on “an adequate and proper test”.14 A “test” within the meaning of this Act consists in an analysis, verification or assessment intended to demonstrate the result or alleged effect of a product. It does not necessarily have to be a scientific method nor do the results need to meet a test of certainty, as the courts have generally interpreted the term “proper” to mean fit, apt, suitable or as required by the circumstances.15 Regarding misleading claims, the courts16 have clarified the nature of the criteria that must be considered to determine whether a particular test is “adequate and proper.” Thus, an adequate and proper test depends on the claim made as understood by the common person. The test must also meet the following criteria: It must be reflective of the risk or harm which the product is designed to prevent or assist in preventing. It must be done under controlled circumstances or in conditions which exclude external variables or take account in a measurable way for such variables. It must be conducted on more than one independent sample wherever possible (e.g., destruction testing may be an exception). The results need not be measured against a test of certainty, but must be reasonable given the nature of the harm at issue and establish that it is the product itself which causes the desired effect in a material manner. It must be performed regardless of the size of the seller’s organization or the anticipated volume of sales.17   What impact will this amendment really have? Notwithstanding the proposed legislative amendment, the Competition Act already covers false or misleading representations with respect to green advertising.18 The current provisions already prohibit making representations to the public that are false or misleading in a material respect.19 In recent years, several complaints of greenwashing have been filed with the Bureau on this basis, and the Bureau has opened several investigations. The Bureau's investigations have led to significant settlements with regard to certain companies that have made representations in connection with their products20/21/22/23. The most recent complaints include one against Pathways Alliance, a group of six fossil fuel companies that ran a huge advertising campaign on the industry’s net zero targets, and another against Lululemon. Bureau investigations have led to substantial settlements, including with Keurig Canada, which agreed to pay a $3 million fine further to a Bureau investigation determining that the company had deceptively advertised its single-use K-pods as recyclable, and Volkswagen, which agreed to pay $2.1 billion for promoting certain vehicles equipped with “clean diesel engines with reduced emissions that were cleaner than an equivalent gasoline engine sold in Canada”. In all of these cases, the heavy burden of establishing that the business’s environmental claim was false or misleading fell on the Bureau. The proposed amendment to the Competition Act would change this by shifting the burden of proof onto businesses. The onus would therefore be on them to demonstrate that their product benefits the environment in some way or mitigates the environmental and ecological effects of climate change. It appears that the proposed amendment will confirm, in a specific legislative provision, what was already a general standard since 1999, while easing the Bureau’s burden of proof. In addition to the Competition Act, other laws applicable in Quebec provide a general framework for greenwashing, such as the Consumer Protection Act.24 Under this Act, no merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may, by any means whatsoever, make false or misleading claims to a consumer, which implicitly includes greenwashing.25 To determine whether a representation constitutes a prohibited practice, the general impression it gives, and, as the case may be, the literal meaning of the terms used therein must be taken into account.26 In particular, it is prohibited to falsely ascribe particular advantages to a product or service, or to claim that a product has a particular feature or ascribe certain characteristics of performance to it.27 Offences are subject to criminal28 and civil29 penalties. Best practices Regardless of whether the legislative amendment outlined here does eventually come into force, businesses must develop and convey an image of their environmental impact that is realistic and backed by credible data and facts. Making sure that claims are legally compliant is not all that’s at stake. A business’s failure to do the above is likely to seriously harm not only its reputation, but also its relationship with its stakeholders. Thus, before claiming to be “green,” businesses must consider the following questions. Are the real motivations behind the business’s sustainability commitments clear, legitimate and convincing? Is sustainable development an integral part of the business strategy? Is it applied when addressing key business issues and taking new actions? Does the company have a sustainable development policy that is credible and based on relevant issues? Was it developed collaboratively with and approved by its Board of Directors? Has the company set specific, clear, measurable and achievable objectives and targets?   Conclusion Parliament’s message could not be clearer: Shifting the burden of proof onto businesses means the end of an era when products could be marketed as green in the absence of tangible evidence. Definition of the Autorité des marchés financiers: 8 questions and answers about carbon credits and related concepts | AMF (lautorite.qc.ca) Definition of the Competition Bureau: Environmental claims and greenwashing (canada.ca) Assembly Bill No. 1305: Voluntary carbon market disclosures, California, 2023. Read it here: Bill Text – AB-1305 Voluntary carbon market disclosures Décret no 2022-539 du 13 avril 2022 relatif à la compensation carbone et aux allégations de neutralité carbone dans la publicité, Journal officiel de la République française, 2022. Read it here: Légifrance – Publications officielles – Journal officiel – JORF n° 0088 du 14/04/2022 (legifrance.gouv.fr) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and better information, Council of the European Union, Brussels, 2022. Read it here: pdf (europa.eu) KFTC Proposes Amendment to Review Guidelines Regarding Greenwashing – Kim & Chang (kimchang.com). An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, 44th Parliament, 1st Session. Read it here: Government Bill (House of Commons) C-59 (44-1) – First Reading – Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023 – Parliament of Canada. The Bill is currently at second reading in the House of Commons. R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34. This power to make inquiry would be available, as the Act already provides, upon receipt of a complaint signed by six persons who are not less than 18 years of age, or in any situation where the Commissioner has reason to believe that a person has contravened section 74.01 of the Act (see R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, ss. 9 and 10). An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, 44th Parliament, 1st Session, section 236. Read it here: Government Bill (House of Commons) C-59 (44-1) – First Reading – Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023 – Parliament of Canada; section 236 of this Act adds a paragraph (b.1) to subsection 74.01(1) of the Competition Act Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, para. 74.1. and Penalties and remedies for non-compliance (canada.ca). Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, para. 2(1). Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, para. 52(1). An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, 44th Parliament, 1st Session, para. 236(1). The Commissioner of Competition v. Imperial Brush Co. Ltd. and Kel Kem Ltd. (c.o.b. as Imperial Manufacturing Group), 2008 CACT 2, para. 122 et seq. The Competition Tribunal, the Federal Court and the superior court of a province, Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, s. 74.09: “courts” means the Competition Tribunal, the Federal Court and the superior court of a province. The Commissioner of Competition v. Imperial Brush Co. Ltd. and Kel Kem Ltd. (c.o.b. as Imperial Manufacturing Group), 2008 CACT 2. Louis-Philippe Lampron, “L’encadrement juridique de la publicité écologique fausse ou trompeuse au Canada : une nécessité pour la réalisation du potentiel de la consommation écologique?” Revue de Droit de l’Université de Sherbrooke, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2005, p. 474. Read it here: A:\lampron.wpd (usherbrooke.ca). R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, s. 74.01(a). Amanda Stephenson, Des groupes écologistes misent sur la Loi sur la concurrence (Environmental groups banking on the Competition Act), October 1, 2023, La Presse. Read it here: Des groupes écologistes misent sur la Loi sur la concurrence | La Presse. Brenna Owen, Un groupe accuse Lululemon d’« écoblanchiment » et demande une enquête (A group accuses Lululemon of “greenwashing” and calls for an investigation) February 13, 2024, La Presse. Read it here: Un groupe accuse Lululemon d’« écoblanchiment » et demande une enquête | La Presse Martin Vallières, “Gare aux tromperies écologiques” (Beware of greenwashing), January 26, 2022, La Presse. Read it here: Écoblanchiment | Gare aux tromperies écologiques | La Presse; Keurig Canada to pay $3 million penalty to settle Competition Bureau’s concerns over coffee pod recycling claims – Canada.ca. The Commissioner of Competition v. Volkswagen Group Canada Inc. and Audi Canada Inc., 2018 Competition Tribunal 13. Consumer Protection Act, CQLR c. P-40.1, ss. 219, 220 and 221 Definition of the Competition Bureau: Environmental claims and greenwashing (canada.ca) Richard v. Time Inc., 2012 SCC 8, paras. 46 to 57. Consumer Protection Act, CQLR c. P-40.1, ss. 220 and 221. Consumer Protection Act, CQLR c P-40.1, ss. 277 to 279: Fines range from $600 to $15,000 in the case of a natural person and $2,000 to $100,000 in the case of a legal person. Offenders convicted a second time are liable to fines twice as high as those prescribed. Id., ss. 271 to 276: Consumers may request that the contract be annulled, that the merchant’s obligation be performed or that their obligation be reduced, among other things.