ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd., 2003 FC 1056

JudgeTremblay-Lamer, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateApril 28, 2003
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations2003 FC 1056;(2003), 239 F.T.R. 203 (FC)

ITV Tech. Inc. v. WIC TV Ltd. (2003), 239 F.T.R. 203 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] F.T.R. TBEd. SE.032

ITV Technologies Inc. (plaintiff) v. WIC Television Ltd. (defendant)

WIC TV Amalco Inc. and Global Communications Limited (plaintiffs by counterclaim) v. ITV Technologies Inc. (defendant by counterclaim)

(T-1459-97; 2003 FC 1056)

Indexed As: ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd.

Federal Court

Tremblay-Lamer, J.

September 10, 2003.

Summary:

The plaintiff, ITV Technologies Inc., used the letters ITV in its corporate name, in its internet based business with the name ITV.net and in the domain name for its web site (www.itv.net). On its web site, ITV Technologies archived a variety of video footage, and transmitted video and audio from live events over the internet in accordance with the selections of the internet users who accessed its web site with their computers. The defendant, WIC Television Ltd., owned several registered trademarks incorporating the initials ITV. WIC Television was in the business of television broadcasting, program production and multi-media communications. WIC operated an internet web site with the domain name (www.itv.ca). WIC had used the name ITV in its business since 1974, and began using the initials on its internet web site in 1995. Both corporations had offices in Vancouver, British Columbia. ITV Technologies commenced an action against WIC Television, seeking to have WIC's trademarks expunged on the grounds that they were not registrable and were no longer distinctive of WIC's wares and services. WIC Television filed a defence and counterclaimed for passing off contrary to s. 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act, for trademark infringement contrary to s. 20 of the Act, and for depreciation of the goodwill attached to its registered trademarks, contrary to s. 22 of the Act.

The Federal Court dismissed ITV Technologies' expungement proceedings and dismissed WIC's counterclaim.

Evidence - Topic 51

Best evidence rule - General - The plaintiff, ITV Technologies Inc., and the defendant, WIC Television Ltd., were involved in litigation over the use of the initials ITV in their internet domain names - ITV Technologies submitted documentary evidence in the form of copies of magazines and dictionaries, as well as print-outs from on-line dictionaries and library searches - In this printed material, the letters ITV were used to represent various meanings, such as instructional television, interactive television, internet television, industrial television and independent television - WIC objected to the admissibility of most of the printed material - The Federal Court noted that while certified copies were not produced and the traditional best evidence rule could be applied to exclude admission, the importance of that rule had been diminished in the age of photocopies - The court held that the copies were admissible, not to prove the truth of the contents, but as evidence that the letters ITV were capable of various meanings at different time periods - See paragraphs 19 to 22.

Evidence - Topic 3004

Documentary evidence - General - Best evidence rule - [See Evidence - Topic 51 ].

Evidence - Topic 3171

Documentary evidence - Copies of documents - General - [See Evidence - Topic 51 ].

Evidence - Topic 3755.1

Documentary evidence - Public documents - Internet sites, articles, materials, pictures, etc. - Two companies which operated internet sites were involved in litigation over the use of trademarks and domain names - The Federal Court granted one party's request to access the internet in court for the purpose of performing demonstrations at trial, for cross-examining witnesses and for retrieving electronic versions of document for use at trial - The court discussed generally the admissibility of this type of evidence and the problems associated therewith - See paragraphs 12 to 18.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 261

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Prohibition - Marks which are descriptive of the product - The plaintiff, ITV Technologies Inc., used the letters ITV in association with its web casting business and used the domain name www.itv.net for its web site - The defendant, WIC Television Ltd., a television broadcasting and production business, owned several registered trademarks incorporating the initials ITV - WIC Television also operated an internet site with the domain name www.itv.ca - ITV Technologies commenced an action against WIC Television, seeking to have WIC's trademarks expunged on the ground that they were not registrable at the date of registration because they were clearly descriptive of WIC's wares or services (Trade-marks Act, s. 12(1)(b)) - The Federal Court rejected ITV Technologies' argument, holding that it was not supported by the evidence and therefore WIC's trademarks were registrable - See paragraphs 63 to 80.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 264.5

Trademarks - What trademarks registrable - Prohibition - Marks that are the names of the wares or services in connection with which they are used - The plaintiff, ITV Technologies Inc., used the letters ITV in association with its web casting business and used the domain name www.itv.net for its web site - The defendant, WIC Television Ltd., a television broadcasting and production business, owned several registered trademarks incorporating the initials ITV - WIC Television also operated an internet site with the domain name www.itv.ca - ITV Technologies commenced an action against WIC Television, seeking to have WIC's trademarks expunged on the ground that they were not registrable at the date of registration because the marks were the names of the wares or services in connection with which they were used by WIC (Trade-marks Act, s. 12(1)(c)) - The Federal Court rejected ITV Technologies' argument, holding that it was not supported by the evidence and therefore WIC's trademarks were registrable - See paragraphs 81 to 87.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.1

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Loss of distinctiveness - The plaintiff, ITV Technologies Inc., used the letters ITV in association with its web casting business and used the domain name www.itv.net for its web site - The defendant, WIC Television Ltd., a television broadcasting and production business, owned several registered trademarks incorporating the initials ITV - WIC Television also operated an internet site with the domain name www.itv.ca - ITV Technologies commenced an action against WIC Television, seeking to have WIC's trademarks expunged on the ground that the marks were not distinctive at the time proceedings began (i.e., 1997) - The Federal Court rejected ITV Technologies' argument, holding that it was not supported by the evidence - The court dismissed ITV's expungement proceedings. - See paragraphs 95 to 111.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 889.5

Trademarks - Registration - Expungement of mark - Grounds - Confusion - The plaintiff, ITV Technologies Inc., used the letters ITV in association with its web casting business and used the domain name www.itv.net for its web site - The defendant, WIC Television Ltd., a television broadcasting and production business, owned several registered trademarks incorporating the initials ITV - WIC Television also operated an internet site with the domain name www.itv.ca - ITV Technologies commenced an action against WIC Television, seeking to have WIC's trademarks expunged on the ground that they were not registrable - ITV argued that pursuant to s. 10 and s. 12(1)(e) of the Trade-marks Act, the WIC marks were prohibited because as a result of ordinary and bona fide commercial usage, they had become recognized in Canada as designating the kind, quality, quantity, destination, value or place of origin of WIC's wares services when the marks were first used - The Federal Court rejected ITV Technologies' argument and held that WIC's trademarks were registrable - See paragraphs 88 to 94.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1806

Trademarks - Infringement - Test - Confusion with other mark or name - The plaintiff, ITV Technologies Inc., used the letters ITV in association with its web casting business and used the domain name www.itv.net for its web site - The defendant, WIC Television Ltd., a television broadcasting and production business, owned several registered trademarks incorporating the initials ITV - WIC Television also operated an internet site with the domain name www.itv.ca - WIC, by counterclaim, sued ITV Technologies for trademark infringement contrary to s. 20 of the Trade-marks Act - The Federal Court dismissed the counterclaim, holding that ITV Technologies' use of its ITV marks was not confusing with WIC's registered marks - Therefore there was no infringement under s. 20 of the Act - See paragraphs 112 to 189.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1808

Trademarks - Infringement - Use - Depreciation of goodwill - The plaintiff, ITV Technologies Inc., used the letters ITV in association with its web casting business and used the domain name www.itv.net for its web site - The defendant, WIC Television Ltd., a television broadcasting and production business, owned several registered trademarks incorporating the initials ITV - WIC Television also operated an internet site with the domain name www.itv.ca - WIC, by counterclaim, sued ITV Technologies, arguing that ITV Technologies' use of its ITV marks had depreciated the value of the goodwill attached to WIC's registered trademarks contrary to s. 22 of the Trade-marks Act - The Federal Court rejected WIC's argument, holding that the ordinary customer when seeing ITV Technologies' business name ITV.net, or its corporate name ITV Technologies, or its web site www.itv.net, would not immediately make a connection with WIC - Without this connection it could not be said that WIC's goodwill was diminished - The court opined further that even if such a connection was made, the court was not satisfied that this would have depreciated the value of WIC's ITV marks - See paragraphs 190 to 201.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 1810

Trademarks - Infringement - Internet domain names, addresses, etc. - The plaintiff, ITV Technologies Inc., used the letters ITV in association with its web casting business and used the domain name www.itv.net for its web site - The defendant, WIC Television Ltd., a television broadcasting and production business, owned several registered trademarks incorporating the initials ITV - WIC Television also operated an internet site with the domain name www.itv.ca - ITV Technologies commenced an action against WIC Television, seeking to have WIC's trademarks expunged - WIC counterclaimed alleging trademark infringement, passing off and depreciation of goodwill - The Federal Court dismissed ITV Technologies' claim and WIC's counterclaim - See paragraphs 1 to 208.

Trademarks, Names and Designs - Topic 3068

Trademarks - Unfair competition - Passing off - The plaintiff, ITV Technologies Inc., used the letters ITV in association with its web casting business and used the domain name www.itv.net for its web site - The defendant, WIC Television Ltd., a television broadcasting and production business, owned several registered trademarks incorporating the initials ITV - WIC Television also operated an internet site with the domain name www.itv.ca - WIC, by counterclaim, sued ITV Technologies, arguing that ITV Technologies' use of the mark ITV constituted passing off contrary to s. 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act - The Federal Court rejected WIC's claim where there had been no deception of the public due to a misrepresentation as required by s. 7(b) to establish passing off - See paragraphs 202 to 207.

Cases Noticed:

Provenzano v. Registrar of Trademarks (1978), 37 C.P.R.(2d) 189 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 67].

Lassonde (A.) Inc. v. Registraire des marques de commerce (2000), 180 F.T.R. 177 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 68].

Pac-Fab Inc. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1982), 69 C.P.R.(2d) 250 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 69].

Jordan & Ste-Michelle Cellars Ltd. v. Bright (T.G.) & Co., [1984] 1 F.C. 964; 57 N.R. 214 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

Oshawa Group Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, [1981] 2 F.C. 18 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 71].

Drackett Co. of Canada Ltd. v. American Home Products Corp. (1968), 55 C.P.R. 29 (Ex. Ct.), refd to. [para. 71].

Wool Bureau of Canada Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks (1978), 40 C.P.R.(2d) 25 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 71].

Consorzio Del Prosciutto Di Parma v. Maple Leaf Meats Inc., [2001] 2 F.C. 536; 205 F.T.R. 176 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 71].

Canadian Council of Professional Engineers v. APA - The Engineered Wood Association (2000), 184 F.T.R. 55 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 73].

Bank of Montreal v. Midland Walwyn Capital Inc./Capital Midland Walwyn Inc. (1998), 86 C.P.R.(3d) 555 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 74].

Unitel Communications Inc. v. Bell Canada (1995), 92 F.T.R. 161 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 81].

Canadian Bankers Association v. Northwest Bancorporation (1979), 50 C.P.R.(2d) 113 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 82].

Horn Abbot Ltd. et al. v. Thurston Hayes Developments Ltd. et al. (1997), 137 F.T.R. 206 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 83].

Brûlerie des Monts Inc. v. 3002462 Canada Inc. (1997), 132 F.T.R. 150 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 84].

Bagagerie S.A. v. Bagagerie Willy ltée (1992), 148 N.R. 125; 97 D.L.R.(4th) 684 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

Carling Breweries Ltd. v. Molson Companies Ltd. et al., [1984] 2 F.C. 920 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 89].

Bank of Montreal v. Merrill Lynch & Co. (1997), 84 C.P.R.(3d) 262 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [para. 90].

Sherwood Brands Overseas Inc. v. Linkletter (P.E.I.) Ltd. (2001), 15 C.P.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 91].

Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Labatt (John) Ltd. (2001), 14 C.P.R.(4th) 548, refd to. [para. 91].

Molson Breweries, A Partnership v. Labatt (John) Ltd. et al., [2000] 3 F.C. 145; 252 N.R. 91 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 98].

Morris (Philip) Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. (1985), 7 C.P.R.(3d) 254 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 108].

United States Polo Association v. Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. et al. (2000), 286 N.R. 282; 9 C.P.R.(4th) 51 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 114].

Miss Universe Inc. v. Bohna, [1995] 1 F.C. 614; 176 N.R. 35 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 115].

Polysar Ltd. v. Gesco Distributing Ltd. (1985), 6 C.P.R.(3d) 289 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 117].

Garbo Group Inc. v. Brown (Harriet) & Co. et al. (1999), 176 F.T.R. 80 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 117].

United Artists Corp. v. Panther Beauty Corp. et al., [1998] 3 F.C. 534; 225 N.R. 82 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 118].

Carson v. Reynolds, [1980] 2 F.C. 685 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 120].

General Motors Corp. v. Bellows, [1949] S.C.R. 678, refd to. [para. 121].

GSW Ltd. v. Great West Steel Industries (1975), 22 C.P.R.(2d) 154 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 123].

Grass (Alfred) Gessellschaft mbH Metallwarenfabrik v. Grant Industries Inc. (1991), 47 F.T.R. 231 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 124].

Seagram (Joseph E.) & Sons Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks and Seagram Real Estate Ltd. (1990), 38 F.T.R. 96 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 130].

Cornell Trading Ltd. v. Saan Stores Ltd. et al. (2000), 185 F.T.R. 198 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 131].

Triple G. Manufacturing Inc. v. Work Wear Corporation of Canada Ltd. (1990), 35 F.T.R. 193 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 135].

Berry Bros. & Rudd Ltd. v. Planta Tabak-Manufactur Dr. Manfred Obermann (1980), 53 C.P.R.(2d) 130 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 139].

Lassonde (A.) & Fils Inc. v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd. and Registrar of Trademarks (1987), 12 F.T.R. 231 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 140].

Oshawa Holdings Ltd. v. Fjord Pacific Marine Industries Ltd. (1981), 36 N.R. 71 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 142].

Man and His Home Ltd. v. Mansoor Electronics Ltd. et al. (1999), 163 F.T.R. 270 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 142].

Johnson (S.C.) & Son Inc. v. Esprit de Corps and Registrar of Trademarks (1986), 8 F.T.R. 81 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 144].

Merrill Lynch & Co. v. Bank of Montreal (1996), 108 F.T.R. 241; 66 C.P.R.(3d) 150 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 160].

Park Avenue Furniture Corp. v. Wickes/ Simmons Bedding Ltd. (1991), 130 N.R. 223 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 161].

Ikea Ltd./Ikea Ltée v. Idea Design Ltd. and Mortimore (No. 1) (1987), 8 F.T.R. 215 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 161].

Conde Nast Publications v. Union des Editions Modernes, [1979] F.C.J. No. 801, refd to. [para. 162].

Fonorola Inc. v. Motorola Inc. et al. (1998), 144 F.T.R. 97 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 162].

Sum-Spec Canada Ltd. v. Imasco Retail Inc. (1990), 35 F.T.R. 44 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 163].

American Cyanamid Co. v. Record Chemical Co., [1972] F.C. 1271 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 164].

Kellogg Salada Canada Inc. v. Registrar of Trademarks and Maximum Nutrition Ltd., [1992] 3 F.C. 442; 145 N.R. 131 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 165].

Merial LLC v. Novartis Animal Health Canada Inc. (2001), 200 F.T.R. 101; 11 C.P.R.(4th) 191 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 166].

Black v. Molson Canada, [2002] O.T.C. 522 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 177].

Culinar Inc. v. Gestion Charaine Inc. et al. (1987), 16 F.T.R. 202 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 187].

Clairol International Corp. v. Thomas Supply & Equipment Co., [1968] 2 Ex. C.R. 552, refd to. [para. 191].

Johnson (S.C.) & Son Ltd. v. Marketing International Ltd., [1977] F.C.J. No. 111, refd to. [para. 191].

Source Perrier (Société Anonyme) v. Fira-Less Marketing Co., [1983] 2 F.C. 18 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 193].

Eye Masters Ltd. v. Ross King Holdings Ltd. - see Eye Masters Ltd. v. Shoppers' Optical.

Eye Masters Ltd. v. Shoppers' Optical, [1992] 3 F.C. 625; 56 F.T.R. 274 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 194].

Jercity Franchises Ltd. v. Foord - see Jercity Franchises Ltd. v. Jersey Joe's Apparel.

Jercity Franchises Ltd. v. Jersey Joe's Apparel (1990), 39 F.T.R. 315 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 195].

Vapor Canada Ltd. et al. v. MacDonald, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 134; 7 N.R. 477, refd to. [para. 203].

CIBA-Geigy Canada Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 120; 143 N.R. 241; 58 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 204].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade-marks Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-13, sect. 6(5) [para. 116]; sect. 10; sect. 12(1)(b), sect. 12(1)(c), sect. 12(1)(e), sect. 18(1)(a) [para. 64]; sect. 20(1) [para. 113]; sect. 22(1) [para. 190]; sect. 57(1) [para. 63].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sopinka, John, Lederman, Sydney N., and Bryant, Alan W., The Law of Evidence in Canada (2nd Ed. 1999), pp. 1013, 1014 [para. 20].

Counsel:

Paul D. Gornall, for the plaintiff;

Brian Edmonds and Barry Fraser, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario/ Vancouver, British Columbia, for the plaintiff;

Paul G. Gornall, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the defendant.

These actions were heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on April 28, 2003, by Tremblay-Lamer, J., of the Federal Court, who released the following decision on September 10, 2003.

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 practice notes
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (January 30, 2023 ' February 3, 2023)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 9 Febrero 2023
    ...v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518, N.S. v. R.M., 2019 ONCA 685, R. v. Abbey, 2017 ONCA 640, ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd., 2003 FC 1056, Sutton v. Sutton, 2017 ONSC 3181, White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, I.S. v. J.W., 2021 ONSC 1194, A.B.S.......
  • Trade-marks
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Intellectual Property Law. Second Edition
    • 15 Junio 2011
    ...[1898] A.C. 239 (P.C.) (“f‌laked oatmeal” descriptive of oatmeal for porridge). 299 ITV Technologies, Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd. , 2003 FC 1056 at [85]–[86], aff’d ( sub nom. WIC TV Amalco Inc. v. ITV Technologies, Inc. ) 2005 FCA 96 [ ITV ]. 300 T Act , above note 1, ss. 12(1)(e) & 10; Cy......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Intellectual Property Law. Second Edition
    • 15 Junio 2011
    ...Ltd. v. TV Catch Up Ltd., [2010] EWHC 3063 (Ch.) ............ 203 Table of Cases 757 ITV Technologies, Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd., 2003 FC 1056, 239 F.T.R. 203, 29 C.P.R. (4th) 182, aff’d (sub nom. WIC TV Amalco Inc. v. ITV Technologies, Inc.) 2005 FCA 96, 332 N.R. 1, 38 C.P.R. (4th) 481 .......
  • Remo Imports Ltd. v. Jaguar Cars Ltd. et al., 2006 FC 21
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 4 Noviembre 2005
    ...Ltd. v. Sunoptic S.A., [1979] F.S.R. 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 250, footnote 130]. ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd. (2003), 239 F.T.R. 203; 29 C.P.R.(4th) 182 (T.D.), affd. (2005), 332 N.R. 1; 38 C.P.R.(4th) 481 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 252, footnote Conde Nast Publications I......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
39 cases
  • Remo Imports Ltd. v. Jaguar Cars Ltd. et al., 2006 FC 21
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 4 Noviembre 2005
    ...Ltd. v. Sunoptic S.A., [1979] F.S.R. 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 250, footnote 130]. ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd. (2003), 239 F.T.R. 203; 29 C.P.R.(4th) 182 (T.D.), affd. (2005), 332 N.R. 1; 38 C.P.R.(4th) 481 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 252, footnote Conde Nast Publications I......
  • Ottawa Athletic Club Inc. v. Athletic Club Group Inc. et al., (2014) 459 F.T.R. 39 (FC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 13 Enero 2014
    ...v. Registrar of Trademarks (1976), 31 C.P.R.(2d) 103 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 61]. ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd. (2003), 239 F.T.R. 203; 2003 FC 1056, refd to. [para. Jordan & Ste-Michelle Cellars Ltd. v. Alwar SpA (1980), 63 C.P.R.(2d) 235 (T.M. Opp. Bd.), refd to. [p......
  • WIEGERS v. APPLE, INC., 2020 SKQB 24
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • 27 Enero 2020
    ...[61] In his reasoning, Popescul J. adopted the analysis of a Federal Court decision in ITV Technologies, Inc. v WIC Television Ltd., 2003 FC 1056, 239 FTR 203. That analysis, penned by Tremblay-Lamer J., was recited from paras. 16-18 of the adopted decision: 16 With regard to the reliabilit......
  • KISH v. FACEBOOK CANADA LTD.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • 14 Julio 2021
    ...is inadmissible due to reliability concerns. Justice Popescul (as he then was), following ITV Technologies Inc. v WIC Television Ltd., 2003 FC 1056, 29 CPR (4th) 182, outlined the requirements for the admissibility of internet-based hearsay [22]  The approach taken by the Federal Court......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (January 30, 2023 ' February 3, 2023)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 9 Febrero 2023
    ...v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518, N.S. v. R.M., 2019 ONCA 685, R. v. Abbey, 2017 ONCA 640, ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd., 2003 FC 1056, Sutton v. Sutton, 2017 ONSC 3181, White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, I.S. v. J.W., 2021 ONSC 1194, A.B.S.......
  • Lawyers Can Go Way Back With The Wayback Machine
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 12 Mayo 2021
    ...seems to have agreed that the Wayback Machine is reliable and accurate. For example, in ITV Technologies Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd., 2003 FC 1056, the court noted that "[the] web site is reliable, and that the Court could rely on its digital library for an accurate representation of the we......
  • Trademark Distinctiveness: The New Examination Criterion That Is Profoundly Changing Trademark Law
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 25 Febrero 2020
    ...decision that can be used to provide a general interpretation is that of the Federal Court in ITV Technologies Inc v WIC Television Ltd, 2003 FC 1056, [2004] 3 FCA 49, in section 119: "The inherent distinctiveness of a mark refers to its originality. A mark that is composed of a unique or i......
2 books & journal articles
  • Trade-marks
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Intellectual Property Law. Second Edition
    • 15 Junio 2011
    ...[1898] A.C. 239 (P.C.) (“f‌laked oatmeal” descriptive of oatmeal for porridge). 299 ITV Technologies, Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd. , 2003 FC 1056 at [85]–[86], aff’d ( sub nom. WIC TV Amalco Inc. v. ITV Technologies, Inc. ) 2005 FCA 96 [ ITV ]. 300 T Act , above note 1, ss. 12(1)(e) & 10; Cy......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Intellectual Property Law. Second Edition
    • 15 Junio 2011
    ...Ltd. v. TV Catch Up Ltd., [2010] EWHC 3063 (Ch.) ............ 203 Table of Cases 757 ITV Technologies, Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd., 2003 FC 1056, 239 F.T.R. 203, 29 C.P.R. (4th) 182, aff’d (sub nom. WIC TV Amalco Inc. v. ITV Technologies, Inc.) 2005 FCA 96, 332 N.R. 1, 38 C.P.R. (4th) 481 .......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT