The General Court of the European Union held that marks that included protecting a technical function or functionality of the goods were invalid.

A court with in personam jurisdiction over a non-party can make an order affecting internet conduct in other jurisdictions.

The back page includes a series of undertakings on behalf of the Corporate Defendants.

Case comment on Dumais v Hobbs, a recent Ontario case which dealt with issues related to discovery and the parol evidence rule.

This post summarizes a recent BC case which hinged on whether two colleges named after the same city led to unfair competition.

The Supreme Court of Canada has instructed that, "[t]he primary interpretive principle is that when the language of the policy is unambiguous, the court should give effect to clear language, reading the contract as a whole.

In Apple v. Samsung, the United States Court of Appeals clarified and applied the causal nexus requirement in a situation involving irreparable harm.

Menziesbank Corp. assisted in the implementation of a matrimonial settlement. The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted leave to appeal to the creditors who claimed a solicitor’s lien and a salvage lien in relation to services rendered or money lent to the bankrupt taxpayer.

This post examines the general principles behind the interpretation of contracts, and an overview of the burden of proof for construction and interpretation.

Aetna Financial Services Ltd. v. Feigelman | 1985 CarswellMan 379 | Supreme Court of Canada

I confess to finding the situation rather surreal — one, indeed, that would have excited the admiration of Lewis Carroll.

In 1947 that irreverant sage George Bernard Shaw made this observation: To expect an average farmer to be not only a sower and a reaper, but an agricultural chemist, an accountant, a meteorologist, a veterinary expert, a merchant, a financier and a resident housekeeper all united in a single Admirable Crichton is ridiculous; yet this is our practice.