3 ms·
> crystal clear trademark violations Nope, it's about alleged trade secrets, not trademarks. http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/10/2014BCSC1063.htm htt
by qb45 9y ago
> crystal clear trademark violations
Nope, it's about alleged trade secrets, not trademarks.
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/10/2014BCSC1063.htm http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/14/10/2014BCSC1063.ht...
> The current international trademark framework means that the majority of nations in the world would actually require compliance with this order
Given the above, I'm not sure if it's still true. And even if it was, I fail to see why Canadian court should be allowed to effectively make this decision for others. Have all countries in the world obliged to recognize Canadian censorship orders yet?
> I am confident in stating that the freedom of speech concerns arising from this case are not as dire as portrayed.
Meh, it's not exactly reassuring if you say that this ruling doesn't matter because it's business as usual.
- ABCLAW 9y agoUnfortunately, the evidence you've brought to the table actually doesn't agree with your position, but you aren't trained enough to understand it yet. Read the link you cited, specifically paragraph 5. Look up passing-off as a tort, then look up Subsection 7 c) of the Canadian Trademarks Act. There are often trade-secret dimensions in situations where a supplier is committing trademark infringement, but this is a clear situation where there's PLENTY of trademark infringement going on.
- qb45 9y agoSorry, I must have missed this part. FWIW, they don't seems to do it anymore.