Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc

Last updated
Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc

Supreme Court of Canada 2.jpg

Hearing: January 16, 2007
Judgment: July 26, 2007
Full case nameEuro‑Excellence Incorporated v Kraft Canada Incorporated, Kraft Foods Schweiz AG and Kraft Foods Belgium SA
Citations 2007 SCC 37, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 20
Docket No. 31327
Prior history Judgment for the plaintiff in the Federal Court of Appeal
Ruling Appeal allowed
Court Membership
Chief Justice: Beverley McLachlin
Puisne Justices: Michel Bastarache, Ian Binnie, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abella, Louise Charron, Marshall Rothstein
Reasons given
Majority Rothstein J., joined by Binnie and Deschamps JJ.
Concurrence Fish J.
Concurrence Bastarache J., joined by LeBel and Charron JJ.
Dissent Abella J., joined by McLachlin C.J.
Laws Applied
Copyright Act , RSC 1985, c C-42

Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc, 2007 SCC 37 , [2007] 3 S.C.R. 20, is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on Canadian copyright law, specifically on the issue of indirect infringement and its application to parallel importation. Kraft Canada sued Euro-Excellence Inc. for copyright infringement due to their importation of Côte d’Or and Toblerone chocolate bars from Europe into Canada. A majority of the court found that the copyright claim could not succeed, although they split on whether the claim failed due to the rights of an exclusive licensee or due to the scope of copyright law.

Supreme Court of Canada highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada, the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. Its decisions are the ultimate expression and application of Canadian law and binding upon all lower courts of Canada, except to the extent that they are overridden or otherwise made ineffective by an Act of Parliament or the Act of a provincial legislative assembly pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Authorization" and "Secondary Infringement" are two instances of "indirect infringement" in Canadian Copyright law. In cases of indirect infringement, individuals can be held liable for infringement even where they did not personally make the copies of the copyrighted subject-matter. This expands the scope of liability. The Canadian courts have dealt with these concepts in a number of cases, several of which will be elaborated upon below.

Toblerone trademark

Toblerone is a Swiss chocolate bar brand currently owned by US confectionery company Mondelēz International, Inc., which was formerly Kraft Foods, the company that acquired the product from former owner Jacobs Suchard in 1990. It is produced in the capital city of Switzerland, Bern, and the bear symbol of the city is still visible in the logo. Toblerone is known for its distinctive shape, which involves a series of joined triangular prisms.

Contents

Background

Kraft Canada Inc. was the exclusive Canadian importer and distributor of Toblerone chocolate bars since 1990, and the exclusive Canadian distributor of Côte d’Or chocolate bars since 2001. These agreements were entered into with Kraft Foods Belgium SA and Kraft Foods Schweiz AG of Belgium and Switzerland, respectively.

Belgium Federal constitutional monarchy in Western Europe

Belgium, officially the Kingdom of Belgium, is a country in Western Europe. It is bordered by the Netherlands to the north, Germany to the east, Luxembourg to the southeast, France to the southwest, and the North Sea to the northwest. It covers an area of 30,688 square kilometres (11,849 sq mi) and has a population of more than 11.4 million. The capital and largest city is Brussels; other major cities are Antwerp, Ghent, Charleroi and Liège.

Switzerland federal republic in Western Europe

Switzerland, officially the Swiss Confederation, is a country situated in western, central and southern Europe. It consists of 26 cantons, and the city of Bern is the seat of the federal authorities. The sovereign state is a federal republic bordered by Italy to the south, France to the west, Germany to the north, and Austria and Liechtenstein to the east. Switzerland is a landlocked country geographically divided between the Alps, the Swiss Plateau and the Jura, spanning a total area of 41,285 km2 (15,940 sq mi). While the Alps occupy the greater part of the territory, the Swiss population of approximately 8.5 million people is concentrated mostly on the plateau, where the largest cities are to be found: among them are the two global cities and economic centres Zürich and Geneva.

Euro-Excellence was an authorized distributor of Côte d’Or chocolate bars from 1993 until 2000, and was the exclusive Canadian distributor between 1997 and 2000. Their distribution agreement with Kraft expired in 2000 and was not renewed, although they continued to import and distribute the chocolate bars which they legally acquired in Europe. Beginning in 2001, Euro-Excellence also imported Toblerone bars from Europe without authorization.

On October 25, 2002, Kraft Foods Belgium SA registered three Côte d’Or logos and two Toblerone logos as copyrighted works in Canada, and entered into an agreement with Kraft Canada as the exclusive licensee for production and reproduction of the copyrighted logos. Based on the distribution of logos on the chocolate bars, Kraft Canada Inc. sued Euro-Excellence for copyright infringement.

The Federal Court ruled in favour of Kraft Canada, finding that the logos in question were the proper subject matter for copyright, and that they were reproduced contrary to the Copyright Act. [1] The court awarded Kraft Canada $300,000 in damages and issued an order "that the product be rendered non-infringing". [2]

Federal Court (Canada) current federal Canadian trial court

The Federal Court is a Canadian trial court that hears cases arising under certain areas of federal law. The Federal Court is a lower court with nationwide jurisdiction.

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must usually show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed in the appeal in part and referred the issue of damages back to the trial judge. However, the trial judge confirmed the original order of $300,000 in damages.

Judgment of the Court

The Supreme Court, in four separate written judgments, considered two legal issues: [3]

  1. Is the copyrighted work being "sold" or "distributed" when it is printed on the wrapper of a consumer product?
  2. Can an exclusive licensee of a copyright claim protection against secondary infringement when the copyrighted work was produced by the owner-licensor?

A majority of the court decided the case in favour of Euro-Excellence, but there was disagreement on the grounds for why the copyright claim could not succeed.

Sale and distribution of copyrighted works

Five justices (Rothstein, Binnie, Deschamps, Abella, and McLachlin) held that there was a sale and distribution of a copyrighted work under s. 27 of the Copyright Act. The copyrighted logos were sold as part of the packaging on the chocolate bars, and therefore constituted an infringing sale of a copyrighted work.

Rothstein J., with whom Binnie and Deschamps JJ. concurred, rejected the "merely incidental" doctrine proposed by Bastarache J.:

I see no statutory authority for the proposition that "incidental" works are not protected by the Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42. This Court's holding in CCH confirms that all artistic works receive the protection of copyright if they meet the requisite standards of "skill and judgment" [4]

Abella J., writing for herself and McLachlin C.J. agreed with Rothstein's position on the issue of the sale of copyrighted works:

There is nothing in the Act to endorse a restrictive definition of "sell". Section 64(3)(b) of the Act extends copyright protection to trade-marks and labels. When a product is sold, title to its wrapper is also transferred to the purchaser. The Act is indifferent as to whether the sale of the wrapper is important to the consumer. [5]

Bastarache J., with whom LeBel and Charron JJ. concurred, would have struck down Kraft Canada's claim based on his interpretation of the Copyright Act, which precluded protection for works which were "merely incidental" to the product being sold. [6]

Bastarache based this interpretation largely on the Supreme Court's rulings in Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers [7] and Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. [8] to differentiate between the protection afforded by copyright law and trademark law. He held that "[t]he protection offered by copyright cannot be leveraged to include protection of economic interests that are only tangentially related to the copyrighted work." [9]

Fish J., writing for himself, concurred with the majority in result, and agreed with Rothstein J. that the issue should be decided on the basis of the licensing issue, but also expressed doubt as to whether copyright would apply to the claim in this case:

"Without so deciding, I express grave doubt whether the law governing the protection of intellectual property rights in Canada can be transformed in this way into an instrument of trade control not contemplated by the Copyright Act. [10]

Rights granted to exclusive licensees

In CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada , [11] the Court held that three elements must be proven to establish secondary infringement:

  1. a primary infringement
  2. the secondary infringer should have known that he or she was dealing with a product of infringement, and
  3. the secondary infringer sold, distributed or exposed for sale the infringing goods [12]

However, due to s. 27(2)(e) of the Copyright Act, where a work in question was imported, only "hypothetical infringement" was necessary instead of primary infringement. [13] Rothstein J. noted that this section protected Canadian copyright holders from parallel importation of copyrighted works, because an infringing work in Canada may not necessarily be infringing in the country of its manufacture. Therefore, s. 27(2)(e) requires, for imported goods, only that the plaintiff prove that the work "would infringe copyright if it had been made in Canada by the person who made it." [1]

Because Euro-Excellence was importing legitimate Côte d’Or and Toblerone chocolate bars from Europe (as opposed to counterfeit goods), Kraft Canada was forced to claim that had Kraft Foods Belgium and Kraft Foods Switzerland manufactured the goods in Canada, they would be infringing the copyright that had been exclusively licensed to Kraft Canada. [14]

The success of this claim depended on whether an exclusive licensee under the Copyright Act (in this case Kraft Canada) could sue the owner/licensor of the copyright (in this case the parent companies Kraft Foods Belgium SA and Kraft Foods Schweiz AG).

Section 2.7 of the Copyright Act defined an "exclusive licensee":

2.7 For the purposes of this Act, an exclusive license is an authorization to do any act that is subject to copyright to the exclusion of all others including the copyright owner, whether the authorization is granted by the owner or an exclusive licensee claiming under the owner.

Five of the justices (Bastarache, LeBel, Charron, Abella, and McLachlin) interpreted s. 2.7 in the Copyright Act to mean that exclusive licensees had the same rights of the owner of a copyright, and that the right to sue the owner was granted in an exclusive license.

The remaining justices (Rothstein, Binnie, Deschamps, and Fish) focused on the distinction between an "assignee", a "non-exclusive licensee", and an "exclusive licensee", interpreting the different categories listed in the Copyright Act to mean that only an assignee could sue the original author or owner for copyright infringement, and that an exclusive licensee could sue all third parties for copyright infringement but not the owner-licensor. [15]

Result

Although the plaintiffs Kraft Canada Inc. won the legal argument for both issues (whether they were within their rights to sue as an exclusive licensee and whether there was a sale of a copyrighted work), they lost the case due to vote splitting.

Five justices decided that there was a sale of a copyrighted work (Rothstein, Binnie, Deschamps, Abella, and McLachlin), and five justices (Bastarache, LeBel, Charron, Abella, and McLachin) decided that an exclusive licensee could sue the licensor on the basis of hypothetical infringement. However, seven of the nine justices agreed that the copyright claim could not succeed - Rothstein, Binnie, Deschamps, and Fish allowed the appeal on the licensing issue while Bastarache, LeBel, and Charron allowed the appeal on the sale issue. Only Abella and McLachin would have found copyright infringement by finding in favour of the plaintiff on both the licensing and sale requirements.

Aftermath

In response to the Supreme Court decision, Kraft Foods Belgium and Kraft Foods Switzerland assigned the copyrights in question to Kraft Canada. Their theory of the case was that an outright assignment of copyright instead of an exclusive license would enable them to succeed against Euro-Excellence in a second case. [16]

A second claim was served against Euro-Excellence on December 3, 2007. [16] On January 8, 2009, Kraft Canada and Euro-Excellence reached an agreement to settle the dispute. Euro-Excellence agreed to stop imports of Côte d’Or chocolate bars without Kraft Canada's consent, and signed a distribution agreement to distribute Côte d’Or chocolates in Quebec on behalf of Kraft Canada. [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder. Permission may typically be granted in the form of a license. The definition of patent infringement may vary by jurisdiction, but it typically includes using or selling the patented invention. In many countries, a use is required to be commercial to constitute patent infringement.

<i>Théberge v Galerie dArt du Petit Champlain Inc</i>

Théberge v Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain Inc[2002] 2 S.C.R. 336, 2002 SCC 34 is one of the Supreme Court of Canada's leading cases on copyright law. This case interprets the meaning of "reproduction" within the Copyright Act of Canada, and touches on the moral rights to copyrighted material and how much control an author has over his work once it is in the hands of a third party.

<i>CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada</i>

CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339, 2004 SCC 13 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada case that established the threshold of originality and the bounds of fair dealing in Canadian copyright law. A group of publishers sued the Law Society of Upper Canada for copyright infringement for providing photocopy services to researchers. The Court unanimously held that the Law Society's practice fell within the bounds of fair dealing.

<i>Chaoulli v Quebec (AG)</i>

Chaoulli v Quebec (AG) [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, 2005 SCC 35, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada of which the Court ruled that the Quebec Health Insurance Act and the Hospital Insurance Act prohibiting private medical insurance in the face of long wait times violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. In a 4 to 3 decision, the Court found the Acts violated Quebecers' right to life and security of person under the Quebec Charter. The ruling is binding only in Quebec. Three of the seven judges also found that the laws violated section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One judge did not rule on the Canadian Charter. The result was a 3–3 tie on the question of the Canadian Charter, so Chaoulli decision does not apply to any other province.

<i>Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Assn of Internet Providers</i>

Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v Canadian Assn of Internet Providers 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 45 - also known as the Tariff 22 case - is a leading decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on ISP liability for copyright infringement. The Court found that there is no liability for information found in caches. An ISP's liability depends on whether it limits itself to "a conduit" or a content-neutral function and is not dependent on where the ISP is located.

<i>Harper v Canada (AG)</i> decision of the Supreme of Canada

Harper v Canada (AG), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827, 2004 SCC 33, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada wherein the Court ruled that Canada Elections Act's spending limits on third party election advertising did violate section 2(b) and 2(d) and section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but was justified underSection One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Robertson v Thomson Corp</i>

Robertson v Thomson Corp, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 363 , 2006 SCC 43 is a 2006 Supreme Court of Canada decision on the ownership of copyright in published text that are stored in databases. The ruling held that though a newspaper held the copyright in the collection and the arrangement of freelance articles and in its newspaper, it could not publish the articles within a database. Publication within the database would remove the articles from the context of the collective work and therefore their publication as such was not within the rights held by the newspaper.

<i>Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc</i> Canadian Supreme Court case about trademark names

Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc[2006] 1 S.C.R. 772, 2006 SCC 22 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the infringement of famous trade-mark names. The Court found that Mattel Inc. could not enforce the use of their trade-marked name "BARBIE" against a restaurant named "Barbie's".

<i>Ward v Canada (AG)</i>

Ward v Canada (AG) is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on federalism. The Court re-articulated the "pith and substance analysis and upheld the regulations prohibiting sale of "blueback" seals for the valid purpose of "curtailing commercial hunting of young seals to preserve the fisheries as an economic resource".

<i>Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem</i>

Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem [2004] 2 S.C.R. 551 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that attempted to define freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although the Supreme Court split on their definition, the majority advocated tolerating a practice where the individual sincerely feels it is connected to religion, regardless of whether the practice is required by a religious authority.

<i>R v Bryan</i>

R v Bryan 2007 SCC 12 is a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on freedom of expression and Canadian federal elections. The Court upheld a law that prevented the publicizing of election results from some ridings before the polls closed in others.

MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At the district court level, MDY had been found liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement (EULA) and Terms of Use (TOU) governing the World of Warcraft software.
The court's ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court in part, upheld in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals ruled that for a software licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the license condition and the licensor’s exclusive rights of copyright. However, the court also ruled, contrary to Chamberlain v. Skylink, that a finding of circumvention under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not require a nexus between circumvention and actual copyright infringement.

<i>R v Kang-Brown</i>

R v Kang-Brown, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456, 2008 SCC 18, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a suspect's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were violated when a police officer stopped him at a bus station and sniffer-dog searched his bag finding drugs in his possession.

In Canada, the Copyright Act provides a monopoly right to owners of copyrighted works. This implies no person can use the work without authorization or consent from the copyright owner. However, certain exceptions in the Act govern circumstances where a work will not be held to have been infringed.

Authorship and ownership in copyright law in Canada is an important and complex topic which lies at the nexus between Canada's Copyright Act, an important body of case law, and a number of compelling policy motives. Analysis of Authorship and ownership of copyrightable works in Canada can proceed by examination of the rules determining the initial allocation of copyrights, rules governing subsequent changes in ownership, and finally rules governing complex works such as compilations.

A patent holder in Canada has the exclusive right, privilege and liberty to making, constructing, using and selling the invention for the term of the patent, from the time the patent is granted. Any person who does any of these acts in relation to an invention without permission of the patent owner is liable for patent infringement.

<i>Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour)</i>

Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario , 2003 SCC 29, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on arbitration and bias in administrative law. The Court held that it was patently unreasonable for the Minister of Labour to appoint retired judges as arbitrators in labour disputes without considering their expertise in labour relations under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitrations Act.

<i>Alberta (Education) v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright)</i>

Alberta (Education) v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency , 2012 SCC 37, is a Supreme Court of Canada case that considered whether the photocopying of textbook excerpts by teachers, on their own initiative, to distribute to students as part of course materials is fair dealing pursuant to the provisions of the Copyright Act. The Supreme Court, in a 5/4 split, concluded that the Copyright Board made several errors in its analysis of the "fairness factors". Thus, it allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Copyright Board for reconsideration.

References

  1. ↑ Kraft Canada Inc. v. Euro Excellence Inc., 2004 FC 652, [2004] 4 F.C.R. 410
  2. ↑ Euro-Excellence (SCC) at para 109.
  3. ↑ Euro-Excellence (SCC) at para 4.
  4. ↑ Euro-Excellence (SCC) at para 110.
  5. ↑ Euro-Excellence (SCC) at para 57.
  6. ↑ [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 45
  7. ↑ [2005] 3 S.C.R. 302, 2005 SCC 65
  8. ↑ Euro-Excellence (SCC) at para 83.
  9. ↑ Euro-Excellence (SCC) at para 56.
  10. ↑ [2004] 1 SCR 339, 2004 SCC 13 at para 81.
  11. ↑ Euro-Excellence (SCC) at para 19.
  12. ↑ Euro-Excellence (SCC) at para 20.
  13. ↑ Euro-Excellence (SCC) at paras 23-34.
  14. ↑ Euro-Excellence (SCC) at para 28.
  15. 1 2 Moyse, Pierre-Emmanuel (December 9, 2007), Kraft Canada vs. Euro-Excellence II (in French), McGill University Faculty of Law Centre for Intellectual Property Policy, archived from the original on April 23, 2008, retrieved October 27, 2012
  16. ↑ Kraft Canada reaches agreement with Euro-Excellence to settle long-standing and legally significant copyright case, RTTNews, January 8, 2009, retrieved October 27, 2012

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.