Articles

In this ongoing series, we will profile each of the members of the OBA IT/ IP Law Section Executives to learn about them in five minutes or less. It’s five minutes or less because we know that a lot of you docket in six minute increments! Meet this year's Chair: Paul Lomic!

In the recent decision Energizer Brands, LLC v Gilette Company, 2023 FC 804, the Federal Court ruled that Duracell’s use of Energizer’s registered trademarks ENERGIZER and ENERGIZER MAX in comparative advertising on its sticker labels depreciated the goodwill in Energizer’s registered trademarks.

Redirecting bank wire transfers has become an increasingly common method of fraud, frequently perpetuated through hacking or otherwise impersonating individuals representing a business. In the aftermath, there is often dispute about who bears responsibility for the financial loss: the company that mistakenly sent funds to the wrong bank, or the company whose email was hacked.

When attempting to determine liability for the actions of a corporation, two common law doctrines come into play: the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil and the corporate attribution doctrine. Both are employed when the status of a corporation as a separate legal entity requires a distinction from the acts of its officers, leading to exceptions to the principle of limited liability or separate legal entity. However, these doctrines diverge in their applicable tests.

As we draw a close on the 2022-2023 term, I write to give you a highlight reel of the work done by your elected Executive over this past year.