|
|
| 9. Evidence |
| |
9.1.1 |
Uniform Electronic Evidence Act
|
| |
9.1.2 |
PIPEDA, Part 3 |
| |
9.1.3 |
Canada Evidence
Act, (amended by PIPEDA) |
| 9.2 |
Provincial/Territorial |
| |
9.2.1 |
Electronic Transactions Act, S.A. 2001,
c. E-6.5, Alberta, section 33, |
| |
9.2.2 |
The
Saskatchewan Evidence Amendment Act, 2000, S.S. 2000, c. 61, |
| |
9.2.3 |
The Electronic Commerce and Information Act, S.M.
2000, c. E55, Manitoba, Part 7 |
| |
9.2.4 |
Evidence
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-23, (section 5.1) |
| |
9.2.5 |
The
Electronic Evidence Act , S.P.E.I 2001, c.32, Prince Edward
Island |
| |
9.2.6 |
An Act to establish a legal framework for information
technology, S.Q. 2001, c. 32, Québec |
| |
9.2.7 |
Electronic
Evidence Act, Bill 72 (2001), Nova Scotia;
Justice Admin. Amendment (1999) Act, S.N.S. 1999, c. 8. s. 5 |
| |
9.2.8 |
Electronic
Evidence Act, S.Y. 2000, c. 11, Yukon, |
| 9.3 |
Cases |
| |
9.3.1 |
ITV Technologies, Inc. v. WIC Television Ltd., 2003 FC 1056 (T.D.). (The Court allowed Internet documents to be accessed on-line during the trial and commented on their usefulness. The reliability of certain websites and the probative value of Internet search results were also considered.) |
| 9.4 |
Record
Retention |
| |
9.4.1 |
National Archives
of Canada Act |
| |
9.4.2 |
National Library
Act |
| |
9.4.3 |
Treasury Board
Policy on the Management of Government Information |
| |
9.4.4 |
Guide
to the Review of Management of Government Information Holdings |
| |
9.4.5 |
Strategic
Directions for Information Management and Information Technology: Enabling
21st Century Service to Canadians |
| |
9.4.6 |
Information
Management in the Government of Canada - A Situation Analysis |
| |
9.4.7 |
Microfilm and Electronic Images As Documentary Evidence,
CAN/CGSB-72.11-093, Latest Issue: October, 1993; Latest Corrigendum: April,
1994. |
| |
9.4.8 |
Draft Standard for Electronic
Records as Documentary Evidence, CAN/CGSB-72.34: June, 2003, See www.pwgsc.gc.ca/cgsb/ |
|
|
| 10. Domain Names and Cybersquatting
|
| |
10.1.1 |
Treasury Board
Common Look and Feel Guidelines |
| |
10.1.2 |
Treasury
Board Federal Identity Program |
| |
10.1.3 |
Trade-Marks
Act |
| |
10.1.4 |
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
(U.S.), P.L. 106-113. |
| |
10.1.5 |
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN) |
| |
10.1.6 |
ICANN
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy |
| |
10.1.7 |
ICANN
Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution |
| |
10.1.8 |
Canadian Internet Registration Authority |
| |
10.1.9 |
Decisions under the Canadian Internet Registration Authority dispute resolution policy. |
| 10.2 |
Cases |
| |
|
Canadian |
| |
10.2.1 |
Itravel2000.com Inc. (c.o.b. Itravel) v.
Fagan [2001] O.J. No 943. (There was a serious issue to be tried relating
to the ownership of the domain name. The Court ordered the defendant and
his servants and agents not to use the Internet domain name "itravel.ca"
pending trial). |
| |
10.2.2 |
Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group v. Noton, (2001),
SKQB 153 (The Saskatchewan Court refused to award punitive damages
in a cybersquatting case. The plaintiff, who carried on the business
of publishing a newspaper called the Star Phoenix, registered a domain
name and maintained the website under the name www.thestarphoenix.com.
The defendant created an Internet website with the domain name and
address www.saskatoonstarphoenix.com. The Court issued an interim
injunction compelling the defendant to transfer his domain name to
the plaintiff, but refused punitive damages.) |
| |
10.2.3 |
Government
of Canada v. David Bedford a.k.a. DomainBaron.com (June 30, 2001),
D2001-0470. (The WIPO administrative panel ordered the transfer of 31 out
of the 32 disputed domain names to the Government of Canada, holding that
these names were protected as common law trademarks based on extensive and
continuous use. The domain name "Dominion of Canada" was not transferred
as the Government was not able to prove use since 1982). |
| |
10.2.4 |
Government of Canada v. Bedford, Dispute No. 00011, (May 27, 2003). (This was a decision under the Canadian Internet Registration Authority Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The panel held that the Government of Canada had rights to certain names as official marks or common law trade-marks. A number of Bedford's domain names were found to be confusingly similar based upon a test of "first impression and imperfect recollection". The panel also found that Bedford had acted in bad faith.) |
| |
10.2.5 |
eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. Bailey, [2002] O.J. No. 5002 (Sup. Ct) (Q.L.). (Punitive damages were awarded in a cybersquatting case. The judge stated that the defendant's conduct deserved public censure, that he committed multiple independent actionable wrongs and that an award of punitive damages would serve the rational purpose of discouraging others from engaging in similar conduct. See also: eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. Bailey, [2002] O.J. No. 5003 (Sup. Ct) (Q.L.)) |
| |
|
|
| |
|
U.S. |
| |
10.2.6 |
Broadbridge Media LLC v. Hypercd.com 2000
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9516 (S.D.N.Y.) |
| |
10.2.7 |
Kremen v. Cohen, No. 01-15899 (9th Cir., July 25, 2003) (U.S. Court of Appeals). (A domain name registrar could be liable for negligently transferring the Plaintiff's domain name to another. Domain names were intangible property and were protected by the law of conversion in California. The Plaintiff had a viable claim for conversion.) |
|
|
| 11. Passing Off, Trade-mark violation and
Copyright infringement |
| 11.1 |
Crown
Intellectual Property |
|
11.1.1 |
Policy on Title to Intellectual Property
Arising Under Crown Procurement Contracts, (2000-07-07) |
|
11.1.2 |
Title to Intellectual Property Arising under
Crown Procurement Contracts: Appendix A - Model Clauses (Effective October 1, 2000) (2000-08-11) |
|
11.1.3 |
Implementation Guide for the Policy: Title to Intellectual Property Arising Under
Crown Procurement Contracts (2000-07-12) |
|
11.1.4 |
Copyright Act |
|
11.1.5 |
Trade-Marks Act |
