The Harold G. Fox Moot

Congratulations to all the participants, including the following award winners, of the 2018 Harold G. Fox Moot.

• The Harold G. Fox Cup for the best mooting team:
  • Winner: Gabrielle Lemoine and Juliette Ryan, Dalhousie University (Team 1A)
  • Runner up: Louell Taye and Nathaniel Bryan, University of Toronto (Team 4R)
  • Semi-Finalists: Jacquelyn Smalley and Arron Chahal, University of Toronto (Team 4A), and Jessica Pugliese and Mari Galloway, University of Ottawa (Team 2R)

• The Donald F. Sim Award for the best oral advocate:
  • Winner: Gabrielle Lemoine, Dalhousie University (Team 1A)
  • Runner up: Nathaniel Bryan, University of Toronto (Team 4R)

• The Gordon F. Henderson Award for the best factum writers:
  • Appellant: Jacquelyn Smalley and Arron Chahal, University of Toronto (Team 4A)
  • Respondent: Louell Taye and Nathaniel Bryan, University of Toronto (Team 4R)
  • Appellant Runner Up: Jin-Zhi Pao and Andrew Tigchelaar, University of Victoria (Team 8A)
  • Respondent Runner up: Zan Xu and Christopher Jagodits, Queen’s University (Team 7R)

• The DLA Piper (Canada) LLP award for Mooting Excellence (the best mooter in a non-graduating year):
  • Nathaniel Bryan, University of Toronto. Nathaniel and a teammate will be invited to represent their school at the 2019 Oxford International IP Moot in England.

The Fox Moot Committee thanks the sponsors, panellists, volunteers and organizers who worked hard to make this annual moot such a success.

 
The Harold G. Fox Moot Organizing Committee presents
​The 2018 Fox Intellectual Property Lecture

 
The Honourable Sir Richard Arnold
Judge in Charge of the Patents Court, High Court of England and Wales
will deliver a lecture entitled “The Use Requirement in Canadian and European Trade Mark Law”

For more information, please contact us at FoxMoot.Canada@dlapiper.com.
 

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2018
Lunch beginning at 12:00 noon

LOCATION
St. Andrew’s Club & Conference Centre
150 King St. West, 16th Floor – Garden Hall Room
Toronto, ON M5H 1J9

Several clarifications (PDF) to the problem have been posted in response to the questions for clarification submitted to the IP Moot Committee:

1. Samples of both cheese products were put into evidence at trial, but the record includes no images of the products. For a description of the packaging, see the Trial Court’s reasons.
2. The term “block letters” is used synonymously with “capital block letters”.
3. The term “Daisy Isle” has been used for generations in association with the cheese described in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Trial Court’s reasons.
4. Lower Canada Cheese has never sought a trademark registration in Canada for “Daisy Isle”.
5. For clarity, when “Daisy Isle” was added to Part A of Annex 20-A of Chapter Twenty of the CETA under the product class “cheeses”, and was thus entered as a protected GI under the Trade-marks Act, the “Place of Origin” (“Originating Territory” under the Trade-marks Act) was listed as Denmark on the basis that the Faroe Islands are within the Kingdom of Denmark and that Denmark has the discretion to list GIs for all its territories. It should be noted that all parties stipulated that the GI was validly entered. As a courtesy, the parties brought to the attention of the Court that the Faroe Islands is not included in CETA as an independent entity. However, given the stipulation of the parties and the complexity of the issues, arguments that Denmark cannot validly list Daisy Isle as a GI should not be argued on appeal. The reliance of the Court on this stipulation ought not to be considered to form a precedent on this point.