Photo by Engin Akyurt ()

Prof. Pina D’Agostino is the Founder and Director of IP Osgoode, the IP Intensive Program, and the IP Innovation Clinic, the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of the IPilogue, the Deputy Editor of the Intellectual Property Journal, and an Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School. This article features contributions from Ryan Wong (IP Osgoode & IP Innovation Clinic Alumnus), Sabrina Macklai (IPilogue Senior Editor), Tianchu Gao (IPilogue Writer), and Ashley Moniz (IPilogue Managing Editor).

2021 was an exciting year for the IPilogue. Our hard-working students and community members published more than twice as many articles than in 2020 and the most articles in a calendar year since 2011. This sharp increase helped us stay up to date with some of the biggest topics shaking up intellectual property: from , to ; and from growing investments in and , to IP registrars around the world grappling with whether to acknowledge Ìęas an inventor or artist. This article summarizes the top developments reported on our blog and in patents, trademarks, and copyright law in 2021. For a review of Privacy legislation in Canada, check out .

Top 10 Most Read IPilogue Articles Published in 2021

1. by Sabrina Macklai & Emily Chow
2. by Prof. David Vaver
3. by Claire Wortsman
4. By Claire Wortsman
5. by Natalie Bravo
6. by Prof. Giuseppina D’Agostino
7. by Bonnie Hassanzadeh
8. By Meena Alnajar
9. by Prof. David Vaver
10. by Bonnie Hassanzadeh

Introducing the College of Patent Agents & Trademark Agents

On , the came into force. The Act established the (‘’), an independent public interest regulator of patent and trademark agents in Canada. The purpose of the College is “to enhance the public’s ability to secure the rights provided under the and the .” The College’s responsibilities include maintaining professional competencies and ethics, issuing licences, collecting fees, and administering certification exams. This development marks a key milestone for the profession and for Canada’s . Though still in its infancy, the College has been criticized for and its , which may impose an additional fee on lawyer agents. It remains to be seen how influential the College is on the profession as it is expected to be fully operational within the next two years.

Patents

Overbreadth as an Independent Ground of Invalidity

On July 28, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed overbreadth as a standalone attack on patent validity: . In this case, the appellants argued that there is no statutory basis for overbreadth as a ground for invalidity. The Federal Court of Appeal disagreed and found that overbreadth can be supported by a combination of sections 27(3) and 27(4) of the Patent Act. Case law has often overlapped overbreadth with other grounds of invalidity such as obviousness, anticipation, and inutility.Ìę

First Time Interpreting Patent Agent Privilege

Similar to solicitor-client privilege, patent agent privilege was introduced by section 16.1 of the Patent Act on June 24, 2016. The first case on patent agent privilege was decided this year: In this decision, the Federal Court provided some helpful commentary and analysis on the application and limitations of patent agent privilege.Ìę

Patent Prosecution History Now Admissible as Evidence

In 2018, section 53.1 of the Patent Act was added to make patent prosecution history admissible as evidence in patent proceedings. This was a significant development as the Supreme Court of Canada had expressly rejected the idea and stated that admitting patent prosecution history “would undermine the public notice function of the claims, and increase uncertainty as well as fuelling the already overheated engines of patent litigation” (Free World Trust v Électro SantĂ© Inc., 2000 SCC 66 at para. 66). Three subsequent Federal Court of Appeal decisions developed this provision further: ; ; and .Ìę

Continued Debates over AI as an Inventor

Around the world, patent registrars grappled with patent applications that credit artificial intelligence software as the inventor. Dr. Stephen Thaler’s “DABUS” (Device for Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) applied for patents around the world for its interlocking food containers. DABUS was granted patents in Australia and South Africa, with . In line with the and the , the disagreed, stating that absent express intention from Congress, the term “individual” in their statutory definition of “inventor” . The Supreme Court of Canada last considered the definition of "inventor" in 2002, but has yet to consider whether it would include non-human entities.

Trademark Law

Parody in Trademarks is No Joke

In , the Federal Court reaffirmed that parody is not a defence against trademark violation. Unlike the 2020 decision ), where the Federal Court failed to find the marks confusing, Justice McHaffie held there was a likelihood of confusion and passing off. This was based partly on the similarity of the trademarks and the overlap of the goods (both offering baked goods). However, even if the nature of the parties’ trades differ, trademark owners may still find recourse against spoofed versions of their marks through claiming depreciation of goodwill under section 22 of the . Here, the Court found goodwill in Subway’s trademarks, which was damaged by the nature of Budway’s products, as contrary to Subway’s “healthy and active” lifestyle promotion. With damages amounting to $40,000, it is clear the courts are unamused by parody in trademarks.

The Road Less Travelled Cannot be Trademarked

Like most countries, Canada bars the registration of “clearly descriptive” trademarks to prevent applicants from monopolizing words that merely describe the goods or services at hand. For this reason, marks consisting of are typically unregistrable. In , the Federal Court clarified when such marks might be protected. Hidden Bench and Locust Lane are two wineries operating on the same little road, “Locust Lane”. Although the Federal Court agreed that Hidden Bench met the threshold for a valid common law trademark over “Locust Lane”, they ultimately held that the mark, as clearly describing the goods and services’ place of origin, lacked both inherent and acquired distinctiveness. Therefore, Hidden Bench could not establish the necessary goodwill for a passing off claim. Only descriptive marks that have acquired a “secondary meaning” through use may warrant protection.

CIPO Addresses the Application Backlog

While filing trademarks is important for brand protection, the examination stage can take . In May, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) new measures to address the application backlog. Trademark owners may now file requests to expedite their examination where the registration of their mark is necessary for special circumstances such as if a Canadian court action involving the mark is expected or underway or if the goods or services are aimed at preventing, diagnosing, treating, or curing COVID-19. If accepted, the examination will take place within two weeks. The examination is also automatically expedited by approximately 6-10 months when the goods and services in the application are listed in CIPO’s . Though it is too early to assess the effect of these changes on mitigating the “”, the backlog of CIPO’s unexamined trademark applications appears to have as of December 13, 2021.

Push to Register Non-French Trademarks for Use in Quebec

Among the controversies associated with Quebec’s proposed Bill 96, , the bill stipulates new requirements for trademark owners operating in Quebec. Currently, under Quebec’s French-language laws, both registered and unregistered (i.e., common law) trademarks recognized under the may appear on public signs, posters, and commercial advertising in Quebec, in languages exclusively other than French. If enacted, Bill 96 would permit only registered non-French trademarks to appear on public signage, provided there is no corresponding registered French version of the mark. The Coalition Avenir Quebec government tabled Bill 96 on May 13, 2021, and Quebec’s National Assembly last examined it on December 10. Some iteration of the bill will likely become law by the end of this year. But even if it fails to pass, businesses relying on common law trademarks would be wise to try to register them, given the many that registration provides.Ìę

Copyright Law

In 2021, the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal heard 57 copyright infringement proceedings, approximately of all IP-related litigations at these levels.

Developments in Fair Dealing

The Copyright Act’s section 29 fair dealing provision, which allows for certain uses of copyright-protected materials, remained a central issue. affirmed that fair dealing for the purpose of news reporting (section 29.2 of the Act) must provide attribution, mentioning both the source and the name of the author. An indirect reference to the author accessible through “minimum research” is insufficient. As such, the Federal Court of Appeal rejected Trend Hunter’s argument that hyperlinking to the source article where Stross was credited was sufficient to meet the second requirement. The Court also declined to find fair dealing under s. 29 more broadly, considering that Trend Hunter’s dealing was commercial in nature, reproduced Stross’ work in its entirety, and that alternatives were available.

Fair dealing was once again at issue in , where the Federal Court held that the Conservative Party’s use of the CBC’s news footage of Liberal Party Leader and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during their 2019 election campaign did not infringe CBC’s copyright. The court undertook a large and liberal interpretation of fair dealing, finding that the Conservative Party’s use of CBC footage was for the purpose of criticism under s. 29.1.

żìČ„ÊÓÆ” achieved a in the copyright tariff dispute with the Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (“Access Copyright”) in In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the interim tariff approved by the Copyright Board is not mandatory. Users can choose whether to accept licences or pursue alternative methods to lawfully copy works. Notably, this marked Justice Rosalie Abella’s final decision before her retirement from the Supreme Court of Canada. Throughout her tenure, and her judgement here provided helpful obiter regarding fair dealing as integral to users’ rights.

Even Fake Facts are Not Copyrightable

involves the alleged copyright infringement of the famous true-crime story The Black Donnellys. The book had always been presented and accepted as “.” The Federal Court ruled that “an author who publishes what is said to be a nonfiction historical account cannot later claim the account is actually fictional to avoid the principle that there is no copyright in facts.” Given today’s popularity of the phrase “based on a true story”, this ruling is a that there is no copyright in facts, even if they are later found to be untrue.

Copyright in Evolving Content Transmission

In , the Federal Court found the defendant liable for copyright infringement in its provision of pre-loaded set-top boxes and internet protocol television (IPTV) services and awarded the plaintiff nearly $30 million in damages. These services made copyrighted works owned by the plaintiff available to the public without the plaintiff’s permission. This decision marks the first time The court dealt with a similar issue in ). As IPTV is growing increasingly popular across the globe, its poses a challenge in Canada.

Availability of Reverse Class Actions for Copyright Infringement Claims

The first of its kind in Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal in affirmed that reverse class actions may be pursued in connection with copyright infringement claims. Though the matter was sent back to the Federal Court for further consideration, this judgement may encourage and enable mass copyright enforcement in the future, especially in our digital age where copyright infringement is more commonplace.

Public Consultations Ahead of 2022’s Copyright Reform

As part of the (CUSMA), which came into force on July 1, 2020, Canada has until the end of 2022 to implement numerous changes to their domestic copyright laws; most notably, extending the general term of copyright protection from . In light of the upcoming legislative amendments, the Government of Canada hosted three public copyright consultations in 2021:

• ;
• ; and

With the consultations now closed, it will be interesting to see how Canadian copyright laws will change in 2022 to accord not only with international obligations but our ever evolving digital world and public attitudes surrounding copyright laws.

The post 2021 IP Year in Review appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Photo by Matthew Henry ()

Emily Prieur is an IPilogue Writer and a 3L JD Candidate at Queen’s University Faculty of Law. This article was originally written as part of the IPilogue’s annual Year in Review but has instead been published as a standalone article.

2021 was a transformational year for Canadian privacy legislation. Following the changes made to the , several provinces amended their privacy legislation to protect their constituents’ interests. The private sector may be less welcoming to changes in many provinces which expose companies to . On the flip side, these proposed legislative changes will strengthen the privacy of Canadians in their everyday lives.

Provincial Legislative Changes

Quebec’s Bill 64 Passes Royal AssentÌę

The most significant development in privacy legislation is Quebec’s , An Act to modernize legislative provisions as regards the protection of personal information, which received royal assent on September 22, 2021. This legislation is significant because of its effects on the private sector. Starting September 2022, private sector organizations must inform the privacy regulator following any breach to compromised personal information that presents a “serious risk of injury” to affected individuals. To determine if there was a serious risk of injury to affected individuals, the province turns to the factors outlined in the “real risk of serious harm” section of the Federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”). As , the gradual implementation of Bill 64 allows organizations the opportunity to update their processes and procedures to ensure compliance before September 2022. The Quebec legislation also takes inspiration from the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (“G¶Ù±Êžé”), which has been touted as the “” privacy regime because of its strict privacy standards and its partiality towards consumers.

The omnibus bill included such as changes to company websites, assignment of a Privacy Officer, completion of Privacy Impact Assessments, and requirements for consent, individual rights, and automated decision making. To date, the analysis of the legislation compares the provisions to the European GDPR.

Companies operating in Quebec are now required to publish their company privacy policies on their websites. Such privacy policies must describe how companies plan to use personal information.

In the event of privacy infringements that violate individuals’ private information, individuals will now have recourse through administrative monetary penalties, penal offenses, and private rights of action.

Finally, similarly to the GDPR, Quebec introduced consent requirements for collecting personal information, including express consent before using sensitive information and parental consent for minors under the age of 14.Ìę

Ontario Welcomes Consultations and Proposes Changes

Under the leadership of Patricia Kosseim, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner pursued their goal of passing an equivalent piece of legislation in 2021. In response to an op-ed piece that argued against provincial legislation in fear of redundancy and duplication, Kosseim recently regarding the potential for new provincial legislation to “fill in the gaps” of what Federal privacy legislation cannot accomplish.

In keeping with Kosseim’s motivation to strengthen privacy laws in Ontario, the Government of Ontario released a along with calls for consultation in June 2021. The White Paper, titled “Modernizing Privacy in Ontario,” set out several proposals the Ministry is considering to strengthen privacy protection for Ontarians. To strengthen such protections, the Ministry has proposed making privacy a fundamental right in Ontario. Ontario has also included suggestions to protect youth privacy online, regulate automated decision-making, and require more informed consent and data transparency from private corporations.

The Ministry allowed the public to provide comments and feedback until August 2021. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner applauded the provincial government for taking a “” with its proposal.

BC’s PIPA Committee Releases their Final Report

The British Columbia Legislative Assembly also created a special committee to review the British Columbia (“PIPA BC”) in February 2020. The objective of this committee was to publish a report proposing amendments to PIPA BC, which the committee completed in December of 2021. In the , the committee suggested aligning PIPA BC with PIPEDA and Europe’s GDPR. Like the recently passed Quebec legislation, the committee also suggested mandatory breach notifications if a breach surpasses the “real risk of significant harm” threshold as established in PIPEDA. The committee also recommended broadening the definition of personal information to address the potential issue of de-identification. Finally, the committee proposed that the Office of the Information Privacy Commissioner have greater enforcement powers.

Federal Legislative Changes

The Federal Office of the Privacy Commissioner (“°ż±Ê°ä”) did not introduce any new legislation in 2021. The Office was engaged in issues surrounding as well privacy issues resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, including privacy with respect to and the rise in reliance on video teleconferencing platforms like Zoom and Microsoft Teams. The Canadian OPC, along with privacy authorities in Australia, Gibraltar, Hong Kong SAR, China, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, to the videoconferencing companies regarding their rapid expansion during the pandemic to query and confirm that these technology companies were using appropriate privacy safeguards. The letter led to a series of video calls between the signatories and representatives from the companies. Finally, the signatories and suggestions to improve privacy going forward. Among the suggestions were the implementation of end-to-end encryption, the identification of secondary use data (as well as an opt-out system), and the option for users to choose where their data is stored.

Conclusion

New and amended privacy legislation continues to develop in Canada and worldwide.ÌęFollow the IPilogue and subscribe to our newsletter, the IPIGRAM, for any important legislative changes that emerge in 2022.

The post A Look Back at Canada's Privacy Legislation in 2021 appeared first on IPOsgoode.

On April 26, 2021, the theme of World IP Day 2021 is “”. Since I founded the IP Innovation Clinic in 2010, the Clinic has helped countless innovators, entrepreneurs, and small businesses to do exactly that. Our students have provided basic legal information to clients who otherwise would not have any access to it. To date, the Clinic has subsidized over $2,000,000CDN of legal fees that would otherwise have been paid by those without access to resources. This past year, the Clinic has expanded its impact through the recently launched , a free legal chatbot which uses a vast database of credible IP information to answer users’ initial IP questions and guide them to the type of legal help they need. This is only the beginning of the ChatBot’s story.

In a critical time of Covid-19 isolation, I aim to ensure that the IP Innovation ChatBot’s content is accessible and attuned to the unique realities of underrepresented communities in Canada’s intellectual property (IP) innovation ecosystem; namely, women and indigenous peoples. Having assisted clients in these underrepresented groups in the IP Innovation Clinic, and through my own research and writing in this area, I have seen first-hand the distinct struggles these groups confront in the traditional IP innovation ecosystem and the distinct challenges they face to bring their innovations to society; from being silenced in their ideation phase to lacking adequate resources and know-how to develop IP strategies attuned to their unique needs and perspectives.

This AI-powered initiative has been launched thanks to the Canadian government’s , and supports its mandate to increase IP awareness and education by making IP information more accessible. These learnings can easily be applied to other areas of the law.

The ChatBot has been realized due to visionary IP Innovation Clinic champions backing our work, Innovation York at żìČ„ÊÓÆ”, Ontario Centre of Innovation (OCI) at the very outset and Bergeron Entrepreneurs Science and Technology (BEST) Program at Lassonde School of Engineering and Norton Rose Fulbright (NRF) Canada LLP. Indeed, the technical and legal expertise of Partner, Maya Medeiros, and Al Hounsell at NRF, and our Osgoode JD team of students led by Ryan Wong, class of 2021. It is also an honour to work closely with other leaders in the federal government such as the Konstantinos Georgaras, CEO (Interim) at the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) and Jennifer Miller, Erin Campbell and their teams at Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED), who understand and work hard to overcome the challenges Canadian innovators face.

I previously uncovered the various challenges that underrepresented communities face in the IP innovation system and how grassroots initiatives, such as IP legal clinics, can assist in and in more recent work to use the power of artificial intelligence (AI) to build an IP Innovation ChatBot to make IP law more accessible. Going forward, I plan to expand on this foundational and empirical work to build the IP Innovation Clinic and the ChatBot to make the IP innovation ecosystem more accessible.

Ultimately, in an era of increasing technological disruption and lingering societal inequality and pandemic isolation, I hope to influence future legal education and make our justice system accessible to all Canadians.

Indeed, AI applications, including legal chatbots, use machine learning to make the law more understandable, manageable, useful, accessible, predictable, and efficient. Legal chatbots increase access to justice through their wider reach and lower costs. Many underrepresented communities receive either inadequate or no legal help at all. Technology currently cannot provide complex legal advice, but AI-powered online legal services can cost-effectively deliver accessible, basic legal help. Some, like our IP Innovation ChatBot, do so for free. Chatbots can thus democratize access to basic legal services for the underserved, and therefore deserve greater study and adoption.

Since its January 29, 2021 launch, the IP Innovation ChatBot has been a magnet for public use. Several members of the legal community have already inquired to learn how to emulate it. With the information from these analyses, I plan to design and build an enhanced, interactive, dynamic, and accessible portal powered by next-generation artificial intelligence operating on big data curated by our pioneering IP Innovation ChatBot.

The ChatBot will remain a free, sophisticated, and smart online tool, driven by AI and designed to cater to underrepresented and disenfranchised innovators. It will soon house key IP resources and information, leading updates, and links to Canadian and international government IP resources. The ChatBot’s scaled-up national platform will analyse its amassed archive of data and identify common IP knowledge translation problems to devise and anticipate solutions. Adapted for the COVID-19 era and beyond, the ChatBot will support the next generation of lawyers, educate and stimulate innovation from underrepresented communities, provide start-up entrepreneurs with access to IP resources, and be the public’s go-to tool for independent and impartial IP knowledge.

Prof Pina D’Agostino is Associate Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School and Founder and Director of IP Osgoode, the IPilogue, the IP Innovation Clinic, and officially since January 2021 the recently launched IP Innovation Clinic ChatBot.

The post Celebrating World IP Day: What comes next for the IP Innovation ChatBot? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Descriptions of the available positions are reproduced below, with details for applying at the bottom of the page:

Senior IPilogue Editors

Senior IPilogue Editors review contributors’ content before it is approved by the Managing Editor and posted by the Content Manager on the website.

Benefits:

• Profile on our website
• Byline with photo on the articles that you contribute
• Access to forum where you can share ideas with IPilogue Contributors
• Name included on the website’s main menu with a page dedicated to your contributions

Responsibilities:

• Revise, edit, and proofread content from IPilogue Writers and Guest Writers to ensure both a neutral perspective and high-quality writing
• Content will be divided between Senior Editors
• Contribute a minimum of 1 article per month
• Keep track of content reviewed and update Managing Editor and Content Manager about progress
• Liaise with Writers about clarifications and corrections needed for articles

Qualifications:

• Exemplary revising, editing, and proofreading skills
• Strong writing, research, and critical thinking skills
• Strong organization and communication skills, including providing regular updates
• Ability to meet deadlines and turnaround work quickly
• Interest in learning about IP law and Technology issues
• Respect/openness for differing opinions and evidence-based issue analysis
• Preference will be given to:
  • Osgoode JD or LL.M students
  • Writers who have actively contributed to the IPilogue in the past

Ìę

IPilogue Writers

IPilogue Writers will be in charge of contributing timely articles related to IP law, technology, and related legal issues to the blog.

Benefits:

• Profile on our website
• Byline with photo on the articles that you contribute
• Access to forum where you can share ideas with other Contributors
• Name included on the website’s main menu with a link to your articles

Responsibilities:

• Contribute at least 1 article every 2 weeks (for a minimum of 8 articles over the summer); Writers may contribute more articles earlier in the summer to be spaced out over the term
• Keep track of articles written

Qualifications:

• Exemplary writing, research, and analysis skills
• Interest in learning about IP law and technology issues
• Respect/openness for differing opinions and evidence-based issue analysis
• Preference will be given to:
  • Osgoode JD or LL.M students
  • Writers who have actively contributed to the IPilogue in the past

Ìę

Application Details

Please submit the following documents to iposgoode@osgoode.yorku.ca:

• Cover letter (outline your interest in IP law, as well as your relevant writing/editing experience)
• žéĂ©ČőłÜłŸĂ©
• Updated Transcript (unofficial is acceptable)
• Writing Sample: a 750 word (max) blog article about an IP issue

All positions are part-time and voluntary, running from May-August 2021 with the possibility of continuing during the 2021/2022 academic year.

If you are applying for a Senior IPilogue EditorÌęposition, please address whether you would be interested in an IPilogue Writer position if you are not hired as a Senior IPilogue Editor. If your application is chosen for further consideration, you will also be required to complete a short editing exercise after you apply.

Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions. We thank all applicants for their interest. We will only contact those selected for an interview.

The post IPilogue Summer 2021 Team - DEADLINE EXTENDED! appeared first on IPOsgoode.

At the beginning of 2020, when the team was first scheduled to compete, compulsory licensing seemed like a fun thought experiment and a great theoretical moot problem about balancing IP rights and public health. It quickly became an eerily relevant issue as the world rapidly shut down and essential medical items like masks, gloves, and ventilators became precious commodities. Doors stayed shut, Wi-Fi capacity limits got tested, and in the wake of the initial disbelief that the world was collectively at war with the most covert of enemies, there was little room to feel disappointment about the cancellation of the competition. As the months wore on, and a new normalcy crystallized, the team got word that the competition was back on, and that the 2020 competitors were invited to return. Two of the team members came back, and a third joined ranks in January of 2021.

The moot organizers pivoted to a Zoom format and accommodated its largest set of teams to date, with 32 schools battling for the title. The first day entailed a virtual welcome ceremony. Moments after the team’s alarm clocks screamed to life at 6:30 am, each member logged into Zoom, sleepy-eyed and afflicted with the most serious cases of bed head. As the organizer scrolled through the competing teams’ slides, it slowly became apparent that Osgoode had miscalculated. Slide after slide passed through the platform, with many a suit and rarely a smile. Then Osgoode’s slide came roaring in with a beaver, a moose, and what appeared to be a team member drinking maple syrup straight from the bottle. Whatever impression they made, the Ozzies quickly made it clear that they meant business.Ìę

The preliminaries were also no laughing matter, as the competition was fierce. Thankfully, Osgoode was blessed with the platinum package for coaching and the preliminaries were passed through with a breeze. As the team advanced on, excitement in the Osgoode community rose. The team entered the final match, buttressed with support from all angles in the Oz community, the IP space, and from their collective friends and family. The online format uniquely allowed all supporters to watch their team in action, and we felt the love. While Osgoode ultimately lost out in the grand final, the opportunity to experience this competition was a big “W”.

To our 2020 team member, Julianna Felendzer, we hope we did you proud. Thanks for helping us secure the invite to the oral rounds!

To our coaches Jennifer Davidson, Stephen Selznick, Any Obando and Giuseppina D’Agostino, we are forever grateful for your dedication and your support, especially when it was just a “hair toss, check your nails” kind of day!

Co-written by Anna Morrish, Alex Dumais, and Karin Kazakevich, 2021 Oxford International Intellectual Property Law Moot Runners Up

The post A Year in the Life of Three Oxford Moot Finalists appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Eligibility

To be eligible, you must be currently enrolled as a JD candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.Ìę

All applicants must possess strong grades, exemplary organizational skills, be proficient in legal research and writing, and have a strong interest in intellectual property law.

Term

May 2021 to August 2021, with a possibility of continuing on for the 2021/2022 academic year.

The successful candidates will receive compensation.

Application Procedure

To apply, please submit:

1. A cover letter;
2. A copy of your resume;
3. A copy of your grades (can be unofficial grades; please include any previous degrees); and
4. A sample of your written work on any topic of your choice (please limit to 3-5 pages).

toÌęiposgoode@osgoode.yorku.caÌębyÌęMarch 19, 2021.

We thank all applicants in advance, only those students who will be interviewed will be contacted.

The post CALL FOR APPLICATIONS - Summer 2021 Research Assistants appeared first on IPOsgoode.