Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Legal Illustrations IV

My major paper is driving me crazy, so I'm taking a break from it to share some legal illustrations with you. Family Law: LeBlanc v LeBlanc [1988] 1 S.C.R. 217 The case where the wife has seven children in the first eight years of marriage, then gets a job working 3pm to 3am at a restaurant, eventually takes out a loan and buys the restaurant. Meanwhile he drinks a lot and occasionally runs errands.

"where the property has been acquired exclusively or almost wholly through the efforts of one spouse and there has been no, or a negligible contribution to child care, household management or financial provision by the other, then, in my view, there are circumstances relating to the acquisition, maintenance and improvement of property that entitle a court to exercise its discretion under s. 7(f). "
Children and Employment: As you know, in Ontario, children under 14 may not be employees anywhere. { Occupational Health and Safety Act - R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 851 (Industrial Establishments Regulation) s. 4(1)(e)} Of course they can be "contractors", so they can work on movies under ACTRA contracts. Or they can deliver newspapers, pick berries, etc. under contract. No one would take advantage of a child worker, so it's all right that they're not protected by the Employment Standards Act. Well, if they are abused, there's the Child and Family Services Act. I wonder if the kids who pick berries and deliver newspapers have to go through all the paperwork I've had to go through over the years so that the government treats my consulting work as a contractor relationship and not as an employer-employee relationship? United Artists Corp v Pink Panther Beauty Corp[1998] 3 F.C. 534 (F.C.A.) This was the trademark case in first-year property law that started me adding illustrations to my summaries. "Hey," I thought, "I'll be able to find this case quickly on the page if I put a picture of the Pink Panther there." So I did. And the next thing I was google image searching for all the cases in my summaries. But I've always felt concerned that United Artists would come after me for violating their copyright. I was using the picture for personal study, so it seemed like fair use to me, but still... So now, here's a picture of a different panther who happens to be pink. If you have a copy of my property summary, please exchange this image for the one that is in there. Thank you.
Where a mark may refer to many things or, as noted earlier, is only descriptive of the wares or of their geographic origin, less protection will be afforded the mark. Conversely, where the mark is a unique or invented name, such that it could refer to only one thing, it will be extended a greater scope of protection.

No comments: