Intellectual Property

Each Fashion Week marks a period of high visibility for the brands in the fashion industry, but it also exposes them to increased risks of copying, counterfeiting, and unauthorized uses. Patents, industrial designs, trademarks, and copyright can offer complementary protection, provided action is taken at the right time. Why Fashion Week increases the risks of copying and counterfeiting In the age of social media, Fashion Week represents much more than simple runway shows. As soon as they are unveiled on the catwalk, new collections circulate quickly in the media and can go viral within hours. Although this acceleration of the visibility cycle contributes to the excitement surrounding the most sought-after clothing items, it also exposes designers to an increased risk of reproduction and unauthorized uses of their new creations. In this context, it is important to know the right legal tools and take the necessary steps to protect one’s intellectual property rights. Identifying the value of creations to choose the right intellectual property protection Whether it involves a pattern, a logo, a shape, a brand affixed to a garment, or even a functional innovation, different forms of protection may be considered to prevent third parties from capturing the value of your creative efforts. Thus, reflecting on the source and value of your creation makes it possible to use the right legislative tools available to you. This article presents the main intellectual property regimes applicable to the fashion industry. Certain considerations should be kept in mind before launching a new collection. 1. Patents: Protecting technical innovations in the fashion industry Although, in the fashion industry, a product’s appearance often contributes to its commercial success, some brands also distinguish themselves through the technical solutions they incorporate into their creations. Examples include NIKE AIR shoes, Under Armour clothing for performance fabrics, and Gore-Tex. In this context, the patent regime can play an important role, since it is intended not to protect the aesthetics of a garment, but rather the functional innovation underlying it. Patents are useful for protecting a technical innovation. Examples include a manufacturing process, a new device, a composition of matter, or an improvement to any of these. In the clothing industry, innovations such as the zipper, Velcro, or certain waterproof fabrics clearly illustrate the type of invention that may be protected. The basic patent rules are that the invention must be new, non-obvious, and useful. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) assesses the patent application and registers it only if it is satisfied that the invention meets, among other things, these criteria. A patent, if registered by CIPO, grants the exclusive right to exploit the invention for 20 years from the filing date. This protection can have significant commercial value, since it makes it possible to prevent third parties from making, using, or selling the protected invention. Because an invention is protected only in the countries where the patent is registered, the choice of those countries is important. One would no doubt protect certain inventions, such as heated fabrics, in Norway rather than Saudi Arabia. But they could also be protected in Turkey and India, because the invention could be manufactured in those countries. 2. Industrial designs: Protecting the appearance of a garment or accessory An industrial design makes it possible to protect the shape, configuration, pattern, ornamental features, or any combination of these features applied to a product. In short, it protects the appearance of a product. For example, Lululemon holds several industrial designs for its various clothing collections. Here is one example:1 To be registrable, the design must be new. Thus, if a pre-existing, publicly available design is reused,  even if it is successfully registered with CIPO, that design will be at risk of being invalidated because it is not new. Once the design is registered, the registration grants an exclusive right to make, sell, import for commercial purposes, offer, or display for sale or rent the registered design, a right that lasts for at least 10 years from registration or, if that date is later, until 15 years after the application was filed.  The more distinct your design is from what existed, the larger the scope of the protection will be. Thus, the designer must create distinctive and innovative garments, but also identify, before marketing, the visual elements that deserve protection. In the fashion industry, this type of protection can be particularly useful, since the value of a garment often lies in its appearance. For fashion items intended to remain on the market for a long period, registering an industrial design is the most effective way to prevent them from being copied by third parties. This protection varies from country to country. Thus, in the United States, reference is made to a “Design Patent” and, in Europe, to a design. As in the case of patents, the countries must be chosen carefully and registration must be completed. In some states, such as France, protection exists even in the absence of registration. Industrial design protection does not apply to purely functional features of a garment. In other words, if an element was designed primarily to serve a technical purpose, that utilitarian feature cannot be protected under industrial design law. It should be protectable by patent. Depending on the case, the same garment or accessory may also benefit from complementary protection under copyright or trademark law. 3. Trademarks: Protecting the distinctive signs of a fashion brand Trademark law protects the owner of a mark against the use, by a competitor, of a mark likely to create confusion as to the origin of the goods or services. In practice, a trademark is often what allows consumers to distinguish one product from another on the market. It is often the trademark affixed to a garment that makes it possible to sell a white T-shirt for $150 rather than $30. A trademark may consist, in particular, of a logo, common or invented words, or even a distinctive colour affixed to a garment, provided that the sign is distinctive and allows the consumer to identify the commercial source of the product. Trademarks may also take the form of position marks. These are marks in which the location of the sign on the product forms part of what is protected. For example, in Canada Adidas owns a mark consisting of three parallel stripes placed along the sleeve of a jacket. In that registration, the garment itself is not protected. It is shown only to indicate where the stripes are positioned. In other words, what is protected is not simply the presence of stripes, but their precise placement on the garment: 2  For businesses in the fashion industry, trademarks are often among their most valuable assets. Indeed, they represent the company’s image in the eyes of consumers, support its goodwill, and help preserve the value of its products in the marketplace. It is therefore important for these businesses to understand the scope of their rights in order to prevent confusion, combat counterfeiting, and limit harm to the value of their trademark(s). In Canada, a trademark may benefit from a certain degree of protection through use alone, even in the absence of registration. However, that protection remains more limited and, in practice, depends in particular on proof of goodwill and a likelihood of confusion in the relevant market. Registration therefore offers significant advantages, since it grants its owner, subject to validity, the exclusive right to use the mark throughout Canada in association with the listed goods and services, as well as more effective remedies against third parties who use a sign likely to create confusion for consumers. 4. Copyright: Protecting original patterns, prints, logos, and decorative elements In the clothing industry, certain creations may benefit from copyright protection, including logos, patterns, prints, or other original decorative elements. As a general rule, in Canada, an original work is protected as soon as it is created, without the need for registration. Protection usually lasts for the author’s lifetime and 70 years after death. Even in the absence of registration, the author will have rights. If the creation is made by an employee in the course of employment, the owner of the work will be the employer. However, copyright has certain lesser-known limits. When the work is a utilitarian article, such as a sweater, a belt, a cap, or a shoe, the Copyright Act may not apply. Thus, if the work is the design of a sweater and the sweater has been reproduced in more than 50 copies, the copyright owner of the design may prevent reproduction of the design, but may not prevent someone else from making the same sweater under the Act. The design should have been protected as an industrial design or, as some luxury watch companies do, reproduction should have been limited to no more than 50 copies. Needless to say, those watches are outrageously expensive! This exception does not apply to a logo, a trademark, or works that are simply affixed to a utilitarian article. For example, the owner of the copyright in the works of painter Riopelle may still prevent manufacturers of mugs or T-shirts from selling them, even if rights have been granted to the Guggenheim or the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. Conclusion Creativity alone is not enough in the fashion industry; one must also know how to protect its fruits. Thus, having teams work while keeping protectable features in mind, so as to position the business properly in the market, will support the company’s growth. This strategy will also protect customers against the unpleasant surprises that may result from purchasing a product falsely presented as the original. What to remember A fashion collection may fall under several intellectual property regimes at once: patent, industrial design, trademark, and copyright. Timing is crucial: protectable elements must be identified before the launch or disclosure of a new collection. Protection must be considered by territory: in Canada, but also in the countries where the products will be sold, manufactured, or copied. Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Canadian Industrial Designs Database, LULULEMON ATHLETICA CANADA INC., industrial design registration no 231957. Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Canadian Trademarks Database: Canadian trademark registration number:  TMA757178,  3-STRIPES JACKET & DESIGN — 1382211.

On July 17, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) issued its decision in Pharmascience Inc. v. Janssen Inc., (2026 SCC 26), dismissing Pharmascience’s invalidity challenge to Janssen’s paliperidone palmitate dosing-regimen patent. While the majority of the SCC confirmed that a doctrine still exists in Canadian patent law under which a method of a medical treatment (MMT) is non-patentable subject matter, they affirmed the analysis and conclusions of the lower Courts that the claims of Janssen’s patent are not directed to a non-patentable MMT.  Background  Treatment of Schizophrenia entails lifelong management with antipsychotic medications, and the effectiveness of such treatment relies significantly on adherence to treatment regimens. A successful approach to improve treatment adherence has been the development of long-acting formulations, known as “depot formulations” or “long-acting injectables”, which gradually release the medication from the injection site and thus entail less frequent administration. Janssen developed such a long-acting injectable type of dosing regimen for the drug paliperidone palmitate for the treatment of Schizophrenia, marketed under INVEGA SUSTENNA.  Janssen’s Canadian Patent No. 2,655,335 (the ‘335 Patent) relates to such a dosing regimen, under which the drug is administered as follows:  Day 1: A first dose via deltoid injection;  Day 8 ± 2 days: A second dose via deltoid injection;  Monthly ± 7 days thereafter: Maintenance doses via deltoid or gluteal injection;  Two regimens are defined depending on renal impairment status, with specified mg-eq doses.  Pharmascience sought to invalidate the patent, arguing that the claims were invalid as impermissible methods of medical treatment.  Procedural History  Federal Court  Pharmascience sought to obtain marketing approval or a “Notice of Compliance” to market a generic version of INVEGA SUSTENNA. Under Canada’s pharmaceutical patent linkage regime, this led to proceedings before the Federal Court in which Pharmascience alleged invalidity of the patent. In its decision of August 23, 2022 (2022 FC 1218), the Federal Court (FC) upheld the validity of the ‘335 Patent.  Federal Court of Appeal  On February 1, 2024 (2024 FCA 23), the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) affirmed the FC’s decision and again upheld the validity of the ‘335 Patent. In its analysis, the FCA established that in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an unpatentable MMT, the key inquiry is whether practising the invention calls for the exercise of professional skill and judgment. The FCA drew a distinction between:  skill and judgment applied in deciding how to use a treatment, which points to an unpatentable MMT; and  skill and judgment applied in deciding whether to use a treatment, which does not, on its own, indicate an unpatentable MMT.  Each case turns on its specific facts and the onus remains on the party attacking the patent to establish that the claim encompasses an unpatentable MMT.  Pharmascience then sought leave to appeal to the SCC, where the sole issue being assessed was patentable subject matter - whether the claims impermissibly claim a MMT and do not comply with section 2 (definition of “invention”) of the Patent Act.  Supreme Court The SCC maintained that a doctrine still exists in Canadian patent law under which MMTs are non-patentable subject matter. This doctrine is primarily attributable to the 1972 decision of the SCC in the Tennessee Eastman1 case, at which time it was only possible to patent a drug based on its method of manufacture, not as a pharmaceutical substance per se, as per former section 41(1) of the Patent Act. Following the repeal of former section 41(1), it has been argued that the rationale of Tennessee Eastman hinged on this repealed section and therefore the principles established in Tennessee Eastman should no longer apply. The majority of the SCC now confirms that the rule against patenting MMTs does not rest on former section 41(1) alone and continues to apply, grounded in the long-standing broader principle that “professional skills” are not patentable.  The SCC also affirmed that the ‘335 Patent’s dosing regimen claims do not monopolize professional medical skill and judgment in their implementation and thus do not relate to an unpatentable MMT. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the patent upheld on this ground.  The majority’s test: when does a claim cross the line into an MMT?  A patent impermissibly claims an MMT only if it seeks to monopolize professional medical skill and judgment - i.e., if it “fences in” an area of medical treatment. The analysis is purposive and substance-over-form; it turns on the claims and the evidentiary record.  The majority offered three non-exhaustive guideposts:  Focus on the claimed subject matter, not on the fact that doctors exercise judgment in choosing whether to use it for a particular patient. Clinical judgment in selecting/monitoring treatment generally does not make the invention unpatentable.  Individualization increases risk: the more the claim requires tailoring to individual patient characteristics, the more likely it is an MMT.  Ordinary-course professional development: the more the claimed subject matter is the kind of thing physicians would be expected to develop/improve as part of practice (without patent incentives), the more likely it is an MMT.  Fixed vs. variable dosage is not dispositive. While past Court decisions focused on fixed vs. variable dosages or timing of administration to be determinative factors, the SCC rejected such a categorical bright line; at most, variability may be an evidentiary proxy tied to the central “skill and judgment” question.  Application to Janssen’s dosing regimens  The majority affirmed the lower Courts’ key findings that:  Once the regimen is selected, no professional skill/judgment is required to implement it as claimed.  The renal-impairment split reflects an objective distinction and does not meaningfully constrain professional judgment.  The ± dosing windows and alternate injection sites were supported by evidence as clinically interchangeable / operational flexibility without clinical implications.  Result: the claims were not framed (in substance) as fencing in physicians’ clinical decision-making; they were treated as patentable subject matter.  Concurring reasons  While all of the Justices agreed on the result, two of the Justices disagreed on the doctrine and would have gone further. They:  Disagreed that MMTs are inherently non-patentable subject matter;  Would re-examine/overrule Tennessee Eastman and assess MMT claims like any other invention as defined in the Patent Act, with many failing instead under utility/operability/reproducibility/control concepts (rather than under a subject-matter exclusion).  Despite that doctrinal divergence, they agreed that the ‘335 Patent is valid.  Practical Takeaways  MMT exclusion remains the majority rule: claims that effectively fence in clinical decision-making remain vulnerable on subject-matter grounds.  Dosing regimen patents remain viable: evidentiary record and claim substance will be critical - particularly around whether implementation requires individualized clinical judgment.  No bright-line “fixed vs. range” rule: Rather, the actual role of medical skill/judgment in practicing the claimed regimen is key.  Overall, the SCC’s decision appears to fall in a middle ground between the positions advanced by the parties: confirming a doctrine of non-patentability of MMTs while at the same time confirming the patentability of dosing-regimen-based inventions depending on the facts of a given case, and as a result upholding the validity of the ‘335 Patent.  Tennessee Eastman Co. et al. v. Commissioner of Patents, [1974] SCR 111.

The theme for this year’s World Intellectual Property Day is “IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate”, celebrating IP’s contributions to the world of athletics, athletes, and fans alike. It may seem surprising, but the world of IP has always been strongly linked to sports, whether it be cutting-edge equipment and gear, or the latest trends and brands in apparel. In honour of this year’s theme, we at Lavery thought it would be fun to highlight various sports-related inventions that have been patented over the years. From the serious to the downright silly, we have chosen several patents that show IP’s important, and sometimes bizarre, contributions to sports and athletics. US 2642679A: Ice rink resurfacing machine Starting with a classic, Frank J. Zamboni’s 1949 patent for an “Ice rink resurfacing machine” is recognizable to anyone who’s ever attended a hockey game. Fun fact: between 1928 and 1978, Frank Zamboni was awarded a total of 15 patents related to ice resurfacing machines as well as other technologies.1 US 267799A: Cork swimming-suit Before there were swimsuits made of space-age materials featuring ultra-hydrodynamic designs, we apparently had swimsuits made of… cork? Patented by Paschal Plant in 1882, this suit was intended to be sufficiently buoyant so as to “enable a person to float with perfect security” and aid in coming up to the surface after a dive. Water safety has never been so fashionable! US6446264B2: Articles of clothing Fast forward 120 years to see how far swimwear innovation has advanced. The use of such “tech suits” correlated with the breaking of numerous swimming world records when introduced, emphasizing the real impact of innovation. US2662587A: Chair for aerial skilifts While modern ski lift technology has existed since the 1930s, Mcilvaine Alexander’s 1949 patent was the first to feature a retractable footrest that could be brought by the passenger into operating position during loading, thereby no longer requiring as much help from attendants.2 US642544A: Bicycle Patented by Louis S. Burbank in 1898, this “innovative” bicycle design is intended to “provide means whereby one may enjoy with a bicycle or similar vehicle exercise like that of rowing” and is “adapted to develop the muscles of the arms and body as well as those of the legs”. Looking at the image above, many questions arise, for example relating to starting, staying upright, and stopping. US638920A: Golf-tee According to the National Golf Foundation, at least 22,000 patents related in some way to golf were filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) between 1976 and 2018, the most of any sport by far.3 For comparison, baseball, the second most patented sport, saw 1,508 patents filed in the same period. An early example of a golf-related patent is this one for a “wooden” golf tee, patented by George F. Grant in 1899. According to the patent, the wooden golf tee was intended to replace “the usual conical mounds of sand or similar material formed by the fingers of the player on which the ball is supported when driving off”. US12011645B2: Golf tee Some 135 years later and golf tee innovation continues, in this case with a two-part design in which the upper portion can move and/or detach from the lower portion when the ball is struck, minimizing any resistance from the tee. US5356330A: Apparatus for simulating a "high five" When looking at technical achievements in sports, one can’t overlook the crowds of adoring fans. With that said, this invention relates to a self-righting hand-arm configuration, which is adapted to pivot when struck by a user, thereby simulating a "high five". According to the patent, solitary fans are, tragically, “unable to perform a ‘high five’ to express excitement during a televised sporting event”, making this invention nothing short of miraculous for such individuals. Other features of this invention include a “miniaturized, battery operated sound generator and speaker, for outputting a predetermined or user selectable sound in response to the striking of the simulated hand”. These sounds can include the “the cheer of a crowd or the voice of a specific player”. US1718305A: Basket ball Patented by George L. Pierce in 1928, this invention changed the look of basketballs to something more closely resembling their modern-day counterparts. According to the patent, basketballs had previously been made with panels tapering down to narrow points. This invention ensured a properly balanced basketball in which the best portions of the hide were saved and used in the pole portions of the ball. It is worth noting that basketballs were actually a dark brown until the late 1950s. The iconic orange colour we recognize today was initially selected by basketball coach Tony Hinkle, who thought it would be easier for fans to see.4 And there you have it, several sports-related patents, which—while not all game-changers—hopefully illustrated IP’s longstanding and far-reaching relationship with the world of athletics. It remains to be seen what wondrous (and wacky) inventions the future holds.   https://zamboni.com/about/zamboni-archives/patents/ https://gizmodo.com/17-historic-patents-that-make-winter-olympic-sports-pos-1520995330 https://www.dennemeyer.com/ip-blog/news/everyday-ip-the-notable-ip-of-golf-basketball-and-other-sports/ https://suiter.com/basketball-patents/

Following a series of urgent proceedings in late December and early January, the Quebec Superior Court issued an interesting decision1 on January 8, 2026, providing important clarifications on the scope of policies relating to intellectual property, confidential information and conflicts of interest, as well as on the duties of loyalty and confidentiality set out in employees’ employment contracts. The facts Concordia University (“Concordia”) sought a provisional injunction from the Court against a former employee and student, Mr. Oleg Khalimonov, as well as against Polaris Aerospace Inc. (“Polaris”), a company of which he was a director and shareholder. Mr. Khalimonov was employed by Concordia from September 2023 to December 2025. He had also been a student at the University since 2016 and, since 2023, he had served as Program Leader for Space Concordia, one of the University’s student associations. The group received significant public visibility with the launch of Starsailor in August 2025, described as the first rocket launch from Canadian soil in twenty-five years. These research and development activities are said to have generated significant intellectual property and attracted interest from commercial partners looking to invest in Concordia’s projects. In December 2025, Concordia was informed that Polaris was claiming in the market it had acquired Space Concordia’s intellectual property and as the entity behind the Starsailor project. On December 16, 2025, Concordia formally notified Mr. Khalimonov that his dual role with Polaris and Space Concordia raised serious concerns about potential breaches of his employment contract, the University’s Intellectual Property Policy, and its Conflict of Interest Policy. This process led to Mr. Khalimonov’s resignation as Program Leader for Space Concordia on December 18, 2025. On December 29, 2025, Polaris submitted a bid under the Launch the North initiative, a program of the Government of Canada’s Department of National Defense providing for a total of 105 million dollars in investments and grants over three years. Concordia asked the Court to order Polaris and Mr. Khalimonov to: Cease any use of proprietary or confidential information belonging to the University. Withdraw Polaris’s bid; and Remit any documentation in their possession relating to Space Concordia and/or the Starsailor project. Analysis of the criteria applicable to the provisional injunction The Court concluded that issuing the requested provisional injunction was appropriate and that Concordia had met its burden of proof. The evidence clearly showed that Mr. Khalimonov had played a central role in the University’s rocketry initiatives and that he had never formally disclosed to Concordia his simultaneous involvement with Polaris. He had undertaken to comply with strict obligations to Concordia regarding intellectual property and proprietary information, including keeping such information strictly confidential during and after his employment and acknowledging that any intellectual property developed in the course of his employment would remain Concordia’s exclusive property, with no vested rights accruing to him. Mr. Khalimonov also had to comply with university policies, including the Conflict of Interest Policy and the Intellectual Property Policy. The latter provided that the “Inventors” of “Qualifying Inventions” were deemed to have automatically assigned to Concordia the related intellectual property. The Court found that Starsailor constituted a “Qualifying Invention”, and that Mr. Khalimonov met the definition of an “Inventor” within the meaning of that policy. It also found that Polaris’s proposal used intellectual property and confidential information belonging to Concordia. In that context, the Court considers, on a prima facie basis, that Mr. Khalimonov had breached his obligations arising from his employment contract, the Intellectual Property Policy, and the Conflict of Interest Policy. The Court also concluded that refusing to grant the provisional injunction would result in the submission of competing proposals under the Launch the North initiative, creating significant uncertainty as to the ownership of the intellectual property upon which those proposals were based, and thereby causing irreparable harm to Concordia. It found that the balance of inconvenience favored Concordia and supported granting the requested provisional injunction, since the absence of a provisional injunction would likely lead to the disqualification of both Polaris’s and Concordia’s proposals due to unresolved competing claims regarding the intellectual property. Conclusions The Court granted Concordia University’s application for a provisional injunction and ordered, among other things, that Mr. Khalimonov and Polaris cease disseminating false statements suggesting that Polaris held any rights whatsoever in Concordia’s intellectual property, including in relation to Space Concordia’s rocketry projects. It also ordered Mr. Khalimonov and Polaris to cease using Concordia’s intellectual property (including for Space Concordia’s rocketry projects), as well as any confidential or proprietary information belonging to Concordia. Finally, it ordered the immediate withdrawal of Polaris’s submission filed under the Launch the North project. General Principles — Ownership of Inventions In Canada, except for inventions developed by federal public servants, ownership of inventions is derived from inventorship. Thus, the starting point for ownership of an invention lies with the inventor(s), who may subsequently transfer their rights. For Canadian federal public servants, inventions produced by a federal employee in the course of their employment are “vested in Her Majesty in right of Canada” and therefore belong to the federal government, pursuant to the provisions of the Public Servants Inventions Act. However, the Patent Act contains no comparable express provisions regarding ownership of an invention developed by an employee in the course of employment. The case law has established the general principle mentioned above: in the absence of a valid agreement relating to such rights in the context of employment ownership of an invention  vests in the employee who created it, unless the employee was “hired to invent.” The leading case in this respect is the Federal Court’s decision in Comstock2. In that case, the Court noted that the nature and context of the employer–employee relationship could be analyzed using various factors in order to determine whether an employee had indeed been “hired to invent.” Such a determination can be complex and remains uncertain, since each case depends on its particular facts. It is therefore always prudent to put in place an agreement governing ownership of inventions developed in the course of employment. Key Takeaway   Concordia University’s success in its application for a provisional injunction underscores the importance for employers of including robust intellectual property and confidentiality clauses in employment contracts. This decision is a reminder that it is not enough to rely on general principles: employers are well advised to draft comprehensive, clear, and operational provisions governing (i) the ownership and assignment of intellectual property rights, (ii) the definition and handling of confidential information, and (iii) the rules applicable during employment and after its termination. It is just as crucial that these policies and undertakings (intellectual property, confidentiality, conflicts of interest) be brought to the employee’s attention at the time of hiring, properly incorporated into or referenced in the employment contract, and easily accessible at all times. These contractual mechanisms complement the duties of loyalty and confidentiality set out in article 2088 of the Civil Code of Québec, which continue to apply after the end of the employment contract—but whose scope often remains insufficient in specialized sectors where intellectual property issues are decisive. In short, this case shows that, without well-structured contractual clauses, Concordia would have had much greater difficulty asserting its rights and obtaining the withdrawal of Polaris’s competing submission under Launch the North. Concordia University v. Polaris Aerospace Inc., 2026 QCCS 30. Comstock Canada et al. v. Electec Ltd. and Hyde, (1991) 45 F.T.R. 241 (TD).