Intellectual Property

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).

Are you well-equipped to navigate the world of e-commerce, optimize your positioning, and avoid infringement problems?In this constantly changing context, Lavery invites you to its annual intellectual property symposium: a strategic morning event designed to provide practical answers that apply directly to today’s business realities. WHEN : April 22, 2026, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Register to this webinar Speakers The panels will be moderated by Alain Y. Dussault Panel 1 – Online Protection Mechanisms and Taking Action Myriam Brixi, James Duffy and Isabelle Jomphe Panel 2 – Software and Online Commerce: Patents, Interfaces, Protection Strategies and Related Contracts Eric Lavallée and Benoit Yelle Program The proliferation of online sales platforms, the rise of “marketplaces,” and the acceleration of cross-border trade are creating market opportunities that warrant a thorough review of intellectual property rights protection strategies. How can you effectively structure your IP protection to support online growth? How can you quickly remove a counterfeit product from online sales channels or social media? What leverage is available in terms of copyright, trademarks and customs interventions? How can you protect the software innovation at the heart of digital platforms such as applications, software as a service, e-commerce channels, and optimization and automation tools? How can you protect the user interface and customer experience of your online sales platforms? What are the risks associated with the Consumer Protection Act in a digital environment? What types of contracts should you consider for your online sales model? 9:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. Panel 1 – Online Protection Mechanisms and Taking Action The first discussion will outline the different online business models and typical examples of infringement, and then identify the legal tools to effectively defend intellectual property rights in a digital environment. Participants will see how to plan an effective strategy for taking action against infringement and communicate with major online commerce platforms to obtain the rapid removal of counterfeit products or content, relying in particular on the international registration of trademarks and copyrights. The speakers will discuss the measures available through customs authorities to reduce the risks of importing counterfeit products. The panel will also analyze consumer protection issues in e-commerce. With digital transactions taking centre stage, companies must reconcile online growth with regulatory compliance. The specific legal risks associated with online sales and best practices for managing them will be addressed in a pragmatic way.Presented by Isabelle Jomphe, James Duffy and Myriam BrixiPanel moderated by Alain Dussault  10:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. Panel 2 – Software and Online Commerce: Patents, Interfaces, Protection Strategies and Related Contracts This discussion will focus on practical ways to protect the software innovation at the core of digital platforms such as applications, software as a service, e-commerce channels, and optimization and automation tools. Participants will learn about the cases where a software, a key feature, a technical process or a computer-implemented method can be patented (and under what conditions), as well as filing strategies to maximize the value of a portfolio, while taking the pace of technological development into account.The panel will also address the protection of the user interface and user experience, as well as visual elements that support the customer journey. How should you combine copyright, industrial designs and trademarks in different circumstances? How does one assess the risks when using or drawing inspiration from templates, component libraries, style guides, or AI-based tools?Lastly, the speakers will discuss the different types of contracts and policies underlying e-commerce, depending on the business model envisaged, as well as the blind spots to avoid.Presented by Benoit Yelle and Eric LavalléePanel moderated by Alain Dussault

Watch enthusiasts: do you know what SWATCH watches are? Of course you do! But do you know what this trademark actually means? Is it: a) an invented term b) an English word c) a term that is partly in English, that is, the letter “S” combined with the word WATCH d) all of the above? This is the question the Tribunal administratif du Québec (“Tribunal”) had to answer in Groupe Swatch (Canada) Ltée c. Office québécois de la langue française1, in order to determine whether Groupe Swatch (Canada) Ltée (“Groupe Swatch”) was required to add a sufficient presence of French to the signage of its boutiques. It should be noted that this decision was rendered under the former provisions of the Charter of the French Language (the “Charter”) and the Regulation respecting the language of commerce and business (the “Regulation”). As of June 1, 2025, the requirement of a sufficient presence of French has been replaced by the criterion of the marked predominance of French in public signage visible from outside premises. For many people, the SWATCH trademark is an invented term, but the Office québécois de la langue française (“OQLF”) takes a different view… The OQLF’s Position According to the OQLF, SWATCH is a trademark composed of the following elements: S and WATCH. S for “Swiss” or “second” WATCH for “watches” Result: the trademark is composed, in part, of the English word “watch”. Consequence: the Swiss company was required, under the former provisions of the Charter and the Regulation, to ensure a sufficient presence of French on its storefront signage. Groupe Swatch’s Position According to the Swiss company, the SWATCH trademark does not belong to any language because SWATCH is an invented term, consisting of an artificial combination of letters. Therefore, no French presence is required on its storefront signage, by virtue of the “artificial combination of letters” exception set out in section 26 of the Regulation. The Tribunal’s Position First, the Tribunal rightly recalls that the exceptions provided for in the Charter and the Regulation must be interpreted restrictively. The Tribunal then adopts a pragmatic approach, putting itself in the shoes of the average consumer to determine how the public would perceive SWATCH store signage. The Tribunal accepts Groupe Swatch’s position and applies the “artificial combination of letters” exception. In the Tribunal’s view, the public will conclude that SWATCH is an invented term, made up of an artificial alignment of letters and, consequently, the requirement to add French does not apply. This reflects a pragmatic approach based on public perception, as opposed to a strict approach such as the one advocated by the OQLF, which breaks down the SWATCH trademark into two components (S and WATCH). Fortunately so! Otherwise, trademarks composed of invented terms that include a sequence of letters such as “ON,” “IN,” “UP,” “GO” could, for example, have been considered as trademarks in a language other than French rather than as invented terms. Such an approach would have required the addition of markedly predominant French wording in a public signage context. Observations This decision provides an initial and helpful clarification in a context of uncertainty regarding the interpretation of certain new provisions of the Charter and the Regulation, and it has the advantage of being favourable to trademark owners. Indeed, this decision allows for reliance on public perception where a trademark can be seen as an artificial combination of letters, even though that same trademark could be broken down to reveal words in another language. One noteworthy point deserves mention: the OQLF does not appear to have argued (or at least insisted) that SWATCH is an English vocabulary word meaning “sample.” Yet, the Charter and the Regulation expressly require the presence of French (formerly, a sufficient presence; since June 2025, a marked predominance) where a trademark appears in another language on public signage visible from outside a building or premises. Was this argument debated? It is difficult to say from reading the decision. Otherwise, would the outcome have been the same? Looking ahead, what will 2026 bring in terms of the application of the new rules? Certain data and statistics drawn from the OQLF’s2 most recent annual report lead us to believe that the marked predominance of French in public signage will be a priority. One thing is certain: the OQLF is maintaining its dialogue-based approach to encourage amicable solutions, which is welcome. Let us hope for a more pragmatic approach by the OQLF with respect to trademarks, based on public perception, as set out in the SWATCH decision. Let us also hope for a guide providing clarifications on this issue and many other questions arising from the application of the new rules. Happy New Year! Bonne Année! ¡Feliz Año Nuevo! Buon Anno! 2025 QCTAQ 10426 OQLF’s Rapport annuel 2024-2025, published October 9, 2025 (https://www.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/office/rapports/rag2024-2025.pdf)