Talk:Kirkbi AG v Ritvik Holdings Inc

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kirkbi AG v Ritvik Holdings Inc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304061603/http://msulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008-1_Bowal.pdf to http://msulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008-1_Bowal.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413124916/http://cjlt.dal.ca/vol3_no3/pdfarticles/robertson.pdf to http://cjlt.dal.ca/vol3_no3/pdfarticles/robertson.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Am I the only one to find this article unreadable?
This article seems to have a bad case of legalese and obfuscation going on. We all know that Lego lost, but the introduction doesn't say so, and just say in passing "also know as the Lego Case", without saying who was representing Lego and who the other party was. It goes on to a very technical legal description of the case, full of 7(c) and other 11(b) which have no significance for someone not working in the legal profession in Canada. Basically, this is half of a wikipedia article, only the tech part.

Hear me, I don't say we have to go to the extension of, for example, Ammonia, but at least change the intro as something like :


 * Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., popularly known as the Lego Case or Lego vs MegaBlock, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Kirkbi, the holding group owning Lego, was suing Ritvik Holdings, manufacturer of MegaBlock, on the basis that Megablocks were infringing Lego trademarks. The Court upheld the constitutionality of section 7(b) of the Trade-marks Act which prohibits the use of confusing marks, as well, on a second issue it was held that the doctrine of functionality applied to unregistered trade-marks, meaning that while the court upheld the principle of trademark infringement, it found the dispute was related to a basic functionality problem, and as such, had no basis in copyright law. This decision opened the possibility to make lookalike bricks compatible with Lego, as long as the trademark was respected.

Also, I quite dislike the smugness of this paragraph :
 * On the more specific questions of intellectual property law, Kirkbi can also be seen as encouraging manufacturers of products embodying functional modular designs to employ appropriately clever branding and marketing, so that such designs may be seen as a source of distinctiveness, and thus deserving of trademark protection.

If I understand it well (and I mean that somehow this was written to obfuscate the uninitiated), it simply means:
 * On the more specific questions of intellectual property law, this case can also be seen as encouraging manufacturers to create distinctive designs for functional products, so that these products can be recognizable and consequently protected by trademarks.

(and if my interpretation is wrong, that directly makes my point: this is not understandable, and as such, should at least links to another place in Wikipedia where one could educate himself on how to interpret this...)

Last note, the importance of this case is here underplayed: the Supreme Court decision, while having only effect in Canada, had created a worldwide effect, meaning that other cases made by the Lego Group in other (non-Canadian) jurisdiction made reference to this ruling. This is absent from the article...

2.30.122.92 (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)