MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2481752133 · doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpw115

Exhaustion of trade mark rights and parallel imports in Canada

2016· article· en· W2481752133 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lazaros G. Grigoriadis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationDoctrineLegislatureInternational tradeEconomicsOrder (exchange)International economicsBusinessLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well known that the classic doctrine developed at an international level to solve the issue of parallel imports of trade-marked goods is the doctrine of exhaustion of trade mark rights. 1 When the legislation of a country contains a provision on trade mark exhaustion, the conditions for exhaustion are usually quite clear. Among those conditions, the place where the goods imported in parallel have been put on the market by the trade mark proprietor or with his/her consent for the first time is particularly important. Indeed, on the basis of that condition, there are three types of exhaustion doctrine at an international level: national, 2 regional 3 or international 4 exhaustion of trade mark rights. However, if no provision on trade mark exhaustion is included in the legislation, the exhaustion regime recognized by a country can be defined only through its courts’ case law. Canada is one of the countries where there is no legislative provision on trade mark exhaustion. 5 The aim of this article is to examine Canadian case law on parallel imports of trade-marked goods in order to define the regime of exhaustion of trade mark rights envisaged in this country.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0190.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intellectual Property Law & PracticeSame topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207