USING COPYRIGHT LAW TO PREVENT PARALLEL IMPORTATION: A COMMENT ON KRAFT CANADA, INC. V. EURO EXCELLENCE, INC.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Kraft Canada, Inc. v. Euro Excellence, Inc., the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the secondary infringement provisions of the Copyright Act could be used to prevent the parallel importation into Canada of chocolate bars, due to copyrights in the trade-mark logos on the product labels. The effect of this decision, currently on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, is to give trade-mark holders a tool to prevent parallel importation in contexts where trade-mark law has generally been ineffective. While the use of copyright law to achieve a result in these circumstances is problematic, the author argues that the solution lies in legislative amendment rather than in creative interpretations of the Copyright Act.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.081 | 0.043 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".