By Zach Nickels, Harneet Gill

On November 4, 2025, the Federal Government delivered Budget 2025, entitled “Canada Strong”, in which it expressed its intent to amend Canada’s Copyright Act to protect artists’ and creators’ copyrights. Specifically, the Federal Government has proposed creating an “Artist’s Resale Right”, which it describes as aiming to ensure that Canadian visual artists benefit from the future sales of their work.

Artist’s Resale Right Background

The Artist’s Resale Right concept was first borne-out in France in 1920 as droit de suite after Jean-Francois Millet’s The Angelus painting soared from its initial sale of 1,000 francs to a record 553,000 francs at auction, while his heirs lived in poverty sparking the Artist’s Resale Right movement.

In 1948, the Artist’s Resale Right was later added to Article 14ter of the Berne Convention. Article 14ter essentially states that an author, or after their death, the persons authorized by national legislation, shall with respect to original works of art and manuscripts of writers and composers, enjoy the “inalienable right to an interest in any sale of the work subsequent to the first transfer by the author of the work”. However, the entitlements under this right vary between jurisdictions, with some countries offering artists 5% of the total sale, others applying a sliding scale (2%-10%), and others yet allocating only the profit made on sales of the subject work.

As a practical example, let’s assume a Canadian painter sells their artwork for $5,500 in 2025. If resold at auction a decade later for $48,000 in France (an implementing nation), the artist receives approx. 4% ($1,920) via a collecting society, provided Canada’s law permits reciprocal claims. This real-world scenario highlights the importance of Canada’s pending reforms for artists globally.

A Canadian Proposal for an Artist’s Resale Right

In Canada, the Canadian Artists’ Representation/Le Front des artistes canadiens (“CARFAC”) and Le Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec (“RAAV”) jointly recommended that the federal government introduce an Artist’s Resale Right in Canada to apply to eligible secondary sales of artwork. Under their proposal, the right would cover the resale of original visual artworks during the artist’s lifetime and continue to benefit the artist’s estate for the duration of copyright protection. They further suggested that the royalty rate payable to rightsholders be set at 5% of the resale price and apply only to works sold on the secondary market for at least $1,000.

In terms of administration, the recommendation provides that both the art market professional (such as the gallery, dealer, or auction house) and the seller of the artwork should be jointly responsible for ensuring payment of the royalty. Finally, CARFAC and RAAV proposed that the management and distribution of these royalties be administered by the Canadian Artists’ Representation Copyright Collective (“CARCC”), which currently operates under the business name Copyright Visual Arts – Droits d’auteur Arts visuels.

Tension with Personal Property Rights

The creation of this right, however, has sparked debate since it extends beyond mere copyright to personal property rights, which fall under provincial jurisdiction. Section 3(1)(j) of the Copyright Act only captures the very first authorized sale or transfer of a physical copy of a work. Once the first sale is made, the buyer owns the tangible asset and subsequent sales of the work do not infringe the author’s copyright despite copyright in the work remaining with the author or assignee.

This concept is known as the doctrine of exhaustion (or first sale doctrine in the United States). Canada’s Copyright Act contains provisions that can be construed as embodying the doctrine of exhaustion, and its applicability has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Théberge v. Galerie d’Art du Petit Champlain inc. Consistent with the doctrine of exhaustion, critics of the Artist’s Resale Right have argued that movable property must circulate freely and without hidden charges, and that the proposed legislation risks impeding that flow.

A Potential Detrimental Impact on Artists’ Initial Sales?

There is also an argument to be made about the potential for detrimental effects on artists’ financial interests resulting from an Artist’s Resal Right. For example, an anticipated resale royalty obligation under the Artist’s Resale Right could motivate the initial purchase to lower their offer on the initial sale, as buyers may speculatively discount what they are willing to pay to account for a future royalty.

Emerging artists often depend heavily on the initial sales of their works, and the potential downward pressure created by the Artist’s Resale Right could disproportionately affect them by reducing both the prices that their works attract and their potential volume of sales volume. In theory, this ripple effect could create difficulties for emerging artists to gain a foothold in the market, as their works could become comparatively less attractive than assets not encumbered by future royalty obligations.

Concluding Thoughts

In sum, a durable framework for Artist’s Resale Rights must work in practice across the full life of a work, for all players involved including artists, intermediaries, and collectors; Like all things copyright, a balance must be struck with respect to artists and owners alike.

In a balanced copyright ecosystem, artists should be able to participate in the long-term success and appreciation of their creations, and owners should have their expectations safeguarded when freely dealing with their personal property. Whether Canada’s proposed Artist’s Resale Right actually satisfies this balance has yet to be tested, but copyright owners and art collectors will certainly be watching with great interest.

Dipchand LLP is proud to announce that two of our lawyers have been recognized in Lexpert’s Leading 500 Cross-Border Lawyers: A Guide to Doing Business in Canada for 2026. The annual guide is an exclusive list of lawyers and law firms all celebrated for their expertise in cross-border matters and is used to recommend top practitioners for US and international audiences.

Congratulations to Elizabeth S. Dipchand and May Cheng for being recognized in Intellectual Property in the Lexpert guide. This honour reflects our firm’s commitment to providing clients with a full spectrum of service and guidance, and strength in tackling complexities with ease and precision.

The rankings are based on an annual survey where lawyers are recommended by their peers and other law firm leaders. We thank everyone who participated in the survey and recognized our expertise.

Read more about the Lexpert Leading 500 Cross-Border Lawyers guide here.

By Gregory M. Prekupec and Rutendo Muchinguri

The relationship between Franchisors and Franchisees is focused on two related principles: (1) Franchisors grant rights to Franchisees to operate a business, and (2) Franchisees pay Franchisors to continue using the granted rights. Rights that are granted by Franchisors are, amongst other things, the use of a trademark, tradename, symbol, or logo that is owned or licensed by the Franchisor. It is at this initial point that franchise law intersects with trademark law, and it continues to be an important foundation for franchise system success for all parties throughout the franchise relationship.

At the outset, it is important to note that you cannot grant rights that you do not own or have the legal right to grant. Before Franchisors can grant any rights to Franchisees, they must have the legal authority to do so. More often than we like to see, Franchisors file trademark applications with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) without professional assistance. This is generally the first mistake, which then compounds other complications. It is rare that trademark applications filed without the assistance of a trademark lawyer or agent do not contain fundamental flaws that make them difficult to enforce down the road.

Compounding these flaws, Franchisors often assume that the mere filing of a trademark application means they have registered trademark rights. After filing, many Franchisors are unaware that there are several additional steps in the trademark prosecution process. Failure to respond properly to requests from CIPO Examiners frequently results in abandonment of the application.

Even where trademarks are not registered, rights may still arise through use. However, enforcing unregistered trademarks creates its own complications. In many cases, where marks have not been properly cleared, Franchisors may unknowingly use a trademark that is confusingly similar to another company’s registered or unregistered mark that has been in use for a longer period of time.

If a Franchisor has a registered or unregistered trademark as part of its franchise system and intends to grant such rights through the Franchise Disclosure Document (“FDD”), it is crucial that the trademark be searched and cleared prior to use, and that an application for registration be filed. Without proper review, particularly for unregistered trademarks, Franchisors face significant legal and financial risks, including:

• Risk of Forced Rebranding: If trademarks are found to be unregistrable or unenforceable, Franchisors may be forced to rebrand their entire system, resulting in significant costs for both the Franchisor and its Franchisees.
• Risk of Trademark Infringement: Failure to clear a trademark may result in infringement claims from third parties with prior rights. Such claims may need to be disclosed as a material change, creating additional legal and administrative burdens and potentially discouraging prospective Franchisees.
• Risk of Rescission: Where a Franchisor fails to properly disclose trademark status or material changes within the required timeframe, Franchisees may have the right to rescind the franchise agreement. Rescission can be severe, requiring the Franchisor to refund fees, repurchase inventory, and compensate for losses, including lost wages.

It is no coincidence that trademark and franchise departments within law firms work closely together. These two areas of law are truly complementary—two peas in a pod. Conducting a thorough trademark review of a franchise system and understanding a Franchisor’s trademark portfolio prior to preparing the FDD is essential to building a strong, compliant franchise system with minimal legal risk.

This article was first published on 9 January 2026 on elitefranchisemagazine.com

Dipchand LLP is proud to announce that the 2026 edition of WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals has recognized the firm as “definitely one to watch.” Based on in-depth market research and feedback from peers and clients, .

This year, Dipchand LLP was recognized as a leading firm in two categories:

• Bronze – Firms: Prosecution and Strategy
• Silver – Firms: Enforcement and Litigation

In addition to the firm’s recognition, two of Dipchand LLP’s trademark professionals were individually honoured for their exceptional trademark representation, from disputes to critical deal-making.

May Cheng was described as “a force in anti-counterfeiting strategy,” with the guide calling out her oral hearing on behalf of Meridian Credit Union as a masterclass in advocacy and tactical precision.

Elizabeth S. Dipchand, who leads the firm as managing partner, was recognized as a powerhouse in strategic counsel and litigation—known for navigating complex, high-stakes trademark matters with clarity, confidence, and uncompromising drive.

This recognition reflects Dipchand LLP’s relentless commitment to client success, backed by deep experience, fearless problem-solving, and a results-driven mindset. The firm thrives on challenging convention, pushing boundaries, and delivering trademark counsel that’s smart, strategic, and unapologetically effective. We are grateful to our clients and peers who shared their insights and feedback as part of the WTR 1000 research process.

Explore the firm’s full review in the WTR 1000.

We at Dipchand LLP are excited to share that we have been recognized in the Chambers & Partners 2026 Guide as Band 5 for Intellectual Property. Two of our own, Elizabeth S. Dipchand and May Cheng, have also been recognized in as Band 3 for Intellectual Property.

Here are some things our clients have to say:

• “Dipchand is very focused on delivering.”
• “The team at Dipchand are great people who care about their clients.”
• “Elizabeth Dipchand is amazing as a lawyer and as a person.”
• “May Cheng is a good practitioner.”

The guide refers to Elizabeth as “a well-regarded expert in trade mark and patent law who acts for clients across a range of different industries.” Additionally, May is described to “assist clients with a host of intellectual property issues, particularly those associated with Canadian trade mark law, including brand strategy, enforcement and protection.”

We thank Chambers and Partners for their recognition, as well as our clients for their trust, support, and confidence in our team. This ranking is proof of our total dedication to our work and to our clients’ success.

Explore the firm’s ranking and review in the Chambers & Partners guide here.

We are proud to share that four of our partners have been recognized in the upcoming edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada™ for 2026, a leading legal directory known for its robust peer-review process. This honour speaks volumes about the dedication of our team—and the high level of trust and respect earned from our peers in the legal community.

This year’s recognized lawyers and their areas of expertise include:

May M. Cheng

• Advertising and Marketing Law
• Intellectual Property Law

 Elizabeth S. Dipchand

• Intellectual Property Law

Louis-Pierre Gravelle

• Intellectual Property Law
• Technology Law

Jennifer Ko

• Intellectual Property Law

Selection for Best Lawyers is based entirely on peer nominations and confidential evaluations, emphasizing not only professional accomplishments but also client service and integrity. It is especially rewarding to see our team’s commitment reflected in these acknowledgements.

Congratulations to May, Elizabeth, Louis-Pierre, and Jennifer! The recognition underscores our ongoing commitment to excellence and our leadership in intellectual property and related legal fields. We look forward to another year of dedicated service and achievements with such talented colleagues. 

By May M. Cheng and Alexander Watts

This article was originally published on Law360 Canada on July 18, 2025, 11:05 AM EDT .
You can read the original article here.

In a wake-up call for digital platforms offering online gaming services to Canadian consumers, a provincial court in Manitoba has issued a decision blocking a service provider for violating Canadian gambling laws.

In Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corp. v. IL Nido Ltd., 2025 MBKB 89, a well-known online entertainment and gambling platform was enjoined from operating in the province of Manitoba and ordered to use geo-blocking technology to prevent users in the province from accessing its services.

This is a stark reminder that online gaming remains highly regulated in Canada and foreign entities operating online must still comply with local laws.

Background Facts

The applicant, the Manitoba Liquor and Lotteries Corporation (MBLL), is Manitoba’s exclusive provider of lotteries, including online gambling products and services. MBLL is subject to both federal and provincial regulatory frameworks, and the profits from all gambling services are used to fund government-sponsored programs in the province that benefit Manitobans.

The respondent, Il Nido Ltd., is incorporated in Antigua and Barbuda and operates the websites Bodog.eu and Bodog.net; the first offers real-money gambling services, including betting on various sporting events or table and casino games, and the latter offers free versions under the same branding. A second respondent, Sanctum IP Holdings Ltd., owns the Canadian trademark registration for BODOG. Neither of the respondents responded to MBLL’s application or participated in the proceedings.

Violations of Canadian Law

Under sections 202 and 206 of the Criminal Code, all gambling in Canada is prohibited unless it falls within a statutory exception that is typically reserved for provincial authorities. The respondent’s Bodog.eu and .net platforms were accessible to Manitoba residents, but were not authorized or licensed to operate in Manitoba under Canadian law. The MBLL therefore sought an injunction to prohibit the respondents from offering unauthorized gambling services in Manitoba.

In addition, the MBLL sought an injunction under the Competition Act and Trademarks Act for falsely claiming that Bodog was a legal website in Canada. MBLL alleged that the respondents’ promotional materials violated:

• section 52(1) of the Competition Act (by making false or misleading representations), and
• section 7(d) of the Trademarks Act (by advertising false or misleading descriptions likely to deceive the public).

MBLL claimed that the respondents  misrepresented the lawfulness, character and quality of the Bodog platforms to deliberately mislead Manitobans by misrepresenting that:

• “Bodog is a legal online casino in Canada”
• Bodog is “one of the safest places to gamble online within the realms of the country”; and 
• “Bodog is the most trusted site in Canada”

Manitoba Court of King’s Bench decision

The court found that the respondents knowingly made materially false representations to promote their business and services in Canada, in violation of s. 52(1) of the Competition Act. By advertising their platforms as legal and trustworthy for the purposes of attracting players in Manitoba, the respondents misled customers and engaged in conduct harmful to both the public and MBLL, including by diverting profits from online gaming outside the province.

The court also held that the respondents violated s. 7(d) of the Trademarks Act by using demonstrably false representations regarding lawfulness trustworthiness and safety of the online platforms in Manitoba. The court held that the demonstrably false representations used in association with the respondent’s trademark diminished the goodwill of MBLL’s marks and contributed to reputational harm.

Permanent injunction granted

Recognizing the limited ability to enforce monetary judgements against offshore entities, the court concluded that injunctive relief was the only effective remedy. The court also held that there was no impediment to exercising its discretion to grant the permanent injunction, citing the framework in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc., 2017 SCC 34 at para. 66. Having found that MBLL’s legal rights were established, that damages were inadequate, and that no alternative remedy was available, the court granted a permanent injunction that included the following relief:

• Prohibiting the respondents from operating or advertising their Bodog.eu and Bodog.net platforms in Manitoba;
• Requiring that the respondents use geo-0blocking to prevent Manitoba residents from accessing their websites and gambling services; and
• Restraining the respondents from using advertising to target Manitoba residents across digital and traditional media.

Importantly, the court noted the permanent injunction was narrowly tailored to target only unlawful conduct in Manitoba and relied on technology the respondents already had employed to geo-block the services.

Conclusion

It would seem that the resurgence of online gaming that took place during the pandemic is now facing a reckoning as legitimate Canadian gaming authorities take on foreign actors targeting the pocketbooks of Canadian residents. While legitimate Canadian gaming authorities intensify efforts to crack down on unauthorized platforms, businesses offering online gambling or related services should treat this case as a cautionary precedent. Claims about legality, safety or legitimacy must be truthful, verifiable and clearly tailored to avoid misleading the public; companies would be well advised to regularly review their advertising, trademark use and technological safeguards to ensure compliance. As the digital marketplace continues to evolve, this case signals that any business targeting Canadian consumers must operate within the bounds of Canadian law, or risk significant consequences.