Schweizer online trading41 comments
How to withdraw funds from scottrade brokerage account
This fascinating Ontario case deals with an Alberta-based individual who complained of certain material that was re-published on the website Globe24h. The server that hosted the website was located in Romania. The material in question was essentially a re-publication of certain publicly available Canadian court and tribunal decisions.
Yes, you heard that right. On this point, the Ontario court, citing a range of past decisions including the Google v. Equustek decision which is currently being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada said:.
The fees solicited for doingdoing so varied widely. Moreover, if payment was made with respect to removal of one version of the decision, additional payments could be demanded for removal of other versions of the same information.
This included, for example, the translation of the same decision in a Federal Court proceeding or earlier rulings in the same case.
The court concluded that it could take jurisdiction over the Romanian website, and ordered the foreign party to take-down the offending content. This decision represent another reach by a Canadian court to takedown content that has implications outside the borders of Canada. From the context, it is likely that this decision is going to stand, since the respondent did not contest this lawsuit. The issue of extra-terrtorial reach of Canadian courts in the internet context is going to be overtaken by the pending Supreme Court decision in Equustek.
We reviewed this issue in See: No copyright or trademark protection for metatags. The court in that case said: Vancouver Career College Burnaby Inc. To borrow a few phrases from other cases, trade-marks have a particular function: Merely bidding on words, by itself, is not delivery of a message.
By Richard Stobbe This fascinating Ontario case deals with an Alberta-based individual who complained of certain material that was re-published on the website Globe24h.
Equustek decision which is currently being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada said: February 15th, Category: