• About us
    Who We AreStaff DirectoryBoard of DirectorsHall of FameMember AwardsStrategic Plan / Annual ReportsCommittees/CommunitiesCode of EthicsEducational FoundationEquity, Diversity & Inclusion
  • Advocacy
    IP IncentivesIPIC SubmissionsIPIC Intervention Policy
  • What is IP?
     IP BasicsOwn it. CampaignWhy Use a ProfessionalHow to Become an AgentIndigenous Traditional Knowledge
  • Education
    Certification ProgramsCourses & EventsMentorship Program
  • Resources
    COVID-19 UpdatesNewsCIPRFind an IP ProfessionalIPIC Job Bank2019 Compensation StudyMedia KitIP Assist
  • Membership
    Your profession. Our purpose.Join NowMember BenefitsMember CategoriesMember Referral ProgramInsurance Program: IP Agent Insurance
  • 0
  • FR
Marcel van der Sluis
,
Reagan Seidler
Smart & Biggar LP
TopicsIndigenous Membership Communications Committee EDI
Share

Can Treaty Rights Protect Intellectual Property?

Published on June 10, 2022

It is no secret that a gap exists when it comes to protecting certain forms of Indigenous intellectual property (IP). While conventional IP tools are excellent in ensuring contemporary songwriters, inventors and brand owners keep control of what they make, these tools are less helpful when it comes to Indigenous traditional knowledge and cultural expression.

From art and fashion, insights on herbal medicines, ownership of crests and symbols, geographic knowledge, to spiritual practices and more, Indigenous communities hold a vast array of IP that find their origins in centuries past. Oftentimes, this IP is subject to local rules and expectations about how it can be used, and who is entitled use it. Enforcing these rules is another matter. The ideal legal solution to this problem should, at least in part, originate in Indigenous law yet be enforceable in Canadian courts.

One made-in-Canada solution, recently proposed in IPIC’s Canadian Intellectual Property Review, is to invoke the Constitution as a source of legal protection. Similar to the way in which First Nations have made title claims to traditional lands, it may be possible for Indigenous groups to assert IP rights based on Aboriginal or treaty rights. This solution could be a positive step forward toward reconciliation.

The Constitutional Solution

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 “recognizes and affirms” existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada. This section has been used in courts to enforce rights to fish, hunt, and move goods across borders, and to assert rights over traditional lands.

Aboriginal title to land arises out of the recognition that “when the settlers came, the Indians were there, organized in societies and occupying the land as their forefathers had done for centuries” (Calder et al v Attorney-General of British Columbia, [1973] SCR 313). Where Indigenous groups have the same historic relationship with their IP, it is reasonable to argue that the same basis for a claim could apply.

Section 35 extends to more than just land. It also protects practices, customs and traditions “integral to the distinctive culture of [an] aboriginal group” (R v Van der Peet, [1996] 2 SCR 507). This can include a right to self-regulate practices that were “the subject matter of aboriginal regulation” in the past (R v Pamajewon, [1996] 2 SCR 821). If community leaders have always had a veto on who can represent holy places in paintings or other art, or if it has always been known that certain traditional stories were the collective property of the community, a basis may exist to enforce these rules in court.

Determining what treaty or Aboriginal rights might apply depends greatly on history and the facts. It is also complicated by intervening legal questions, such as whether the right was extinguished in the time before the constitution came into force. Despite their challenges, treaty or Aboriginal rights can be an important potential source of IP rights, and should be considered as an option in each litigator’s IP toolbox.

Conclusion

As the Truth and Reconciliation Commission defines it, reconciliation “is about establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in this country.”  Section 35 is a useful tool in this regard, as it allows the legal systems of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to complement one another.

At present, the potential to use Section 35 in an IP context is still untested. It is also not clear how far the “duty to consult” Indigenous peoples extends when governments regulate the IP space. Addressing these issues will take significant historical research, as well as brave claimants and litigators willing to bring test cases to the courts.

For more information on how a Section 35 claim might play out in practice, read “Constitutionalized Rights to Indigenous Intellectual Property” in volume 35 of the Canadian Intellectual Property Review.

Related Articles

April 24, 2023

Join IPIC & its Educational Foundation in recognizing World IP Day 2023 on April 26th

Kevin Shipley, Nicole Mantini
The theme of this year’s World IP Day is an important reminder that many segments of Canadian society do not have equal access to the necessary resources and tools to thrive in our profession. IPIC has been focused on raising awareness and working to make meaningful, positive change in respect of these issues. Since 2019, IPIC's Educational Foundation’s [Patent & Trademark Institute Educational Foundation (PTIEF)] mandate has been to encourage education and scholarship in the IP field with a focus on promoting diversity and inclusion among IP professionals and removing barriers to access for members of under-represented groups interested in pursuing educational opportunities in the IP field.
TopicsFoundation Committee EDI Educational Foundation
March 13, 2023

Embracing Neurodiversity in IP Firms this Neurodiversity Celebration Week!

Bhupinder Randhawa
Neurodiversity is a concept that recognizes and values differences in the ways that people experience and interact with the world. While the term is typically applied to neurological conditions such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia, everyone thinks and learns differently and brings individual talents to their work.  This article focuses on ensuring the success of neurodiverse individuals[i] in IP firms, but many of the topics discussed will improve work experiences for all members of a firm.
TopicsEDI
March 8, 2023

International Women's Day Spotlight - IPIC 2021 Outstanding Contribution Award Winner - Jenna Wilson

Jenna Wilson
Marked annually on March 8th International Women's Day (IWD) is a global day celebrating the social, economic, cultural and political achievements of women. The day also marks a call to action for accelerating gender parity. Participation is witnessed worldwide as groups come together to celebrate women's achievements and rally for women's equality. This year's campaign theme is 'Embrace Equity' because true inclusion and belonging require equitable action, and because when we embrace equity, we embrace diversity and inclusion. In celebration of this day IPIC will highlight prominent women members who are just some of the many incredible women within the IP profession.  
TopicsEDI International Women's Day

MISSION

Our mission is to enhance our members’ expertise as trusted intellectual property advisors, and to shape a policy and business environment that encourages the development, use, and value of intellectual property.


VISION

Our vision is for IPIC to be the leading authority on intellectual property in Canada, and the voice of intellectual property professionals.

LATEST TWEETS

Twitter feed is currently not available

CONTACT US

360 Albert Street, Suite 550
Ottawa, ON K1R 7X7

T 613-234-0516
E admin@ipic.ca

LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The IPIC office is located in Ottawa, on the traditional, unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.

©2021 Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, Ottawa, ON
Designed by Ottawa Web Design driven by Member Management Software