IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jiplap/v19y2024i2p101-108..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The stunted development of unfair competition law in the United States and Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Haight Farley

Abstract

Both the United States and Canada present unfair competition law in a way that is complex and indicative of their kindred beginnings. Sharing a closely paralleled history in the development of unfair competition law, these countries exhibit unique similarities in both substance and approach, likely not found in any other jurisdiction.Born out of English common law, the early trajectory of unfair competition was inextricably linked to trade mark law. Both countries’ legislatures passed ambitious trade mark statutes that created federal regulation of certain areas of unfair competition, while also reserving large areas for the state or provincial legislatures to regulate. Claimants therefore navigate substantial variety in unfair competition protections depending on the cause of action. Even so, obligations under international agreements such as the Paris Convention and interaction with other bodies of law further extend the unfair competition legal landscape.Despite its complexity, the United States and Canada share remarkably similar paths to unfair competition protection. Understanding their history, limited national legislative powers, policy rationales, obligations under international agreements and the interplay between federal and state or provincial law create a rich and multifaceted unfair competition landscape.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Haight Farley, 2024. "The stunted development of unfair competition law in the United States and Canada," Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(2), pages 101-108.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:19:y:2024:i:2:p:101-108.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiplp/jpad113
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:19:y:2024:i:2:p:101-108.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiplp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.