Un bon exemple expliquant l’utilité de protéger ses idées par une forme de PI: l’histoire de Trivial Pursuit

Cette semaine, la Cour suprême de la Nouvelle-Écosse a rejeté la demande de David Wall qui prétendait qu’il était le vrai inventeur du jeu de société populaire Trivial Pursuit . Monsieur Wall prétendait avoir divulgué son idée à un des deux inventeurs reconnus du jeu lors d’un voyage en voiture alors que monsieur Wall faisait de l’autostop. La Cour a déterminé que l’histoire de Wall était peu crédible et qu’il n’y avait pas de preuve concluante (comme un enregistrement de droit de PI) documentant le fait qu’il était vraiment le premier inventeur.  Une lecture de la décision illustre bien aussi la stratégie de protection de PI qui était considérée pour le jeu.  Un brevet, un dessin industriel, un droit d’auteur et une marque étaient toutes des formes différentes de PI pouvant potentiellement s’appliquer comme forme de protection pour ce jeu.

One of the questions he was asked at the meeting was whether there was anything in the nature of intellectual property that should be protected. Werner took it upon himself to locate a patent firm in Ottawa and arranged for Haney and Abbott to attend at the offices of Julian Swann. Mr. Swann, on their behalf, contacted a law firm in the United States to conduct patent searches. As a result of these searches, it was determined the game board could not be patented, as there were already a number of patents granted for boards that had some similarity to the proposed Trivial Pursuit game board. There were also some similarities with the proposed playing pieces and the use of questions and answers. As a consequence, it was suggested they could not patent the board, the playing pieces or the cards on which the questions and answers appeared. They, nevertheless, decided to proceed. However, they applied for and were eventually successful in obtaining industrial design protection on the game board and a trademark for the name “Trivial Pursuit”. The only copyright they were able to obtain was for the “Rules of Play and Cards”.

-La décision de la Cour suprême de la Nouvelle-Écosse (190 pages!)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: