The World of Intellectual Proper(kit)ty

For my project, I chose to look into something I’m truly passionate about: cats.

But Tyleigh, isn’t this all a little millennial cringe? Yes, but consider this a palate cleanser from all the very serious, real world problems going on.

Instructions for Viewing

  • The presentation can be clicked through with your mouse
  • Click when you are ready for the next screen
  • Please access the slides at the Canva link below
  • Make sure you turn the sound on for the best viewing experience! (pictured below)

Presentation Link: https://www.canva.com/design/DAG75lu26AU/hwQ6-HgHBQh3rD65SKi5cg/view?utm_content=DAG75lu26AU&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link2&utm_source=uniquelinks&utlId=h696852ee1f

———

References, Organized by Topic:

Grumpy Cat

PUMA

  • Masaki Mikami, “PUMA Triumphs in Trademark Battle over Iconic Jumping Cat Logo” (Marks IP Law Firm, 28 April 2019), online:< https://marks-iplaw.jp/puma-jumping-cat-logo/>
  • Amy Reynolds, “Leap of Faith: Puma Unsuccessful in Latest Round of Big Cat Logo Battle” (Fieldfisher SnIPpets Intellectual Property Law Blog, 25 May 2021), online: <https://www.fieldfisher.com/en/services/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-blog/leap-of-faith-puma-unsuccessful-in-latest-round-of-big-cat-logo-battle>

Deadmau5/Meowingtons

Keyboard Cat

  • Eriq Gardner, “Grumpy Cat Gets Movie Deal: Wait, Do Animals Have Likeness Rights?” (The Hollywood Reporter, 30 May 2013), online: <https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/grumpy-cat-gets-movie-deal-560658/>
  • See also Scribd, “Keyboard Cat” (3 May 2013, US District Court, CD Cal, Pleadings), online: <https://www.scribd.com/document/144705848/Keyboard-Cat>

Purrsonality Rights and Privacy

  • Joseph v Daniels (1986), 4 BCLR (2d) 239 (SC), 1986 CanLII 1106
  • Krouse v Chrysler Canada Ltd (1973), 40 DLR (3d) 15 (ONCA), 1973 CanLII 574
  • Privacy Act, RSBC 1996, c 373
  • Lawrence v Ylla, 55 NYS (2d) 343 (NY Sup Ct 1945)
  • Naruto v Slater, 888 F (3d) 418 (9th Cir 2018)
  • Lauren Didelot, “Paws Off My Image: Why Rights of Publicity Should Be Expanded” (2025) 32 J Intell Prop L 40, online: <https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1552&context=jipl>
  • Family Law Act, SBC 2011, c 25
  • Bayat v Mavedati, 2024 BCSC 619
  • Glassen v Glassen, 2025 BCSC 640
  • Baker v Harmina, 2018 NLCA 15 (Hoegg JA dissenting)
  • Devin R Desai, “The Life and Death of Copyright” (2011) 2011:2 Wisconsin L Rev 219 at 250, online: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2137795>

Reference was made to the US and Canadian Trademark Office Search Databases:

AI Disclosure

Canva is a design platform that integrates AI in different ways; some AI assistance was used in creating stylized text, slide transitions, and editing images. However, AI use was confined to the incidental functions of the design platform itself.

I created the collage in the featured image (using copyrighted works of course).

2 responses to “The World of Intellectual Proper(kit)ty”

  1. bjmkoya

    Witty, hilarious, and a proper homage to Mr. Sparrow! I found the discussion of Didelot’s argument particularly illuminating. While I have always considered my pets to be part of my family, I had never seriously contemplated the possibility that their likeness could be protected under personality rights in Canada. That prospect opens the door to a fascinating expansion of economic incentives for pet influencers (and perhaps brings us one step closer to realizing our collective dream of seeing Jack Sparrow on our screens). A beautifully crafted presentation, Tyleigh!

  2. August Meyer

    What an exciting journey into the world of intellectual proper(kit)ty—and a fantastic cameo from Jack! Your presentation was an enlightening reminder of just how many iconic pop-culture moments feature cats. It also prompted me to think about the viability of patenting a cat breed. While the Supreme Court of Canada in Harvard College rejected the patentability of higher life forms, the Court’s comments in Monsanto regarding the patentability of a fertilized, genetically altered oncomouse egg raise the question of whether scientists could argue for patent protection on that basis. Thanks for such an engaging and thought-provoking post!