table of honour of the Faculty of Higher and Postdoctoral Studies, 2007-2008. Traditionally, Canadian trademark law has always offered relatively effective protection to trade mark proprietors against the violation of the ‘origin indicator’ function of goods or services sold in connection with a given trade mark. The proprietor of a registered trade mark may thus bring an action for infringement by statute, whereas the proprietor of an employed trade mark may bring an action for ‘passing-off’ against any third party who uses a similar or identical trade mark which gives rise to confusion on the part of consumers as to the source or origin of the goods or services. That form of protection is intended to protect the proprietor of a trade mark against the diversion of customers. However, where a step taken by a third party rather damages the reputation of a trade mark, results in a loss of control of the trade mark or diminishes the value of the achalandage linked to it, it is more appropriate to speak of a ‘dilution’ of the trade mark. Protection against trade mark dilution, both by jamming and smear, is intended to protect the trade mark’s ‘advertising’ or ‘identity’ function, at least for a mark which has a strong inherent distinctive character and reputation. As a premiss, that statement therefore seeks to establish that Canadian trade mark law, in particular the MLC, should contain statutory provisions capable of ensuring that trade marks are adequately protected both in terms of their function as an indication of origin and in their advertising function, by means of one or more effective remedies under the Staff Regulations. Therefore, the purpose of this submission will be to determine whether the M.L.C., in its current version, grants the proprietor of a trade mark a statutory remedy (s) in order to effectively counter dilution. If so, the question arises in particular as to whether the wording of Article 22 and subparagraph 7 (a) (a) of the L.M.C. and its interpretation favours adequate protection for proprietors of trade marks which are distinctive and well known against dilution irrespective of the form of infringement imposed by a third party? In short, the purpose of this pleading is to determine whether the L.M.C actually enables the proprietor of a trade mark to defend himself against infringements of the advertising function of his trade mark which may occur in the context of comparative advertising, parodies, generic use of a trade mark, use of a trade mark in a critical domain name or in various circumstances jeopardising the control of the trade mark by its proprietor.