On the definition of “distinctive”, the phrase that we are suggesting be taken out of Bill C-8 is the phrase “inherently capable of distinguishing”. Why we think that introduces uncertainty is simply that under the current law it's been made clear that you have to demonstrate that a trademark actually is distinctive. In the pharmaceutical industry, where wording matters, and issues of technical definitions matter and are litigated extensively, putting in a new concept there, we believe, will open up more litigation, more uncertainty. That particular phrase is what our law firms have flagged for us.
