Question: Which Swiss chocolate bar brand was the basis for a lawsuit resulting in a Supreme Court of Canada judgement on Canadian copyright law?

Context articles: Motte v Faulkner
BMG Canada Inc v Doe
Copyright law of Switzerland
CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
Toblerone
Copyright law of Canada
Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc
Fixation in Canadian copyright law
Canadian Admiral Corp v Rediffusion Inc

Motte v Faulkner (decided 28 November 1735) was a copyright lawsuit between Benjamin Motte and George Faulkner over who had the legal rights to publish the works of Jonathan Swift in London.
 This trial was one of the first to test the Statute of Anne copyright law in regards to Irish publishing independence.
 Although neither held the copyright to all of Swift's works, the suit became a legal struggle over Irish rights, which were eventually denied by the English courts.
 Faulkner, in 1735, published the "Works" of Jonathan Swift in Dublin.
 However, a few of the works were under Motte's copyright within the Kingdom of Great Britain, and when Faulkner sought to sell his book in London, Motte issued a formal complaint to Jonathan Swift and then proceeded to sue Faulkner.
 An injunction was issued in Motte's favor, and the book was prohibited from being sold on British soil.
 The basis of the law protected the rights of the author, and not the publisher, of the works, and Swift was unwilling to support a lawsuit against Faulkner.
 With Swift's reaction used as a basis, the lawsuit was later seen as a struggle between the rights of Irishmen to print material that were denied under English law.
BMG Canada Inc v Doe, 2004 FC 488 aff'd 2005 193 , is an important Canadian copyright law, file-sharing, and privacy case, where both the Federal Court of Canada and the Federal Court of Appeal refused to allow the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) and several major record labels to obtain the subscriber information of Internet service provider (ISP) customers alleged to have been infringing copyright.
The copyright law of Switzerland is based on the concept of "author's rights" ("Urheberrecht" in German, "droit d'auteur" in French, "diritto d'autore" in Italian), which is similar to the French copyright law, instead of the concept of Copyright used in common law jurisdictions.
 The current copyright law of Switzerland is the "Swiss Federal Copyright Act of 1992", which dates from October 9, 1992 and has only seen minor revisions since then.
 In October 2007, a revision was approved in order to implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty in the act, a process started in 2004 with the release by the Swiss Federal Council of a draft project.
CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 SCR 339, 2004 13 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada case that established the threshold of originality and the bounds of fair dealing in Canadian copyright law.
 A group of publishers sued the Law Society of Upper Canada for copyright infringement for providing photocopy services to researchers.
 The Court unanimously held that the Law Society's practice fell within the bounds of fair dealing.
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir.
 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.) sought to prevent Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems.
 The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...".
 In the midst of the "Apple v. Microsoft" lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac's GUI was heavily based on Xerox's.
 The district court dismissed Xerox's claims without addressing whether Apple's GUI infringed Xerox's.
 Apple lost all claims in the "Microsoft" suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and folder icons from Hewlett-Packard's NewWave windows application were infringing.
 The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994, and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.
Toblerone ( ; German: ] ) is a Swiss chocolate bar brand owned by US confectionery company Mondelēz International, Inc., formerly Kraft Foods, which acquired the product from former owner Jacobs Suchard in 1990.
 It is produced in Bern (the bear symbol of the city is still visible in the logo) and in early 2000 was being produced in the United States by Ferrara Pan candy company in Bellwood, Illinois.
 Toblerone is well known for its distinctive triangular prism shape.
The copyright law of Canada governs the legally enforceable rights to creative and artistic works under the laws of Canada.
 Canada passed its first colonial copyright statute in 1832 but was subject to imperial copyright law established by Britain until 1921.
 Current copyright law was established by the Copyright Act of Canada which was first passed in 1921 and substantially amended in 1988, 1997, and 2012.
 All powers to legislate copyright law are in the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada by virtue of section 91(23) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc, 2007 37, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 20 , is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on Canadian copyright law, specifically on the issue of indirect infringement and its application to parallel importation.
 Kraft Canada sued Euro-Excellence Inc. for copyright infringement due to their importation of Côte d’Or and Toblerone chocolate bars from Europe into Canada.
 A majority of the court found that the copyright claim could not succeed, although they split on whether the claim failed due to the rights of an exclusive licensee or due to the scope of copyright law.
Fixation in Canadian copyright law is a threshold consideration that must be used in copyright infringement cases by courts to determine if copyright actually exists.
 In Canada, a work "must be expressed to some extent at least in some material form, capable of identification and having a more or less permanent endurance" to be subject to copyright protection.
 Fixation is not a statutory requirement in Canada and the rationale for its use in court has been the subject of much scrutiny.
Canadian Admiral Corporation Ltd. v. Rediffusion Inc., [1954] Ex.
 CR 382, 20 CPR 75 is a Canadian copyright law decision by the Exchequer Court (a predecessor of the Federal Court of Canada).
 The Court held that rebroadcasting of public performances by cable companies did not violate any communication rights or public performance rights.
 There cannot be copyright in telecasting live events because there is insufficient fixation.
 The result of the case became a major factor in the following growth of the Canadian cable television industry.