Creativity Life Cycles : Canadian Trademark Agent and Lawyer : Joshua MacFadden : MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman Law Firm : Patents, Intellectual Property

On September 2, 2010 the Canadian Intellectual Property Office ("CIPO") issued a Practice Notice to provide guidance on the use and interpretation of (Paris Convention) priority claims in accordance with the Trade-marks Act (the "Act").

Priority claims, which are available within six (6) months of the after the date on which the earliest application was filed for registration of the same or substantially the same trademark for use with the same kind of wares or services (the "Priority Period"), allow trademark applicants to essentially 'back date' the date of subsequent filings to the date upon which the original application was filed.  Claims for priority may be submitted in the following ways:

1.  including the claim in an application at filing within the Priority Period;

2.  by amending a previously filed application to include the claim, provided the amendment is submitted within the Priority Period; or

3. by filing a separate declaration in respect of an application within the Priority Period.

A priority claim must reference the date of, and country where, the initial application was filed and, where an error has been made an Applicant may only correct those claims within the Priority Period.  The Trade-marks Branch has indicated that a priority claim need not include the application number in the priority claim - however, such applicants may be required to provide a certified copy of the earlier application.  If an error has been made in the application number referencing the earlier filed application, the Trade-marks Branch has indicated that the number may be corrected at any time before registration.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today the Trademarks Opposition Board ("TMOB") announced a consultation period from June 28th to September 20, 2010.  The amendments, largely intended to streamline the opposition process and communications between the parties and the TMOB, include:

1. The potential for electronic transmission of evidence, provided that the submitting party maintain originals for a prescribed timeframe;
2. Adjustment to "service" requirements to allow for service via fax for documents not exceeding 25 pages (without consent) or in any other manner, with consent, including via email;
3. Consideration is being given to deleting "evidence in reply" (s. 43 of the Regulations) altogether and to instead offer the parties to simply file additional evidence by seeking Leave of the Registrar, where necessary;
4. The TMOB is considering imposing a three-month window to complete cross-examination and requiring that the parties file evidence sequentially prior to opening the cross-examination period.  While this initiative is laudable (particularly when considering the impact of delays resulting from the cross-examination process and the current practice of requiring the parties to file evidence regardless of an ongoing cross-examination process), the truncated timelines are likely too abbreviated to accommodate business realities including foreign applicants and/or instructing principals, translation requirements, etc.
5. Additional clarity may be introduced to expressly require that a party cross-examining a witness must file transcripts (as is currently the case), however, the party being examined will be required to file undertakings within a prescribed timeframe.  Current requirements were somewhat unclear in this respect (i.e. placing the onus upon the cross-examining party) and thus it is expected that such a change will be well received.
6. The TMOB is seeking comment as to whether they can do away with the current practice of providing the parties with a written notice imposing deadlines to file Written Argument.  Instead, the TMOB is suggesting that a prescribed timeframe may be appropriate to more efficiently process opposition matters.  While the intent appears appropriate, the current notice is often received by or on behalf of Applicants and Opponents as a confirmation that the evidence period is closed.  Indeed, without such notice a party may prepare submissions based upon incomplete evidence.  Accordingly, the TMOB is considering offering the parties an opportunity to file "additional written arguments".  To the extent that the overall objective is to avoid administrative delay, introducing this additional step may not only result in confusion (i.e. as a departure from current practice) but may, in fact create additional administrative work for the TMOB.  Moreover, in view of the likelihood of administrative errors during any transition toward such a procedural change (i.e. missing deadlines), and the consequence of such errors (i.e. deemed abandonment), combined with a general lack of a reasonable a "curative" process to resolve technical or administrative errors, it would be appropriate for the TMOB and Trade-marks Branch to consider the introduction of such a curative process.  
7. Transitional provisions are being proposed to avoid the current dual system of opposition deadlines.  In view of the many positive changes to timelines, this suggestion will likely be well received.
8. Lastly, several miscellaneous matters are being considered to clarify the Regulations and modernize filing requirements.  The Trade-marks Branch has not offered specificity on all of the revisions under consideration and thus the Consultation Period will afford interested parties to offer suggestions to improve the application and opposition process.

Overall, many of the proposals outlined are positive and will certainly modernize the opposition process while recognizing the benefits to enabling usage of "modern" technologies for communications between the parties.  Nevertheless, offering a clear "curative" process (i.e. separate and apart from Leave of the Registrar) to address administrative errors may ease the implementation period - particularly where the consequence of a failure to file may result in the deemed abandonment of an application or opposition.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Trade-marks Branch announced a consultation period (expiring June 26, 2010) to address two issues:

(1)  Priority Claims (s. 34):  The Trade-marks Branch has suggested that an applicant referencing a priority claim that wishes to restrict its reference to only certain wares and/or services may do so within the six month priority period but that such restriction cannot be removed subsequent to that timeframe.  Comments:  Since current practice does not require that an applicant identify the wares and/or services in reespect of which priority is claimed, the introduction of this new requirement may only complicate trademark prosecutions without offering significant value to trademark applicants or registrants.

(2)  Application and Use Abroad Claims (s.16(2)):  This proposal by and large recycles a previous proposal of the Trade-marks Branch along with a refinement in response to the a consultation period last fall.  Specifically, the proposal states that where an application is otherwise in order for approval for advertisement but contains an incomplete 16(2) claim (i.e. a claim referencing Registration and Use Abroad that does not reference a registration No. or a jurisdiction in which "use" has taken place), the application will proceed to advertisement in the Trade-marks Journal without the s.16(2) (Registration and Use Abroad) Claim.  However, an Applicant may have an opportunity to complete the claim at any point prior to the decision of the Registrar to advertise the application.   Comments:  While the refinement from the previous proposal is a positive development it is unclear what is meant by "prior to the decision of the Registrar".  For example, if the "decision of the Registrar" is the notice of approval, does this suggest that the Applicant must anticipate such approval, or can this amendment to the application be made at any point prior to the advertisement of the trademark?  Since the consequence of denying a s.16(2) claim will require submission of a Declaration of Use (thereby potentially delaying registration for years), there is perhaps very little advantage to the Trade-marks Branch which would simply be required to send repeated correspondence post-allowance rather than pre-advertisement.  At the same time, the consequence to Applicants (and perhaps to their Agents) should require that the Trade-marks Branch provide clarification to the date of the "decision of the Registrar".

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a follow up to an earlier post, the Canadian Trademarks Opposition Board ("TMOB") has enabled e-services to file Statements of Opposition and to submit requests for extensions of time.  In each case, these submissions can be made by following this link and selecting from the available "E-Services". 

The TMOB has suggested that this approach will allow for faster processsing of documents and immediate confirmation that submissions have been received while providing assurance that prescribed fees have been paid in full at the time of filing.  Hopefully this is only the first step in modernize workflows at the Trademarks Branch and TMOB and we will soon have the ability to file Counter-Statements, evidentiary submissions and written arguments in the same manner while also providing electronic access to the complete record of files as is the case at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (see Trademark Trial and Appeal Board).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On April 29, 2010, the Trademarks Branch and Trademarks Opposition Board introduced a new online feature called "Work in Progress" which provide notice of various office initiatives to allow for public input in the policy development process.

Currently, these policy review initiatives include potential changes to the Examination Manual, updates to the Trade-marks Regulations to allow changes to trademark opposition practice (including the electronic filing of evidence!), and to clarify the current Practice Notice  on Opposition Proceedings as it relates to cross-examination.  Readers are encouraged to monitor the "Work in Progress" since each review process involves restricted time periods for input.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Canadian Trade-marks Opposition Board ("TMOB") recently announced the introduction of e-services to enable the filing of Statements of Opposition and Extensions of time on-line.  It is anticipated that further developments to allow for e-services will be introduced in coming months.

In anticipation of this change, the TMOB will be hosting a webinar and live interactive presentation (at the Gatineau, Quebec offices) on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 to demonstrate the e-service. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office  (the "CIPO") has published a Practice Notice effective March 11, 2010 which outlines new policies and practices concerning extensions of time during the examination of trademark and industrial design applications.

Specifically, the Trademarks Office and Industrial Design Office will provide Applicants with one (1) extension of time up to a maximum of six (6) months to file a complete response to an Examiner's Report.  If a proper response is not filed by the extended deadline the application will go into default (thereby imposing a final, non-extendable deadline). 

If, however, an Applicant requires additional time to prepare and file a response, an additional extension will be granted if "exceptional circumstances" are provided to the Examiner which justifies the need for further time.  The CIPO has provided the following examples of "exceptional circumstances" which may justify a further extension of time:

1. a recent change in Trade-mark Agent;
2. circumstances beyond the control of the person concerned (i.e. illness, accident, death, bankruptcy or other unforeseen or serious circumstances);
3. a  very recent assignment of the trade-mark;
4. where a certified copy of a foreign registration certificate has been requested by the Examiner but not yet filed because the foreign application has not registered;
5. where the applicant is negotiating for a consent from the holder of an official mark; or
6. if the cited co-pending and confusing mark may be going abandoned; is subject of opposition proceedings initiated by the Applicant; or where a cited registration is the subject of a section 45 proceeding initiated by the Applicant. 

Notably, the above-mentioned list is not exhaustive and does provide a measure of flexibility for examiners to exercise some discretion in granting additional time.  Nevertheless, the Practice Notice vaguely references a "recent" change or assignment of the mark (1 and 2 above) while seeming to suggest that the Applicant must also be the party that initiates opposition or a section 45 proceeding against a cited mark (this latter requirement is perplexing since it is the outcome of that proceeding which is relevant to the prosecution rather than the parties to the opposition/section 45 proceeding).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today the Trademarks Office announced the release of a newly revised and updated Wares and Services Manual to clarify requirements and policies for the description of the products and services in Canadian trademark applications.  The Trademarks Office has additionally provided a three-part test for assessing the sufficiency of a wares and services description for the purpose of satisfying section 30(a) of the Trade-marks Act (i.e. the wares and services must be described in ordinary commercial terms).

The revisions also clarify office policies regarding terminology which generally necessitates that an Applicant provide greater specificity prior to Approval (i.e. will prompt a request for further clarification):  "parts and fittings", accessories, equipment, apparatus, computer software, systems, products, discs and pre-recorded media, nutritional supplements, etc.

Lastly, whereas the current manual is in pdf form, the new manual has been introduced in electronic form only thereby enabling faster revision and policy releases following changes in policy, interpretation, new Practice Notices, etc.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Canadian Trademarks Office has announced a Consultation and Discussion Period expiring November 15, 2009 to review a Proposed Practice Notice intended to clarify the requirements for a complete section 16(2) (i.e. "Registration and Use Abroad") claim.

The proposal requires that a complete a section 16(2) claim by include:

• the particulars of the foreign application or registration of the trademark in or for the country of origin of the Applicant; and
• the name of a country in which the trademark has been used as of the date of filing in Canada

If an incomplete section 16(2) claim is included in an application but the case is otherwise in a position for advertisement, the application will proceed to advertisement in the Trade-marks Journal without the section 16(2) claim and without providing formal notice to the Applicant, save for the Approval Notice.  As readers know, a section 16(2) claim may not be added to the application subsequent to advertisement.

The Trademarks Office has indicated that an Applicant may add or complete a section 16(2) claim "prior to the decision of the Registrar to advertise the trademark".  (It is unclear, however, whether the "decision of the Registrar to advertise" in fact, refers to the actual advertisement of the mark or an arbitrary date prior to publication.)

The result of this proposal and particularly the immediate advertisement of the mark without completing the section 16(2) claim effectively denies the Applicant the present ability to complete the claim and to subsequently finalize the registration process based solely upon the section 16(2) claim(s) and thus such Applicants will be required to submit a Declaration of Use in circumstances where the Applicant has provided "proposed use" claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Canadian Trademarks Office has today announced the commencement of a consultation period to review proposed changes to the practice of granting extensions of time during the examination of trademark applications.

The Proposed Practice Notice outlines that Applicants will be generally be granted one (1) extension of time to a maximum of six (6) months to file a response to an Examiner's Report, if the request is justified.  And further, if the Applicant fails to provide a response or the if the reasons for requesting a further extension of time are not considered sufficient, the application will be subject to a default notice.

The Trademarks Office has offered no guidance as to what might be deemed a "justified" reason for requesting a further extension of time and thus it is unclear whether such issues as (a) the assignment of the trademark; (b) circumstances beyond the control of the Applicant (i.e. bankruptcy) or where an Applicant is: (c) seeking to investigate, cancel or acquire the rights of a cited applicant or registrant (which may take months or years); (d) awaiting the consent of a public authority (which may also take months or years); or (e) awaiting a certified copy of a foreign registration (i.e. where an application is based upon Application and Use Abroad) and/or such foreign application is in the midst of opposition. 

Since the consultation period expires on October 30, 2009 it is hoped that submissions to the Trademarks Office include requests for additional guidance or benchmarks as to the standards necessary to satisfy the requirement for a "justified" reason for a further extension of time such as those outlined above.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Canadian Trade-marks Opposition Board ("TMOB") has issued a Practice Notice announcing changes to Section 45 Proceedings which will be made effective September 14, 2009. 

The Section 45 process is initiated at the request of any person seeking evidence that a mark which has been registered for at least three years, has indeed been used by or on behalf of the Registrant.  The process is intended to be a simple and expeditious process requiring that a Registrant submit, within three months of receipt of the Section 45 Notice, evidence of use of the trademark (or special circumstances excusing non-use) within the three (3) year period preceding the notice.  Underlying this process is a motivation to clear "dead wood" from the Register to remove those marks which are not "in use" by Registrants.  Nevertheless, over time the section 45 process has been less efficient for a variety of reasons including, for example, the unwillingness of unhurried non-using Registrant's to acknowledge a lack of evidence, successive requests for extensions of time to submit evidence, written arguments, etc.  Accordingly, the TMOB has sought to increase the efficiency of the process with the current announcement, which includes:

• limiting the number of extensions of time available to Registrants to one extension of up to four months;
• disallowing retroactive extensions of time to submit additional evidence after the Requesting Party has filed written submissions;
• increasing the time line for submitting written argument to four months from the current two, with no extensions of time available; and
• providing additional certainty for the scheduling and re-scheduling of oral hearings

Additionally, the TMOB has clarified policies concerning both the Registrar's discretion to issue a Section 45 Notice and guidance with respect to those exceptional circumstances which may excuse a Registrant's non-use of the trademark.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following up on an earlier post, the Canadian Trade-marks Office has announced changes to the examination of trademark applications. 

Effective June 17, 2009 the time allowed to respond to Examiner's Report is now six (6) months (from the previous four months).  Notably, however, this change will not impact deadlines imposed prior to June 17, 2009 (i.e. for Examiner's Reports issued prior to that date) and thus it will be important to carefully diarize any outstanding deadlines to reflect this change.

Additionally, the Trade-marks Office has announced that it will no longer issue "courtesy letters" to applicants to advise regarding co-pending and potentially confusing applications with a later filing date.

You may also recall that the Trade-marks Office was soliciting input regarding a third policy, namely a proposal to no longer impose a deadline for a Requesting Party to respond to correspondence relating to Changes in Title.  At this time there has been no formal announcement concerning the introduction of this policy.

In addition to changes noted above, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office has commenced a consultation period expiring September 14, 2009 to consider enabling clients (for patents, trademarks, industrial design, copyright and integrated circuit topography applications) to file correspondence and obtain filing dates on Saturdays, Sunday and holidays - while still maintaining the current time extensions for deadlines.  To applicants filing submissions or applications on those days formerly known as a day off this may represent a positive development to provide an earlier filing date than that which is currently available.  Nevertheless, to others this may simply represent a further worrisome encroachment on an employee's family or free time in a manner continuing along the trend of 24/7 accessibility in the age of handheld email devices.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following up on an earlier post, the Canadian Trade-marks Office has announced changes to the examination of trademark applications. 

Effective June 17, 2009 the time allowed to respond to Examiner's Report is now six (6) months (from the previous four months).  Notably, however, this change will not impact deadlines imposed prior to June 17, 2009 (i.e. for Examiner's Reports issued prior to that date) and thus it will be important to carefully diarize any outstanding deadlines to reflect this change.

Additionally, the Trade-marks Office has announced that it will no longer issue "courtesy letters" to applicants to advise regarding co-pending and potentially confusing applications with a later filing date.

You may also recall that the Trade-marks Office was soliciting input regarding a third policy, namely a proposal to no longer impose a deadline for a Requesting Party to respond to correspondence relating to Changes in Title.  At this time there has been no formal announcement concerning the introduction of this policy.

In addition to changes noted above, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office has commenced a consultation period expiring September 14, 2009 to consider enabling clients (for patents, trademarks, industrial design, copyright and integrated circuit topography applications) to file correspondence and obtain filing dates on Saturdays, Sunday and holidays - while still maintaining the current time extensions for deadlines.  To applicants filing submissions or applications on those days formerly known as a day off this may represent a positive development to provide an earlier filing date than that which is currently available.  Nevertheless, to others this may simply represent a further worrisome encroachment on an employee's family or free time in a manner continuing along the trend of 24/7 accessibility in the age of handheld email devices.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office has opened up consultation to proposed changes to the trademark application process including:

1. providing Applicants with six (6) months to respond to Examiner's Reports rather than the current four (4) months;
2. no longer imposing a deadline for a Requesting Party to respond to correspondence relating to Changes in Title; and
3. No longer issuing courtesy letters to Applicants to inform about co-pending and confusing applications that have a later entitlement date.

While the first two proposals will likely result in fewer requests for extensions of time and a more realistic time line for Applicants and their representatives, an open-ended Change in Title request may result in some uncertainty with respect to the ownership of trademark applications and registrations.  Nevertheless, trademark owners would be well advised to expedite title transfers in order to perfect their ownership for the purpose of notifying the public, competitors and consumers regarding the source of products and services.  In terms of the third proposal, it is unlikely that many trademark agents and lawyers would rely upon such courtesy letters to monitor the Trade-marks Register since they have been discretionary and somewhat inconsistently disseminated.  Nevertheless, improving upon the delivery of such letters is likely resource prohibitive for the Trademarks Office and with the multiple automated trademark search and watch services available the continued delivery of such courtesy letters unnecessarily exposes the Trademarks Office to liability for failure to provide notice in some instances.  Overall, the proposed changes are likely to enhance service by reducing requests for extension of time and the inconsistent provision of courtesy letters thereby potentially improving the administration of trademark applications, registrations and title transfers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office ("CIPO") is presently seeking input regarding proposed changes to Section 45 Proceedings (i.e. Canada's "use it or lose it" provision of the Trade-marks Act (the "Act")). 

Currently, Section 45 of the Act provides a summary procedure whereby a party may request that the Registrar of Trademarks issue a Section 45 Notice requiring that the registered owner of a trademark submit, within three months, evidence of use of the mark for the three year period preceding the notice or evidence of special circumstances to excuse non-use.  If no special circumstances or evidence are filed or where such evidence is deficient, the registration may be amended or cancelled in its entirety.

Included within the suggested changes are:

1. proposals to permit the requesting party to seek a Section 45 Notice in respect of specific products and/or services rather than the entirety of those products and services listed in the registration;
2. proposed circumstances whereby the Registrar may elect not issue a Section 45 Notice which include:  (a) where the registration is currently the subject of a pending Section 45 proceeding; (b) where the Registrar determines that the request is merely frivolous or vexatious; and (c) where the request is made within three years from the date of a previous Section 45 decision;
3. restrictions to the number of extensions of time available to a registrant for the submission of evidence (i.e. limited to one extension of four months) while clarifying the circumstances which may justify an extension of time;
4. a proposal whereby the Registrar could simply elect to render a decision to cancel, amend or maintain a registration where the evidence "clearly" establishes or fails to establish use of the mark; and lastly,
5. it appears that requesting parties will no longer have the ability to withdraw the Section 45 request and thereby terminate the proceedings in circumstances where the parties are in negotiation.

The consultation period regarding the proposals ends on March 13, 2009 and thus any interested parties are encouraged to submit comment.  We will provide a subsequent post once feedback is published by the Trademarks Office.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Once an application has been filed and processed within the Trademarks Office, the application is assigned a filing date and application number and posted on the Trademarks Register. Shortly thereafter, the application file is transferred to the attention of a Trademarks Examiner in order to assess the registrability of the application pursuant to Canadian legislation. The following general registrability criteria, among others, must be satisfied in order for an application to be registrable in Canada: [1]

• The proposed trademark, whether depicted, written or sounded, must not be descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of the wares and/or services offered in association with the trademark or of the conditions of, or the persons employed in, their production or place of origin;
• The name, in any language, of any of the wares or services in connection with which it is used or proposed to be used;
• Confusing with a registered trademark;
• The mark must not be offend the section 9 or 10 rights of third parties (i.e. owners of Official Marks) or be prohibited by section 10(1) (i.e. must not be a denomination used to designate a plant variety pursuant to the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act);
• The trademark must not be a generic term; and
• The proposed trademark must not be “scandalous, obscene or immoral

In addition to the foregoing, the Trade-marks Act and the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act outline further criteria and requirements for restricting the registrability of certain marks. Following examination (i.e. once registrability requirements are satisfied), an application is Approved and published in one issue of the Trade-marks Journal, thereby triggering the two month opposition period within which time any interested party may seek to oppose the allowance of your application for reasons such as pre-existing trademark rights. In the event that the application is unopposed, an Applicant does not receive notification until the Notice of Allowance is received, outlining the remaining requirements to register the trademark application. On the other hand, if opposition is encountered, the Trade-marks Opposition Board (TMOB) will provide notification and advise regarding the procedural requirements for responding to the opposition. Notably, a failure to respond to an opposition will result in the application being deemed abandoned by the applicant.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

While it is generally advisable to seek the advice of an experienced trademark agent to consider registrability and risks of adopting a particular trademark, any individual, corporation, partnership, trade union or lawful association, (provided they satisfy the requirements of the Trade-marks Act and Trade-marks Regulations)[j1], may seek to register their trademark through filing an application for registration with the Trademarks Office and submitting the requisite fees.

Although the initial costs of seeking the advice of a trademark agent will exceed those associated with ‘going it alone’, obtaining such advice may prove invaluable in terms of assessing the registrability of a mark, the risks of adoption, and appropriately defining the scope of protection necessary for a particular business or to achieve a particular business objective. Nevertheless, whether pursuing a trademark registration with an agent or on your own, it is always advisable to review the requirements of the Canadian Trademarks Office by reviewing applicable legislation, reviewing the Trademarks Database and visiting the website of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office to review the Guide to Trademarks, the document entitled the “Application Process”. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link