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

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

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

*

A recent Internet controversy concerning the successful social networking site Facebook highlights the challenges in amending website Terms and Conditions following changes to the web site's Terms of Service have resulted in numerous challenges, questions, and protest groups users over the ownership of user-generated content. 

In a story which broke on the consumer rights advocacy blog, Consumerist.com , Facebook Inc. attempted to clarify its Terms of of Service resulting in confusion concerning the legal implications for the new provisions, particularly where users elect to close or otherwise inactivate a user account.  Whereas both documents essentially provide for a grant of license from a user to Facebook for the use of user-generated content (i.e. photos, videos, posts, applications, etc.), the new agreement deletes a prior clause which read:

You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time.  If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.  [emphasis added]

Effectively, the changes appeared to suggest that Facebook Inc. intended to assert ownership of user content or, at the very least a non-exclusive, perpetual license to continue to use, post and distribute such content even if a user account is closed. 

In an effort to resolve concerns over the issue, Facebook Inc.'s founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced a re-introduction of the earlier agreement while stating on the corporate blog that  "[o]ur philosophy is that people own their own information and control who they share it with... When people share information on Facebook, they first need to grant Facebook a license to use that information so that we can show it to the other people they've asked us to share it with."

Generally speaking, the ownership of user-generated content will be governed by copyright protections and thus such materials are owned by their originating author unless transferred to a third party by way of assignment.  In Canada and many other countries, such a transfer must also include a waiver of moral rights which refer to rights to attribution and rights to protect the integrity of the work.  

This story certainly serves as a cautionary warning to businesses utilizing customer or user-generated content and the challenges which may result when introducing new contractual terms to an existing relationship - particularly one with a wide and online following.  For users of social networking websites this story highlights the need to closely reviewTerms of Use/Service and Privacy Policies in order to gain a full appreciation for the impact of such provisions on your existing legal rights.

 *Facebook and the Facebook Logo are trademarks of Facebook Inc.

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

A Practice Notice , entitled, "Practice in Trade-mark Opposition Proceedings" has recently been issued by the Canadian Trade-marks Opposition Board to introduce procedural changes and guidance concerning the granting of extensions of time.

Effective March 31, 2009, the Practice Notice* will replace the October 1, 2007 Practice Notice entitled "Procedure before the Trade-marks Opposition board as of October 1, 2007" and is intended to:

• Simplify and clarify the Registrar's benchmarks for granting extensions of time including guidance with respect to qualifying "exceptional circumstances" for the purposes of obtaining an extension of time;
• Encourage the parties to pursue settlement and mediation early in the opposition proceeding including the introduction of "Cooling Off Periods" whereby either party may request an extension of time of no more than nine (9) months on consent for the purpose(s) of negotiating settlement , mediation, and/or co-existence between the parties; and
• Introduce a new practice with respect to the scheduling of hearings.

The introduction of these changes has resulted from consultation among the Trademarks Office, applicants and practitioners and, as a result, is expected to  better accommodate time line and other requirements for the parties involved in opposition while providing greater certainty for those seeking to extend opposition deadlines.

*Notably, trademark applications advertised prior to October 1, 2007 will remain subject to the Trade-marks Regulations as they read as of September 30, 2007.

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

In a decision rendered January 22, 2009, just days before annual Robbie Burns' Day celebrations, the Federal Court of Appeal has upheld Glenora Distillery's trademark application for "GLEN BRETON"in association with "single malt whisky", reversing the earlier decision from the Federal Court.

Since the initial adoption of the trademark, the Scotch Whisky Association, which represents over 50 brands incorporating the word "Glen" in their whisky labelling,  has attempted to oppose the adoption of the mark on the basis of potential consumer confusion with the many "GLEN" branded Scotch whisky products emanating from Scotland.

An appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is available but must be submitted within 60 days of the decision.  We will continue to monitor this case for further developments.

• 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

    One of Canada's most recognizable sports-related trademarks, the Hockey Canada logo, may be unavailable for use by Canadian hockey teams participating in upcoming Vancouver Olympic Games in 2010. 

The International Olympic Committee rule ("IOC")  policy banning the use of particular sporting federation logos came into effect over 13 years ago, however, national Olympic committees such as the Canadian Olympic Committee, are empowered with the authority to provide an exemption for such usage. 

At this time the Canadian Olympic Committee does not appear to support Hockey Canada's request for a continued exemption (which had been granted in the previous three Winter Games), resulting in an effort by Hockey Canada to appeal directly to the IOC for an exemption to permit Canadian hockey teams to wear the iconic logo which, based on previous Olympic Games, is anticipated to result in $20 million in jersey sales. 

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

Trademarks include word(s), logos and slogans and are generally used to distinguish particular goods and services from those of others within a particular channel of trade or industry. To elaborate further, section 2 of the Trade-marks Act defines a trade-mark as:

(a) a mark that is used by a person for the purpose of distinguishing or so as to distinguish wares or services manufactured, sold, leased, hired or performed by him from those manufactured, sold, leased, hired, or performed by others;
(b) a certification mark;
(c) a distinguishing guise; or
(d) a proposed trade-mark

The owner of an effectively utilized trademark will recognize that trademarks not only assist in differentiating their offerings from those of competitors, but they may also assist in developing market identity within a particular industry while, over time, establishing a measure of goodwill resulting from the positive reputation accrued through successful usage of the trademark.
 

For the consuming public certain trademarks become identified with an overall "brand". For example, the mark is used not only identify a product, service or its source, and as a means of assuring quality and/or authenticity. As a "brand", trademarks may serve to satisfy social and/or self-expressive needs through identifying with certain characteristics of associated wares or services such as quality, performance, safety, social/environmental awareness (i.e. fair trade), prestige, etc. Indeed, the acrual of goodwill along with the development of such characteristics has permitted many rights holders to expand the scope of their businesses into trade channels differing substantially from their initial efforts by simply utilizing a trademark connoting particular characteristics (i.e. construction machinery and related equipment) and crossing over into a field in which such characteristics are equally as valued in the minds of consumers (i.e. work boots). When contemplating the adoption of a trademark, consider your "brand", your corporate values and future direction(s) since your marketing approach may enhance the reception of your products and services over the long term.

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