As previously reported, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) began an initiative to accept telephone amendments for simple prosecution issues in May 2020. Considering the initiative’s success in helping CIPO improve efficiency and reduce its backlog, CIPO has decided to expand the list of issues for which telephone amendments are acceptable.
As of February 19, 2021, Examiners are now permitted to call the Applicant of a trademark application (or their Canadian trademark agent) directly to discuss the following deficiencies, instead of sending a formal Examiner’s Report:
- Incorrect visual representation of the trademark
- Incomplete translations and transliterations
- Incorrect trademark type
- Incomplete description
- Simple issues with the statements of goods and services, including Nice classification
- Incomplete mailing address
The Applicant (or their Canadian trademark agent) will then have five business days to respond to the Examiner’s telephone call or message. While the Examiner is not required to send a written Examiner’s Report to raise the above deficiencies, the Applicant (or their Canadian trademark agent) will still have to provide the Examiner with written confirmation to address these deficiencies.
If the Examiner has not received written confirmation from the Applicant or their agent within the five-day deadline, a formal Examiner’s Report will be issued.
We are hopeful that expanding the list of objections that can be communicated by telephone instead of a written Examiner’s Report will improve the efficiency of trademark prosecution in Canada.
For Madrid applications designating Canada, we note that the Canadian Trademarks Office will not communicate with a foreign representative. If no Canadian agent is appointed, the Canadian Trademarks Office will contact the Applicant directly. Accordingly, where the Applicant does not wish to be contacted directly by the Canadian Trademarks Office, it is important to appoint a Canadian agent.
The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and technology law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.
Related Publications & Articles
-
Adeia Guides Inc v Videotron Ltd: infringement through common design – a Canadian first
In the latest matter concerning Adeia Guides Inc’s (“Adeia”, formerly “Rovi Guides Inc”) patent enforcement campaign against Canadian cable service providers, the Federal Court held, for the first tim...Read More -
Not so nominal: damages available for brand owners facing evasive counterfeiters
Companies invest significant resources in building consumer awareness and goodwill in their brands. Over time, strong brands come to represent more than just a product name or logo; they may signal a ...Read More -
Brand protection online: Enforcement options for domain name takedowns
A well‑chosen domain name is a valuable brand asset. It serves as a powerful marketing tool by helping businesses stand out in a crowded digital landscape and attracting consumers to their websites. W...Read More
