Fast and Curious: CIPO Announces Steps to Speed up Trademark Examination
May 03, 2021
In recent years, the length of time that it takes the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) to examine a trademark application has grown dramatically, so much so that it now typically takes approximately 2 years after the filing of an application for CIPO to examine it. Just a few years ago, the time between filing and examination was 8 months. To put this into context, in March 2019 the inventory of trademark applications awaiting first examination was approximately 73,000. In March 2021, that number was approximately 147,000. In order to address this steadily-worsening backlog, CIPO has announced some changes, effective as of May 3, that it hopes will speed up the process and provide some relief to applicants who are suffering prejudice owing to CIPO’s delays.
Improving timeliness of examination
As a time-saving measure, when examining an application that, in the examiner’s view, does not specify the goods and services in ordinary commercial terms, CIPO will no longer provide examples of descriptions that would be considered acceptable when issuing an examiner’s report. CIPO has also noted that applications that designate the goods and services using CIPO’s pre-approved list will be examined more quickly than applications that do not use this option.
Fewer examination reports prior to refusal
CIPO has also announced its intention to reduce the number of reports issued by examiners prior to final refusal. In order to achieve this goal, where an examiner has responded to a particular issue raised by an applicant, and the applicant subsequently submits further evidence on the same issue that is not persuasive on the examiner, CIPO will address the issue by way of a final decision to refuse the application rather than issuing a further examiner’s report.
In view of this change in practice, CIPO is encouraging applicants to advance all of their arguments in response to an examiner’s report at the first opportunity rather than in a piecemeal manner.
It is now also possible for an applicant to submit a request for expedited examination of its trademark application. CIPO had eliminated this practice several years ago. Now, such a request will be entertained by CIPO but must be supported by an affidavit or statutory declaration showing that one or more of the following criteria are met:
- a court action is underway, or expected, in Canada with respect to the applicant’s trademark in association with the goods and/or services listed in the application;
- the applicant is in the process of combating counterfeit goods at the Canadian border with respect to the applicant’s trademark in association with the goods and/or services in the application;
- the applicant requires a registration in order to protect its intellectual property rights from being severely disadvantaged in online marketplaces; or
- the applicant requires registration of its trademark in order to preserve its claim to priority within a defined deadline, following a request by a foreign intellectual property office.
It is important to note that there is no requirement that an application be pending for any particular period of time before expedited examination can be sought. For example, it is possible for a trademark owner to file such a request in respect of a new application. This expedited examination procedure does not impact CIPO’s previously announced procedures to request expedited examination of trademark applications associated with medical goods or services related to COVID-19.
It has now been a decade since the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Masterpiece v. Alavida, where the court had some harsh words regarding the use of expert evidence in trademark cases. At the time, many predicted that the case would signal the death of surveys evidence in trademark cases. A review of the cases that have been decided since Masterpiece reveals that, although Canadian courts are giving closer scrutiny to trademark surveys, they are continuing to admit well-designed and well-conducted surveys. At the same time, however, courts have also used the Masterpiece decision as justification for rejecting surveys and other expert evidence.
In 2018, amendments to Canada’s Patent Act changed the nature and scope of certain defences to patent infringement. A new decision of the Federal Court of Canada was the first to consider the scope of the new prior use defence.
In our July 2020 article, “Moving on Up: Increased Costs Awards in Canadian Patent Litigation”, we discussed the trend in the Federal Court of Canada towards awarding increased costs to the successful party in patent litigation. In this article, we provide an update regarding some of the cases that have been decided over the past year. These cases have addressed issues such as when an award based on a percentage of the successful party’s legal fees may not be appropriate and whether the court has discretion to go beyond the 25% to 50% range when fixing costs as a percentage of actual legal fees.