During a recent meeting, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) revealed plans for a significant reduction in the first examination of Canadian trademark applications not using the pre-approved list of goods and services from 54 months to 24 months by March 2025. This announcement follows CIPO’s recent hiring of 160 new examiners.
Currently, applications using the pre-approved list are examined in just over 17 months, while Madrid applications are examined in about 18 months.
This improvement will undoubtedly be welcomed by trademark owners and practitioners. Quality of examination may be impacted but should improve significantly in the year to come as the new examiners gain experience.
In the meantime, we invite you to consult our article for current options to expedite the examination of trademark applications in Canada.
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
-
Avoiding a finding of ambiguity and ensuring patent validity: the importance of a comprehensive disclosure and defining coined terms
On June 7, 2024, the Federal Court issued its Judgment and Reasons in Tekna Plasma Systems Inc v AP&C Advanced Powders & Coatings Inc (2024 FC 871), finding all claims of the Defendant’s Canad...Read More -
Upcoming changes to Canada’s trademarks regime: what brand owners and their counsel need to know
On April 1, 2025, long-awaited amendments to Canada’s Trademarks Act and Trademarks Regulations will come into force. The purpose of the amendments is to discourage abuse of Canada’s trademarks regime...Read More -
When patents expire but royalty payments don’t: contrasting U.S. and Canadian approaches to patent licensing
How does the expiration of the patents in one jurisdiction impact global royalty payments? This question was addressed by the United States Court of Appeal’s Ninth Circuit in C.R. Bard Inc v Atrium Me...Read More