Canada - finally joining "Nice" ...

Some exciting news from Canada... well, if you are a trade mark geek enthusiast that is.

The Canadian government recently introduced what appears to be a rather impressive change to the Canadian Trademarks Act (or should it still state "trade-mark"); see here for the underlying bill.  The changes appear to include the - long awaited? - adoption of the Nice Classification system for Canadian trade marks and a shorter renewal term of 10 years rather than the current 15 years.

When will it all happen?  There are appear to be different views: most likely this autumn (2014) but the connected implenting regulations relating to the Madrid Protocol may only "happen" in 2015.  A bit more on the can be found on the website of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office here.
Canada - finally joining "Nice" ... Canada - finally joining "Nice" ... Reviewed by Birgit Clark on Monday, July 07, 2014 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Canada intends to accede to no less than 3 international treaties - the Nice Agreement, the Madrid Protocol and the Singapore Treaty - courtesy of the Budget Implementation Act which received royal assent on 19 June 2014. Next step is consultation on amendments to the trade mark regulations and anticipated IT changes - no actual changes have been introduced to Canadian trademark law as yet. I cannot see that proposed adoption of the Nice Agreement is long-awaited but it will nevertheless be welcome.
    The reduced term of registration (10 years) is to bring this in line with the general position internationally. Finally, please take a look at (the errors in) the second paragraph of your post.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.