Skip to content

Proposed Changes to IP Law: Will they impact your business?

Many businesses rely on trade-mark, copyright, and patent law for the protection of their intellectual property (IP). The Federal Government recently proposed changes to IP laws, which may impact your business. Bill C-86, Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2 includes changes to the Copyright ActTrade-marks Act, and other IP legislation, as summarized below.

What is changing?

Trade-marks Act

Changes to this Act include:

  • The introduction of bad faithas a ground of opposition to the registration of a trademark, or to invalidate a registered trademark within three years of registration. These changes seek to prevent the abusive use of the trademark regime by those who register trademarks for the purpose of extracting payment from the legitimate owner of the trademark (similar to “cyber-squatters”).
  • New rules to allow the Registrar to award costs against parties for abusive practices during trademark registration proceedings.
  • Changes to help prevent “official marks” (badges, crests, emblems or marks) owned by government entities that no longer exist from creating obstacles to trademark registration.

Further information on the changes can be found here.

Copyright Act

Changes to this Act include:

  • The reform of the Copyright Board to expedite its decision-making process. The Board’s budget will be increased, and its mandate to be “fair and equitable” will be formalized.
  • New rules to require the Board to act informally and expeditiously, and to fix royalties and levy rates that are fair and equitable, considering (1) what a willing buyer and willing seller would agree to in an open market, and (2) the public interest.
  • The establishment of a case management process to facilitate the timely resolution of matters before the Board.

Further information on the changes can be found here.

Patent Act

Changes to this Act include:

  • New rules to prevent parties from sending deceptive or unsubstantiated patent demand letters (commonly known as “cease and desist letters”). These letters will be subject to new standards, and parties who receive deceptive letters that do not meet the standards will be able to seek redress from Canada’s Federal Court.
  • Changes to clarify that it is not an infringement of patent rights to conduct research on the subject matter of a patent.
  • Changes to “prior use rights” regarding patents so that a business is not required to cease operations if a patent is filed that covers its existing operations.

Further information on the changes can be found here.

Other changes

Other changes to IP legislation include:

  • The establishment of a College of Patent and Trademark Agents to regulate the conduct of IP agents. Further information on the College can be found here.
  • Changes to privacy and access to information legislation to recognize IP agent-client privilege. This means that communications between IP agents and their clients will be subject to the same protections as communications between lawyers and their clients (commonly known as “solicitor-client privilege”) under that legislation.

When will these changes take effect?

The above changes are subject to Bill C-86 being passed in its current form. It is currently before the House of Commons, and it must be approved by both the House and Senate to become law. The Bill’s progress, and dates that specific provisions of the Bill come into force, can be tracked here.

Further discussion

Stewart McKelvey’s Intellectual Property Law Group has extensive experience assisting clients to develop, protect and enforce their IP rights. If you would like to discuss the above changes or how they may impact your business, please contact a team member here.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top