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


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top