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


 
 

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…

Read More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…

Read More

Solicitor-client privilege vs the Canada Revenue Agency: the SCC speaks

June 10, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…

Read More

Why can’t we be friends?: Lessons on corporate dissolution from Smith v. Hillier

May 30, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…

Read More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada dismisses appeals in punitive damages cases

May 26, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…

Read More

Client Update: Pension update: Countdown to Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans

May 17, 2016

On May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…

Read More

Pension Primer: Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) in Nova Scotia

April 22, 2016

By Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top