Trade-marks Office Clarifies Priority Claim Procedures

The Canadian Trade-marks Office issued a new Practice Notice on September 2, 2010 which clarifies the procedure for making priority claims in a Canadian trade-mark application.  A priority claim may be made within a period of six months after the date on which the earliest application was filed for the registration of the same or substantially the same trade-mark for use in association with the same kind of wares or services.    The trade-mark need not be identical for the purposes of making a priority claim.  The Act permits a priority claim based on a trade-mark that is substantially the same. A priority declaration may be filed in one of the following ways:

  1. by including the declaration in an application as originally filed, provided that the subsequent application is filed within the above-noted six-month period;
  2. by amending an application to include the declaration, provided that the amendment is made within the six-month period;
  3. by filing a separate declaration in respect of an application at any time within the six-month period.

The Trade-marks Act does not require that the number of the earlier application be included in the priority claim.   Nonetheless, the Office has determined that this information should be available to the public.  Therefore where a priority declaration does not include the number of the earlier application, the Office will require the applicant to either provide the Office with the number or submit a certified copy of the earlier application.

If an error is made with respect to the date or country of filing of the earlier application, the error may be corrected at any time within the six-month priority period. After this period,  no amendment will be permitted to the date or country indicated in the declaration on the basis that such an amendment would be inconsistent with the Act.

If an error is made with respect to the number of the earlier application, such error may be corrected at any time before registration of the mark.

Finally, there is no requirement that the specific wares or services in respect of which priority is claimed by identified in the priority declaration.  The Office deems it to be sufficient if the declaration indicates that the priority application was filed for use in association with the same kind of wares or services.   If, however, an applicant chooses to limit the priority declaration to wares only or to services only, changes to these limitations may only be made within the six month priority period.  After the expiry of the six-month period, no amendment to remove any such limitation will be permitted since it would be considered to be the making of a new priority declaration outside of the time limits permitted by the Act.

Tagged with:
 

Paula Clancy Makes Top 100 Filers in Canada List

We are very pleased to announce that Paula Clancy Professional Corporation has made the top 100 list for most active agents in Canada, as published by Marque d’Or/Onscope.  The firm was launched in 2008 and celebrated its second anniversary earlier this month.   Thank you to all of our clients, associates and  colleagues for entrusting us with your Canadian trade-mark matters and making our success possible.

Tagged with:
 

The US Supreme Court on June 28, 2010, decided the long-awaited Bilski case, affirming the Federal  Circuit’s judgment. (Bilski v. Kappos, U.S., No. 08-964, 6/28/10).

The US Court ruled that business methods are eligible subject matter under US patent law but declined to accept the US Federal Circuit’s machine-transformation test as the exclusive test for the Section 101 determination.

To summarize, the US Supreme Court decision has the following implications :

a) business methods are patentable subject matter;

b) software is patentable subject matter; and

c) the Federal Circuit’s “machine-or-transformation” test is not the definitive.

While this decision means that it will likely be less difficult to procure software patents, we strongly recommended having claims in your patent application that cover computer systems and/or servers if you have a software aspect to your invention.

Most of the Supreme Court’s opinion (16 pages) is supported by 5 votes, and other parts are supported by only 4 votes.

The following language is supported by a majority of the US Supreme Court:

“Today, the Court once again declines to impose limitations on the Patent Act that are inconsistent with the Act’s text. The patent application here can be rejected under our precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas. The Court, therefore, need not define further what constitutes a patentable “process,” beyond pointing to the definition of that term provided in §100(b) and looking to the guideposts in Benson, Flook, and Diehr.

“And nothing in today’s opinion should be read as endorsing interpretations of §101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has used in the past. See, e.g., State Street, 149 F. 3d, at 1373; AT&T Corp., 172 F. 3d, at 1357. It may be that the Court of Appeals thought it needed to make the machine-or-transformation test exclusive precisely because its case law had not adequately identified less extreme means of restricting business method pat-ents, including (but not limited to) application of our opinions in Benson, Flook, and Diehr. In disapproving an exclusive machine-or-transformation test, we by no means foreclose the Federal Circuit’s development of other limiting criteria that further the purposes of the Patent Act and are not inconsistent with its text.”

To read the full opinion, click here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions about the Bilski decision.