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:
 

The proposed practice notice entitled “Use and Registration Abroad (s.16(2) of the Trade-marks Act)” has been withdrawn by CIPO.   The proposed practice notice caused concern as it purported to make two significant changes to the application of Section 16(2) of the Trade-marks Act (the “Act”).  First, it stipulated that the Canadian application filing date is the relevant date for establishing use of a mark in a foreign country.  Second, it limited the applicant’s ability to include or complete a Section 16(2) claim to the date of approval for publication, rather than the date of advertisement of the application.

The proposed practice notice appears to have been drafted in response to the Opposition Board decision in Allergan Inc. v. Lancôme Parfums and Beauté & Cie, 64 C.P.R. (4th) 147, which has been interpreted by some as imposing the requirement that a mark must have been used abroad “as of the date of filing in Canada” in order for a Section 16(2) claim to be valid.  However, in the Allergan case the applicant did not file any evidence of use whatsoever,  nor were there any arguments filed with respect to this issue.   The Hearing Officer simply stated that the material date for considering Section 30 grounds of opposition is the filing date of the application.  Therefore, the matter has not been fully analyzed by either the Trademarks Opposition Board or the Federal Court, and the relevant sections of the Act make no mention that foreign use as of the Canadian filing date is a requirement.

If  an Applicant asserts “use and registration abroad” in the original application, it follows that use of the mark must have commenced as of the Canadian filing date.  However, if a Section 16(2) claim is added after filing, or if the applicant asserts a foreign application rather than a registration (and must therefore “perfect” the claim by filing proof that the application proceeded to registration abroad), then arguably use of the mark may occur after the Canadian filing date, or in other words at the time that the foreign “registration” is asserted.

FICPI and IPIC were amongst those who submitted comments with respect to the proposed practice notice.