• Our People
  • Global Presence
  • Regions
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Americas
  • Offices
    • Canada
      • Ottawa
      • Toronto
    • China
      • Beijing
      • Hong Kong
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Singapore
    • UK
      • Aberdeen
      • Birmingham
      • Cambridge
      • Edinburgh
      • Glasgow
      • London
      • Manchester
      • Oxford
  • Client liaison
    • Japan
    • Korea
  • Expertise
  • Services
    • Patents
    • Brands & Trade Marks
    • Designs
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Commercial IP & Contracts
    • Due Diligence
    • Freedom to Operate
    • EPO Patent Oppositions
    • European Patent Validations
    • Anti-counterfeiting
    • Open Source & Third Party Code
  • Sectors
    • Digital Transformation
      • 3D Printing
      • Artificial Intelligence
      • Blockchain
      • Data & Connectivity
      • Extended Reality
      • Industry 4.0
    • Energy & Environment
    • Life Sciences
    • Agritech
    • Medical Technologies
    • Chemistry
    • Transport
    • Entertainment & Creative Industries
    • Food & Drink
    • Fashion & Retail
    • Universities & Research Bodies
    • Start-ups & Spin-outs
      • Creating value for start-ups
      • The IP driven start-up
    • Financial Services
  • About Us
    • Working with us
    • Awards
    • Corporate & Social Responsibility
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Careers
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • News
    • Events
    • Resources
    • Unified Patent Court hub
    • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
    • M&C Reacts
  • Contact Us
Marks & Clerk logo
Marks & Clerk logo
Contact Us
Language
English
Our People
Global Presence
Regions
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Americas
Offices
  • Canada
    • Ottawa
    • Toronto
  • China
    • Beijing
    • Hong Kong
  • Luxembourg
  • Malaysia
  • Singapore
  • UK
    • Aberdeen
    • Birmingham
    • Cambridge
    • Edinburgh
    • Glasgow
    • London
    • Manchester
    • Oxford
Client liaison
  • Japan
  • Korea
Expertise
Services
  • Patents
  • Brands & Trade Marks
  • Designs
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial IP & Contracts
  • Due Diligence
  • Freedom to Operate
  • EPO Patent Oppositions
  • European Patent Validations
  • Anti-counterfeiting
  • Open Source & Third Party Code
Sectors
  • Digital Transformation
    • 3D Printing
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Blockchain
    • Data & Connectivity
    • Extended Reality
    • Industry 4.0
  • Energy & Environment
  • Life Sciences
  • Agritech
  • Medical Technologies
  • Chemistry
  • Transport
  • Entertainment & Creative Industries
  • Food & Drink
  • Fashion & Retail
  • Universities & Research Bodies
  • Start-ups & Spin-outs
    • Creating value for start-ups
    • The IP driven start-up
  • Financial Services
About Us
  • Working with us
  • Awards
  • Corporate & Social Responsibility
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Careers
Insights
  • Articles
  • News
  • Events
  • Resources
  • Unified Patent Court hub
  • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
  • M&C Reacts

Could you be more specific? Nice classification in Canadian trade mark examination

06 April 2020
Print
Share

Among the changes to the Trademarks Act and Regulations that came into force on 17 June 2019 was Canada’s accession to, and implementation of, the Nice Agreement. As a result of the adoption of the international classification system, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office has incorporated the requirements of the system into both its examination procedures for pending applications and its renewal processes of older registrations. Consequently, modifications have been made to the treatment of the description of goods and services, largely resulting in requests for greater specificity.

Prior to the enactment of the act, all goods and services were required to simply be described in ordinary and commercial terms, which demanded greater specification than most other jurisdictions. Under the current rules, in addition to being specified in ordinary and specific commercial terms, the specification must be sufficiently specified for the purpose of classifying the goods and services according to the Nice classes pursuant to section 30(3) of the act. In other words, where a specification may previously have been acceptable, it may now require more granular detail.

One notable area requiring further specificity is the material composition of goods. For example, where goods such as “statues” are compliant insofar as they are in ordinary commercial terms, they now must be further specified by their material in order to be properly classified. As such, “statues of non-precious metal” belong in Class 6, while “statues made of glass or porcelain” belong in Class 21. Therefore, if statues in a variety of materials are to be included in an application or registration, those goods will need to be claimed in each class based on material composition.

Similarly, where goods are sold in combination in units, such as “kits” or “gift baskets”, all of the component goods of the units may not fall within the same class, except where the combination can be classified by purpose. Therefore, while “sewing kits” would fit in a single class (26), a gift basket containing cheeses and wine would have to be specified in two classes as “gift baskets containing wine” (Class 33) and “gift baskets containing cheese” (Class 29).

The Trademarks Office also typically requires that a good or service that could fit into multiple classes should be placed in only one class according to its primary function. Nevertheless, certain goods or services can be placed in multiple classes where they genuinely have multiple uses. For example, the goods “clock radios” can be properly classified in both Class 9 (“radios”) and Class 14 (“clocks”), but “skin lotions” belong in Class 3 as cosmetics and cannot be placed in Class 5 (medical preparations) without being further specified as “medicated”. For services, they are to be classified according to their branches of activity and fields of use. Where a service fits into multiple categories, the purpose of the activity will determine class. For instance, “business planning” is in Class 35, whereas “financial planning” is in Class 36.

This complicates the requirements for the description of the goods/services and, unsurprisingly, has increased the number of objections based on the specification and classification of goods and/or services. In addition, costs for the applicant and the registrant can increase given official filing and renewal fees are now charged on a per-class basis.

In examining specifications for proper classification, applicants preparing to file trademark applications and registrants classifying their older registrations should be aware that the Trademarks Office is relying heavily on the Canadian Goods and Services Manual, as well as WIPO’s guidance materials.

The adoption of the Nice Classification in Canada has thus led to a need for greater specificity in the description of the goods and/or services.

This article first appeared on WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in March 2020. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Next Story
  • Nike block MAX 1 for Verstappen
  • IP protection in collaborations: "Just Do It"
  • Peppa Pig v Wolfoo: clash of the cartoons
  • How Kristina Milbourn is breaking the mould and making a difference
  • China: draft amendments to trade mark law
More insights

Latest Insights

Article
- 30 March 2023

That’s a wrap! CJEU confirms position on protection for designs dictated by technical function

"Think about the common sense answer and then it's probably something else!" - that's what I always say to anyone I'm training when they ask me a question about a specific piece of IP law.
Read more
Image: Nike Air Max
Article
- 30 March 2023

Nike block MAX 1 for Verstappen

Max Verstappen's plans to launch a MAX 1 clothing range have run into a roadblock, as Nike successfully oppose his Benelux trade mark application on the basis of their rights in AIR MAX. 
Read more
Chemistry
Article
- 24 March 2023

Preliminary position on priority published

As we reported in early 2022, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO are considering two pending referrals (G1/22 and G2/22) regarding the question of entitlement to priority. A hearing has now been set for 26 May 2023, and the Enlarged Board have now issued a preliminary opinion setting out the points to be discussed.
Read more
Marks & Clerk logo (white)
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Notice
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Press Enquiries
  • Lexology
  • Mondaq