• 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

Strategies and pitfalls with fees under Canada’s new trademark regime

17 September 2020
Print
Share

With a view to modernising Canada’s trademark regime to align with, among others, the Nice Agreement, significant amendments were introduced to the Trademarks Act (RSC 1985, c T-13) as of 17 June 2019. Below are some fee-based strategies to utilise under the amended act.

Fees for applications

Specifications of goods and/or services in national applications must now be classified in accordance with the Nice Classification. The quantum of per-class filing fees levied on applications by the Canadian Trademarks Office (TMO) are assessed at the time of filing, which can result in cost consequences for applicants in examination.

In most other countries, such as the United States, an applicant can file a multi-class specification of goods and services by paying a single class fee and subsequently pay any extra per-class filing fees only for those classes retained in the application. In Canada, if the TMO assesses that a specification of goods and/or services has more classes than originally identified in an application, the applicant must pay per-class fees for all of the additional classes, whether or not the goods and/or services falling into the additional classes are retained in the application. An applicant cannot avoid the extra filing fees by deleting the goods and/or services in the additional classes.

Fees for divisional applications

A welcome change in the act is the introduction of divisional applications, which permits part of the goods and/or services in an application to be transferred into a new related application. Applicants may divide their trademark applications at any time prior to registration in Canada while retaining the filing date of the original application. Divisional applications may themselves be divided. This provides applicants much needed flexibility in the face of an objection in examination or opposition that only affects part of the goods and/or services in their applications.

One complication is that all per-class fees stemming from the original application must be paid to have the original application and any of its divisional applications advertised. If per-class filing fees are deemed not to be paid on either the original application or any of its divisional applications, the original application and any subsequent divisional applications will not be advertised and held in examination until such payment is made.

Fees in renewals

Under the amended act, the quantum of renewal fees crystallises as at the date the renewal is attended to. This is problematic for older registrations due for renewal after 17 June 2019 that have not been classified under the Nice Classification and the number of classes in a registration is unknown.

In such cases, the unclassified registration is renewed simply by paying a single class renewal fee. The TMO then assesses the classes in the registration and sets a date by which outstanding per-class fees come due. The registrant cannot avoid the additional fees by subsequently deleting the goods and/or services not of interest from the registration. Indeed, failure to pay the fees by the deadline set by the TMO may result in expungement of the registration.

Recommendations

There are real cost consequences to brand owners under the amended act and it is recommended as follows:

  • Applicants must be cognizant of the cost consequences of overly broad specification of goods and/or services when filing national applications;
  • Ensure that all filing fees are paid when dividing applications prior to advertisement to avoid delays in examination. Guidance from local counsel in this regard would be helpful.
  • Voluntarily classify goods and/or services in older registrations prior to renewal to avoid any surprise renewal fees.

This article first appeared on WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in September 2019. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.

Next Story
  • 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
  • From Beijing to Barrow - via Mayfair
More insights

Latest Insights

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
Quantum computing
Article
- 22 March 2023

International patent insights on quantum computing

The latest patent insight report from the European Patent Office (EPO) looks at the trends in patent filings for quantum computing, and has uncovered some interesting findings.
Read more
Article
- 22 March 2023

InterDigital v Lenovo: The latest FRAND judgment

On 16 March 2023, Mr Justice Mellor handed down the latest FRAND judgment: InterDigital v Lenovo. The case concerned a dispute between InterDigital and Lenovo as to the terms on which Lenovo should take a licence to InterDigital’s portfolio of patents which had been declared essential to the European Telecommunications Standard Institute (ETSI) Standards.
Read more
Marks & Clerk logo (white)
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Notice
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Press Enquiries
  • Lexology
  • Mondaq