Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 NOVEMBER 2015

Practice Nice In Canada

Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Explore more from Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.

As of September 28, 2015, it is possible to file trademark applications in Canada with goods and services voluntarily grouped and classed according to the Nice Classification.

LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Vanja Nedimovic
Vanja Nedimovic
Author LinkedIn connections

As of September 28, 2015, it is possible to file trademark applications in Canada with goods and services voluntarily grouped and classed according to the Nice Classification.

The provision of Nice classes remains voluntary for now, since the proposed legislative changes relating to the classification of goods and services according to the Nice Agreement contained in Bill C-31 are not yet in force.

According to the CIPO's Practice Notice, in case where the Registrar of Trademarks does not agree with the applicant's classification and where the trademark has not yet been advertised pursuant to section 37 of the Trademarks Act, the Registrar will advertise the application in the Journal without the Nice Classification, provided that all other requirements are fulfilled.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UPC CoA Confirms “gold Standard” For Added Matter In Sibio v Abbott

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court recently issued a decision examining whether omitting an elastomeric sealing member from a patent claim constitutes added matter, applying the EPO's "gold standard" test while emphasizing the importance of functional and structural relationships between features. The ruling provides crucial insight into how the UPC approaches intermediate generalizations and whether its methodology differs from the notoriously strict EPO practice on added subject-matter.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

G 1/25: When Must The Description Be Adapted To Amended Claims?

The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a landmark decision in G 1/25 "Hydroponics," addressing a fundamental question that has divided practitioners for years: when patent claims are amended during examination, must the description be adapted to match? The ruling establishes that inconsistencies between claims and descriptions only require correction when they result in non-compliance with the European Patent Convention, not merely for achieving formal consistency.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Article

G 1/25: When Must The Description Be Adapted To Amended Claims?

The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a landmark decision in G 1/25 "Hydroponics," addressing a fundamental question that has divided practitioners for years: when patent claims are amended during examination, must the description be adapted to match? The ruling establishes that inconsistencies between claims and descriptions only require correction when they result in non-compliance with the European Patent Convention, not merely for achieving formal consistency.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.