Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 JULY 2012

Trade-Marks In Canada: Processing Of Applications

Dickinson Wright PLLC
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Contributor
Dickinson Wright PLLC

Dickinson Wright PLLC

Dickinson Wright is a full-service law firm with more than 550 lawyers, serving clients across the...

View firm profile
Explore more from Dickinson Wright PLLC

The Office of the Registrar of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office ("CIPO") processes applications for trade-mark registration

United StatesIntellectual Property
Paul Bain
Paul Bain
Author LinkedIn connections

The Office of the Registrar of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office ("CIPO") processes applications for trade-mark registration based on the steps below. All the time-frames are approximate.

1. Formalities

Once an application is filed and in good order, along with the applicable fee ($250 if submitted online), CIPO assigns a filing date and an application number to the application and opens a file.

The application will be entered into the Canadian Trade-marks Database as well as other databases maintained by external companies. The application is labeled " 'Pending.'

CIPO will provide a formal Filing Acknowledgement and a proof sheet listing the information included in the application. These documents should be reviewed carefully and clients should advise immediately if there are any errors or omissions. If the application is correct and complete, the acknowledgement and proof sheet will be sent by CIPO within ten (10) days after the application is filed.

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

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

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

U.S. Government Backs Fair Use For AI Training In OpenAI Copyright Litigation

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Article

The Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of DMCA CMI Removal Claim Against AI Code Generator – Output Is A New Work Not A Copy Of Training Data

There was a significant ruling in the Doe v. Github case involving training of AI code generator models on open source. The United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling dismissing part of an action brought under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by programmers against GitHub, Inc., and other defendants. The issues centered on whether defendants removed copyright management information (CMI) from content used to train the AI code generator models.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Sheppard
Sheppard
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

AI Learning Or AI Copying? Ninth Circuit Weighs In

The Ninth Circuit held that GitHub Copilot's AI-generated code did not violate DMCA's copyright management information (CMI) removal provisions, even when output resembled source code, because the system generated new works through probabilistic patterns rather than retrieving and stripping information from existing copies. This decision establishes a critical distinction between AI systems that learn and generate versus those that retrieve and reproduce, with significant implications for how courts evaluat
United StatesIntellectual Property
Ballard Spahr LLP
Ballard Spahr LLP
Article

The FCC Reaches Deeper Into The Grid – And The Warehouse

The Federal Communications Commission has added foreign-produced power inverters and advanced robotic devices to its Covered List under national security determinations, immediately barring new equipment authorizations and creating compliance deadlines for manufacturers. Companies must now evaluate whether their products qualify as domestic end products under Federal Acquisition Regulation standards or pursue conditional approval pathways by January 1, 2028.
United StatesGovernment, Public Sector
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Article

The State Of AI Regulation In Healthcare: Still Complicated

As artificial intelligence tools become embedded in clinical care, diagnostics, and health insurance operations, healthcare organizations must navigate an evolving patchwork of federal oversight and state-specific AI regulations. With 21 states having enacted 33 healthcare-AI laws by the end of 2025 and 177 pending bills across 31 states in 2026, the regulatory landscape remains fragmented while federal agencies work to establish comprehensive standards. Understanding these overlapping requirements is criti
United StatesFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Article

Nashville Catering Alcohol Rules: Beer And Liquor

Catering liquor and beer license holders in Nashville must navigate two distinct regulatory frameworks: Metro Nashville's distance restrictions for beer catering permits and Tennessee state limitations on catering liquor licenses. Understanding these rules is essential to avoid compliance issues and ensure events proceed smoothly, particularly when venues are near schools, places of worship, or Metro parks.
United StatesFood, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Article

U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of Michigan Enters Judgment In Favor Of Ascion, LLC

After nearly five years of contentious international arbitration, a Michigan-based manufacturer of adjustable bed bases and mattresses secured a substantial monetary judgment against its Taiwan-based supplier and the supplier's parent company. The case involved complex evidence, intricate legal issues, and Mandarin translation of documents and testimony, ultimately resulting in the confirmation of multiple arbitration awards by a federal district court.
United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Dickinson Wright PLLC