Proposed Changes to The Trademark Opposition Board Practice



PROPOSEDCHANGESTOTHETRADEMARKOPPOSITIONBOARDPRACTICE:A
PRACTIONNER’SPOINTOFVIEW

by
BarryGamache
*
LEGERROBICRICHARD,Lawyers,
ROBIC,Patent&TrademarkAgents
CentreCDPCapital
1001Square-Victoria-BlocE–8
thFloor
Montreal,Quebec,CanadaH2Z2B7
Tel.(514)9876242-Fax(514)8457874
www.robic.ca-info@robic.com

Toocomplicated,toolengthyandtooexpensivearehowsomemembersof
thetrade-markprofessionhavecommentedonthewholeoppositionprocess
asunderlinedintheCIPO’sletteroflastspring.Variousproposalshavebeen
putforwardinordertostreamlinetheprocess.Oppositionmatterstakeupa
greatamountofmypracticeandIhavebeenaskedbytheChairmanofthe
OppositionBoardtocommentontheproposalsputforwardregarding
evidence,cross-examinationsandmoregenerallyextensionsoftime.
Therules,astheynowread,provideforasequentialfilingofevidenceas
outlinedintheCIPO’sletter:followingtheservingofthecounterstatementof
opposition,anopponenthas1monthtofileitsevidenceinchiefbutmay
requestandobtaina6monthextensionoftimetofileitsevidenceforatotal
of7months;followingwhichtheapplicanthas1monthtofileitsevidencebut
mayrequestandobtainalsoa6monthextensionoftime;finallythe
opponentmayfileevidenceinreplytotheapplicant’sevidenceandithas1
monthtodosobutmayrequestandobtaina4monthextensionoftime.
Allthesemonths,19intotal,ayearandahalf,aresupposedtoprovideeach
partywithsufficienttimetoprepareitsevidencebycommunicatingwithits
client,requestingthenecessaryinformationtopreparetheevidence,analyse
theobtainedinformation,preparetheaffidavits,sendthemtotheclientfor
approval,obtaintheapprovalandeventuallyobtaintheclient’ssignature
beforeacommissionerofoathintheclient’sjurisdiction.Butareallthese
extensionstoomuch?



















































LÉGERROBICRICHARD,1996.
*Lawyer,BarryGamacheisapartnerinthelawfirmLEGERROBICRICHARD,g.p.andinthe
patentandagencyfirmROBIC,g.p.Thismaterialwasoriginallydesignedforthepurposeofa
workshopon”CanadianTrade-MarkOppositionProceeding”held1996.11.02aspartofthe
Business&TechnicalProgramofthe70thGeneralAnnualMeetingofthePatentand
TrademarkInstituteofCanada.Publication207.



TheproposedchangesintheCIPO’sletterareofcoursearealdeparturefrom
theprocessweactuallynowknow.Undertheproposedchanges,insteadof
thesequentialfilingofevidence,theproposedruleswouldprovideboth
partieswith3monthsfromthefilingandtheserviceofthecounterstatement
tosimultaneouslyfileevidenceinchiefandthen1monthfromthefilingand
serviceoftheevidenceinchieftofileevidencestrictlyconfinedtomattersin
reply.Theseproposedchangesraiseissuesat2levels,firstlyonalegalone
andsecondlyonapracticalone.
Onthelegallevel,oneremembersthatinoppositionproceedings,the
opponenthasusuallyanevidentiaryburdentoputforwardevidencein
supportofitsgroundsofopposition,followingwhichtheapplicantmaysee
whichgroundsofoppositionareactuallybeingpursuedandhowitisto
respondtotheevidencefiledbytheopponent.Asitnowis,thesequential
filingofevidencehastheadvantagefortheapplicantoflettingthe
opponentmakeitsbed,thereafterenablingtheapplicanttorespondtothe
opponent’sevidenceinthemostappropriateway.Forexample,ifthe
opponentdoesnotfileevidenceregardingitsgroundsofopposition,the
applicantmayelectnottofileevidencealsosincetheopponentwillnot
havesatisfieditsinitialevidentiaryburden.
Nowallthisprocessofsequentialfilingofevidenceisbeingputasideinthe
proposedmodifications.Undertheproposedrules,bothpartieswouldfile
theirevidenceinchiefsimultaneously.Ofcourse,itcan
bearguedthatthis
proposedmechanismplacesundohardshiponanapplicantwhoisthen
forcedtoprepareevidenceinsupportofitsapplicationandchallengingthe
opponent’sgroundsofoppositionwhilenothavingseentheopponent’s
evidenceandnotknowingevenwhatgroundsofoppositionwillbepursued.
Withtheproposednewrules,anapplicantcouldbeforcedtofileevidencein
supportofitsapplicationtoestablish,forexample,thedistinctivecharacterof
itstrade-markwhileontheotherhand,theopponentforwhateverreason,
mightelectnottofileanyevidence.Theprocesswouldendupbeingmore
expensiveforanapplicantthanitpresentlyis.
Onamorepracticallevel,reducingtheamountoftimeforapartyto
prepareitsevidencefrom7months,asitnowstandswiththeautomatic
extensionsoftime,to3monthsfromthefilingandserviceofthe
counterstatement,mightplacesomepartiesinaratherdifficultsituation.For
example,Iwouldestimatethatfromhalftotwo-thirdoftheclientsIrepresent
arenonCanadianparties,themajorityofwhicharefromEuropeorAsia.In
mostcases,Idealwithforeignagentswhointurndealwiththeirclients.With
alltheseintermediaries,itisnotalwaysaquickprocesstorequestinformation,
answerqueries,enableapartytogothroughitsfileandtransmit
documentationtoitsforeignagentswhothentransmitittous;wethen



prepareanaffidavitwhichobviouslyhasmanyblanksinit,senditfor
approvaltotheagentwhothenturnstohisclienttofillinthoseblanksand
maketheappropriatecorrectionsandfinallygivetheO.K.needed.Then
comestheprocessofsendingtheaffidavitofftotheforeignagentswho
himselfsendsitofftohisclientwithinstructionsontheswearingprocedure.Of
course,notallforeignjurisdictionsarefamiliarwiththisprocedureandthiscan
causecertainproblemsincountrieslikeFrancewhichismorefamiliarwiththe
legalizationprocess.Inthepast,I’vehadtosendbackforproperexecution
affidavitswhichhadbeensimplylegalized
SoallthesestepsIhavedescribedandalltheseproblemsIhave
encounteredobviouslytaketimenotnecessarilybecauseofasinglefactor
butbecauseofamultiplicityoffactorsinvolvingdifferentpeopleondifferent
continentshavingadifferentlegalenvironment.Nowforallthesereasons,
onewouldmaybewanttoexercisesomecautionbeforeimplementinga3
monthperiodforapartytofileitsevidencesincethismightputcertain
partiesinamostdifficultposition.Thoughitmightbesubmittedthatthetime
periodforpartiestofileevidenceispresentlytoolengthyintheoverall
process,reducingtheperiodtofileevidenceto3monthsmightbe
consideredsomewhatdrastic.
Anotherproposedchangeistoallowaffidavitsandstatutorydeclarationsto
bebasedoninformationandbelief.Itisarguedthatthiswouldfacilitatethe
preparationofevidenceintheshortenedtimeperiodsthatare
contemplated.Onemightrespondthatitisnotobvioustoseethelink
betweenallowingaffidavitsbasedoninformationandbeliefandthe
facilitationofthepreparationofevidencewithina3monthtimeperiod.
Obviously,theoppositionprocesscannotbeshortenedatallcosts,and
allowingaffidavitsbasedoninformationandbeliefmightopenthedoortoall
kindsofstatementsthatwouldrequirecross-examination.Asoutlinedinthe
FederalCourtRules,affidavitsshouldbeconfinedtosuchfactsasthewitness
isableofhisownknowledgetoprove.Inpractice,affidavitscurrentlyfiled
beforetheOppositionBoarddocontainfromtimetotimefactsbasedon
informationandbeliefandapartymaychallengethosefactsbywayof
cross-examination.
Thepresentpracticeallowsinmyviewacertainlatitudetopractitionersand
totheRegistrar.However,amendingtherulestospecificallyallowing
affidavitsbasedoninformationandbeliefmightbeinitiatingapathdowna
slipperyslope.Cautionshouldthereforebeexercisedbeforeimplementing
thischange.
Anotherproposedchangeistoprovideforordersforcross-examinationtobe
madeonlyinexceptionalcircumstanceswheretheneedforcross-



examinationhasbeenclearlyjustified.Somemightstatethatcross-
examinationisafundamentalrightwhichshouldnotbecurtailed,especiallyif
affidavitsoninformationandbeliefarenowtobeallowed.
However,underrule704oftheFederalCourtRules,cross-examinationisnot
anautomaticrightandapersoncanonlycross-examineanaffiantwith
leaveoftheCourt.AsimilarpolicymightbeimplementedattheRegistrar’s
levelinordertorejectthepurelydilatoryorfrivolouscross-examinations(for
exampletheaffidavitofthepersonsubmittingcertifiedcopiesof
registrations).TheRegistrarshouldhavethediscretiontorefuseanorderfor
cross-examinationincertainspecificinstancessuchastheexampleIhave
given.
Further,theproposedchangesdonotmentionanythingconcerningthetime
limitstoconductacross-examination.Obviously,thewholeattemptto
reducethedecisionprocessinoppositionproceedingsto12monthscouldbe
thrownasideiftherearevariouscross-examinationsinafile.Itismyown
experiencethatcross-examinationscanlastuptomanymonths,evenyears.
Therefore,timelimitsshouldbemaintainedtoconductcross-examinations
andthesetimelimitsshouldalsobesetforthepartywhohastoanswerto
variousundertakingsithastaken.Asmattersnowstand,cross-examinations
canbedraggedonforquitealongperiodoftimebecauseofaparty’s
inabilitytofiletherepliestoundertakingstakenduringacross-examination.
Inconclusion,Iwouldliketostatethatspeedshouldnotbethesole
considerationinimplementingtheproposedchangestotheTrade-Marks
Regulations.Sometimes,forvariousreasonsforwhichbothpartiesare
responsible,itisinnoone’sinteresttohaveaspeedydecision,forexample
whenthepartiesareinvolvedinworldwidelitigationalongwithsettlements
discussionsandCanadaisoneofmanyjurisdictionsinwhichthepartiesare
battlingitout.Iamgladtoseethatundertheproposedrulesextensionsof
timebyconsentwouldbegrantedwithinreasonablelimits.Ofcourse,these
reasonablelimitsarenotyetdefined.
Moregenerally,thereshouldbesomeroomundertheproposedrulesfor
extensionsoftime,evenwithouttheotherside’sconsent,ifcircumstances
warrantit.Whetherthesecircumstancesneedbeexceptionalisanother
questionwhichmightbelookedinto.Iftherehavebeensomeabusesor
excessesinthepastintermsofoppositionsbeingtoolengthy,Iwouldcaution
againststreamliningtheprocesssoastoignoringtherealitiesofdaytoday
practiceinoppositionmatters.
Finally,oneisnotverymuchadvancedifthewholeoppositionprocessis
settledwithinayearbutthisisfollowedbyanappealbeforetheFederal
Courtwhichcantakeupto2to3yearstosettle.



********



DepartmentofJustice
LegalServices
IndustryCanada
235QueenStreet
Room104C,1stFloorEast
Ottawa,Ontario,K1AOH5

Telephone:(613)954-5344
Fax:(613)941-2450
8May1996
RobertGould,President
PatentandTrademarkInstituteofCanada
c/oSmart&Biggar
P.O.Box2999,StationD
Ottawa,Ontario,K1P5Y6
DearMr.Gould:
IamwritingonbehalfoftheRegistrarofTrade-markstoseektheviewsofyourorganization
onimprovementsthatmightbemadetothetrade-marksoppositionprocessbywayof
amendmentstotheTrade-marksRegulations(1996)andchangestoOppositionBoard
practice.
Overthepastfewyears,manymembersofthetrade-marksprofessionhavecommented
thatoppositionprocedureshavebecometoocomplicated,toolengthyandtooexpensive
andthatstepsshouldbetakentosignificantlystreamlinetheprocess.Theproblemofdelays
inoppositionproceedingswasraisedatthelastmeetingoftheTrade-marksJointLiaison
Committeeandisagainontheagendafordiscussionatthenextmeeting.Further,towards
theendoftheconsultationsthattookplacefortheamendmentstothetrade-marks
regulationsthatcameintoforceonApril16,anumberofspecificsuggestionsweremadefor
amendmentstotheoppositionregulations.Largelyduetoalackoftimetogiveproper
considerationtotheimportantissuesthathavebeenraised,itwasdecidedtomakeonly
relativelyminorchangestooppositionproceduresintheTrade-marksRegulations(1996)and
toputasideanymorefundamentalchangesuntilaftertherehadbeenanopportunityfor
detailedconsultations.Thisletterisintendedasafirststepincarryingoutsuchconsultations.
Inordertoinitiatediscussionsonthissubject,Iputforwardthefollowingpossibleapproachto
streamliningtheoppositionprocess:
1.Incombinationwiththeextendedregulatorytimelimitsproposedbelow,havethe
OppositionBoardceaseitscurrentpracticeofvirtuallyautomaticinitialextensionsoftimefor
eachstageofanopposition,andinsteadadoptastrictpracticeofonlygrantingextensions
whereexceptionalcircumstancesareestablishedortheotherpartyconsents.
2.Amendsection39oftheRegulationstoprovideanapplicantwith2monthsafterbeing
forwardedacopyofastatementofoppositiontofileandserveacounterstatement.(This



wouldshortenthestandardtimeforfilingacounterstatementto2monthsfromthecurrent4
monthswhichismadeupofthe1monthperiodprovidedbysection39andthestandard3
monthextensionoftime.)
3.Insteadofthesequentialfilingofevidenceundersections41to43oftheTrade-marks
Regulations(1996),amendtheregulationstoprovidebothpartieswith3monthsfromthe
filingandserviceofthecounterstatementtosimultaneouslyfileevidence-in-chiefandthen1
monthfromthefilingandserviceoftheevidence-in-chieftofileevidencestrictlyconfinedto
mattersinreply.(Thiswouldshortentheperiodforfilingevidence,intheabsenceofconsent
orexceptionalcircumstances,to4monthsfromthecurrent18monthswhichismadeupof7
months,includingastandard6monthextension,forRule41evidence;7months,includinga
standard6monthextension,forRule42evidence;and5months,includingastandard4
monthextension,forRule43evidence.)
4.Amendtheregulationstoallowaffidavitsandstatutorydeclarationstobebasedon
informationandbelief.(Thiswouldfacilitatethepreparationofevidenceintheshortened
timeperiodsreferredtoinparagraph3above.)
5.Amendsubsection44(2)oftheTrade-marksRegulations(1996)toprovideforordersfor
cross-examinationtobemadeonlyinexceptionalcircumstanceswheretheneedforcross
examinationhasbeenclearlyjustified.
6.Amendsubsections46(1)to(3)oftheTrade-marksRegulations(1996)toprovideboth
partiessimultaneouslya)with2monthsfromtheexpiryofthe1monthperiodforfilingand
servingreplyevidence(referredtoinparagraph3above)tofileamainwrittenargument,
andb)with1monthafterthefilingandserviceofthemainwrittenargumentstofileafurther
writtenargumentstrictlyconfinedtomattersinreply.
7.Amendsection46(4)oftheTrade-marksRegulationstoeliminateoralhearingsinmost
casesandtoprovidefororalhearingsonlywheretheRegistrarissatisfiedthatthereare
exceptionalcircumstancesthatjustifytheholdingofanoralhearing.
8.AmendtheTrade-marksRegulations(1996)toclearlyallowoppositionevidencetobefiled
byfacsimileandtoallowalldocumentationtobeservedbyfacsimile.(Thiswouldalsohelp
thepreparationofevidenceintheshortenedtimereferredtoinparagraph3above.)
9.Amendsubsection37(2)oftheTrade-marksRegulations(1996)toprovidethatwhen
serviceiseffectedbyregisteredmailitshallbedeemedtobeeffectedonthetenthday
afteritwasmailed.(ThiswouldcorrespondtoFederalCourtRule313(2.1)andwouldensure
thataparty’schoicetoeffectservicebyregisteredmaildoesnotpenalizethepartybeing
servedinmeetingtheshortertimelimitssetoutabove.)
Undertheaboveproposal,exceptwherethepartiesagreeotherwise,thenormaltimetaken
foranoppositionproceedingfromadvertisementintheTrade-marksJournaluntilthecaseis
readyfordecisionwouldbereducedto12months,asshownbelow:
2monthsfortheopponenttofileastatementofopposition;1monthfortheOpposition
Boardtoreviewandforwardthestatementofoppositiontotheapplicant;2monthsforthe
applicanttofileandserveacounterstatement;3monthsforbothpartiestofileandserve
evidence-in-chief;1monthforbothpartiestofileandservereplyevidence;2monthsfor
bothpartiestofileandservetheirmainwrittenarguments;and1monthforbothpartiesto
fileandservereplywrittenarguments.

Wherethepartiesagreebetweenthemselvestoalongertimeframesuchaswhere
settlementnegotiationsaretakingplace,thiswouldbeaccommodatedwithinreasonable
limits.
YouwillnotethattheabovediscussionproposaldoesnotincludeanychangestotheTrade-
marksAct.ThisapproachissuggestedsinceamendingtheActwouldlikelytakemanyyears,
sincethereappearstobeageneraldesiretomakechangestotheoppositionprocessinthe
relativelyshorttermandsinceitappearsthatitshouldbepossibletoconsiderablystreamline
existingoppositionprocedureswithoutanystatutorychanges.
Inmakingtheaboveproposalfordiscussion,itisrecognizedthatthereiscurrentlya
considerableworkbacklogattheOppositionBoardandthat,beforeimplementinganysuch
changes,somemeanswouldhavetobefoundforreducingthebacklog.
Theabovediscussionproposalrefersonlytotrade-markoppositionproceduresbutmy
assumptionisthatcorrespondingchangeswouldalsobemadetotheobjectionprocedures
forgeographicalindicationsestablishedundersections53to61oftheTrade-marks
Regulations(1996)sincetheintentionhasbeentokeeptheseproceduresassimilaras
possible.
Iwouldappreciatereceiving,preferablybySeptember15,1996,yourcommentswithrespect
totheabovediscussionproposalandwithrespecttoanyotherapproach(includingfor
exampletheuseofmediationorarbitration)thatyouthinkshouldbeconsideredfor
improvingtheoppositionprocess.
AFrenchversionofthisletterisattached.Foryourinformation,thisletterisalsobeingsentto
theCanadianBarAssociation-IntellectualPropertySection;theCanadianChamberof
Commerce;AIPPI,CanadianGroupandFICPI,Canadaandacopyofthisletterisbeing
placedontheCIPOWebSiteathttp://info.ic.gc.ca/ic-data/marketplace/cipo/.
Yourssincerely,
(s)AlanTroicuk,
CounseltotheCanadianIntellectualPropertyOffice

ROBIC,ungrouped’avocatsetd’agentsdebrevetsetdemarquesdecommercevoué
depuis1892àlaprotectionetàlavalorisationdelapropriétéintellectuelledanstousles
domaines:brevets,dessinsindustrielsetmodèlesutilitaires;marquesdecommerce,marques
decertificationetappellationsd’origine;droitsd’auteur,propriétélittéraireetartistique,droits
voisinsetdel’artisteinterprète;informatique,logicielsetcircuitsintégrés;biotechnologies,
pharmaceutiquesetobtentionsvégétales;secretsdecommerce,know-howet
concurrence;licences,franchisesettransfertsdetechnologies;commerceélectronique,
distributionetdroitdesaffaires;marquage,publicitéetétiquetage;poursuite,litigeet
arbitrage;vérificationdiligenteetaudit;etce,tantauCanadaqu’ailleursdanslemonde.La
maîtrisedesintangibles.
ROBIC,agroupoflawyersandofpatentandtrademarkagentsdedicatedsince1892tothe
protectionandthevalorizationofallfieldsofintellectualproperty:patents,industrialdesigns
andutilitypatents;trademarks,certificationmarksandindicationsoforigin;copyrightand
entertainmentlaw,artistsandperformers,neighbouringrights;computer,softwareand
integratedcircuits;biotechnologies,pharmaceuticalsandplantbreeders;tradesecrets,
know-how,competitionandanti-trust;licensing,franchisingandtechnologytransfers;e-
commerce,distributionandbusinesslaw;marketing,publicityandlabelling;prosecution
litigationandarbitration;duediligence;inCanadaandthroughouttheworld.Ideaslive
here.
COPYRIGHTER
IDEASLIVEHERE
ILATOUTDEMÊMEFALLUL’INVENTER!
LAMAÎTRISEDESINTANGIBLES
LEGERROBICRICHARD
NOSFENÊTRESGRANDESOUVERTESSURLEMONDEDESAFFAIRES
PATENTER
R
ROBIC
ROBIC+DROIT+AFFAIRES+SCIENCES+ARTS
ROBIC++++
ROBIC+LAW+BUSINESS+SCIENCE+ART
THETRADEMARKERGROUP
TRADEMARKER
VOSIDÉESÀLAPORTÉEDUMONDE,DESAFFAIRESÀLAGRANDEURDELAPLANÈTE
YOURBUSINESSISTHEWORLDOFIDEAS;OURBUSINESSBRINGSYOURIDEASTOTHEWORLD