Bill C-31removes the requirement to use a trademark before it can be registered and the owner can be given exclusive rights.
Canadian Chamber of Commerce has sent out a call to action for its members against this section of C-31. We have since heard from chambers across the country, from Surrey to Gander to Northwest Territories, who are warning that this provision will increase business costs and risks in Canada, complaining about a lack of consultation from the government, and asking that the trademark provisions of C-31 be removed from the bill pending further study.
We are also hearing these concerns from numerous employers across Canada; everyone from the retailer Giant Tiger, food manufacturer Pepsi-Cola, and Canadian Institute of Plumbing & Heating.
The Canadian Bar Association also warned us that the provisions “…will cause such serious problems that we recommend they be removed”. Furthermore, it stated:
The CBA Section is not aware of any specific consultations with any interested parties on the effect of these amendments. It has been suggested that the change is at the request of [the] Canadian Intellectual Property Office and may be more driven by internal efficiency for the Trade-marks Office than protection of Canadian business interests. There is no apparent policy reason behind these changes, and the changes are not required to adhere to the Madrid Protocol nor the Singapore Treaty.
It continued that these provisions in C-31 would:
…have a negative impact on Canadian business. Canadian business people and those seeking to protect trademarks in Canada will face additional expense and economic disadvantage vis-à-vis business people in other jurisdictions.… At the same time that Canadian businesses face these increased costs and uncertainties, they will also likely face increased filing fees for separate class fees and more frequent renewals.
And finally they said:
An abrupt change from a use-based system, without consultation and analysis by stakeholders, serves only to disrupt the economic relationship between Canada and the U.S. CBA Section members have been contacted by the American Bar Association members who were shocked to hear that these changes were in progress.
To address these concerns, the Canadian Bar Association explicitly requested three amendments to re-reinstate the requirement for the applicant to use the trademark before obtaining a registration. We've introduced these as Liberal-18, 19, and 20, which amend clauses 330, 339, and 345 respectively. They also help address the very serious concerns we've heard from Canadian businesses from coast to coast to coast.
It's pretty obvious, Chair, that the business community both large and small is upset. It is upset from one end of the country to the other. They complain about the same things that the Canadian Bar Association is complaining about; i.e., there was no consultation, and interestingly the Bar Association also says that there is no policy reason behind these changes, and they are not required in order to adhere to the Madrid Protocol or the Singapore Treaty. And just to add insult to injury, you have the Americans upset as well.
As we read this, you have pretty well covered all of North America. It's kind of hard to do, to get done, apparently it's an accomplishment of some kind, but nevertheless it does seem to have generated a lot of commentary, all of which is negative, from all of the chambers and both the American and the Canadian bar associations.