Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 76-90 of 198
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Industry committee  Currently, only the Federal Court has the jurisdiction to correct any errors on the trademark register. The goal of Bill C-8 is to give the registrar the ability to correct errors without going to the Federal Court. Right now the circumstances are such that even if an error is determined right after a filing, in order to have it corrected once it's on the register, the commissioner of trademarks or the trademark owner has to go to Federal Court to have that correction made.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  We would be very pleased to provide that information to the committee, if that would be acceptable.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  We do have somebody from CIPO here. If the committee would like to ask them to come to the table, they could potentially answer that question.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  Fundamentally, under the scenario where a file is destroyed, there has already been an assessment that it has no business value, and in that context, it's not free to digitize records and it could be quite expensive. So effectively, the crown would be incurring a cost on an on-going basis to undertake the digitization and then the perpetual storing of files for which there is no business value.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  Yes, I think that determination would be made, and six years would provide a window for a contact to happen. But, for example, if someone has made a determination not to renew their trademark, then effectively that is a form of communication. They're signalling to CIPO that there is no value to that and they're not going to be renewing it.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  I would need to check with CIPO in terms of whether they would be keeping statistics on how many files. I wouldn't know that.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  I have just a couple of points. This part of the act would provide the Canadian Intellectual Property Office with the flexibility to destroy trademark records six years after a file is no longer active, and once it is determined that the records have no business, legal, or financial value.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  The point that you made about the gloves is exactly the point that Mr. Lake was making, which is the fact that they haven't selected gloves, and that protected gloves does not mean that their brand would not be impacted if gloves bearing the Canada Goose trademark appeared on the marketplace.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  I'll refer to the three amendments as NDP-5, G-4, and LIB-2. On NDP-5, I recall that when the committee heard from the generics industry, they made the argument that there was a risk when modernizing the legislation that the existing jurisprudence around trademarks in the pharmaceutical sector could be disrupted, and there could be an extension of trademarks to companies that may not have qualified before.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  It follows along very nicely on the discussion we were having. This amendment proposes to provide clarity that the information that is shared between border officials and rights holders can be used for the purposes of reaching an out-of-court settlement. This goes to the point that was just raised by Mr.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  Yes. Basically, a lot of the legal community that represents rights holders right now advise us that this is frequently how they clear goods at the border. They were concerned when they first read the bill that we hadn't made it explicit that an out-of-court settlement was one of the reasons for which the information could be provided.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  Just to make it clear, it would be permitted under the act.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  Are you asking if the importer...? Because in that situation, the court could award compensatory damages to the rights holder for the cost of detention and destruction.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  That's providing they have money.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha

Industry committee  So they have the value of having the goods removed from the market in that case. That's one thing. Secondly, they do receive information as part of the exchange with customs officials. To the extent that they can arrive at an out-of-court settlement with the importer, there's nothing that prohibits that from happening.

December 2nd, 2013Committee meeting

Paul Halucha