Industrial Designs

Each Fashion Week marks a period of high visibility for the brands in the fashion industry, but it also exposes them to increased risks of copying, counterfeiting, and unauthorized uses. Patents, industrial designs, trademarks, and copyright can offer complementary protection, provided action is taken at the right time. Why Fashion Week increases the risks of copying and counterfeiting In the age of social media, Fashion Week represents much more than simple runway shows. As soon as they are unveiled on the catwalk, new collections circulate quickly in the media and can go viral within hours. Although this acceleration of the visibility cycle contributes to the excitement surrounding the most sought-after clothing items, it also exposes designers to an increased risk of reproduction and unauthorized uses of their new creations. In this context, it is important to know the right legal tools and take the necessary steps to protect one’s intellectual property rights. Identifying the value of creations to choose the right intellectual property protection Whether it involves a pattern, a logo, a shape, a brand affixed to a garment, or even a functional innovation, different forms of protection may be considered to prevent third parties from capturing the value of your creative efforts. Thus, reflecting on the source and value of your creation makes it possible to use the right legislative tools available to you. This article presents the main intellectual property regimes applicable to the fashion industry. Certain considerations should be kept in mind before launching a new collection. 1. Patents: Protecting technical innovations in the fashion industry Although, in the fashion industry, a product’s appearance often contributes to its commercial success, some brands also distinguish themselves through the technical solutions they incorporate into their creations. Examples include NIKE AIR shoes, Under Armour clothing for performance fabrics, and Gore-Tex. In this context, the patent regime can play an important role, since it is intended not to protect the aesthetics of a garment, but rather the functional innovation underlying it. Patents are useful for protecting a technical innovation. Examples include a manufacturing process, a new device, a composition of matter, or an improvement to any of these. In the clothing industry, innovations such as the zipper, Velcro, or certain waterproof fabrics clearly illustrate the type of invention that may be protected. The basic patent rules are that the invention must be new, non-obvious, and useful. The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) assesses the patent application and registers it only if it is satisfied that the invention meets, among other things, these criteria. A patent, if registered by CIPO, grants the exclusive right to exploit the invention for 20 years from the filing date. This protection can have significant commercial value, since it makes it possible to prevent third parties from making, using, or selling the protected invention. Because an invention is protected only in the countries where the patent is registered, the choice of those countries is important. One would no doubt protect certain inventions, such as heated fabrics, in Norway rather than Saudi Arabia. But they could also be protected in Turkey and India, because the invention could be manufactured in those countries. 2. Industrial designs: Protecting the appearance of a garment or accessory An industrial design makes it possible to protect the shape, configuration, pattern, ornamental features, or any combination of these features applied to a product. In short, it protects the appearance of a product. For example, Lululemon holds several industrial designs for its various clothing collections. Here is one example:1 To be registrable, the design must be new. Thus, if a pre-existing, publicly available design is reused,  even if it is successfully registered with CIPO, that design will be at risk of being invalidated because it is not new. Once the design is registered, the registration grants an exclusive right to make, sell, import for commercial purposes, offer, or display for sale or rent the registered design, a right that lasts for at least 10 years from registration or, if that date is later, until 15 years after the application was filed.  The more distinct your design is from what existed, the larger the scope of the protection will be. Thus, the designer must create distinctive and innovative garments, but also identify, before marketing, the visual elements that deserve protection. In the fashion industry, this type of protection can be particularly useful, since the value of a garment often lies in its appearance. For fashion items intended to remain on the market for a long period, registering an industrial design is the most effective way to prevent them from being copied by third parties. This protection varies from country to country. Thus, in the United States, reference is made to a “Design Patent” and, in Europe, to a design. As in the case of patents, the countries must be chosen carefully and registration must be completed. In some states, such as France, protection exists even in the absence of registration. Industrial design protection does not apply to purely functional features of a garment. In other words, if an element was designed primarily to serve a technical purpose, that utilitarian feature cannot be protected under industrial design law. It should be protectable by patent. Depending on the case, the same garment or accessory may also benefit from complementary protection under copyright or trademark law. 3. Trademarks: Protecting the distinctive signs of a fashion brand Trademark law protects the owner of a mark against the use, by a competitor, of a mark likely to create confusion as to the origin of the goods or services. In practice, a trademark is often what allows consumers to distinguish one product from another on the market. It is often the trademark affixed to a garment that makes it possible to sell a white T-shirt for $150 rather than $30. A trademark may consist, in particular, of a logo, common or invented words, or even a distinctive colour affixed to a garment, provided that the sign is distinctive and allows the consumer to identify the commercial source of the product. Trademarks may also take the form of position marks. These are marks in which the location of the sign on the product forms part of what is protected. For example, in Canada Adidas owns a mark consisting of three parallel stripes placed along the sleeve of a jacket. In that registration, the garment itself is not protected. It is shown only to indicate where the stripes are positioned. In other words, what is protected is not simply the presence of stripes, but their precise placement on the garment: 2  For businesses in the fashion industry, trademarks are often among their most valuable assets. Indeed, they represent the company’s image in the eyes of consumers, support its goodwill, and help preserve the value of its products in the marketplace. It is therefore important for these businesses to understand the scope of their rights in order to prevent confusion, combat counterfeiting, and limit harm to the value of their trademark(s). In Canada, a trademark may benefit from a certain degree of protection through use alone, even in the absence of registration. However, that protection remains more limited and, in practice, depends in particular on proof of goodwill and a likelihood of confusion in the relevant market. Registration therefore offers significant advantages, since it grants its owner, subject to validity, the exclusive right to use the mark throughout Canada in association with the listed goods and services, as well as more effective remedies against third parties who use a sign likely to create confusion for consumers. 4. Copyright: Protecting original patterns, prints, logos, and decorative elements In the clothing industry, certain creations may benefit from copyright protection, including logos, patterns, prints, or other original decorative elements. As a general rule, in Canada, an original work is protected as soon as it is created, without the need for registration. Protection usually lasts for the author’s lifetime and 70 years after death. Even in the absence of registration, the author will have rights. If the creation is made by an employee in the course of employment, the owner of the work will be the employer. However, copyright has certain lesser-known limits. When the work is a utilitarian article, such as a sweater, a belt, a cap, or a shoe, the Copyright Act may not apply. Thus, if the work is the design of a sweater and the sweater has been reproduced in more than 50 copies, the copyright owner of the design may prevent reproduction of the design, but may not prevent someone else from making the same sweater under the Act. The design should have been protected as an industrial design or, as some luxury watch companies do, reproduction should have been limited to no more than 50 copies. Needless to say, those watches are outrageously expensive! This exception does not apply to a logo, a trademark, or works that are simply affixed to a utilitarian article. For example, the owner of the copyright in the works of painter Riopelle may still prevent manufacturers of mugs or T-shirts from selling them, even if rights have been granted to the Guggenheim or the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts. Conclusion Creativity alone is not enough in the fashion industry; one must also know how to protect its fruits. Thus, having teams work while keeping protectable features in mind, so as to position the business properly in the market, will support the company’s growth. This strategy will also protect customers against the unpleasant surprises that may result from purchasing a product falsely presented as the original. What to remember A fashion collection may fall under several intellectual property regimes at once: patent, industrial design, trademark, and copyright. Timing is crucial: protectable elements must be identified before the launch or disclosure of a new collection. Protection must be considered by territory: in Canada, but also in the countries where the products will be sold, manufactured, or copied. Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Canadian Industrial Designs Database, LULULEMON ATHLETICA CANADA INC., industrial design registration no 231957. Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Canadian Trademarks Database: Canadian trademark registration number:  TMA757178,  3-STRIPES JACKET & DESIGN — 1382211.

Amendments to the Trademarks Act (“Act”) and the Trademarks Regulations (“Regulations”) will come into force on April 1, 2025. These amendments are aimed at preventing abusive practices, improving efficiency in trademark proceedings and clarifying certain practices. The main amendments are as follows: Cost awards The Registrar will have the power to award costs in trademark opposition proceedings, geographical indication opposition proceedings and summary expungement proceedings under section 45 of the Act.   Costs will not be awarded to compensate the successful party. This power is discretionary. That being said, costs will only be awarded at the request of a party; the amount of the prescribed fees is not discretionary; and costs will only be awarded in the following four (4) cases: Late cancellation of a hearing, that is, less than 14 days before the hearing date; Unreasonable behaviour resulting in undue delays or expenses. Various factors will be taken into account, including the general context, the duration and cause of the delay, the general behaviour of the other party and the extent of the expenses incurred by the other party. Certain behaviours may be deemed unreasonable, such as failing to attend a hearing or cross-examination without notifying the other party,  pursuing a ground of opposition that has no chance of success,  making disrespectful remarks or gestures, breaching a confidentiality order, as well as a series of acts that collectively amount to unreasonable behaviour; Decision upholding the refusal of an application for the registration of a trademark on the grounds of bad faith; Filing of a divisional application on or after the day that the original application is advertised (unless only one divisional application is submitted). The Registrar will issue the order as part of the decision rendered on the merits of the case, where applicable. Costs may be substantial, depending on the reason for which they are awarded. They could be as much as ten (10) times the fee set out for filing a statement of opposition. Confidentiality order While the principle of open courts proceedings is the rule that governs the Registrar, it is acknowledged that in some cases, specific interests must be protected. Consequently, a party that considers that there is a risk in disclosing certain facts or documents may request a confidentiality order and must, in such a case, demonstrate that redacting or describing certain information in more generalized manner would not be sufficient. Such orders are not intended to allow the adverse party to restrict access to certain information or documents, but rather to restrict the public’s access to them. A confidentiality order remains an exceptional measure and must therefore be requested sparingly and before the party requesting the order submits evidence.  If the evidence has already been submitted, the Registrar will not issue the order. This also means that the evidence should not be submitted at the same time as the request for an order is made. The Registrar will be guided, among other things, by the principles set out in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, to determine the merits of the request for a confidentiality order. Public access must pose a serious risk to a significant public interest that would otherwise be threatened. An order will only be issued if it is necessary to prevent such risk and if no other reasonable alternative exists. In addition, the benefits of granting the order must outweigh its negative effects. This Supreme Court decision also teaches us that direct evidence is not necessarily required to demonstrate a serious threat to a significant public interest, as the existence of harm can be established on the basis of logical inferences.   This process does not affect the timeline of the case, but it is possible to request an extension of time either before or at the same time as the request for confidentiality. In the absence of the other party’s consent, the Registrar will issue a letter requesting such other party’s representations. Should they fail to respond, the Registrar will render a decision. All of these exchanges will be made public, so evidence should not be included in them. Th confidentiality order may be cancelled or amended. In the event of non-compliance with the order, the injured party will have to appeal to the Federal Court. Where the Registrar’s decision containing such an order is appealed, it is imperative that the person for whom the order was issued apply to the Federal Court for a confidentiality order. Case management While the Registrar already issues case management decisions for efficiency and cost-effectiveness purposes, the amendments to the Regulations codify the Registrar’s authority to deal with matters as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit, in order to assist in moving forward complex cases relating to trademark and geographical indication opposition proceedings and summary expungement proceedings under section 45 of the Act. These “case-managed procedures,” allow the Registrar to set or change the time frame or manner in which a step must be completed, to schedule the steps, to deal with confidential aspects of files, to consolidate related cases and hold conference calls, and more. The Registrar must consider the circumstances of the case, including: the level of intervention likely required by the procedure to ensure that the matters are addressed efficiently and effectively; the nature and extent of evidence; the complexity of the proceeding; whether the parties are represented; the number of related cases; and whether substantial delay has occurred or is anticipated to occur in the conduct of the proceeding. Official marks Official marks are a type of mark with a very broad scope of protection in Canada. Once such a mark has been published, no person may, without the consent of the official mark owner, use or register an identical mark or a mark so nearly resembling as to be likely mistaken for that official mark for any goods or services. Moreover, official marks are not subject to renewal, so they can exist indefinitely.  To avoid unduly blocking new applications, a new mechanism is provided whereby the Registrar, on their own initiative or upon request, can deactivate official marks where the mark owner is no longer a public authority or has ceased to exist.  Such requests are subject to fees. Withdrawal of an opposition The Registrar is given greater latitude where, in their opinion, an opponent fails to pursue the trademark opposition. The Registrar may, after giving notice of the default to the opponent consider the opposition as withdrawn, unless the default is remedied within the time specified in the notice. Court proceedings A prerequisite is now required to institute proceedings before the Federal Court,under certain circumstances. The trademark owner must show that it has used the mark before asserting its rights before the courts where proceedings are filed within the first three years of its trademark registration, in cases where such proceedings allege infringement of a registered trademark or depreciation of goodwill. Thus, the owner of a registered trademark will only be able to obtain relief if the trademark was used in Canada within the first three years of registration, or if the absence of use in Canada was due to special circumstances that excuse such absence of use. Appealing the Registrar’s decision The new provision recognizes that the court may exercise any discretion vested in the Registrar when allowing the submission of evidence that was not provided before the Registrar. This provision requires leave of the court for the submission of evidence on appeal, to prevent minimal evidence from being presented at first instance and then supplemented on appeal. The administration of justice is best served when the court can settle a case as a whole at the earliest opportunity. Transitional measures The Registrar is expected to publish transitional measures on April 15 or after April 1, 2025. Conclusion In conclusion, the upcoming changes to the Act and the Regulations, effective April 1, 2025, represent a significant step towards enhancing the legal framework surrounding trademarks in Canada, thereby addressing the growing need for transparency and efficiency in this field. It is crucial for businesses and professionals in the sector to familiarize themselves with these changes to ensure compliance and optimize the management of their trademarks.

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and the fact that this human invention can now generate its own inventions opens the door to new ways of conceptualizing the notion of “inventor” in patent law. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (“UK Supreme Court”) however found that an artificial intelligence system cannot be the author of an invention within the meaning of the applicable regulations under which patents are granted. This position is consistent with that of several courts around the world that have already ruled on the issue. But what of Canada, where the courts have yet to address the matter? In this bulletin, we will take a look at the decisions handed down by the UK Supreme Court and its counterparts in other countries before considering Canada’s position on the issue. In Thaler (Appellant) v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Mark,1 the UK Supreme Court ruled that “an inventor must be a person”. Summary of the decision In 2018, Dr. Stephen Thaler filed patent applications for two inventions described as having been generated by an autonomous AI system. The machine in question, DABUS, was therefore designated as the inventor in the applications. Dr. Thaler claimed that, as the owner of DABUS, he was entitled to file patent applications for inventions generated by his machine. That being so, he alleged that he was not required to name a natural person as the inventor. Both the High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal dismissed Dr. Thaler’s appeal from the decision of the Intellectual Property Office of the United Kingdom not to proceed with the patent applications, in particular because the designated inventor was not valid under the Patents Act 1977. The UK Supreme Court, the country’s final court of appeal, also dismissed Dr. Thaler’s appeal. In a unanimous decision, it concluded that the law is clear in that “an inventor within the meaning of the 1977 Act must be a natural person, and DABUS is not a person at all, let alone a natural person: it is a machine”.2 Although there was no doubt that DABUS had created the inventions in question, that did not mean that the courts could extend the notion of inventor, as defined by law, to include machines. An ongoing trend The UK Supreme Court is not the first to reject Dr. Thaler’s arguments. The United States,3 the European Union4 and Australia5 have adopted similar positions, concluding that only a natural person can qualify as an inventor within the meaning of the legislation applicable in their respective jurisdictions. The UK ruling is part of the Artificial Inventor Project’s cross-border attempt to ensure that the DABUS machine—and AI in general—is recognized as a generative tool capable of generating patent rights for the benefit of AI system owners. To date, only South Africa has issued a patent to Dr. Thaler, naming DABUS as the inventor.6 This country is the exception that proves the rule. It should however be noted that the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission of South Africa does not review applications on their merits. As such, no reason was given for considering AI as the inventor. More recently, in February of this year, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a guidance on AI-assisted inventions. The guidance confirms the judicial position and states in particular that “a natural person must have significantly contributed to each claim in a patent application or patent”.7 What about Canada? In 2020, Dr. Thaler also filed a Canadian patent application for inventions generated by DABUS.8 The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) issued a notice of non-compliance in 2021, establishing its initial position as follows: Because for this application the inventor is a machine and it does not appear possible for a machine to have rights under Canadian law or to transfer those rights to a human, it does not appear this application is compliant with the Patent Act and Rules.9 However, CIPO specified that it was open to receiving the applicant’s arguments on the issue, as follows: Responsive to the compliance notice, the applicant may attempt to comply by submitting a statement on behalf of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) machine and identify, in said statement, himself as the legal representative of the machine.10 To date, CIPO has issued no notice of abandonment and the application remains active. Its status in Canada is therefore unclear. It will be interesting to see whether Dr. Thaler will try to sway the Canadian courts to rule in his favour after many failed attempts in other jurisdictions around the world, and most recently in the UK Supreme Court. At first glance, the Patent Act11 (the “Act”) does not prevent an AI system from being recognized as the inventor of a patentable invention. In fact, the term “inventor” is not defined in the Act. Furthermore, nowhere is it stated that an applicant must be a “person,” nor is there any indication to that effect in the provisions governing the granting of patents. The Patent Rules12 offer no clarification in that regard either. The requirement implied by the clear use of the term “person” in the wording of the relevant sections of the law is important: It was a key consideration that the UK Supreme Court analyzed in Thaler. Case law on the subject is still ambiguous. According to the Supreme Court of Canada, given that the inventor is the person who took part in conceiving the invention, the question to ask is “[W]ho is responsible for the inventive concept?”13 That said, however, we note that the conclusion reached was that a legal person—as opposed to a natural person—cannot be considered an inventor.14 The fact is that the Canadian courts have never had to rule on the specific issue of recognizing AI as an inventor, and until such time as the courts render a decision or the government takes a stance on the matter, the issue will remain unresolved. Conclusion Given that Canadian law is not clear on whether AI can be recognized as an inventor, now would be a good time for Canadian authorities to clarify the issue. As the UK Supreme Court has suggested, the place of AI in patent law is a current societal issue, one that the legislator will ultimately have to settle.15 As such, it is only a matter of time before the Act is amended or CIPO issues a directive. Moreover, in addition to having to decide whether AI legally qualifies as an inventor, Canadian authorities will have to determine whether a person can be granted rights to an invention that was actually created by AI. The question as to whether an AI system owner can hold a patent on an invention generated by their machine was raised in Thaler. Once again, unlike the UK’s patent act,16 our Patent Act does not close the door to such a possibility. Canadian legislation contains no comprehensive list of the categories of persons to whom a patent may be granted, for instance. If we were to rewrite the laws governing intellectual property, given that the main purpose such laws is to encourage innovation and creativity, perhaps a better approach would be to allow AI system owners to hold patent rights rather than recognizing the AI as an inventor. Patent rights are granted on the basis of an implicit understanding: A high level of protection is provided in exchange for sufficient disclosure to enable a person skilled in the art to reproduce an invention. This ensures that society benefits from such inventions and that inventors are rewarded. Needless to say, arguing that machines need such an incentive is difficult. Designating AI as an inventor and granting it rights in that respect is therefore at odds with the very purpose of patent protection. That said, an AI system owner who has invested time and energy in designing their system could be justified in claiming such protection for the inventions that it generates. In such a case and given the current state of the law, the legislator would likely have to intervene. Would this proposed change spur innovation in the field of generative AI? We are collectively investing a huge amount of “human” resources in developing increasingly powerful AI systems. Will there come a time when we can no longer consider that human resources were involved in making AI-generated technologies? Should it come to that, giving preference to AI system owners could become counterproductive. In any event, for the time being, a sensible approach would be to emphasize the role that humans play in AI-assisted inventions, making persons the inventors rather than AI. As concerns inventions conceived entirely by an AI system, trade secret protection may be a more suitable solution. The professionals on our intellectual property team are at your disposal to assist you with patent registration and provide you with a clearer understanding of the issues involved. [2023] UKSC 49 [Thaler]. Ibid., para. 56. See the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Thaler v Vidal, 43 F. 4th 1207 (2022), application for appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States dismissed. See the decision of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office in J 0008/20 (Designation of inventor/DABUS) (2021), request to refer questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal denied. See the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Commissioner of Patents v Thaler, [2022] FCAFC 62, application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia denied. ZA 2021/03242. Federal Register: Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions. CA 3137161. Notice from CIPO dated February 11, 2022, in Canadian patent application 3137161. Ibid. R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4. SOR/2019-251. Apotex Inc.v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd., 2002 SCC 77 at paras. 96–97. Sarnoff Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 712, para. 9. Thaler, paras. 48–49, 79. Ibid., para. 79.

Before delving into the topic, let’s begin with a definition. Official marks are statutory instruments specific to Canadian practice. They are not trademarks per se, but are treated similarly, because they are adopted and used by a limited group of organizations including universities, Canadian public authorities and Her Majesty’s Forces.1 In this article, we will be focusing on Canadian public authorities. There are several hundred marks in the Register belonging to public authorities, including the federal and provincial governments, government agencies and municipalities. Unlike traditional trademarks, official marks do not protect specific goods or services, but instead cover all classes of goods and services. They may even be descriptive, as they are not required to be distinctive. Moreover, they are not registered in the usual sense of the word. Instead, a notice of adoption is simply published in the Trademarks Journal. One unique feature of official marks is that they are not subject to a renewal process. They can therefore remain in the Register indefinitely. That being so, official marks may hinder the registration of a trademark filed subsequently, unless the public authority concerned voluntarily withdraws the notice of adoption of its official mark. Lastly, it is important to note that official marks are not subject to examination or opposition proceedings. In other words, the Registrar of Trademarks (the “Registrar”) makes no official verification as to their validity or compliance with the standard registration criteria. Thus, because of the extensive protection afforded to official marks, they appear to be virtually unassailable. But is that really the case? The Registrar considers that they have no discretion to refuse to give public notice of an official mark, unless it has not been registered by a Canadian public authority or such authority has not adopted or used its official mark at the time of filing its application. When the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) was amended in June 2019, trademark professionals were hoping that the criteria providing these marks with extensive protection would be revised. However, Parliament chose not to undertake an in-depth review of the laws governing official marks. That being said, the Office of the Registrar did provide some clarification in October 2020 as to its practice regarding official marks. First, since 2020, the Registrar requires evidence of public authority status. This change was made further to several comments on the questionable status of certain so-called “public authorities.” The decision in Ontario Association of Architects v. Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario (C.A.), 2002 FCA 218, clearly states that for a body to qualify as a public authority, the government must exercise a significant degree of control over its activities, particularly as relates to its governance and decision-making, and such activities must benefit the public.  Given that the laws governing public authorities have been in force for several decades, it is reasonable to assume that many published official marks are no longer held by public authorities or no longer meet the criteria defining a public authority. What is the proper way to respond to an opposition based on the resemblance between an official mark and a trademark? The options are limited. It is important to remember that subsection 9(1) of the Act states that no person shall adopt in connection with a business, as a trademark or otherwise, any mark consisting of, or so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for, an official mark. The test is not based on a likelihood of confusion, as is the case when examining the likelihood of confusion between two trademarks. Instead, it is based on resemblance. Trademark professionals may argue that the applied-for mark is not identical or so similar to the official mark as to be confused with it. Another option—mainly in cases where the applied-for trademark is identical or very similar to an official mark—is to seek the consent of the official mark’s owner to use and register the trademark. In some cases, however, contacting a public authority may prove difficult, either because it no longer exists, or because it simply will not respond to requests for consent. Some public authorities ask for financial compensation in exchange for their consent. Can an official mark be contested? For the time being, there is no simple mechanism for contesting an official mark. The process of publishing a public notice of an official mark is not subject to opposition proceedings. Third parties have the option of contesting an official mark by means of an appeal or an application for judicial review to the Federal Court. They may do so in cases where an official mark was not adopted and used before the public notice was issued, or the body in question is not considered a public authority, or the official mark infringes on another mark. However, it should be noted that such proceedings are costly and take time. So what does the future hold? While the laws governing official marks remain essentially intact, some amendments are expected. The Canadian legislative authorities intend to add two new sections to the Act, namely sections 9(3) and 9(4). The purpose of these amendments is to clarify that even where a public notice has been issued concerning an official mark, such notice does not apply if the entity that requested it is not a public authority or no longer exists. In such circumstances, the Registrar may, on their own initiative or at a person’s request, give public notice that section 9 does not apply. Our understanding is that the Registrar will have new powers, including that of requesting—either on their own initiative or at the request of a person who pays the prescribed fee—that a so-called official mark be invalidated should its owner fail to respond to the Registrar’s notice requiring evidence of public authority status. This amendment to the Act should be introduced shortly. On another note, there were some interesting decisions handed down in 2023. KASAP TURKISH STEAKHOUSE & Design: The decision in The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System and EDAM Ltd., 2023 TMOB 161, clearly establishes the limitations of official marks when it comes to assessing the likelihood of confusion between two marks. The Board of Regents of the University of Texas opposed the application for the trademark KASAP TURKISH STEAKHOUSE & Design (hereinafter “Kasap”): in particular, on the grounds that the Kasap mark bore such a resemblance to the official mark of the University of Texas that it could be confused with its official mark as shown below: However, as previously mentioned, when assessing the resemblance between a trademark and an official mark, particular attention is paid to the similarity between the marks. The Trademarks Opposition Board concluded that the applicant’s applied-for mark did not resemble the official mark as to be likely to be mistaken for it, despite the presence of an image of a longhorn cow’s head in both marks. The distinctiveness of the word “KASAP” in the applicant’s mark was deemed sufficient to distinguish the two marks. As such, the opposition was rejected. A mark that includes an official mark along with other elements does not “consist of” that official mark. Via Rail Canada Inc. and Via Transportation, Inc., 2023 TMOB 155  This decision concerns an opposition filed by Via Rail Canada Inc. (the Opponent and owner of an official mark) against a trademark application submitted by Via Transportation, Inc. (the Applicant). The application was for the mark “VIA & Design” as shown below: for use in association with the transportation of passengers and related mobile application software and telecommunication services. The Opponent opposed the application based on an allegation that the mark caused confusion with its trademarks, official marks and trade names containing the word “VIA” and used in association with its national railway services and related goods and services. Ultimately, the Applicant’s application was rejected in part because the Applicant’s mark was not registrable under section 12(1)(e), as it was deemed too similar to the Opponent’s official “VIA” mark, which was likely to cause confusion. The hearing officer summarized the resemblance test as follows in paragraph 106: The resemblance test under section 9(1)(n)(iii) of the Act differs from a standard confusion analysis in that it requires a likelihood that consumers will be mistaken as between the marks themselves rather than a likelihood that consumers will be confused as to the source of the goods or services. In short, the general consensus is that the laws governing official marks in Canada could certainly use a thorough revision, one that would help weed out any marks cluttering up the register of official marks that no longer fit the definition. Examples of university official marks: Université de Montréal (0910712), Universität Heidelberg (0923735), Louisiana State University (0923069). It should be noted that universities are not required to be Canadian to request publication of an official mark. The Armed Forces have adopted several marks on behalf of Her Majesty, including PORTE DAUPHINE (0903172) & Design, SKY HAWKS (0903269) and CORMORANT & Design (0903170). More specifically, we refer to sections 9 and following of the Trademarks Act.