Newsletters

219

COVID-19 Intellectual Property Update: Delays, Extensions, Overrides, and… Trademark Applications?

April 21, 2020 — As with many government offices and legal institutions across the country, COVID-19, and the resulting workplace shifts, have had an impact on the processing times and delays for procedures passing through the Canadian Intellectual Property Office [CIPO]. Below we will provide a clear overview of the changes to take note of, as well as some interesting COVID-19 related news, that is worth keeping track of.

Changes to Processing Times, Office Hours, and Delays

  • As of March 16, the four regional CIPO offices in Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton, and Vancouver have stopped accepting correspondence. This leaves only the regional office in Ottawa, and the main CIPO office in Gatineau, open to receiving mail.
  • As of March 27, any statutory deadlines relating to patents, trademarks, and industrial design patents that would have fallen between March 16, 2020 and April 30 now have the deadline of the first business day following April 30. It is important to note that this delay may be extended as the situation surrounding COVID-19 in Canada develops.
  • As of March 30, any deadlines set under the Trademarks Act, Trademarks Regulations or by the Registrar for proceedings with the Trademarks Opposition Board that would have fallen between March 16 and April 30, 2020 now fall on May 1, 2020. Further, disruptions caused by COVID-19 have been recognised by the government as sufficient circumstances to obtain an extension on deadlines already set. It is important to note that this delay may be extended as the situation surrounding COVID-19 in Canada develops.
  • The CIPO Client Services Centre has ceased providing service, and plans to resume on April 30. Any requests sent to CIPO for documents will be processed in the order they were received (including those sent during the suspension) once services resume. It is therefore valuable to continue to send requests during the suspension to maintain one’s position in the processing order.
  • CIPO is strongly encouraging everyone to continue to use their online services wherever possible. Specifically, applications for or amendments to trademarks can be done online in the regular fashion.

Government Powers to Use Patented Inventions

On March 25, Bill C-13, An Act respecting certain measures in response to COVID-19, received Royal Assent. This bill gave, among other things, the government the power to use patented inventions useful for fighting COVID-19 without them being liable for patent infringement.

This power, which extends until September 30, 2020, allows the Minister of Health to ask the Commissioner to authorize the government to use a patented invention, and to notify the patent owner as well as set any remuneration they may be entitled to. The right lasts maximum one year, or less if the invention is no longer of use to the government.

COVID Trademark Applications, Five and Counting?

As of April 20, there are five formalized applications for trademarks in Canada containing the word “COVID” (and none for “coronavirus”). In comparison, there are 98 active applications using “COVID” in the United States, and 37 using “coronavirus”. Of the Canadian applications, one of these is for “Antimicrobial and antiviral preparations for sanitizing display screens of computers and mobile phones” and two others, both registered by the same law firm, are for medical services and vaccines, respectively.

Since the changes to the Trademarks Act in June of last year, it is no longer necessary to show “use” when applying for the registration of a trademark (for more about the changes to the act, check out our newsletter on the topic). This means that while a vaccine against COVID-19 is still at least many months away, someone legitimately planning on producing such a vaccine could hypothetically register the trademark now. The registrability of these trademarks is dubious however, since the registrant needs to demonstrate that the mark is not descriptive and is distinctive in some way. All five of the proposed trademarks filed in 2003 that incorporated the term “SARS” were ultimately abandoned.

As always, if you have any questions regarding any of the above, our Intellectual Property team is here to help you navigate this exceptional time. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to Richard Uditsky or Sydney Warshaw if you want to know more, or for any of your other intellectual property needs.

219

Articles in the same category

Ruin Finds a Reason

In Société d’assurance Beneva Inc. c. Ville de Sherbrooke, 2026 QCCA 1301, the Court of Appeal delivers a decision as concise as it is compelling on liability arising from the ruin of an immovable, in a case involving the rupture of a water main. Its impact could extend well beyond underground pipe failures. The Facts […]

There Is No Point in Submitting a Bid Without Conducting Your Research First

In 9329-0146 Québec Inc. (M. Potvin Excavation) v. City of Saint-Constant, 2026 QCCA 1199, the Quebec Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principles governing a contracting authority’s duty to provide information and a bidder’s corresponding duty to seek clarification where necessary. The Facts  In May 2020, the City of Saint-Constant issued a public call for bids […]

2026 World Cup: FIFA Can Commercialise the Tournament, But Not Trust

Introduction With 48 teams, 104 matches, three host countries and 39 days of competition, the 2026 World Cup was already destined to make history because of its sheer scale. On the field, with a transformed VAR system (Video Assistant Referee) and FIFA’s new regulations, every player action was subjected to microscopic scrutiny. Off the field, […]

An Insurer Is Not Required to Uncover What the Insured Was Required to Disclose

In Kayembe-Kabeya v. Industrielle Alliance, assurance et services financiers inc., 2026 QCCS 1714, the Superior Court sets the record straight on the principle of contractual “utmost good faith”. The Facts In September 2019, Ms. Ricady Mede (hereinafter “Mede”) purchased a life insurance policy from Industrielle Alliance (hereinafter the “Insurer”). A few months later, she died of […]

When it’s too late for latent defects…

The Superior Court recently rendered a judgment in Reinert v. Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc., 2026 QCCS 2276, dealing with timeliness to give notice in cases of latent defects. The Facts In 2013, Ms. Sylvie Reinert and Mr. Denis Leclerc retained Construction Maurice Bilodeau Inc. (“CMB”) for the construction of a residential building on a vacant lot in Lévis. […]

Insurance Math: One Claim, Two Fires, Three Points of Origin, Zero Recovery: When Circumstantial Evidence Speaks Louder Than a Confession

In Chatel v. Desjardins Insurance, 2026 QCCS 712, the Quebec Superior Court reaffirmed a principle of insurance law: direct evidence is not required to establish an intentional fault. Mr. Chatel claimed $532,000 under his homeowner’s insurance policy following two fires that occurred four days apart. The first caused partial damage to his residence, while the second […]