CIPO’s examination backlog—the Madrid effect

A backlog of trademark applications awaiting initial substantive examination by CIPO has developed over the past few years.  Can the backlog be quantified, apart from anecdotal evidence?  Yes it can—by working with CIPO’s trademark .xml data.

Union Labels

Union labels were introduced by An Act to amend the Trade Mark and Design Act (1927) 17 George V c. 71.  Only 14 examples—just 2 of which are currently active—remain in CIPO’s online trademark database and .xml data, this being one of them (see TMDA42786):

General vs. Specific Marks

In An Act respecting Trade Marks and Industrial Designs (1879) 42 Vict. c. 22, Canada required “The proprietor of a trade mark applying for its registration [to] state in [the] application whether the said trade mark...is intended to be used as a general trade mark or as a specific trade mark¹.”  That distinction was dropped from the application requirements set forth² in the Unfair Competition Act (1932) 22-23 George V c. 38 (the successor to 42 Vict. c. 22).  However, the Unfair Competition Act grandfathered the distinction for previously registered marks³ as did the current statute⁴.  The distinction accordingly lives on—well over a century later—in 136 general marks and 1,709 specific marks which are currently active on the Canadian trademarks register (as of 05-Apr-2021).

Working With CIPO’s ‘Delete’ Files

CIPO’s weekly trademark .xml data releases often include a so-called ‘delete’ file in addition to the weekly ‘update’ file(s).  By processing each week’s ‘delete’ file one can easily stay in sync with CIPO’s online trademark database.  In contrast, it is more cumbersome to stay in sync with CIPO’s online patent database.

Where are the Agents?

CIPO’s online trademark database does not expose trademark agent details as searchable fields.  To investigate such details one must use CIPO’s .xml data, as I will demonstrate in this post.