Legal and Technical Implications of Canadian Adherence to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement, draft dated Oct. 31, 2012

IPIC provided comments on the “overview of the legal and technical implications that Canadian adherence to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement would have for the functioning of the Canadian Industrial Design Office (CIDO) and for Canadian industrial design law” prepared by Alan Troicuk (Department of Justice)

IPIC's Position

IPIC inserted a variety of comments directly into the document, including that:

• IPIC strongly recommends that Canada not make a declaration under Article 4(1)(b) that international applications may not be filed through the ID Office
• ID Office could be the “competent authority” for providing attestations concerning changes in ownership
• It would be essential to enter international registrations designating Canada in the Canadian Industrial Design Register for clarity

IPIC strongly recommends that Canada require Canadian representation during the national refusal period