It is now a requirement in Iraq to make a request for examination, which appears to involve a search, prior to filing a trademark application. If the examination results are clear, an application can be filed together with the examination results, and the application will be accepted and proceed to publication immediately. If the results are not clear, an application can still be filed, however, it appears that an appeal will be necessary to try to overcome the negative aspects of the examination report.

In January 2015, the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) introduced the Request for Assistance (RFA) Program as part of an effort to crack-down on counterfeits crossing Canadian borders, to allow Intellectual Property Rights Holders the opportunity to institute legal action against any importer found through the program, and the ability to arrange for destruction of counterfeit products in a timely manner.

There has been lots of activity on disparaging marks in the United States and Canada. Most notable is the US Supreme Court decision in the Slants case dealing with the “disparagement” provisions of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act.  Other cases dealing with the "immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter” provisions of Section 2(a) are also making their way through the courts in the US. In Canada, there have been several cases before the courts and Human Rights Tribunals dealing with names and logos of sports teams. This article briefly looks at the outcome of these specific cases, as well as provisions of the Canadian Trademarks Act relevant to disparaging marks.

Becoming a successful IP practitioner requires becoming a trusted advisor – a person who others can rely upon to be competent, honest, loyal and kind. Even the most brilliant IP lawyer, patent and/or trademark agent will not be able to attract and maintain clients if they are not trusted by their clients. To earn and maintain clients’ trust, an IP practitioner must be trustworthy and credible when interacting with clients, bosses, partners, associates, support staff, examiners, judges, court staff, opposing counsel and everyone else with whom the practitioner interacts.

On February 8, in the Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction (Copibec) v. Université Laval case[1](hereafter “Copibec v. Université Laval”), Québec’s Court of Appeal authorized the Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction (“Copibec”) to undertake a class action lawsuit against Université Laval for violating copyright and moral rights. Copibec claims atotal amount of $4,081,830,subject to re-evaluation.