IPIC Committee Profile: Editorial Board of the CIPR

Published on August 7, 2020

IPIC’s monthly committee profiles showcase the volunteer work that our talented IPIC members are doing to grow the IP profession and share valuable knowledge with their peers across the country. This month, we sat down with Béatrice Ngatcha, the Editor of the Canadian Intellectual Property Review, to learn more about what the Editorial Board of IPIC’s CIPR committee has been up to this year.

IPIC: What is the committee’s mandate?

BN: The committee constitutes the Editorial Board of the Canadian Intellectual Property Review, a peer-reviewed journal focused on Canadian IP. Its members are all experienced IP professionals. The Board conducts a thorough review of each article submitted to the CIPR, making sure the article meets the required standards for publication. As the CIPR is a double-blind peer review journal, interactions between authors and reviewers during the review process proceed accordingly.

IPIC: What has the committee been able to accomplish over the past year?

BN: Since the last volume was published, the committee has received 21 articles, of which 5 have been ultimately accepted for publication. CIPR volume 35 comprising these articles is currently being printed, and each IPIC member will be receiving a copy within the upcoming month. In the meantime, the volume 35 articles are available online for free on the IPIC website.

IPIC: How does this committee’s work affect the Canadian IP profession as a whole?

BN: Through the committee’s work, articles covering various areas of intellectual property and of the highest quality are brought to the Canadian IP profession. These articles can be used as reference material in cases, to guide IP professionals’ development and to expand industry knowledge in general.

IPIC: How does the committee’s work advance the mission and vision of IPIC?

BN: The committee’s work contributes to maintain the high level of knowledge and training that Canadian IP professionals possess, which makes them trusted IP advisors in helping organisations understand and leverage the value of IP.

IPIC: What are some key milestones that the committee has been able to achieve?

BN: Taking the CIPR from a paper journal just a few years ago to a searchable digital journal was a key milestone that the committee was able to achieve. The online version is now available to all readers free of charge, not only IPIC’s members. This allows for a much wider audience and greater exposure for the articles’ authors.

IPIC: Which changes do you hope to see in the profession from the lens of this committee?

BN: We would like to see an increased number of Canadian IP professionals coming forward to share their knowledge and showcase their experience through articles, in order to create a more vibrant community. There is an incredible amount of diversity in the work that IP professionals do and the CIPR is the ideal platform through which to highlight it.

Special thanks to the hard work of the Editorial Board of the CIPR’s members this year, including:

Ann Carlsen

Jeilah Chan

Johanna Coutts

Meghan Dillon

Neil Fineberg

Robert Hendry

Mala Joshi

Athar K. Malik

Kelly McLellan

Beverley Moore

Marcel Naud

Béatrice Ngatcha

James Plotkin

Olivier Provost-Cao

Tamara Ramsey

Jennifer Sander

Andrew Skodyn

Abigail Smith

Margaret Ann Wilkinson

Marian Wolanski

Kevin Zive

February 14, 2025

Cleaning Out the Closet: The Trademarks Opposition Board is Reviewing the Register

Michael Badejo

Section 45 of the Trademarks Act has generally provided a way for trademark registration applicants and opponents to remove “deadwood”—unused and abandoned trademarks that were on the trademark register. This process was generally reserved for parties to begin and oversee. In December 2024, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) advised of a pilot project which would see TMOB initiate section 45 proceedings. The effect? TMOB can clear the register of deadwood without waiting for applicants or opponents to initiate the process. Michael Badejo, Lawyer at Fillmore Riley LLP, walks us through how these changes impact operating procedures, processes and directions for TMOB.

TopicsTrademarks

January 24, 2025

Practical implications of the Federal Court’s definition of “forced” divisional patent applications in NCS Multistage

Émilie Fleury

In NCS Multistage Inc. v. Kobold Corporation, 2023 FC 1486, the Federal Court revisited the question of what constitutes a “forced” divisional patent application—an important distinction given that forced divisionals enjoy immunity from double patenting allegations. This Emilie-Anne Fleury explores how the Court assessed whether certain divisional patents were truly “forced,” clarifies how voluntary versus forced divisions are treated under Canadian patent law, and highlights the practical considerations for patent applicants navigating unity of invention objections.

TopicsPatents

January 17, 2025

Unveiling the Canvas: Tackling the Issue of Counterfeit Indigenous Art in Canada

Melissa Tarsitano, AFSHAAN JIWAJI KAPASI

Art has always been a profound expression of culture, history, and identity. In Canada, Indigenous art stands as a vibrant testament to the rich heritage and diverse traditions of Indigenous peoples. However, amidst the celebration of this cultural wealth, a troubling issue looms large – the prevalence of counterfeit Indigenous art. Afshaan Jiwaji Kapasi & Melissa Tarsitano explore the complexities of counterfeit Indigenous art and offer opportunities to safeguard and authentically celebrate Indigenous art.

TopicsAnti-Counterfeiting Committee Indigenous

IPIC Committee Profile: Editorial Board of the CIPR

Related Articles

Cleaning Out the Closet: The Trademarks Opposition Board is Reviewing the Register

Practical implications of the Federal Court’s definition of “forced” divisional patent applications in NCS Multistage

Unveiling the Canvas: Tackling the Issue of Counterfeit Indigenous Art in Canada