C) Other requirements of the User Fees Act
International comparisons
Under the User Fees Act, a department's fees should be comparable to fees in other countries with which a comparison is relevant.
An international comparison reveals that the proposed new fees are not out of line with other countries and any substantial differences are to the advantage of the Canadian applicant or trademark owner. Proposed fees have been compared with those of Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe by way of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). These offices have been chosen as they have similar application, examination, registration and renewal procedures as those in Canada.
| Canada Proposed ($CDN) | United StatesFootnote 2 ($US ) | United KingdomFootnote 3 (£) | AustraliaFootnote 4 ($AU) | Europe (EUIPO,Footnote 6) ( € ) | New ZealandFootnote 7 ($NZ) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fee to file application |
$430Footnote 8 (paper) $330 (e-filing) Includes 1 class $100 for each additional class |
$375 per class (paper) $325 per class (e-filing) |
£200 (paper) £170 (e-filing) Includes 1 class £50 for each additional class |
$220 per class (paper) $200 per class (e-filing) |
€ 1000 (paper) € 850 (e-filing) Includes 1 class € 50 for the first additional class € 150 for each additional class exceeding 2 |
$172.50 per class (e-filing) |
| Renewal fee |
$500 (paper) $400 (e-filing) Includes 1 class $125 for each additional class |
$400 per class (paper) $300 per class (e-filing) |
£200 (paper & e-filing) Includes 1 class £50 for each additional class |
$350 per class (paper) $300 per class (e-filing) |
€ 1000 (paper) € 850 (e-filing) Includes 1 class € 50 for the first additional class € 150 for each additional class exceeding 2 |
$402.50 per class (e-filing) |
Fees as of April 24, 2016
Service standards
Under the UFA, CIPO is accountable to Parliament regarding its service standards and performance. If the organization does not meet its stated service standards by more than 10%, it is obligated by law to reduce its fees. This requirement gives assurance to trademark applicants and owners that once they pay a fee, they can expect CIPO to make every effort to meets its stated processing times.
The proposed service standards have been simplified and limited to requests where a fee has been paid by the client. CIPO followed the principle of one service, one fee, and one general commitment: that the service standard will be met at least 90% of the time. CIPO will be held accountable for the processing times on an annual basis, through ISED's Departmental Performance Report (DPR).
CIPO's proposed service standards are unique in that the other IPOs evaluated in this proposal do not provide service standards with respect to application processing, to providing a filing date and to treating requests for renewal in the same manner as CIPO. By way of example, the New Zealand office provides that 99% of decisions to accept, grant or register intellectual property rights made by the IPO will be upheld, but does not specify services nor does it provide a time standard against the services. Compared to those of other IPOs, CIPO's service standards for these particular services are more explicit and provide more meaningful information to applicants.
CIPO's existing service standards, as well as the proposed ones, are consistent with the TBS Policy on Service Standards for External Fees:
-
Relevant to the client: Service standards are consistent with client priorities (i.e. the timely registration of IP rights) and address aspects of the service they value most within available resources.
With the introduction of the Nice Classification, it is expected that requests, whether they are applications or renewals, will require more time to assess.
-
Based on consultation: Comments from applicants, the agent community, managers and employees have been positive in this regard and align with CIPO's mandate.
-
Measurable: Service standards are quantifiable and linked to CIPO's ongoing monitoring activities.
-
Ambitious but realistic: Service standards are realistic, based on analysis and consistent with objectives, yet sufficiently challenging to service providers.
The proposed processing time takes into account the volume and time required to examine the classification done by the client to ensure conformity. The addition of a service standard for renewal requests includes requests that require the examination of goods and services grouped according to Nice Classification. These standards are in line with the level of effort required to accomplish this task.
-
Communicated: Service standards are clearly communicated to clients, employees, and other stakeholders to help manage expectations.
-
Transparent: Service standards are monitored and reported to senior management on a monthly basis, and performance results are published in CIPO's annual report and in ISED's DPR to ensure transparency and client trust.
New proposed standards (not including postal delivery times, when applicable)
CIPO's existing trademark service standards
| Service | Commitment | Expectation |
|---|---|---|
| Application /Application to extend goods and services | ||
|
Issue filing date |
Within 7 business days upon receipt of an application that meets filing requirements including fees |
90% |
| Renew a trademark | ||
|
Renew a trademark where goods or services have not been previously grouped according to the classes of the Nice Classification |
Within 15 business days of receipt of the request to renew a trademark including fees where the goods or services have been previously grouped according to the classes of the Nice Classification. Within 3 months of the receipt of the request to renew a trademark including fees where the goods or services have not been previously grouped according to the classes of the Nice Classification. |
90% |