{"id":53671,"date":"2026-09-28T14:19:00","date_gmt":"2026-09-28T18:19:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/?p=53671"},"modified":"2026-09-28T15:22:47","modified_gmt":"2026-09-28T19:22:47","slug":"intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/","title":{"rendered":"Intellectual property in Canada: Protecting and enforcing your IP assets"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong>Who this is for: <\/strong>GCs, CTOs, brand managers, and IP counsel at foreign companies entering the Canadian market, licensing technology into or out of Canada, acquiring Canadian businesses with IP portfolios, or filing patents, trademarks, or copyright registrations in Canada.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The assumption that costs foreign IP owners the most:<\/strong> Foreign companies entering Canada most commonly make three IP mistakes: they assume their US or European trademark registrations protect them in Canada. They do not, as Canada requires a separate filing and the registration system changed significantly in 2019; they assume their US patent portfolio covers their Canadian operations. It does not, as Canadian patents must be obtained separately, claim construction differs, and the 2026 Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) guidance on software and AI patentability diverges materially from US practice); and they assume copyright works the same way as at home. It largely does, but moral rights, which cannot be assigned, only waived, create obligations in every content licence and assignment that are routinely overlooked by foreign companies using US-style documentation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Canada&#8217;s IP landscape is also moving faster than at any point in the past decade. The April 2025 trademark amendments, the March 2026 CIPO patent guidance on software and AI, and the introduction of AI disclosure requirements before the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) have all changed the practical landscape for IP owners operating in Canada. This article addresses both the foundational framework and the current developments that affect strategy right now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>In this article<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-columns is-layout-flex wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-28f84493 wp-block-columns-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow\">\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"#introduction\">Introduction<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"#recent-developments\">Key recent developments: 2025\u20132026<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"#copyright\">Copyright<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"#trademarks\">Trademarks<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-column is-layout-flow wp-block-column-is-layout-flow\">\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"#patents\">Patents<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"#confidential\">Confidential information and trade secrets<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"#takeaways\">Key takeaways<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-layout-flex wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/\">Read more on Doing Business in Canada<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\" id=\"introduction\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" style=\"padding-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">1. Introduction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Intellectual property rights are indispensable business assets and often represent a significant portion of corporate value. Intellectual property assets are now central to financing, mergers and acquisitions, licensing, franchising, technology commercialization, brand expansion and cross-border transactions. Businesses entering or operating in Canada should therefore understand the principal categories of intellectual property protection available under Canadian law and the ways in which these rights are created, registered, licensed, enforced and transferred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p id=\"recent-developments\">This chapter introduces three key types of intellectual property rights of particular importance to doing business in Canada: copyright, trademarks and patents. Other forms of intellectual property protection in Canada include industrial designs, plant breeders\u2019 rights, trade secrets, confidential information and integrated circuit topography rights. Each type of intellectual property right has a distinct purpose, scope and term. One form of intellectual property protection should not be used to improperly extend the life or scope of another right after that right has expired.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">2. Key recent developments: 2025\u20132026<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Foreign companies with existing IP portfolios and those planning to file in Canada need to be aware of several recent developments that have materially changed Canadian IP practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Trademarks \u2014 April 1, 2025 amendments<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Canada&#8217;s most significant IP reforms during 2025\u20132026 focused on trademarks, modernization of dispute procedures, and adapting IP systems to AI and emerging technologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">a. Trademarks (April 1, 2025)<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>New trademark owners must generally prove use in Canada (or special circumstances excusing non-use) before obtaining court remedies during the first three years after registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Parties appealing TMOB decisions must obtain leave to introduce new evidence in the Federal Court. The TMOB gained powers to award costs, issue confidentiality orders, and case-manage proceedings. New procedures allow challenges to certain obsolete official marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">b. AI disclosure before the TMOB \u2014 June 4, 2025<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>The TMOB introduced a requirement to disclose the use of generative AI in certain submissions and confirm that AI-generated content and authorities have been reviewed and verified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\">c. Patents \u2014 CIPO Practice Notice, March 24, 2026<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p id=\"copyright\">CIPO issued updated guidance on the patentability of software, AI, and computer-implemented inventions, revising how patentable subject matter is assessed.&nbsp; Canadian IP law is increasingly focused on actual use, procedural efficiency, transparency, and the treatment of AI-related issues, while providing stronger tools for legitimate rights holders to protect and enforce their IP. The 2026 guidance introduces a two-step test: purposive construction of claims followed by a physicality requirement. The &#8220;actual invention&#8221; analysis that featured in the 2020 guidance has been eliminated and folded into purposive construction. For software and AI inventions, the physicality requirement is now the central battleground: where a computer is the only physical element, CIPO examiners apply the Schlumberger question, whether the claimed contribution extends beyond the mere use of a computer. Claims to software per se remain non-patentable. For the first time, CIPO has included a worked example addressing machine learning. Foreign companies with software, AI, or computer-implemented inventions should have their Canadian patent strategy reviewed against the 2026 guidance before filing or requesting examination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">3. Copyright<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Rights and obligations with respect to copyright in Canada are governed by the <em>Copyright Act<\/em> and related regulations. Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not ideas themselves. Copyright may subsist in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, as well as computer programs, compilations, cinematographic works, performer\u2019s performances, sound recordings and communication signals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Under Canadian law, copyright protection arises automatically when an original copyright-protected work or other subject matter is created, provided the statutory requirements are met. Registration is not required for copyright to subsist, although registration can provide procedural and evidentiary advantages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">a. Copyright test<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Canadian copyright requires originality. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that an original work must be more than a mere copy and must result from an exercise of skill and judgment involving intellectual effort. Canadian law therefore rejects a pure \u201csweat of the brow\u201d standard based only on labour or industriousness. The European Union\u2019s approach is whether the work is the \u201cauthor&#8217;s own intellectual creation\u201d. The United Kingdom is following the European Union standard for determining originality. The United States applies the \u201cindependent creation plus a modicum of creativity\u201d standard. The difference between the \u201cskill and judgment\u201d and \u201cauthor&#8217;s own intellectual creation\u201d standard for originality is subtle but important. Although the two tests often produce similar outcomes, they reflect different conceptions of originality. In Canada, the focus is on whether intellectual effort was applied, not whether the work reflects the author&#8217;s personality or creative expression. The EU test asks whether the work is the author&#8217;s own intellectual creation, meaning the author made free and creative choices in producing the work. The inquiry is less concerned with effort and more concerned with creativity. The work must reflect choices that were not dictated by technical constraints, functional requirements, external rules, or inevitability. The distinction becomes most visible in compilations, databases, and technical materials. Those are precisely the categories where Canada&#8217;s skill and judgment standard may provide somewhat broader protection than a strict author&#8217;s own intellectual creation analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">b. Scope and term of copyright<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In general, copyright in a work lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. Canada extended the general term from life plus 50 years to life plus 70 years effective December 30, 2022. Different rules may apply to certain subject matter, including sound recordings, performer\u2019s performances and communication signals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">c. Copyright ownership and infringement<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The first owner of copyright is generally the author of the work, subject to statutory exceptions and agreements. Where a work is created by an employee in the course of employment, copyright will generally vest in the employer unless there is an agreement to the contrary. Canada does not recognize the same broad \u201cwork made for hire\u201d doctrine that exists in the United States, and assignments and waivers should be documented carefully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Canada does not recognize the same broad &#8220;work made for hire&#8221; doctrine that exists in the United States. In the United States, a commissioning party can, in certain circumstances, be deemed the author and first owner of copyright from the moment the work is created. In Canada, an independent contractor is generally both the author and first owner of copyright, and ownership passes to the client only through a valid assignment. Canada does not recognize a broad work-for-hire doctrine for independent contractors. This is one of the most significant differences for foreign companies using US-style IP agreements in Canada. Foreign companies that rely on their standard US independent contractor agreements, which typically include a work-for-hire clause, need Canadian-specific IP assignment provisions to ensure that IP created by Canadian contractors vests in the company. Assignments and waivers must be documented carefully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The copyright owner has the sole right to produce or reproduce the work or any substantial part of it, to perform or communicate the work in public, and to publish the work where applicable. Unauthorized exercise of these rights may constitute infringement. The <em>Copyright Act <\/em>also contains exceptions and user rights, including fair dealing for purposes such as research, private study, education, parody or satire, criticism or review and news reporting, as well as other statutory exceptions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">d. Copyright registration<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Copyright registration in Canada can generally be completed online. Registration requires basic information such as the title, category of work or subject matter, names of owners and authors, publication status and the applicable fee. Registration is not determinative, but it provides prima facie evidence that copyright subsists and that the registrant is the owner. For foreign companies with significant content assets deployed in Canada, registration is a low-cost step that provides meaningful evidentiary and procedural advantages in enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">e. Moral rights<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Moral rights are the area of Canadian copyright law that most consistently surprises foreign companies using US content agreements. Under Canadian copyright law, moral rights are the personal rights that protect an author&#8217;s connection to their work and preserve the author&#8217;s reputation and the integrity of the work. They are separate from the economic copyright rights that govern reproduction, distribution, and licensing. Critically, moral rights cannot be assigned, they can only be waived. A copyright assignment should therefore include an express moral rights waiver where appropriate. The <em>Copyrights Act<\/em> provides that the author of a work has: (i) the right to the integrity of the work; (ii) the right of attribution (to be associated with the work by name or pseudonym); and (iii) the right to remain anonymous, where reasonable in the circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">f. Collective societies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p id=\"trademarks\">A number of Canadian collective societies administer copyright licensing and royalty collection in particular sectors. Participation may assist owners and users where collective licensing is available or commercially practical. Foreign companies distributing content in Canada should assess whether collective licensing applies to their specific use case, mandatory tariffs administered by collective societies may apply to certain reproductions, performances, and broadcasts regardless of whether the foreign company has a direct licensing relationship with the rights holder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">4. Trademarks<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>In Canada, trademarks are governed by the <em>Trademarks Act<\/em>. A trademark is generally a sign or combination of signs used or proposed to be used by a person for the purpose of distinguishing that person\u2019s goods or services from those of others. A trademark creates an association in the minds of consumers between the mark and a particular source of goods or services. The value of a trademark lies principally in the goodwill generated through use, reputation and consumer recognition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Foreign companies should not assume that US, EU, or other international trademark registrations provide any protection in Canada. Canada requires a separate trademark filing. A mark that has been used and registered in the US for decades has no legal protection in Canada until it is filed and registered here, or until sufficient Canadian use and reputation has been established to support common law rights. Companies entering Canada should file trademark applications as early as possible in their market entry planning, not after launch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">a. Types of trademarks<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Traditional trademarks include words, names, letters, numbers, designs, symbols and combinations of these elements. Canadian law also recognizes non-traditional trademarks, including three-dimensional shapes, modes of packaging, sounds, scents, tastes, textures, colours, moving images, holograms and other signs capable of functioning as trademarks. Certification marks may also be registered to indicate that goods or services meet a defined standard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">b. Modern registration practice: what changed in 2019 and why it still matters<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Canadian trademark registration practice changed significantly on June 17, 2019. Applicants generally no longer need to identify a filing basis, provide dates of first use or file a declaration of use before registration. This lowered the procedural threshold for obtaining registration, but it did not eliminate the importance of use in Canadian trademark law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Use remains important because it supports goodwill, priority, distinctiveness, enforcement and resistance to non-use cancellation. A registration that issues before the mark has been used in Canada may still face practical and legal limitations, particularly in enforcement proceedings, opposition or invalidity proceedings, and non-use cancellation proceedings under section 45 of the <em>Trademarks Act<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><thead><tr><th>Registration issue<\/th><th>Pre-modernization practice<\/th><th>Current practice<\/th><th>Business impact<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Filing basis<\/td><td>Use, proposed use, making known or foreign registration\/use often mattered at filing.<\/td><td>No filing basis is generally required.<\/td><td>Easier filing, but more watch, clearance and opposition risk.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Use before registration<\/td><td>Proposed-use applications required a declaration of use.<\/td><td>No declaration of use is required before registration.<\/td><td>Unused registrations may still be vulnerable in practice.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Classification<\/td><td>Nice Classification was not mandatory in the same way.<\/td><td>Goods and services must be classified under the Nice Classification.<\/td><td>Class-based fees affect filing and renewal budgets.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>International filings<\/td><td>Canada was outside the Madrid Protocol.<\/td><td>Canada participates in the Madrid Protocol.<\/td><td>Canadian applicants and foreign applicants can use Madrid strategically.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Term<\/td><td>Older registrations had 15-year terms.<\/td><td>Registrations now have 10-year renewable terms.<\/td><td>Renewal docketing and portfolio budgeting must be updated.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Comparison of pre-modernization and current Canadian trademark registration requirements and their business impacts.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">c. Nice Classification and Madrid Protocol<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Goods and services in Canadian trademark applications must be grouped according to the Nice Classification. &nbsp;The Nice Classification (NCL) is the international system used to classify the goods and services covered by trademark applications and registrations into 45 categories or classes of goods and services. It is administered by WIPO under the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks. The Nice Classification is closely tied to the Madrid Protocol. An international application filed through the Madrid Protocol must classify all goods and services according to the Nice Classification. WIPO reviews the classification before forwarding the application to designated countries. Filing and renewal fees are class-based, so careful drafting of goods and services is important. The Madrid Protocol is an international treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) that allows a trademark owner to seek protection for a trademark in multiple countries through a single international application. Canada is also a member of the Madrid Protocol. Madrid designations are still examined under Canadian registrability requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Foreign companies with international trademark portfolios should assess whether extending a Madrid Protocol application to Canada is more cost-effective than a direct Canadian national application, but should be aware that Madrid designations are still examined under Canadian registrability requirements, and a Canadian objection will need to be addressed through Canadian trademark prosecution regardless of how the application was filed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">d. Trademark examination<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In Canada, the trademark examination process by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office is generally divided into two stages: (i) formality examination and (ii) substantive examination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>The purpose of formality examination<\/strong> is to determine whether the application complies with the procedural and filing requirements of the <em>Trademarks Act<\/em> and <em>Trademarks Regulations<\/em>, for procedural compliance. The Formalities Section reviews matters such as: the applicant identity and address; Representation of the trademark; correct classification of goods and services under the Nice Classification; payment of required fees; whether the application satisfies the minimum filing requirements necessary to obtain a filing date; and compliance with technical filing requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Substantive examination<\/strong> addresses whether the trademark is legally entitled to registration under the <em>Trademarks Act<\/em>. Examiners conduct searches and review the application for registrability issues such as: (i) distinctiveness; (ii) descriptiveness; (iii) likelihood of confusion with earlier trademarks, potentially relevant official marks or prohibited marks; and (iv) requirement to describe the goods and services with specificity and in ordinary commercial terms, i.e. using words or phrases that are commonly used in trade or commerce to describe: (i) the nature of the goods or services; and (ii) their quality, characteristics, function, purpose, or intended use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading has-medium-font-size\" style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">i. Distinctiveness<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">Distinctiveness is central to Canadian trademark registration and enforcement. A trademark is distinctive when consumers understand it as identifying a single commercial source rather than merely describing the goods or services, their quality, geographic origin, features, function or other ordinary characteristics. A mark may be inherently distinctive because of its nature, or it may acquire distinctiveness through use and promotion in the Canadian marketplace. CIPO may object where a mark appears not to be inherently distinctive. Marks that commonly attract distinctiveness scrutiny include descriptive or laudatory wording, geographic terms, names or surnames, letters or numbers, colours, product shapes, packaging configurations, textures, scents, tastes, moving images, holograms and common industry designs. Applicants may need to provide evidence that the mark had acquired distinctiveness in Canada as of the relevant date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading has-medium-font-size\" style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">ii. Descriptiveness<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">Descriptiveness refers to a trademark that directly describes a characteristic, quality, feature, function, purpose, or geographic origin of the goods or services. Under the <em>Trademarks Act<\/em>, a trademark is generally not registrable if it is clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of the character or quality of the goods or services. A mark is clearly descriptive if the average consumer would immediately understand something about the goods or services from the mark itself. A mark is deceptively misdescriptive if it describes a feature or characteristic that the goods or services do not possess. Trademark law aims to distinguish one trader&#8217;s goods or services from those of others. If a business could monopolize ordinary descriptive words, competitors would have difficulty accurately describing their own products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading has-medium-font-size\" style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">iii. Confusion<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">The Examiner searches the Trademarks Register and pending applications to determine whether the applied-for mark is confusing with: (i) earlier registered trademarks; (ii) earlier-filed trademark applications; and (iii) potentially relevant official marks or prohibited marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">The confusion analysis is conducted under the <em>Trademarks Act<\/em> and considers the following statutory factors regarding the marks at issue: (i) distinctiveness; (ii) extent known; (iii) length of use; (iv) nature of the goods\/services; (v)&nbsp; channels of trade; and (6) degree of resemblance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">e. Approval and advertisement and opposition<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>If all objections are overcome, the examiner approves the application. The application is then: advertised in the Trademarks Journal; and opened for opposition by third parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A trademark opposition is an administrative proceeding before the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) in which a third party seeks to prevent a trademark application from proceeding to registration. The opposition occurs after the application has been approved by a CIPO examiner and advertised in the Trademarks Journal. Trademark opposition serves as a mechanism for parties whose rights may be affected by a pending application to challenge registration before the mark is registered on the basis that the applied-for mark is confusing with the opponent&#8217;s: (i) registered trademark; (ii) pending trademark application; or (iii) previously used trademark or trade name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">f. Bad faith<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Bad faith in trademark law generally refers to the filing, prosecution, or use of a trademark application for an improper purpose that is inconsistent with honest commercial practices. Bad faith is an express ground of opposition and invalidity. &nbsp;The <em>Trademark Act<\/em> does not define &#8220;bad faith.&#8221; Canadian courts and the Trademarks Opposition Board have treated it as a flexible concept that depends on the particular facts and the applicant&#8217;s conduct and intentions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It may be relevant where an application appears to have been filed for an improper purpose, such as trademark squatting, blocking a competitor without a legitimate commercial rationale, or appropriating another party\u2019s mark or reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">g. Official marks and prohibited marks<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Canadian law prohibits adoption and use of certain official marks and prohibited marks, including certain arms, crests, flags, emblems and marks whose use could suggest a connection with public authorities or the Crown. Official marks remain broad, but recent amendments introduced a mechanism for the Registrar, on request or on the Registrar\u2019s own initiative, to give public notice that the statutory prohibition no longer applies where the holder is not a public authority or no longer exists. Businesses should therefore assess official mark barriers carefully but should not assume every historical official mark is practically unchallengeable. April 2025 amendments introduced a mechanism for the Registrar to give public notice that an official mark&#8217;s prohibition no longer applies where the holder is not a public authority or no longer exists. Businesses facing official mark barriers should assess whether the holder still qualifies as a public authority before assuming the mark is unchallengeable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">h. Trademark opposition proceeding<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>A trademark opposition is an administrative proceeding that allows a third party to challenge a trademark application before it becomes a registered trademark in Canada. Opposition proceedings are heard by the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB), a specialized tribunal within the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Once a trademark application has been examined and approved by CIPO, it is published in the Trademarks Journal. Any person who believes the trademark should not proceed to registration may file an opposition within the prescribed opposition period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Trademark applications are commonly opposed on grounds such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Confusion with an existing trademark or trade name;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Lack of distinctiveness;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The mark being descriptive or otherwise unregistrable;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The applicant is not entitled to register the mark; or<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The application having been filed in bad faith<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The opposition process generally follows these steps:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Statement of Opposition<\/strong>: The opponent files its objections to the application.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Counter Statement<\/strong>: The applicant responds and confirms its intention to defend the application.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Evidence Stage<\/strong>: Both parties submit evidence, which may include affidavits, declarations, sales figures, marketing materials and evidence of use and reputation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Written Arguments<\/strong>: The parties provide legal submissions supporting their positions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Oral Hearing (Optional)<\/strong>: Either party may request a hearing before the TMOB.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Decision<\/strong>: The TMOB issues a written decision determining whether the application may proceed to registration.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p>Opposition proceedings provide trademark owners with an effective mechanism to protect their brands before a conflicting trademark reaches registration. They are generally more efficient and less costly than court proceedings and are an important component of a comprehensive trademark enforcement strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">i. New AI disclosure requirement before the Trademarks Opposition Board<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Effective June 4, 2025, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires parties to disclose when generative artificial intelligence (AI) has been used to create content in documents filed in opposition proceedings, section 45 non-use proceedings, and geographical indication objection proceedings.<sup data-fn=\"863d2dce-7cc5-44f0-9e01-793170f6197c\" class=\"fn\"><a href=\"#863d2dce-7cc5-44f0-9e01-793170f6197c\" id=\"863d2dce-7cc5-44f0-9e01-793170f6197c-link\">1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Where AI has been used to generate content, the filing party must include a declaration at the beginning of the document confirming that AI was used and that all AI-generated content and cited authorities have been reviewed and verified by the party or its trademark agent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The requirement applies to materials such as AI-drafted written submissions and legal authorities identified through generative AI tools. However, it generally does not apply to routine technology-assisted functions such as voice-to-text software, document editing tools, or objective database searches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">j. Registered trademarks<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>If no opposition is filed (or any opposition is unsuccessful), the mark proceeds to registration. The owner of a registered trademark is granted the exclusive right to use the trademark throughout Canada in association with the goods and services listed in the registration. A registered trademark provides rights across all of Canada, even in areas where the owner has not yet commenced business operations. A registration also serves as prima facie evidence that: (i) the owner owns the mark; (ii) the mark is validly registered; and the owner has exclusive rights to the mark in connection with the registered goods and services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Registrations are renewable for successive 10-year terms. Trademarks may be refused registration if, among other things, they are likely confusing with prior marks, clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive, primarily merely names or surnames, prohibited or official marks, not distinctive, or filed in bad faith. For Canadian trademark prosecution, opposition, and infringement matters, confusion is generally understood as the likelihood that an ordinary consumer, with an imperfect recollection of a prior trademark, would infer from a first impression that the parties&#8217; goods or services originate from the same source or are otherwise commercially associated. The essence of confusion is therefore source confusion\u2014whether consumers would infer a common source, sponsor, owner, or business connection between the parties&#8217; goods or services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">k. Common law trademarks<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Registration is not strictly required for trademark protection in Canada. Rights may arise through use and reputation. &nbsp;A common law trademark is an unregistered trademark that acquires legal protection through use in the marketplace, rather than through registration under the <em>Trademarks Act<\/em>. In Canada, trademark rights can arise both through registration and through actual use of a mark in association with goods or services. Common law rights develop when a business uses a trademark and the mark becomes known to consumers as identifying the source of particular goods or services. Protection is based on the goodwill and reputation established through use. Unlike a registered trademark, common law rights are not automatically national in scope. They are generally limited to: (i) the geographic area where reputation has been established; and (ii) the goods and services with which the mark has become known. &nbsp;The proprietor of a common law trademark may enforce those rights through an action for passing off, provided it can establish reputation, confusion, and resulting damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For foreign companies with significant Canadian sales but no Canadian trademark registration, common law rights provide some protection, but the geographic limitation means that enforcement outside established markets is uncertain. Registration should be the goal for any company with ongoing Canadian operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">l. Trademark infringement, depreciation of goodwill and passing off<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark or trade name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark in a manner that interferes with the trademark owner&#8217;s exclusive right to use the mark and is likely to cause confusion among consumers regarding the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of goods or services. To establish infringement, the plaintiff generally must show: (i) ownership of a registered trademark; (ii) use by the defendant of a trademark or trade name; (iii) a likelihood of confusion between the marks; and (iv) damages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Only the owner of a registered trademark can sue for statutory trademark infringement under sections 19 and 20 of the <em>Trademarks Act<\/em>. Owners of unregistered trademarks generally rely on a passing off claim instead. Under section 19 of the <em>Trademarks Act<\/em>, registration gives the owner the exclusive right to use the trademark throughout Canada in association with the registered goods and services. Section 20 provides that infringement occurs where a person who is not entitled to use the trademark sells, advertises, distributes, imports, exports, manufactures, or otherwise deals in goods or services in association with a confusing trademark or trade name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Section 22 of the <em>Trademarks Act<\/em> creates a distinct cause of action separate from infringement. It prohibits the use of another person&#8217;s registered trademark in a manner likely to depreciate the value of the goodwill attached to that mark, even where there is no likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A successful trademark owner may obtain: (i) injunctions; (ii) damages; (iii) &nbsp;accounting of profits; (iv) delivery up or destruction of infringing goods; and (v) a cost award.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Passing off is a common law cause of action that protects the goodwill and reputation associated with an unregistered or common law trademark, trade name, business name, or other distinctive indicia. It prevents one trader from misrepresenting its goods, services, or business as those of another. In Canada, passing off exists both at common law and is partially codified in section 7(b) of the <em>Trademarks Ac<\/em>t. To establish passing off, the plaintiff must prove goodwill, a misrepresentation causing confusion, and actual or likely damage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">m. Amendments affecting contentious trademark proceedings<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Amendments in force April 1, 2025 added important procedural tools before the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB), including authority to award costs in prescribed circumstances, issue confidentiality orders and case-manage proceedings. These amendments are intended to improve efficiency, protect confidential information and discourage undesirable conduct such as undue delay or unnecessary expense. The practical result is that TMOB proceedings are becoming more similar to court litigation, with greater emphasis on proportionality, procedural efficiency, and consequences for abusive conduct. From a brand owner&#8217;s perspective, the changes are generally favourable because they provide additional tools to enforce rights, discourage abusive conduct, protect sensitive evidence, and streamline contentious proceedings before the TMOB.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group is-layout-flow wp-block-group-is-layout-flow\">\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading has-medium-font-size\" style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">i. Power to award costs<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">The Registrar may now award costs in: (A) Trademark opposition proceedings; (B) Section 45 non-use expungement proceedings; and (C) Geographical indication proceedings. In addition, where an application is refused on the ground that it was filed in bad faith, costs may be awarded against the applicant. &nbsp;Costs may be imposed for conduct causing undue delay or expense, such as: (A) frivolous positions; (B) procedural abuse; (C) failure to participate properly in proceedings; or (D) other unreasonable litigation conduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading has-medium-font-size\" style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">ii. Confidentiality orders<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">The Registrar now has authority to issue confidentiality orders protecting confidential evidence from public disclosure. Opponents and applicants may now be more willing to submit detailed commercial evidence relevant to acquired distinctiveness, goodwill, reputation and confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading has-medium-font-size\" style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">iii. Case management<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">The Registrar now has explicit authority to manage the proceedings before the TMOB. &nbsp;These powers allow the Registrar to: (A) set schedules; (B) coordinate related proceedings; (C) manage evidence deadlines; (d) Streamline procedural disputes; and (E) reduce unnecessary delay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading has-medium-font-size\" style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">iv. Official marks reform<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">A significant contentious change is the new ability to seek removal or limitation of certain official marks through procedures administered by the Registrar. An official mark is a mark adopted and used by a Canadian public authority, such as: Government departments; Municipalities; Crown agencies; Universities; Certain regulatory bodies; and other qualifying public authorities. Unlike ordinary trademarks, official marks historically enjoyed broad protection because they did not need to be renewed; They were not vulnerable to non-use cancellation proceedings; they could block registration of similar marks across virtually all goods and services; and they could remain in force indefinitely. The most important reform is the creation of a procedure allowing the Registrar to give public notice that the prohibition associated with an official mark no longer applies in certain circumstances. If the entity that owned the official mark has ceased to exist, the Registrar may effectively remove the barrier created by the official mark. &nbsp;If the organization no longer qualifies as a public authority under Canadian law, the official mark protection may be terminated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading has-medium-font-size\" style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">v. Enforcement of a trademark within 3 years of registration<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">Effective April 1, 2025, owners of trademark registrations that are less than three years old must generally demonstrate use of the registered trademark in Canada, or establish special circumstances excusing non-use, before obtaining relief in court for infringement or other specified violations of the <em>Trademarks Act<\/em>. The amendment is intended to prevent enforcement of unused registrations and underscore the continuing importance of trademark use in Canada.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">The April 1, 2025, amendments introduced s. 53.2(1.1) of the <em>Trademarks Act<\/em>. Which provided that \u201cIf, within a period of three years beginning on the date of registration of a trademark, the owner of the registered trademark makes an application claiming that an act has been done contrary to section 19, 20 or 22, the owner is not entitled to relief unless the trademark was in use in Canada at any time during that period or special circumstances exist that excuse the absence of use in Canada during that period.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading has-medium-font-size\" style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">vi. Appeals to the Federal Court<\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p id=\"patents\" style=\"padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">Effective April 1, 2025, parties appealing a decision of the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) to the Federal Court no longer have an automatic right to file new evidence. Instead, they must first obtain the Court&#8217;s permission (leave) before additional evidence can be introduced on appeal. Under the new section 56(5) of the <em>Trademarks Act<\/em>, a party wishing to submit new evidence must first persuade the Federal Court that the evidence should be admitted. The amendment is intended to improve the efficiency and finality of trademark proceedings. It encourages parties to present their strongest evidence during the TMOB proceeding rather than treating an appeal as an opportunity to supplement the record or effectively re-litigate the dispute.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">5. Patents<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Patents in Canada are governed by the <em>Patent Act<\/em> and <em>Patent Rules<\/em>. A patent grants the owner an exclusive right, privilege and liberty to make, construct, use and sell the claimed invention for a limited term. For most patents filed on or after October 1, 1989, the patent term is 20 years from the filing date, subject to applicable maintenance requirements and limited statutory exceptions or extensions where available.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Foreign companies with US or international patent portfolios should confirm that their Canadian coverage is in place before Canadian operations begin. US patents provide no protection in Canada. A product or process that is patented in the US can be freely copied, used, and sold in Canada by competitors unless a separate Canadian patent has been obtained. Canadian patent prosecution involves its own examination process, claim construction standards, and, as of March 2026, a materially different approach to software and AI patentability than the USPTO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">a. Patentability test<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>To be patentable, an invention must generally be novel, useful, non-obvious and directed to patentable subject matter. If one of these elements is missing, a patent may not issue or may later be declared invalid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">b. Patentable subject matter<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Patent rights may protect physical products, machines, manufactures, compositions of matter, processes and improvements. Canadian law excludes certain subject matter, including mere scientific principles and abstract theorems. Case law and CIPO practice also address complex issues involving methods of medical treatment, higher life forms, business methods, diagnostic methods, computer-implemented inventions and artificial intelligence-related inventions. Patentability in these areas is fact-specific and often depends on whether the claimed invention provides a practical application or technical solution rather than an abstract idea or disembodied scheme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">c. Patent prosecution in Canada<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Patent prosecution in Canada requires active deadline, claim-count and response management. Examination is not automatic. For most applications, examination must be requested within four years of the filing date. Failing to request examination by the deadline may result in a notice and, if not addressed, abandonment consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For applications where examination is requested on or after October 3, 2022, excess claim fees apply to claims over 20 at the request-for-examination stage and may also be payable at final fee based on the highest number of claims pending during examination for which excess claim fees were not already paid. This has made claim-count management more important in Canadian prosecution strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Canada now also has a request for continued examination framework for applications subject to the amended rules. After prescribed numbers of examiner\u2019s reports, an applicant may be required to request continued examination and pay the prescribed fee to continue prosecution. CIPO may issue a conditional notice of allowance where only minor defects remain, allowing the applicant to correct those defects or provide argument and pay the final fee within the prescribed period. For applications filed on or after July 1, 2022, nucleotide or amino acid sequence listings must comply with WIPO Standard ST.26 where required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-base-2-background-color has-background has-regular-font-size\" style=\"margin-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);margin-bottom:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-bottom:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\"><strong>Business implication<\/strong>: Canadian patent applications should be reviewed before requesting examination to manage claim count, align the claim set with commercial objectives, avoid unnecessary fees and ensure prosecution arguments do not create avoidable litigation risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">d. Patent rights and validity challenges<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>An issued patent enjoys a presumption of validity, but validity may be challenged on grounds such as anticipation, obviousness, lack of utility, non-patentable subject matter, ambiguity, improper inventorship, abandonment, failure to reinstate and material misrepresentation. Patent rights are subject to statutory exceptions, including specific exceptions for temporary presence of foreign vessels, aircraft and vehicles, and other limited exceptions under the <em>Patent Act<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">e. Patent infringement and claim construction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Patent infringement analysis begins with construction of the patent claims. Canadian courts apply purposive construction to identify the essential and non-essential elements of each claim through the eyes of the skilled person, having regard to the common general knowledge and the patent specification. Claim construction is undertaken before considering infringement or validity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Canadian claim construction remains grounded in the patent specification. However, the historical statement that prosecution history or file wrapper evidence is categorically unavailable must now be qualified. Section 53.1 of the<em> Patent Act<\/em> permits written Canadian prosecution communications to be admitted in limited circumstances to rebut a representation made by the patentee regarding claim construction. Patent applicants should therefore avoid unnecessary admissions or overstatements during prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Infringement will generally not be found if an essential element of a claim is omitted or substituted in the allegedly infringing product or process. If only non-essential elements are varied, infringement may still be found. Remedies for patent infringement may include damages, an accounting of profits, injunctive relief, delivery up or destruction and pre-judgment or post-judgment interest, depending on the circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">f. Patent licenses, transfers and assignments<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>A patent owner may license patent rights in whole or in part. Patent licences are generally governed by contract, subject to applicable statutory requirements, competition law considerations and any compulsory licensing regimes that may apply in limited circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p id=\"confidential\">Patent rights and patent applications may also be transferred. Current CIPO practice distinguishes between recording the fact of a transfer, recording a change of name and registering related documents. A request to record a transfer should identify the application or patent, the transferee and the required information, and should be accompanied by the prescribed fee. Supporting evidence may be required depending on who makes the request, but the older blanket statement that an assignment must be registered with an affidavit of a subscribing witness should be removed from modern guidance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">6. Confidential information and trade secrets<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>When businesses think about intellectual property, patents, trademarks, and copyright often come to mind first. However, some of a company&#8217;s most valuable assets may never be registered with any government office. Customer lists, pricing strategies, proprietary processes, source code, manufacturing methods, research data, product roadmaps, and business know-how can all be protected as confidential information or trade secrets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Confidential information is information that is not publicly available and that has value because it is kept secret. It can include technical, commercial, financial, operational, or strategic information that provides a business with an advantage over competitors. Examples include customer and supplier lists; pricing information and profit margins; business plans and growth strategies; market research and product development data; proprietary software and source code; manufacturing processes and technical know-how; research and development information; and internal policies, procedures, and methodologies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A trade secret is generally considered a particularly valuable form of confidential information that derives economic value from its secrecy. Well-known examples include secret formulas, specialized manufacturing techniques, proprietary algorithms, and unique business processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Unlike patents, trade secrets do not require registration and can potentially last indefinitely. As long as the information remains secret and reasonable steps are taken to protect it, legal protection may continue without a fixed expiration date.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In Canada, trade secrets and confidential information are primarily protected by common law, equitable obligations of confidence, contractual obligations (NDAs and confidentiality clauses), employment law duties, and, in Quebec, the Civil Code. Unlike the US, the EU, or the UK, Canada has no comprehensive federal Trade Secrets Act. Protection arises from the circumstances of disclosure and the steps taken to maintain secrecy, which means that a foreign company that does not actively implement confidentiality protections in Canada may find that its trade secrets are unprotected even if they would be protected under a statutory regime at home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Canadian courts have long recognized that businesses should be able to protect confidential commercial information from misuse by employees, former employees, contractors, business partners, competitors, and other recipients of confidential disclosures. Canadian courts generally apply a three-part test: (i) the information must be confidential; (ii) it must have been communicated in confidence; and (iii) the recipient must have misused it to the plaintiff&#8217;s detriment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Former employees remain free to use the knowledge and expertise they have acquired throughout their careers. They cannot, however, generally take and use an employer&#8217;s trade secrets, customer databases, proprietary pricing information, source code, or other confidential materials for competitive purposes. Businesses should ensure that employment agreements clearly address confidentiality obligations, intellectual property ownership, and post-employment responsibilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Businesses should use confidentiality agreements, invention assignment agreements, access controls, cybersecurity measures and exit protocols to protect proprietary information, source code, algorithms, customer lists, pricing data, know-how and technical processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What to do before your first Canadian hire or contractor engagement<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Ensure employment agreements expressly address confidentiality obligations, IP ownership, and post-employment responsibilities, Canadian employment law does not imply the same IP assignment and non-compete protections that exist in some US states<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Use NDAs, invention assignment agreements, access controls, cybersecurity measures, and exit protocols to protect proprietary information from the outset of Canadian operations<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li id=\"takeaways\" style=\"padding-bottom:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">In Quebec, trade secret and confidentiality protections are governed by the Civil Code, ensure agreements are reviewed for Quebec-law enforceability if employees or contractors are based in Quebec<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-group has-base-2-background-color has-background is-layout-constrained wp-container-core-group-is-layout-173e2ddb wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\" style=\"padding-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-right:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-bottom:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium);padding-left:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Practical takeaways<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table><thead><tr><th>Intellectual property right<\/th><th>Key update<\/th><th>Business response<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Trademarks<\/strong><\/td><td>Use is no longer generally required before registration, but remains critical to enforcement and portfolio strength.<\/td><td>File strategically, monitor the register, preserve use evidence and oppose problematic filings early.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Distinctiveness<\/strong><\/td><td>CIPO may object to marks that do not appear inherently distinctive.<\/td><td>Choose stronger marks where possible and collect Canadian evidence of acquired distinctiveness.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Patent prosecution<\/strong><\/td><td>Request-for-examination deadlines, excess claim fees and RCE rules affect cost and strategy.<\/td><td>Review claims before examination, manage claim count and draft prosecution responses with litigation in mind.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Patent transfers<\/strong><\/td><td>Modern CIPO recordal practice should replace older affidavit-focused language.<\/td><td>Record transfers promptly and distinguish transaction validity from CIPO recordal.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Trade secrets<\/strong><\/td><td>Unregistered information assets may be mission critical.<\/td><td>Use contracts, access controls and employee\/offboarding protocols.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Overview of key developments in Canadian intellectual property law and recommended business responses to help organizations protect and manage their IP assets.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" style=\"padding-top:var(--wp--preset--spacing--medium)\">How Miller Thomson can help<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Protecting and enforcing intellectual property in Canada requires navigating a framework that shares features with US and European systems but diverges in ways that affect filing strategy, ownership documentation, enforcement rights, and portfolio value. The April 2025 trademark amendments, the March 2026 CIPO patent guidance on software and AI, and the continuing evolution of Canadian trade secret and confidential information law mean that IP strategies built even two years ago may need to be revisited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Miller Thomson&#8217;s intellectual property group advises foreign companies across the full spectrum of Canadian IP, from trademark filing and prosecution through opposition and enforcement proceedings, patent prosecution and validity challenges, copyright and moral rights analysis, licensing and technology transfer, and trade secret protection and enforcement. Our national presence includes Quebec practitioners who advise on the civil law dimension of IP protection for companies with Quebec employees, contractors, or operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Speak with a Miller Thomson <a href=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/industries\/technology\/intellectual-property\/\">IP lawyer<\/a> about your Canadian intellectual property strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-footnotes\"><li id=\"863d2dce-7cc5-44f0-9e01-793170f6197c\"><a href=\"https:\/\/ised-isde.canada.ca\/site\/canadian-intellectual-property-office\/en\/trademarks-opposition-board\/use-ai-proceedings-trademarks-opposition-board\">Use of AI in proceedings before the Trademarks Opposition Board<\/a> <a href=\"#863d2dce-7cc5-44f0-9e01-793170f6197c-link\" aria-label=\"Jump to footnote reference 1\">\u21a9\ufe0e<\/a><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Who this is for: GCs, CTOs, brand managers, and IP counsel at foreign companies entering the Canadian market, licensing technology into or out of Canada, acquiring Canadian businesses with IP portfolios, or filing patents, trademarks, or copyright registrations in Canada. The assumption that costs foreign IP owners the most: Foreign companies entering Canada most commonly [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":56140,"parent":53629,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"[{\"content\":\"<a href=\\\"https:\/\/ised-isde.canada.ca\/site\/canadian-intellectual-property-office\/en\/trademarks-opposition-board\/use-ai-proceedings-trademarks-opposition-board\\\">Use of AI in proceedings before the Trademarks Opposition Board<\/a>\",\"id\":\"863d2dce-7cc5-44f0-9e01-793170f6197c\"}]"},"categories":[632],"insight-format":[742],"class_list":["post-53671","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-publications"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Intellectual property in Canada: Protecting and enforcing your IP assets | Miller Thomson<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Protect your intellectual property in Canada with guidance on trademarks, patents, copyright, licensing, and trade secret protection.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Intellectual property in Canada: Protecting and enforcing your IP assets | Miller Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Protect your intellectual property in Canada with guidance on trademarks, patents, copyright, licensing, and trade secret protection.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Miller Thomson\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-28T18:19:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-09-28T19:22:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/DBIC_ip.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1098\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Katherine Chan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@millerthomson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@millerthomson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Katherine Chan\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"32 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Katherine Chan\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/5473b50a564d1e37f327fdd79cb348f6\"},\"headline\":\"Intellectual property in Canada: Protecting and enforcing your IP assets\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-28T18:19:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-28T19:22:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":7108,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/DBIC_ip.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Publications\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":[\"WebPage\",\"ItemPage\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\\\/\",\"name\":\"Intellectual property in Canada: Protecting and enforcing your IP assets | Miller Thomson\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/DBIC_ip.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-28T18:19:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-28T19:22:47+00:00\",\"description\":\"Protect your intellectual property in Canada with guidance on trademarks, patents, copyright, licensing, and trade secret protection.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/DBIC_ip.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/DBIC_ip.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1098,\"caption\":\"Low angle view of illuminated lighting equipment hanging from the ceiling\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Doing business in Canada\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/insights\\\/publications\\\/doing-business-in-canada\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Intellectual property in Canada: Protecting and enforcing your IP assets\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Miller Thomson\",\"description\":\"National law firm providing business law expertise and litigation and disputes services for businesses across Canada since 1957.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Miller Thomson\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/miller-thomson.svg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/10\\\/miller-thomson.svg\",\"width\":380,\"height\":50,\"caption\":\"Miller Thomson\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/MillerThomsonLaw\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/millerthomson\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/miller-thomson-llp\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@millerthomson\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.millerthomson.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/5473b50a564d1e37f327fdd79cb348f6\",\"name\":\"Katherine Chan\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/da8a18c240b27905220d948a87957ba19ab6de326b44a2ce3072235c121f996f?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/da8a18c240b27905220d948a87957ba19ab6de326b44a2ce3072235c121f996f?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/da8a18c240b27905220d948a87957ba19ab6de326b44a2ce3072235c121f996f?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Katherine Chan\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Intellectual property in Canada: Protecting and enforcing your IP assets | Miller Thomson","description":"Protect your intellectual property in Canada with guidance on trademarks, patents, copyright, licensing, and trade secret protection.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Intellectual property in Canada: Protecting and enforcing your IP assets | Miller Thomson","og_description":"Protect your intellectual property in Canada with guidance on trademarks, patents, copyright, licensing, and trade secret protection.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/","og_site_name":"Miller Thomson","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/","article_published_time":"2026-09-28T18:19:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-09-28T19:22:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1098,"url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/DBIC_ip.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Katherine Chan","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@millerthomson","twitter_site":"@millerthomson","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Katherine Chan","Est. reading time":"32 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/"},"author":{"name":"Katherine Chan","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/5473b50a564d1e37f327fdd79cb348f6"},"headline":"Intellectual property in Canada: Protecting and enforcing your IP assets","datePublished":"2026-09-28T18:19:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-28T19:22:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/"},"wordCount":7108,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/DBIC_ip.jpg","articleSection":["Publications"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":["WebPage","ItemPage"],"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/","name":"Intellectual property in Canada: Protecting and enforcing your IP assets | Miller Thomson","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/DBIC_ip.jpg","datePublished":"2026-09-28T18:19:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-28T19:22:47+00:00","description":"Protect your intellectual property in Canada with guidance on trademarks, patents, copyright, licensing, and trade secret protection.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/DBIC_ip.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/DBIC_ip.jpg","width":1920,"height":1098,"caption":"Low angle view of illuminated lighting equipment hanging from the ceiling"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/intellectual-property-in-canada-protecting-and-enforcing-your-ip-assets\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Doing business in Canada","item":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/insights\/publications\/doing-business-in-canada\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Intellectual property in Canada: Protecting and enforcing your IP assets"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/","name":"Miller Thomson","description":"National law firm providing business law expertise and litigation and disputes services for businesses across Canada since 1957.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Miller Thomson","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/miller-thomson.svg","width":380,"height":50,"caption":"Miller Thomson"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/MillerThomsonLaw\/","https:\/\/x.com\/millerthomson","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/miller-thomson-llp\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@millerthomson"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/5473b50a564d1e37f327fdd79cb348f6","name":"Katherine Chan","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/da8a18c240b27905220d948a87957ba19ab6de326b44a2ce3072235c121f996f?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/da8a18c240b27905220d948a87957ba19ab6de326b44a2ce3072235c121f996f?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/da8a18c240b27905220d948a87957ba19ab6de326b44a2ce3072235c121f996f?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Katherine Chan"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53671","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53671"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53671\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":56150,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53671\/revisions\/56150"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53629"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/56140"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53671"},{"taxonomy":"insight-format","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.millerthomson.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/insight-format?post=53671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}