• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
    Alumni
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

You can’t spell “OPIR” without “IP” – My experience with the Trade-marks Opposition Board

June 1, 2009 by Annie Messerkhanian

Annie Messerkhanian recently completed her second year of the J.D. program at Osgoode Hall Law School.

Having just completed my second year of study, I was acutely aware of the fact that I had only one year remaining within which to complete my Osgoode Public Interest Requirement (OPIR). Students at Osgoode Hall Law School, beginning with the class of 2010 and on, are required to complete OPIR hours in order to graduate. Rather than regarding this requirement as a chore, I tried to find something that I would be genuinely interested in. Every time I received one of the Professor Leiper’s emails advertising various OPIR positions, I kept my eyes peeled for something that would capture my attention. When the email advertising a position at the Trade-marks Opposition Board (TMOB) came along, I jumped at the opportunity and was ultimately selected for the position. I knew that I wouldn’t be completely in the dark, having recently taken courses in intellectual property and patents.

Immediately following exams, I packed up my car and made the trek to Gatineau, Quebec where the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) is located. Not sure what to expect, I was quite surprised on my first day when I was immediately given my own s.45 summary expungement file and instructed to draft a decision. For those who are unfamiliar with this area of the law, anyone may ask the Registrar of Trade-marks to require a registrant (owner of a mark) to demonstrate “use” of their registered mark, within the definition of the Trade-marks Act, or else face summary expungement, whereby the registrant’s mark is deleted from the register.  The rationale behind s.45 of the Trade-marks Act  is the clearing of “deadwood” from the register.

I immediately got to work and delved into endless volumes of the Canadian Patent Reporter to conduct my research. The s.45 and Opposition Officers were also extremely helpful in answering all of my questions and providing guidance in an area of trade-mark law that I knew virtually nothing about prior to my arrival at the TMOB. Initially, I was nervous about having to decide the fate of this poor unfortunate registrant whose file I’d been given. As I worked on my assignment, however, I became more confident in myself. Five days and three drafts later, my draft decision was complete.  Not only was this a crash course in a very specific area of the law, but it was also a challenging exercise in judicial writing.

During breaks from working on the draft decision, I was invited to attend a policy meeting as well as sit in on an opposition hearing. I can honestly say that I learned more in my time at the TMOB than I would have in a classroom setting. While the work could have been done remotely, I am glad that I chose to spend my time at the TMOB and take advantage of the available resources and the knowledge of the Officers.  I was not only able to complete my OPIR hours, but also capitalize on a unique educational opportunity.

Posted in General, IP, Trademarks

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« False Innovation and the Pursuit of Sustainability | Privacy Rights Violated by Police Holding Photos »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

Follow @IPilogue

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Denise Brunsdon on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
  • Denise Brunsdon on Must Every Canadian Patent Application Include the Inventor’s Best Mode of Working the Invention?
  • Matt on Mario Bouchard: Copyright Quintet opus 1. no.1, by McLachlin et al
  • Danny Titolo on The ‘Myriad’ with the Golden ‘Gene’: Australia Upholds Breast Cancer Gene Patents
  • Tracy Ayodele on Exceptions which Circumvent Logic
  • Nancy Situ on Military Tactics and Rock Star Patent Lawyers; the Patent System under Stress
  • Laura on The Rise and Fall [and Rise Again?] of BlackBerry
  • Howard Knopf on How Music Can Help You, And You Can Help Music – An Interview With Graham Henderson
  • Paul Atkinson on Bill C-56 Remedies: Rights Holders Can All Feel a Little Safer
  • Bart Cormier on The Living Daylights (…Scents, Tastes, and Sounds): Bill C-56 Forebodes Drastic Trade-mark Reform
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • New Step for the Modernization of Copyright Law in the US – Progress or Regress?
  • Reminder: Canada’s IP Writing Challenge 2013
  • Property in Brands
  • Strike Three, Viacom
  • New Book – The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law
  • The Curious Case of Fake Beijing Olympics Merchandise
  • About the Boundaries of Fairness in Fair Use
  • Who Inherits Your Likes?
  • Game of Thones – Piracy is Coming
  • AEREO, Cable, What’s The Difference?
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • Advisory Board (9)
  • Announcements (31)
  • Blogs (24)
  • Book Review (5)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (8)
  • Cloud Services (11)
  • Commercialization (90)
  • Competition (19)
  • Competition Law (14)
  • Contracts (69)
  • copyright reform (158)
  • defamation (19)
  • Design (15)
  • Development (6)
  • European Union (54)
  • events (88)
  • Fashion Industry (22)
  • Feature Post (206)
  • Freedom of Speech (22)
  • Freedom of the Press (17)
  • Gaming (9)
  • General (151)
  • Human Rights (10)
  • Image (6)
  • Innovation (156)
  • Internet (274)
  • IP (1242)
    • Copyright (617)
      • CD Levy (10)
      • Digital Downloads (78)
      • Digital Libraries (7)
      • Digital Locks (34)
      • Fair Dealing (79)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (157)
      • Internet Sharing (96)
      • Literary Works (65)
      • Moral Rights (15)
      • Movies (53)
      • Music Industry (104)
      • Originality (33)
      • Ownership (107)
        • Licensees (39)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (18)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (37)
    • Patents (381)
      • Access to Medicines (21)
      • Cross Border Issues (50)
      • Electronic Processes (20)
      • Infringement (72)
      • Patent Practice (27)
      • Patent Trolls (21)
      • Patentability (109)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (75)
    • Trademarks (243)
      • Domain Names (44)
      • Famous Marks (20)
      • Official Marks (11)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (12)
  • IP Course Topic (13)
  • IP Intensive (26)
  • IP Litigation Practice (17)
  • Jurisdiction (176)
    • Canada (80)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (2)
    • UK (41)
    • US (74)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (21)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (17)
  • Music Industry (85)
  • Open-Source (18)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (14)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (188)
    • Electronic Databases (42)
    • Human Rights Issues (31)
    • Identity Theft (14)
  • Regulatory Policy (64)
  • Reputation Management (4)
  • Smartphones (14)
  • Social Justice (4)
    • United Nations Development Programme (2)
  • Social Media (30)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (34)
  • Tech Transfer (31)
  • Technology (245)
  • Telecommunications (89)
  • Trade Secrets (9)
  • UK (19)
  • Uncategorized (102)
  • US-Canada Relations (4)
  • WIPO (16)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us   |   Feedback  |   Privacy   

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736