Decoding the 2025 Changes to Canada’s Trademark Law

Effective April 1, 2025, major amendments to Canada's Trademarks Act and Regulations have been implemented, reshaping key areas of trademark law. These reforms aim to enhance efficiency, reduce delays, and discourage procedural abuses within the Canadian trademark system. Legal teams, brand owners, and IP strategists must now navigate new cost frameworks, evidence requirements, and procedural rules. In this post, we outline six key updates—and what they mean for your trademark portfolio management.

Canada’s trademark system has undergone a notable transformation, reflecting a broader effort to improve the process through which IP rights for trademarks are protected and enforced in the country. With the April 2025 amendments to the Trademarks Act and Regulations now in effect, trademark owners and practitioners must adjust how they approach filings, oppositions, and enforcement actions.

The reforms aim to increase procedural fairness, enhance transparency, and reduce inefficiencies. The message is clear: strategic IP management is no longer optional—it’s foundational.

Whether you're enforcing a trademark, managing an opposition, or navigating legacy official marks, these changes will likely influence how you structure and execute your IP strategy in Canada.

Six Amendments That Will Impact How You File, Defend, and Enforce Trademarks in Canada

Here are the 6 key changes to trademark proceedings that you need to be aware of—along with why they matter for your trademark strategy and day-to-day decision-making.

1. Cost Awards for Undesirable Conduct

The Registrar of Trademarks now has the authority to award costs in certain circumstances, irrespective of the proceeding's outcome. This shift introduces accountability for delays and procedural misuse; these circumstances include:

• • Bad Faith Applications: If a trademark application is refused due to bad faith, costs up to $10,400 may be imposed.
  • Late Hearing Cancellations: Withdrawing a hearing request less than 14 days before the scheduled date can result in costs of $2,080.
  • Unreasonable Conduct: Engaging in conduct that causes undue delay or expense may lead to costs up to $5,200.
  • Divisional Applications: Filing a divisional application after the original application has been advertised can incur costs of $2,080.

These measures are designed to promote efficient proceedings and discourage tactics that cause unnecessary delays or expenses.

2. Introduction of Confidentiality Orders

Parties involved in opposition, cancellation, or objection proceedings can now request confidentiality orders to protect sensitive evidence from public disclosure.

To obtain such an order, a party must submit a request detailing:

• • A description of the evidence to be kept confidential.
  • Confirmation that the evidence has not been made public.
  • Justification for why the evidence should remain confidential.
  • Indication of whether the other party consents to the request.

The Registrar will weigh the request against the public interest in open proceedings before issuing an order. Confidentiality orders are expected to be the exception, not the rule.

This change provides a mechanism for protecting commercially sensitive information, particularly in competitive industries.

3. Case Management of Proceedings

The Registrar is now empowered to case-manage opposition, cancellation, and objection proceedings. This includes:

• • Extending deadlines to align related proceedings.
  • Scheduling related hearings together.
  • Holding conference calls to address scheduling and procedural issues.

In proceedings involving a corrected Madrid Protocol application that has been re-advertised following a correction of the international registration, the Registrar may notify the parties that any documents already submitted or served during the original opposition will be considered as filed and served in the proceeding against the corrected Protocol application. In such cases it is not necessary to re-file and re-serve those documents. However, pursuant to the practice notice all the prescribed fees in respect of the corrected application will still be required.

This change aims to streamline proceedings, minimize delays, and reduce administrative burdens for all parties involved.

Registered trademarks are vulnerable to expungement in cases where they have not been used in the last 3 years. Trademark owners enforcing their trademark before the Federal Court must now provide evidence of use of their trademark if the registration was obtained less than three years ago. This applies to procedures such as trademark infringement and depreciation of the value of a registered trademark’s goodwill.This change prevents unused trademarks from being used (often by trademark trolls) to block third-party applications and reinforces the importance of active use in maintaining trademark rights.

5. Restrictions on Additional Evidence in Appeals

Previously, parties had an automatic right to submit additional evidence when appealing decisions from the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) to the Federal Court. Under the new amendments, parties must now obtain leave from the Federal Court before introducing new evidence on appeal.

This change places greater emphasis on presenting comprehensive evidence during initial proceedings and reduces the scope of post-decision evidence expansion.

6. Challenge Mechanism for Official Marks

Official marks, which are trademarks adopted and used by public authorities, have historically had broad power to block other trademark applications —regardless of industry or category. Under the new rules, these marks can now be challenged before the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) if:

• • the holder is no longer a public authority or
  • the entity has ceased to exist.

This reform simplifies the process of removing obsolete official marks from the register, enhancing clarity and fairness in trademark rights.

Consent from the public authority is still an option where the proposed trademark is in a different field of goods or services. However, these changes now offer a more direct path for removing inactive or irrelevant official marks from the registry.

A proactive trademark availability search can help identify official marks that may block a trademark registration. If a public authority has lost its status, it may still file an ordinary trademark application – but it will be limited to the goods and services that it uses or intends to use.

Caution is required, even if an official mark is successfully expunged, the respective authority that lost public status may possibly l oppose a new trademark application if it can prove first active use of the mark successfully in the field of goods and services, depending on the case.

Implications for Trademark Strategy

Together, these amendments represent a shift towards a more active and accountable trademark system in Canada, one that calls for a thoughtful, strategic approach to trademark management.

• • Vigilance in Proceedings: Parties must be diligent in their conduct during proceedings to avoid cost awards for undesirable behaviour.
  • Confidentiality Considerations: When dealing with sensitive information, parties should consider requesting confidentiality orders to protect their interests.
  • Evidence of Use: Be prepared to provide evidence of proper trademark use before challenging another trademark relating to trademark infringement and depreciation of goodwill.
  • Evidence before the Federal Court: Ensure all relevant evidence is submitted during initial proceedings, as new evidence in appeals now requires leave of the Court.​
  • Reviewing Official Marks: Review the status of public authority using official marks can help identify opportunities to challenge obsolete marks.

By understanding and adapting to these changes, trademark owners and legal practitioners can better navigate the evolving landscape of Canadian trademark law. Staying proactive, organized and well-documented will help reduce risk, improve efficiency, and strengthen enforceability of your trademarks in a more streamlined regulatory environment

Final Thoughts:

While each of these updates may seem procedural in isolation, their combined effect is a more efficient, transparent, and enforceable trademark system. For organizations with active trademark portfolios—or plans to expand into the Canadian market—these changes underscore the importance of aligning legal compliance with practical brand strategy.

Taking a proactive, well-documented approach will not only reduce risk but also strengthen your ability to protect and leverage your intellectual property in an increasingly complex regulatory environment.

For support in adapting to these changes, Stratford’s Intellectual Property experts can help you align legal strategy with business goals.

About the Author:

A registered trademark agent in Canada, Kim Capiau is an IP Specialist with a unique combination of skills, education, and assets with a drive for success and a passion for Intellectual Property. Working with growing organizations for many years she’s honed her ability to be both creative and strategic with IP solutions and strategy implementation plans. She specializes in IP analytics and Trademark Strategy and Prosecution. Before becoming an IP specialist at Stratford, she practiced law in Belgium for 5 years. Kim holds an LLB and LLM in law from Belgium and followed trademark studies at McGill University.