Vol. 151, No. 49 — December 9, 2017

Industrial Design Regulations

Statutory authority

Industrial Design Act

Sponsoring department

Department of Industry

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Issues

The Government of Canada is moving to modernize Canada’s intellectual property (IP) regime and join several international IP treaties, including, in regard to industrial designs (IDs), the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (the Hague Agreement).

Currently, Canadian businesses seeking to register their IDs in other countries must meet the administrative requirements of each foreign Intellectual Property Office (IPO). They must file a separate application, pay a separate fee in the appropriate currency and track and manage their applications in each IPO. This can be a complex, costly and time-consuming process.

Canada can simplify this process by acceding to the Hague Agreement and joining a system that allows applicants from member countries to register up to 100 IDs in up to 66 countries or regional associations through one application. Canada’s membership in the Hague Agreement would also provide foreign businesses in member countries reciprocal advantages in applying for ID protection in Canada.

Finally, aspects of Canada’s Industrial Design Regulations (the Regulations) need to be updated, clarified and codified in order to modernize the ID framework. For example, provisions are being introduced that would expand the ability of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) to interact with clients electronically and reduce red tape for businesses.

If Canada does not make the regulatory changes proposed in this package, Canadians would forego the benefits of an internationally aligned and modern ID regime.

Background

The proposed Industrial Design Regulations (“the proposed Amendments”) are required for Canada to accede to the Hague Agreement. This agreement is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the United Nations agency that is the global forum for IP services, policy, information and cooperation. The Hague Agreement establishes an international registration system — the Hague System — that allows IDs to be protected in multiple countries or regions through a single, streamlined process. There are currently 66 countries or regional associations that are party to the Hague Agreement, including most of Canada’s major trading partners such as the European Union, the United States, Japan, and South Korea.

Changes to the Industrial Design Act (the Act) required for accession to the Hague Agreement received royal assent on December 16, 2014. The regulatory provisions contained in this package would complete the next step towards accession and also help modernize Canada’s ID framework.

CIPO is responsible for the administration of the ID regime in Canada. Applicants who wish to register their design in Canada must provide the relevant documentation and appropriate fees, and submit their application to CIPO for examination. If it is approved and registration is granted, owners must ensure that maintenance fees are paid and their information updated in order to maintain a registration. Currently, an ID registration may have a maximum term of protection of 10 years.

Objectives

The primary objective of the proposed Amendments is to carry out the amendments that were made to the Act in order to allow Canada’s accession to the Hague System. This would align Canada’s framework with international norms and reduce the regulatory burden on business, lower costs and remove red tape.

A second objective is to modernize Canada’s ID regime by updating, clarifying, codifying and improving aspects of the ID regulatory framework.

The proposed Amendments align with the Government’s plan to develop a new IP strategy to help ensure that Canada’s IP regime is modern, robust, and supports Canadian innovation in the 21st century.

Description

The proposed Amendments have been drafted in such a way that the first part contains rules that would apply to both the national and Hague applications, unless otherwise specified. A national application seeks ID protection in Canada only and is made through CIPO, whereas a Hague application results from an international application through WIPO that seeks ID protection in Canada and any number of other countries party to the Hague Agreement. The second part of the proposed Amendments, entitled “Implementation of the Hague Agreement,” contains provisions that would apply only to Hague applications or registrations and excludes certain sections of the Act from applying.

Communications

Correspondence — now renamed “communications” to better represent the many types of submissions CIPO receives — would no longer have to be restricted to just one application or registered design. Since many stakeholders have large portfolios of designs, this is expected to reduce their burden as they would not need to send separate communications for each design, especially when they are trying to address an issue common to all of their applications or registered designs.

To support the ongoing effort to modernize CIPO’s electronic filing and management system, the proposed Amendments would facilitate adoption of readily used file formats (e.g. PDF, DOCX, TIFF and JPEG) as well as respond to any future file format changes, all to support a modern and well-adapted electronic document management system.

Representation before CIPO

Requirements concerning representation before CIPO would be more flexible. Currently, if an applicant has appointed an agent, CIPO can only correspond with that agent. While this concept will remain, the proposed Amendments would provide for exceptions where an applicant, or an authorized third party, could correspond with CIPO to file an application, pay a fee, submit a transfer request or provide evidence of a transfer. In addition, the current requirement that foreign applicants have a representative for service in Canada would be removed in order to ease the burden on foreign applicants.

Register

The proposed Amendments also clarify what information would be included in the Register of IDs (e.g. date of registration, filing date of the application, particulars of any request for priority, registration number, name and address of the registered proprietor). While applicants currently provide all of this information in the application process, the proposed Amendments would codify the content of the Register of IDs so that prospective applicants could find this information more easily.

Applications

The current requirement for applicants to complete the prescribed form to file an application would be removed. This would reduce the burden on applicants and make it easier for them to craft their applications as they see fit as long as they adhere to the more general requirements of what an application must contain.

Requirements pertaining to the content of the application are described in the “Applications” section of the proposed Amendments and would make it easier for applicants to display their designs in a way that ensures clarity for CIPO while providing flexibility for the applicant. The requirements would be aligned with international standards, including those of the Hague System. For example, a description of the design would no longer be mandatory and requirements for representations of the design would also be amended in order to be more flexible, allowing the applicant to submit, for example, images in different formats.

One design per application

The current Regulations stipulate that an application must relate to only one design or to variants. Failing that, applicants are required to limit their application (“original application”) to a single design, or variants, and then choose to file for the previously applied-for designs in their own separate applications (“divisional applications”). The proposed Amendments would maintain these principles, but would extend the ability to file divisional applications to content that was not only applied for in the original application, but disclosed, which would expand the range of designs that can be the subject of divisional applications. Also, the proposed Amendments would codify existing practice whereby an applicant must indicate within an application, or a separate document, that a design is to be considered a divisional application.

A divisional application would be treated the same as any other application (e.g. fees are paid as normal, only one design allowed per application). While CIPO currently allows divisional applications in practice, codifying this process through the proposed Amendments would increase certainty about its practices and make it easier for applicants to understand the rules being applied to their file.

This section of the proposed Amendments also stipulates that applicants would be unable to “supplement” their divisional applications with subject matter that was absent from the original application. This ensures the applicant does not get the benefit of an earlier filing date for entirely new subject matter.

If required, divisional applications can be divided further. This would allow the applicant to file as many divisional applications as needed in order to adequately protect the designs that had been included in the original application. Such applications could only be filed for as long as the application is still pending. Applicants would have up to two years to file a divisional application for anything that was disclosed to CIPO through an original application, except if an application has to be divided following a request from CIPO. In that case, the proposed Amendments provide an exception where an original application may be divided even though the two-year period has ended.

Filing date

Currently, an applicant, upon submitting all required information to CIPO, namely a name and address, a title, a description, and drawings of the design, may obtain a filing date. This ensures that a design’s novelty is assessed at a date no later than the filing date.

Under the proposed Amendments, the information required to obtain a filing date would be simplified in light of international standards. The applicant would only need to provide an indication that registration of the design is requested, a name, a means of contact and a representation of the design. This would allow applicants to quickly secure a filing date and begin the registration process.

Examination

While this section of the proposed Amendments is new, it is largely just a transfer of existing text from the Act into the Regulations. This section would stipulate that if CIPO believes the design is not registrable, CIPO must first send a report to the applicant outlining its objections. This is the current practice and would move into the Regulations the fact that applicants would have three months to reply. In addition, while applicants currently receive an automatic six-month extension of time to respond to this report upon request — with a possible subsequent extension of an extra six months depending on the circumstances — the proposed Amendments would only allow for a single extension of six months per report, if requested, with no possible subsequent extensions. This change would help reduce the delay between when an application is filed and registered (or conversely, when a final refusal is issued). By shortening this period, there would be greater legal certainty in the marketplace in terms of which designs are protected in Canada. This also reduces the likelihood that applicants would deliberately draw out the assessment of their application, which they could then exploit if and when their design is registered.

The new section also includes a provision describing what CIPO would do when it receives an application through the Hague System that fails to meet registrability requirements. CIPO would prepare its report in the form of a notification of refusal and would send it to the International Bureau of WIPO, which would then forward this information to applicants. Applicants would then have three months to amend their application to address the objection set out in the report.

There is also a provision that would clarify the current office practice of conducting an advanced examination of ID applications when the applicable fee is paid.

Finally, this section includes a new provision codifying the existing practice of allowing applicants to delay registration upon request. However, in the proposed Amendments the delay would be limited to within 30 months after the filing date or earliest priority date to ensure that the delay of registration cannot be used to postpone publication of an application in order to maintain certainty in the marketplace.

Amendments

The current Regulations simply state that an application may be amended at any time before registration, provided that the amendment would not “substantially alter the design.” The proposed Amendments would expand on what is an acceptable and an unacceptable amendment. For example, an amendment that does not result in a design that differs substantially from the one that the application originally sought to register would be acceptable. An amendment that changes the identity of the applicant would generally not be acceptable. Moreover, new content has been included that relates to amendments on or after the application has been published. Therefore, an application cannot be amended after publication if the amendment changes the name of the finished article to a substantially different one.

Priority

The proposed Amendments would provide greater detail on the procedure for how priority is requested. A priority right exists when an applicant has previously disclosed a design in an application in a different country within a set period of time. The applicant may then benefit from the priority date of that initial application instead of the filing date of the application filed in Canada for novelty assessment purposes.

The main element that would impact applicants is the addition of a consequence for applicants requesting priority if they do not comply with a request from CIPO to provide or make available a copy of their priority documentation. Currently, the penalty for non-compliance is that the request for priority is suspended until the applicant provides the required documents. In that case, the priority is simply disregarded by CIPO in order to assess novelty. Under the proposed Amendments, the applicant would have the request for priority deemed not to have been made. This would make it clear that the applicant’s priority request would be removed. Finally, new provisions would also clarify how an applicant may correct an error in a priority claim.

Other changes in this section relate to the office practice on priorities, including a provision specifying that priority information from an original application would also be applied to any subsequent divisional applications; a provision allowing an applicant to make available, from a digital database, a copy of priority documentation (for example from WIPO); a provision to clarify the withdrawal of a request for priority; and an element allowing CIPO to request a translation of priority documents that were submitted in a language other than French or English.

Novel design

The proposed Amendments would address a current issue of “self-collision.” Self-collision arises when an applicant’s earlier registered design or application is too similar to the same applicant’s later filed design and therefore blocks its registration. In other words, CIPO would refuse to register the later filed design because it lacks novelty over the earlier one. Under the proposed Amendments, when a self-collision situation arises, the later filed design would not be blocked by the initial design if it was filed within 12 months of the filing date of the initial registered design. This provision provides increased flexibility for applicants while also providing clarity for examiners about when to object to registration for lack of novelty.

Applications and documents made available to the public

Currently, CIPO will only make available to the public a design application upon its registration. The proposed Amendments would maintain this situation; however, changes are proposed for the rare cases where an application remains pending for a long time (e.g. if the application has been escalated for review by the Patent Appeal Board). Any application that is still pending would be published after 30 months from its filing date or priority date unless it has been withdrawn. Note that this only applies to national applications — those received under the Hague System would be published by WIPO according to its established timelines. This should reduce the number of applications that are pending for an extended amount of time before becoming available to the public, which would increase market certainty. Finally, to ensure there is enough time to process requests, if applicants wish to keep their application confidential by withdrawing the application or their priority claim, they would be required to do so at least 2 months before the 30-month deadline.

Maintenance of exclusive right

Currently, applicants have a maximum of 10 years of protection, provided that they pay a maintenance fee to renew their exclusive right. The current Regulations specify that the maintenance fee must be paid at 5 years from the date of registration to cover the remaining exclusive right period of 5 years. Applicants can benefit from a 6-month late period if they miss the deadline to pay the maintenance fee, provided that they also pay the required late fee as well.

Changes were made to the Act so that applicants who renew their ID registration are entitled to receive a minimum of 10 years’ total protection and up to a maximum of 15 years from the filing date of the application. Under the proposed Amendments, the maintenance fee process remains largely the same; however, instead of being renewed for 5 years, a renewed registration will cover a period that begins 5 years after the date of registration of the design and ends on the later of the end of 10 years after the date of registration and the end of 15 years after the filing date of the application.

Transfers and changes of name or address

The proposed Amendments would alter the section of the Regulations currently titled “Assignments.” An assignment includes selling or transferring all or part of one’s rights (assignor) to a design to another person (assignee). “Assignments” would be renamed “Transfers” under the proposed Amendments in order to align the terminology in the Regulations with international terminology.

The current rules require that a request to record an assignment include the prescribed fee and acceptable evidence, such as a copy of the document effecting the assignment, or an affidavit that provides evidence establishing the rightful assignee, before CIPO can record the documentation. Instead, the proposed Amendments only require the name and address of the transferee as well as the required fee.

The proposed Amendments would codify the current practice to change the name or address of a registered proprietor. When requested, the change of name or address would be registered and remain free of charge.

These proposed Amendments would remove some of the administrative burden associated with registering a change in ownership, name or address with CIPO. This would help to lower costs for clients and encourage them to keep information in the Register of IDs up to date.

Time period extended

This section would clarify the days when CIPO deadlines would be extended. If a deadline is to fall on one of these days, it would instead fall on the next day that CIPO is open for business.

Fees

The proposed Amendments would provide legal certainty on how CIPO would process refunds for fees. The proposed Amendments would codify current office practice and guarantee the refund of payments made in excess of the amount required, but they would introduce a new time limit of three years from the payment for the applicant to request a refund. Also, this section would explicitly give CIPO the authority to waive payment of a fee in cases of exceptional circumstances.

The proposed Amendments would not change any of the current fees charged.

Implementation of the Hague Agreement

In addition to the changes noted above, the proposed Amendments would permit applicants to file an international application with WIPO seeking registration in one or many countries, including Canada, that are members of the Hague System. The rules in this section are required for the Hague System to come into effect in Canada.

Once an international application is registered at WIPO on its International Register, it is sent to all designated countries (those selected by the applicant) as an international registration. If Canada is designated, CIPO would then receive the file and divide each design in the International Registration into its own application (referred to as a Hague application) and proceed with the examination. A notification of refusal could be issued if the Hague application does not meet the substantive criteria for registration, e.g. novelty, insufficient disclosure of the design. WIPO is responsible for the examination of formality requirements (such as those relating to the quality of the representations of the industrial designs) and would inform the applicant of any deficiencies.

Key elements to the proposed Amendments include

The proposed Amendments also outline how CIPO would proceed with the refusal or the registration of a Hague application. For example, if the Hague application is to be registered, CIPO would proceed by sending a statement of grant of protection to WIPO. The proposed Amendments also direct that requests for priority, the publication of a registered Hague application, the maintenance of exclusive right, and transfers, must all be filed and processed, depending on the case, through WIPO. In turn, WIPO would communicate the updated information to all designated countries and update the International Register. Finally, the proposed Amendments set out the procedure to correct a Hague application and appeal a decision from CIPO concerning the refusal of a Hague application.

Transitional provisions

For applications filed prior to the coming-into-force date, some sections of the proposed Amendments would not apply, as the former Regulations would continue to be in effect. The table identifies the sections of the proposed Amendments that would not apply and indicates the corresponding requirements that will continue from the former Regulations. Provisions in the proposed Amendments that would apply to applications filed prior to the coming-into-force date are outlined at the bottom of the table.

For an application received before the coming into force, but for which a filing date cannot be granted under the former Act, the application would be deemed never to have been filed. It would need to be filed again, under the new Act and the new Regulations.

For applications received after the coming into force, the new Act and Regulations would apply.

Table: Applicability of regulations for applications filed before the coming into force

Proposed Amendments
Not Applicable to Applications Filed Prior to the Coming Into Force

Former Regulations
Applicable to Applications Filed Prior to the Coming Into Force

Section 10 — Material not in English or French

Section 11 — Acknowledgment of protest

Section 14 — Requirements for representation of design

Section 15 — Presentation of photographs or reproductions

Section 16 — Name and postal address

Section 17 — Features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament

Section 18 — Optional description

Section 19 — Hague applications

Section 20 — One design per application

Section 21 — Filing Date

Subsection 22(1) — Registrability

Section 24 — Delayed registration

Section 25 — Amendments

Section 26 — Priority

Section 27 — Copy of previously filed application

Section 28 — Withdrawal of request for priority

Section 29 — Deemed action — divisional application

Section 30 — Priority effect of international registration

Section 31 — Non-application of paragraph 8.2(1)(c) of Act

Section 32 — Prescribed date

Subsection 33(1) — Prescribed period

Subsection 8(2) — Acknowledgement of protest

Subsection 9(1) — Prescribed form

Subsection 9(2) — Requirements

  • Name and address of applicant (and agent)
  • Title
  • Descriptions
  • Drawings/Photographs must meet the requirements of section 9.1 of the Industrial Design Regulations

Section 9.1 — Drawing requirements: margins, quality,
solid/stippled lines

Section 10 — One design per application, variants and divisionals

Section 11 — Filing Date

Section 12 — Document requirements: black and white, paper size

Section 13 — Document requirements: wholly in French and English, translation

Section 16 — Amendment of Application

Section 20 — Priority

Proposed Amendments
Applicable to Applications Filed Prior to the Coming Into Force

Section 1 — Definitions

Section 2 — Written communications

Section 3 — Communications not submitted in writing

Section 4 — Submission of documents, information or fees

Section 5 — Deemed receipt — Office

Section 6 — Electronic communications

Section 7 — Postal address

Section 8 — Written communications in respect of application

Section 9 — Manner of presentation of documents

Section 12 — Power to appoint agent

Section 13 — Content (Register)

Subsection 22(2) — Objections

Subsection 22(3) — Objections to Hague application

Subsection 22(4) — Extension

Subsection 22(5) — Limitation on extensions

Subsection 22(6) — Deemed abandonment

Subsection 22(7) — Reinstatement

Section 23 — Advanced examination

Subsection 33(2) — Deadline for payment (Maintenance of Exclusive Right)

Subsection 33(3) — Exception (Maintenance of Exclusive Right)

Section 34 — Request to record or register transfer

Section 35 — Change of name or address

Section 36 — Prescribed days (Time Period Extended)

Section 37 — Fees for services

Section 38 — Refund excess fees

Section 39 — Waiver of fee

“One-for-One” Rule

The “One-for-One” Rule applies to these proposed Amendments, which is considered an “OUT” under the Rule.

The proposed Amendments are expected to result in an annualized average administrative cost decrease of $12,870, measured in 2012 constant year (CY) dollars. The cost of an ID agent’s time is estimated to be $150 per hour and the time required for each action is forecast using information provided by IP practitioners.

The following elements of the proposed Amendments would reduce burden on applicants:

CIPO forecasts that these changes would reduce the burden on applicants by a total of $350,775 (2012 CY) over the 10-year period mandated in the analysis.

Only the following element of the proposed Amendments would increase costs to businesses:

CIPO forecasts that this change would increase the burden on a small subset of applicants by a total of $8,121 (2012 CY) over the 10-year period mandated in the analysis.

It is anticipated that ID agents in Canada would need an average of eight hours to become familiar with the proposed Amendments. This estimate is based on the two consultation sessions that CIPO held to solicit agent feedback on proposed amendments to the Act and on the proposed regulatory changes. It is anticipated that this learning phase would cost ID agents approximately $207,000 (2012 CY) in equivalent time. Note that the total number of ID agents in Canada is unknown and to calculate this amount, the ratio of ID applications to patent applications was applied to the number of patent agents (1 164) to arrive at the estimated number of ID agents, which is 207.

Distributed across all stakeholders, the proposed Amendments are expected to be neutral in terms of costs; however, some stakeholders will encounter differing costs and benefits. Broken down by activity, each applicant would save $37 per year and those with more than one registered design would save an additional $87 per year. Clients that transfer an application or registration would save $19 per year. Those who have applications still pending after 28 months would pay an extra $1 per year (the difference between the new cost and the savings encountered while applying). Each ID agent would see an upfront cost of $1,000.

The total savings of the proposed Amendments are $135,653, with annualized savings of $12,870 (using a present value base year of 2012 and a 7% discount rate, as specified in the formulas laid out in the Red Tape Reduction Regulations).

Small business lens

The small business lens does not apply to this proposal, as the proposed Amendments do not impose any significant costs on small businesses.

Consultation

CIPO has actively engaged with key stakeholders (i.e. IP agents who are regular users of the Canadian ID system) about the changes necessary to join the Hague System since the Government’s intent to join the Hague Agreement was announced in March 2014. Shortly after the announcement, agents were consulted on changes to the Act and, as the main stakeholders, they have continued to be actively engaged throughout the regulatory development process.

In March 2016, CIPO first presented a detailed policy intent document and drafting instructions to the Industrial Design Practice Committee (IDPC), a group that includes members of the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (IPIC) and subject matter experts from CIPO. Overall, they were favourable to the proposed Amendments and were very pleased that Canada was acceding to the Hague Agreement. CIPO incorporated much of the feedback received in that session into the proposed Amendments.

In May 2017, CIPO met again with key representatives from the IDPC to review and discuss a draft of the proposed Amendments. IDPC feedback informed a number of further revisions to the proposed Amendments, e.g. extending the publication date from 18 months to 30 months (which is the outer limit provided for in the Act).

Following this second round of comments, CIPO published a public consultation version of the draft proposed Amendments on its website, along with a plain-language guide to the changes as well as videos describing the changes to the general public. CIPO received a total of four submissions containing substantive comments, all of them from agents who are active in ID protection. Two of the suggested changes were incorporated in the final draft of this proposal: an extension of the time period to file a divisional application to two years after the filing date of the original application, and the possibility to include an indication that an application is a divisional in the application itself or in a separate document.

Throughout this process, feedback was generally positive with respect to Canada joining the Hague System and modernizing its ID framework. Some minor opposition was raised as IP agents wanted a provision to require a foreign applicant to use a Canadian agent; however, CIPO believes this change would impose an unnecessary burden on foreign applicants.

Rationale

Joining the Hague Agreement would provide innovative Canadian businesses with access to the Hague System, which allows IDs to be protected in up to 66 countries with minimal formalities through one application written in one language (English, French or Spanish), with fees paid in one currency through a single transaction. The Hague System also provides a streamlined mechanism through which businesses can manage and maintain their ID rights in multiple jurisdictions. Canada’s membership in the Hague Agreement would also provide foreign businesses in member countries with reciprocal advantages in applying for ID protection in Canada.

Generally, businesses benefit from using this streamlined process by reducing a number of costs associated with prosecuting multiple foreign applications. For example, it is understood that applicants currently retain a separate local agent to prepare and file an application in each designated country or office. Using the Hague System would enable them to reduce the costs associated with using an agent in each jurisdiction. For an application containing one design, submitted to Canada, the United States, the European Union and Japan using the Hague System, these cost savings would be approximately $2,400, or 44%, compared to filing individually.

CIPO is also proposing revisions to modernize Canada’s ID regime. These measures would update, clarify and codify Canada’s ID framework and align it with key trading partners. A regime that is aligned with the regime of other jurisdictions would lower the cost and increase the ease of doing business in Canada to the benefit of those looking to register and protect their IDs in Canada.

In order for Canadians to receive these benefits, Canada’s Industrial Design Act and its Regulations must be amended to both support a modern ID regime and to comply with the treaty obligations set out by the Hague Agreement. While the necessary amendments to the Act have already been made, Canada would be unable to join the Hague System unless the proposed Amendments to the Regulations are approved.

Gender-based Analysis Plus

CIPO conducted a Gender-based Analysis Plus preliminary scan of the potential diverse gender issues of the proposal and concluded that it would not impact diverse groups of women or men differently. The proposal would benefit all businesses, including those led by women for example, who want to protect their designs in Canada and abroad as the barriers for doing so would be lowered.

CIPO is developing IP awareness and education programs and products to support innovators and businesses with the IP knowledge required to grow and succeed. As CIPO continues to enhance these outreach efforts, strategies are being considered to better understand the needs of groups such as women and indigenous entrepreneurs to tailor CIPO’s programs and products to improve support for their participation in the IP system.

Contact

Public enquiries may be addressed to

Todd Hunter
Director
Copyright and Industrial Design Branch
Canadian Intellectual Property Office
50 Victoria Street, Room C-114
Place du Portage, Phase I
Gatineau, Quebec
K1A 0C9
Email: ic.cipoconsultations-opicconsultations.ic@canada.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council, pursuant to section 25 (see footnote a) of the Industrial Design Act (see footnote b), proposes to make the annexed Industrial Design Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to Todd Hunter, Director, Copyright and Industrial Design Branch, Canadian Intellectual Property Office, 50 Victoria Street, Room C-114, Place du Portage, Phase I, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0C9 (email: ic.cipoconsultations-opicconsultations.ic@canada.ca).

Ottawa, November 30, 2017

Jurica Čapkun
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Industrial Design Regulations

Interpretation

Definitions

1 The following definitions apply in these Regulations.

Act means the Industrial Design Act. (Loi)

application means an application for the registration of a design. (Version anglaise seulement)

Commissioner means the Commissioner of Patents. (commissaire)

Common Regulations means the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Agreement, including any amendments made from time to time. (Règlement d’exécution commun)

date of registration means, in relation to a design that is the subject of a Hague registration, the date of registration as determined under subsection 44(4). (date d’enregistrement)

divisional application means an application filed in accordance with subsection 20(2). (demande divisionnaire)

Hague Agreement means the Geneva (1999) Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, adopted at Geneva on July 2, 1999, including any amendments and revisions made from time to time to which Canada is a party. (Arrangement)

Hague application means an application referred to in subsection 41(1). (demande visée à l’Arrangement)

Hague registration means a registration referred to in subsection 44(3). (enregistrement visé à l’Arrangement7)

holder means the person in whose name an international registration is recorded in the International Register. (titulaire)

International Bureau means the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization. (Bureau international)

International Designs Bulletin means the periodical bulletin in which the International Bureau effects the publications provided for in the Hague Agreement or the Common Regulations. (Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux)

International Register means the official collection of data concerning international registrations maintained by the International Bureau. (Registre international)

international registration means the international registration of a design effected according to the Hague Agreement. (enregistrement international)

international registration designating Canada means an international registration resulting from an international application that contains an indication under Article 5(1)(v) of the Hague Agreement that Canada is a designated Contracting Party. (enregistrement international désignant le Canada)

Office means the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. (Office)

PART 1

Rules of General Application

Communications

Written communications

2 Written communications that are intended for the Minister or the Commissioner must be addressed to the “Industrial Design Office”.

Communications not submitted in writing

3 Neither the Minister nor the Commissioner is required to have regard to communications that are not submitted in writing.

Submission of documents, information or fees

4 Unless submitted by electronic means under subsection 24.1(1) of the Act, any document, information or fee that is submitted to the Minister or Commissioner must be submitted by physical delivery to the Office or to an establishment that is designated by the Minister or Commissioner on the Office’s website.

Deemed receipt — designated establishment

(2) Documents, information or fees that are submitted by physical delivery to a designated establishment are deemed to have been received by the Minister or Commissioner

Deemed receipt — electronic means

(3) Documents, information or fees that are submitted by electronic means under subsection 24.1(1) of the Act are deemed to have been received on the day on which the Office receives them, according to the local time of the place where the Office is located.

Electronic communications

6 If the Minister or Commissioner makes a communication available on the Office’s website to a person who has consented to receiving communications in this manner, the communication is deemed to have been sent to the person.

Postal address

7 A person doing business before the Office must provide the Minister with their postal address.

Written communications in respect of application

8 (1) Written communications submitted to the Minister or Commissioner in respect of an application must contain the name of the applicant and, if known, the application number.

Written communications in respect of registered design

(2) Written communications submitted to the Minister or Commissioner in respect of a registered design must contain the name of the registered proprietor and the registration number.

Manner of presentation of documents

9 Documents submitted to the Minister or Commissioner must be

Material not in English or French

10 The Minister and Commissioner must not have regard to any part of a document submitted in a language other than English or French, except for a representation of a design filed under paragraph 4(1)(b) of the Act or a document referred to in paragraph 27(1)(a).

Acknowledgment of protest

11 Communications received by the Minister before the registration of a design with the stated or apparent intention of protesting against the registration of that design must be acknowledged but, subject to section 8.3 of the Act, information must not be given as to the action taken.

Representation Before the Office

Power to appoint agent

12 (1) A person may appoint an agent to represent them in business before the Office.

Effect of act by agent

(2) An act by or in relation to an agent in respect of business before the Office has the effect of an act by or in relation to the person who appointed the agent.

Business before Office

(3) Subject to subsection (4), in business before the Office for the purpose of prosecuting an application,

Exception

(4) A person may represent themselves or be represented by any person authorized by them for the purpose of filing an application, paying a fee, or making a request or providing evidence under section 13 of the Act.

Effective date

(5) The appointment of an agent or the revocation of such an appointment is effective starting on the day on which the Minister receives notice of the appointment or revocation.

Postal address

(6) In the case of an appointment, the notice must contain the postal address of the agent.

Register

Content

13 For the purpose of subsection 3(1) of the Act, the prescribed information and statements that must be contained in the Register of Industrial Designs are

Applications

Requirements for representation of design

14 The prescribed requirements for the purpose of paragraph 4(1)(b) of the Act are that a representation of the design must

Presentation of photographs or reproductions

15 Photographs or reproductions contained in an application must be presented in the manner specified by the Minister or Commissioner on the Office’s.

Name and postal address

16 For the purpose of paragraph 4(1)(c) of the Act, an application must contain the applicant’s name and postal address.

Features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament

17 (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4), an application is deemed to relate to all of the features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament shown in the representation of the design that, in the finished article, appeal to and are judged solely by the eye.

Exception — statement of limitation

(2) If the application contains a statement clearly identifying that it relates to only some of the features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament that, in the finished article, appeal to and are judged solely by the eye, or only to some or all of those features of a part of the finished article, then the application relates only to those features.

Exception — features in dotted or broken lines

(3) An application is deemed not to relate to a feature that is shown in the representation of the design in dotted or broken lines, unless the application contains a statement to the contrary.

Exception — colouring

(4) An application is deemed not to relate to a feature that is shown in the representation of the design by means of colouring if it is evident that the purpose of the colouring is to indicate that the application does not relate to that feature.

Optional description

18 An application may contain a brief statement describing the representation or the features of the design, but the statement must not describe a utilitarian function or a method or principle of manufacture or construction.

Hague applications

19 The contents of a Hague application on its filing date are deemed to comply with paragraphs 14(b) to (d) and sections 15, 16 and 18.

One design per application

20 (1) An application must be limited to one design applied to a single finished article or set or variants applied to a single finished article or set.

Divisional applications

(2) The applicant, in the case of a pending application (the “original application”), may file with the Minister a divisional application for the registration of a design applied to a finished article if that design applied to that finished article

Required Statement

(3) An application is a divisional application only if a statement to that effect that identifies the corresponding original application is contained in the application or in a separate document that is submitted to the Minister no later than three months after the date on which the Minister received the application.

Separate application

(4) A divisional application is a separate application, including with respect to the payment of any fees.

Time period

(5) A divisional application must not be filed later than two years after the filing date of the original application or, if the original application is itself a divisional application, two years after the filing date of the earliest original application in the series of applications from which the divisional application results.

Exception

(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to a divisional application for the registration of a design applied to a finished article if

Filing Date

Non-application to Hague application

21 (1) This section does not apply to a Hague application or to a divisional application resulting from a Hague application.

Required documents, information and statements

(2) The documents, information and statements prescribed for the purpose of subsection 4(3) of the Act are

Outstanding documents, information and statements

(3) In respect of an application other than a divisional application, the Minister must by notice inform an applicant whose application does not contain all the documents, information and statements referred to in paragraph (2)(a) of the documents, information and statements that are outstanding and require that the applicant submit them no later than two months after the date of the notice.

Application deemed never filed

(4) If the Minister does not receive those documents, information and statements within that period, the application is deemed never to have been filed. However, any fees paid in respect of the application must not be refunded to the applicant.

Examination

Registrability

22 (1) The Minister must examine an application to determine if the design is registrable under section 7 of the Act.

Objections

(2) Subject to subsection (3), if the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the design is not registrable, the Minister must send to the applicant a report setting out the objections to registration and inviting the applicant to reply to the objections no later than three months after the date of the report.

Objections to Hague application

(3) In respect of a Hague application, the first report under subsection (2) must be sent by the Minister to the International Bureau in the form of a notification of refusal referred to in Article 12(2) of the Hague Agreement and the Minister is not required to send a copy of the report directly to the applicant.

Extension

(4) The time period to reply referred to in subsection (2) is extended by six months if, before it ends, the applicant submits to the Minister a request.

Limitation on extensions

(5) Only one request under subsection (4) may be submitted in respect of a particular report.

Deemed abandonment

(6) If the applicant does not reply in good faith to a report within the time period set out in subsection (2), or within the time period that has been extended under subsection (4), the application is deemed to be abandoned.

Reinstatement

(7) An application that is deemed to be abandoned is reinstated if the applicant, within six months after the day on which the application is deemed to be abandoned,

Advanced examination

23 The Minister must advance the examination of an application out of its routine order on the request of the applicant and on payment of the fee set out in item 10 of the schedule.

Delayed registration

24 In respect of an application other than a Hague application, on the request of the applicant and on payment of the fee set out in item 11 of the schedule, the Minister, if technically feasible, must not register a design until the day that is 30 months after the filing date of the application or, if a request for priority is made in respect of the application, after the earliest filing date of a previously regularly filed application on which the request for priority is based.

Amendments

Time limit to amend application

25 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an application may be amended before the design is registered.

Limitations on amendment

(2) An application must not be amended

Limitation — application made available to public

(3) If, on or after the date prescribed under subsection 8.3(1) of the Act for making an application available to the public, the application contains the name of a finished article in respect of which the design is to be registered, that application must not be amended, to change that name to the name of a substantially different finished article.

Priority

Non-application to Hague application

26 (1) This section does not apply to a Hague application or to a divisional application resulting from a Hague application.

Requirements

(2) For the purpose of subsection 8.1(2) of the Act, a request for priority must

Corrections

(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), an error in the filing date, the name of the country or office of filing or the number of a previously regularly filed application submitted under subsection 8.1(2) of the Act may be corrected by the applicant before the design is registered.

Exception

(4) After the date prescribed under subsection 8.3(1) of the Act for making the pending application available to the public, an error in the name of the country or office of filing submitted under subsection 8.1(2) of the Act may be corrected only if on the day the application is made available to the public it would have been obvious from the documents in the Minister’s possession relating to the application that the name of another particular country or office of filing was intended by the applicant.

Exception

(5) An error in the filing date submitted under subsection 8.1(2) of the Act must not be corrected if more than six months have passed since the filing date of the pending application.

Copy of previously filed application

27 (1) If an applicant requests priority in respect of an application on the basis of one or more previously regularly filed applications — other than an application previously regularly filed in or for Canada — the Minister may by notice request that the applicant of the pending application, no later than three months after the date of the notice,

Translation not accurate

(2) If the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that a translation submitted under subsection (1) is not accurate, the Minister may by notice request that the applicant, in the case of the pending application, submit to the Minister, no later than three months after the date of the notice,

Notice included in report

(3) If the Minister issues a report under subsection 22(2), a notice under subsection (1) or (2) may be given by including the request in that report.

Extension

(4) The time period for complying with a request under subsection (1) or (2) is extended by six months if, within that time period, the applicant submits to the Minister a request for an extension.

Limitation on extensions

(5) Only one request under subsection (4) may be submitted in respect of a particular request under subsection (1) or (2).

Non-compliance with request

(6) If the applicant of a pending application does not comply with a request under subsection (1) or (2) in respect of a particular previously regularly filed application before the end of the time period set out in those subsections, or of the time period that has been extended under subsection (4), the request for priority is deemed not to have been made on the basis of that previously regularly filed application.

Withdrawal of request for priority

28 (1) For the purpose of subsection 8.1(4) of the Act, a request for priority may be withdrawn by submitting a request with the Minister before the design is registered.

Effective date

(2) The effective date of the withdrawal of a request for priority is the date the request for withdrawal is received by the Minister.

Deemed action — divisional application

29 If, on or before the day on which a divisional application is received by the Minister, one of the following actions has been taken in respect of the original application, the same action is deemed to have been taken on the same day in respect of the divisional application:

Priority effect of international registration

30 For the purpose of sections 8 and 8.1 of the Act and of sections 26 to 29 and 45 of these Regulations, an application for international registration is, from its filing date as determined under Article 9 of the Hague Agreement, is equivalent to a regular filing of an application in or for a country of the Union.

Novel Design

Non-application of paragraph 8.2(1)(c) of Act

31 In respect of a particular application, paragraph 8.2(1)(c) of the Act does not apply in respect of a design that has been disclosed in another application that was filed in Canada by a person referred to in subparagraph 8.2(1)(a)(i) or (ii) of the Act if the filing date of that particular application is no later than 12 months after the filing date of the other application.

Applications and Documents Made Available to Public

Prescribed date

32 (1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purpose of subsection 8.3(1) of the Act, the prescribed date is

Exception

(2) If a document relates to more than one application or registration, for the purpose of subsection 8.3(1) of the Act, the prescribed date for that document is the earliest date prescribed under subsection 8.3(1) of the Act for an application or registration referred to in that document.

Withdrawal of request for priority

(3) For the purpose of subsection (1), a request for priority with respect to a particular previously regularly filed application is deemed never to have been made if the request is withdrawn more than two months before the day referred to in subparagraph (1)(a)(ii), without taking into account the withdrawal.

Prescribed date regarding withdrawn application

(4) For the purpose of subsection 8.3(5) of the Act, the prescribed date is the earlier of the date of registration and the day that is two months before the day referred to in subparagraph (1)(a)(ii).

Maintenance of Exclusive Right

Prescribed period

33 (1) For the purpose of subsection 10(2) of the Act, the prescribed period begins five years after the date of registration of the design and ends on the later of the end of 10 years after the date of registration and the end of 15 years after the filing date of the application.

Deadline for payment

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the fee for the maintenance of the exclusive right accorded by the registration of a design set out in item 2 of the schedule must be paid no later than five years after the date of the registration of the design.

Exception

(3) The fee for the maintenance of the exclusive right accorded by the registration of a design set out in item 2 of the schedule may be paid within six months after the end of that five-year period if the proprietor makes a request to the Commissioner within those six months and pays both the maintenance fee and the late fee set out in item 3 of the schedule.

Transfers and Changes of Name or Address

Request to record or register transfer

34 A request to record or register a transfer under subsection 13(2) or (3) of the Act must include the name and postal address of the transferee and the fee set out in item 4 of the schedule.

Change of name or address

35 If a registered proprietor changes their name or address, the Minister must register the change on the request of the registered proprietor.

Time Period Extended

Prescribed days

36 The following days are prescribed for the purpose of subsection 21(1) of the Act:

Fees

Fees for services

37 The fee prescribed for a purpose described in column 1 of an item of the schedule is the fee set out in column 2 of that item.

Refund excess fees

38 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister or the Commissioner must refund any amount paid in excess of the fee prescribed.

Exception

(2) A refund must not be made unless a request for the refund is received no later than three years after the day on which the fee was paid.

Waiver of fee

39 The Minister is authorized to waive the payment of a fee if the Minister is satisfied that the circumstances justify it.

PART 2

Implementation of the Hague Agreement

Register

Non-application of section 3 of Act

40 (1) Section 3 of the Act does not apply to a Hague registration.

Evidence

(2) The International Register and items in the file of an international registration are evidence of their contents, and a copy of a recording in the International Register or of an item in the file of an international registration is evidence of the particulars of the recording or item if the copy is certified by the International Bureau.

Admissibility

(3) A copy appearing to have been certified by the International Bureau is admissible in evidence in any court.

Hague Application

Application

41 (1) An application is deemed to have been filed under subsection 4(1) of the Act in respect of each design that is the subject of an international registration designating Canada.

Contents

(2) On the filing date of a Hague application,

Fees not applicable

(3) The requirement in section 4(1) of the Act for the payment of prescribed fees does not apply in respect of a Hague application.

Applicant

(4) In respect of a Hague application, the holder of the corresponding international registration is deemed to be the applicant.

Non-application of subsection 4(2) of Act

(5) Subsection 4(2) of the Act does not apply to a Hague application or to a divisional application resulting from a Hague application.

Deemed withdrawal of Hague application

(6) A Hague application is deemed to be withdrawn if

Effective date

(7) A withdrawal of a Hague application under subsection (6) is deemed to take effect on the date of the cancellation or the date of the recording of the renunciation or limitation in the International Register.

Filing Date

Non-application of subsection 4(3) of Act

42 (1) Subsection 4(3) of the Act does not apply to a Hague application or to a divisional application resulting from a Hague application.

Filing date

(2) The filing date of a Hague application or a divisional application resulting from a Hague application is the date of the corresponding international registration as determined under Article 10(2) of the Hague Agreement.

Refusal

Notification of refusal

43 The Minister must not refuse a Hague application under subsection 6(1) of the Act without first sending the International Bureau a notification of refusal referred to in Article 12(2) of the Hague Agreement within 12 months after the date of publication of the international registration by the International Bureau.

Hague Registration

Non-application of subsection 6(2) of Act

44 (1) Subsection 6(2) of the Act does not apply to a Hague application.

Statement of grant of protection

(2) If the Minister is not satisfied that a design that is the subject of a Hague application is not registrable, the Minister must send a statement of grant of protection in respect of the design to the International Bureau.

Registration of design

(3) A design that is the subject of a Hague application is deemed to have been registered by the Minister under subsection 6(2) of the Act if

Date of registration

(4) The date of registration of a design that is the subject of a Hague registration is the earlier of

Registered proprietor

(5) The holder of an international registration is deemed to be the registered proprietor of the corresponding Hague registration.

Deemed cancellation of Hague registration

(6) A Hague registration is deemed to be cancelled if the International Bureau records in the International Register

Effective date

(7) A cancellation of a Hague registration under subsection (6) is deemed to take effect on the date of the recording of the renunciation or limitation in the International Register.

Priority

Non-application of subsections 8.1(1) to (3) of Act

45 (1) Subsections 8.1(1) to (3) of the Act do not apply to a Hague application or to a divisional application resulting from a Hague application.

No request to Minister

(2) For the purpose of paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Act, the applicant must not submit a request for priority to the Minister in respect of a Hague application or a divisional application resulting from a Hague application.

Deemed request for priority

(3) For the purpose of paragraph 8(1)(c) of the Act, the applicant is deemed to have made a request for priority in respect of a Hague application or a divisional application resulting from a Hague application on the basis of a previously regularly filed application if the corresponding international registration contains

Applications and Documents Made Available to Public

Article 10(5) of Hague Agreement

46 (1) Despite subsection 8.3(1) of the Act, the Minister must not make available to the public a copy of an international registration or any statement, document or specimen sent by the International Bureau to the Minister under Article 10(5) of the Hague Agreement except in accordance with that Article.

Non-application of subsections 8.3(3) to (6) of Act

(2) Subsections 8.3(3) to (6) of the Act do not apply to a Hague application or to a divisional application resulting from a Hague application.

Duration of Exclusive Right

Non-application of section 10 of Act

47 (1) Section 10 of the Act does not apply to a Hague registration.

Term

(2) The term limited for the duration of an exclusive right in relation to a design that is the subject of a Hague registration

Transfers

Non-application of subsections 13(2) to (6) of Act

48 Subsections 13(2) to (6) of the Act do not apply to a Hague application or to a Hague registration.

Attestation

49 The Minister must, on request, provide to the transferee of an international registration an attestation that the transferee appears to be the successor in title of the holder if

Appeal or Invalidation

Non-application of sections 22 to 24 of Act

50 (1) Sections 22 to 24 of the Act do not apply to a Hague registration.

Appeal to Federal Court

(2) An appeal lies to the Federal Court from a refusal by the Minister of a Hague application under subsection 6(1) of the Act no later than two months after the date on which notice of the refusal was sent by the Minister.

Refusal reversed

(3) If, in the final judgment given in the appeal, the refusal by the Minister is reversed, the Minister must send a statement of grant of protection in respect of the design to the International Bureau.

Jurisdiction

(4) The Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction, on application of the Minister or any interested person, to make an order invalidating a Hague registration on the ground that the design was not registrable on the date of registration.

Notification to International Bureau

(5) If, in the final judgment given in a proceeding under subsection (4), a Hague registration is invalidated, the Minister must notify the International Bureau of the invalidation.

Certified copy

(6) An officer of the Registry of the Federal Court must send to the Minister a certified copy of every judgment or order of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court relating to a Hague registration.

Corrections

Notification of refusal of correction

51 (1) If the International Bureau modifies the International Register to correct an error concerning an international registration designating Canada and the Minister considers that the effects of the correction cannot be recognized, the Minister must so declare in a notification of refusal of the effects of the correction sent to the International Bureau no later than 12 months after the date on which the correction is published by the International Bureau in the International Designs Bulletin.

Opportunity to reply

(2) The holder may reply to the notification within the time specified in the notification.

Withdrawal of notification of refusal

(3) If, after considering a reply provided under subsection (2), the Minister considers that the effects of the correction can be recognized, the Minister must send to the International Bureau a notification of withdrawal of refusal of the effects of the correction.

Amendment — Hague application or Hague registration

(4) If the International Bureau modifies the International Register to correct an error concerning an international registration designating Canada and one of the circumstances set out in subsection (7) applies, the correction is effective in Canada and any corresponding Hague application or Hague registration is deemed to be amended accordingly.

Effective date

(5) For the purpose of paragraphs 25(2)(c) and (d), a correction under subsection (4) is deemed to take effect on the filing date of the corresponding Hague application.

No effect

(6) If the International Bureau modifies the International Register to correct an error concerning an international registration designating Canada that corresponds to a Hague application or a Hague registration and neither of the circumstances set out in subsection (7) apply, the correction has no effect in Canada.

Circumstances

(7) For the purpose of subsections (4) and (6), the circumstances are as follows:

Extension of Time

Non-application of section 21 of Act

52 Rule 4(4) of the Common Regulations applies, and section 21 of the Act does not apply, to the time periods referred to in sections 43, 44 and 51.

Transitional Provisions

Definition of former Regulations

53 (1) In this section, former Regulations means the Industrial Design Regulations as they read immediately before the day on which these Regulations come into force.

Filing date

(2) In respect of an application whose filing date, determined under the Act as it read immediately before the day on which these Regulations come into force, is before the day on which these Regulations come into force, or in respect of a design registered on the basis of such an application,

Repeal

54 The Industrial Design Regulations (see footnote 1) are repealed.

Coming into Force

S.C. 2014, c. 39

55 These Regulations come into force on the day on which section 112 of the Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, comes into force.

SCHEDULE

(Paragraph 22(7)(c), sections 23 and 24, subsections 33(2) and (3) and sections 34 and 37)

Tariff of Fees

Item

Column 1

Description

Column 2

Fee ($)

1

Examination of an application

 
 

(a) basic fee

400.00

 

(b) additional fee, for each page of the representation in excess of 10 pages

10.00

2

Maintenance of the exclusive right accorded by the registration of a design under subsection 33(2) or (3)

350.00

3

Late fee for the maintenance of the exclusive right accorded by the registration of a design under subsection 33(3)

50.00

4

Recording or registering of a transfer under section 13 of the Act, for each application or registration to which the transfer relates

100.00

5

Provision of a paper copy of a document, for each page,

 
 

(a) if the user of the service makes the copy using Office equipment

0.50

 

(b) if the Office makes the copy

1.00

6

Provision of an electronic copy of a document

 
 

(a) for each request

10.00

 

(b) for each application or registration to which the request relates

10.00

 

(c) if the copy is requested on a physical medium, for each physical medium provided other than the first

10.00

7

Provision of a certified paper copy of a document, other than a certified copy made under Rule 318 or 350 of the
Federal Courts Rules

 
 

(a) for each certification

35.00

 

(b) for each page

1.00

8

Provision of a certified electronic copy of a document, other than a certified copy made under Rule 318 or 350 of the Federal Courts Rules

 
 

(a) for each certification

35.00

 

(b) for each application or registration to which the request relates

10.00

9

Reinstatement of an abandoned application

200.00

10

Processing of a request to advance the examination of an application

500.00

11

Delaying of registration

100.00

[49-1-o]