2026/04/12

Overview of Canada's design system

1. Registration requirements (design definition, originality, novelty, etc.)

Definition of a design in Canada: In Canada, an industrial design protects the "look" of a product, and covers unique visual features applied to the product. Specifically, designs consisting of three-dimensional shapes, configurations and two-dimensional patterns, ornaments (including colors) applied to finished articles are subject to protection. Not only the design of the entire product, but also the design of a part of the product (partial design) can be protected. These visual features must be "appeal to and judged solely by the eye." Conversely, shapes etc. derived solely from the function of the product (shapes arising purely from functional necessity), ideas themselves, manufacturing methods, and materials are not protected as designs. Additionally, designs that violate public order and morals cannot be registered.

Creativity Requirements: The Canadian design system does not explicitly provide for high-level creativity requirements such as the traditional "ease of creation" in Japan. In order for a design to be registered, novelty is required, which means that no identical or substantially similar design has been disclosed to the public anywhere in the world. In determining novelty, the standard is whether the design is substantially the same as an existing design, and if this is the case, the design will not be registered. Therefore, if the difference from the previous design is small, it will be judged as lacking novelty, and this will effectively become a hurdle for creativity. Designs that are purely functional cannot be registered, so shapes that can be easily assumed based on functional necessity are not protected in the first place. Overall, in Canada, the main registration requirement is ``novelty''**, and there is no separate ground for refusal regarding ease of creation (easiness of conception) as there is in Japan.

Specific application of novelty: The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) examines the applied design to see ifthe same or substantially similar design has been published in Canada or abroad. "Substantially similar" here refers to the similarity to the extent that the design gives the same visual impression when viewed as a whole, and even if there are differences in details, if the design is very similar as a whole, it will not be recognized as new. During the examination, not only registered and pending designs in Canada, but also designs published overseas will be searched. If this novelty requirement is not met (if the design is embedded in an existing design), registration will be refused.

Item	Canadian Design System	Japanese design system
Competent authority	Registration system by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO). There is no opposition system (invalidity is challenged in court).	Registration system by the Japan Patent Office (JPO). There is no opposition system (after registration, it will be challenged in an invalidation trial).
Definition of design	Design (shape, pattern, color) related to the appearance (visual characteristics) of an article (finished product). Shapes with only functions are not allowed.	Shapes, patterns, and colors (or combinations) of articles (including buildings and images after the revision). Functional shapes are not allowed (Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Design Act). Buildings and interiors are also protected (revised in 2019).
Protection of partial design	Possible (Applications can be made even as part of the finished product). Partial designs are expressed by indicating unclaimed parts with broken lines, etc.	Possible (partial design system available). Part of it can be identified as a design (indicated by a dotted line). Introduced in 2005, common in Japan.
Registration requirements	Novelty is required (world standard, no known substantially identical design). There is no explicit provision regarding ease of creation (the substance is included in the determination of novelty). Violating public order and morals and purely functional designs are not allowed.	Novelty and Difficulty in creation are required (previously, ``a design that can be easily created'' was a reason for refusal, but it has been relaxed in recent guidelines). Violating public order and morals and functional shapes are prohibited (Article 5 of the Design Act).
Exception for loss of novelty	An exception applies if the application was filed within 12 months of self-publication (applicable only to publications originating from the applicant). No application procedure required, automatic application.	Within 12 months after self-publication (6 → 12 months with the 2018 revision). Application requires a declaration at the time of filing and submission of proof (Article 4 of the Design Act).
Application method	Direct national application or Hague international application. [Online application possible] (CIPO electronic system). Paper applications are also accepted.	Direct national application or Hague international application. J-PlatPat electronic application system can be used (preliminary procedures required), written application is also possible.
Representative requirements	Agent optional (Foreign corporations can also apply without a representative). No power of attorney is required when appointing an agent. If you do not have a local contact, a representative is recommended.	A representative is required for foreign companies (such as a patent attorney residing in Japan). Submission of power of attorney is required. It is common for Japanese companies to use agents as well.
Application details	Name of completed product, applicant's address and name, drawings/photos, free application format (special format recommended). Explanation optional.	Product name, applicant information, explanation of matters related to creation, 6 drawings (*flexible after 2019), etc. Use the prescribed application format.
Drawing/photo requirements	Drawings or photographs are acceptable. At least one drawing is acceptable (more than one is recommended). There is no regulation on the number of viewpoints. Unprotected areas can be displayed using broken lines. Diagram description optional.	Drawings are the rule (Photos are also acceptable, but drawings are recommended). Previously required 6-view drawings → now flexible operation. Request sufficient diagrams. Partial design is indicated using broken lines, etc. A brief explanation of the diagram is required (legal provision).
Multiple designs in one application	Not possible (in principle). However, "variations" (similar designs for the same product but differing only in details) can be included in one application. Multiple designs that are significantly different need to be separated.	Possible (revised 2019). Multiple designs can be submitted in one application (each design will be examined and registered separately). This was not possible before the amendment. There is a related design system (it is possible to file a separate application for a similar design within 10 years of the original design application).
Examination method	Substantive examination available (not an unexamined registration system). Estimated review period is 18 months. Method → Substantive examination. Notification of reasons for refusal/response (3 months). If you are dissatisfied with the refusal, you can apply for judicial review in the federal court.	Substantive examination available. The average review period is about 6 to 12 months. Notification of reasons for refusal/response (3 months in principle). Appeal for appeal against decision of refusal → Intellectual Property High Court.
Publication system	Non-disclosure system: Applications are kept private until registration. However, it will be automatically published 30 months after the application/priority date. Published at time of registration. Registration delay system: Registration can be voluntarily delayed for up to 30 months and publication postponed.	Public design gazette system: In principle, the application is published as an application announcement (design gazette) within 6 to 8 months from the date of application. Secret design system: Can be kept private for up to 3 years upon application (Article 14 of the Design Law).
Duration of life	15 years from the filing date (or 10 years from the registration date, whichever is longer). The actual maximum period is about 15 years. Cannot be extended.	25 years from the filing date (after application of the 2019 amendment). Cannot be extended. Applications before amendment are valid for 20 years from the date of registration.
Maintain/Update	One-time maintenance fee (paid by the 5th year of registration). Valid thereafter until expiry. Rights expire if payment is made within 5 years. No renewal system.	Annual pension payment (lump sum for the first to third years, then annually). No renewal system. Pension rights are forfeited due to non-payment of pension.
Rights	The right to injunction against the application of the same or substantially similar design to similar products and the right to claim compensation for damages. Design rights arise on the date of registration.	The rights are almost the same (Article 23 of the Design Law). A design right arises on the date of registration.
Civil remedies for infringement	Civil injunction/damage compensation is the main focus. Profits can be claimed. Punitive damages are possible. You can request up to the past three years. No-fault (good faith) infringer cannot be compensated for damages (only injunction).	Civil injunction/damage compensation is the main focus. If it is malicious, there may be extortionate measures of up to three times the amount of damages (estimated according to the Design Law Enforcement Regulations). Statute of limitations: Same as general torts, the statute of limitations for intellectual property rights is 3 years after discovery of damage (5 years under the revised Civil Code), etc. Infringers in good faith are also liable for compensation (no good faith exemption clause).
Criminal punishment	None. Infringement of design rights is not a crime. No criminal proceedings.	Yes. Infringement of a design right is subject to criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to 10 million yen (a violation of the law). Police and prosecutors may be involved.
Administrative control (customs, etc.)	None. There is no system for customs to stop products that infringe on designs. Rights holders themselves can respond by filing civil lawsuits, etc.	Yes. It is possible to apply for an import suspension to customs. Infringing goods can be confiscated and destroyed through administrative procedures.
International Application (The Hague)	Member countries (from 2018). Canada can be specified via The Hague. Similar to domestic applications, there is a substantive examination, and a response to the notification of refusal is required within 3 months. CIPO handles the conversion process from international registration to Canadian registration. Maintenance fees are covered by the 5th year international renewal.	Member State (Accession 2005). The Hague can be specified. There is a substantive examination (a response to the notification of refusal is required). The conversion process from international registration to Japanese registration is handled by JPO. Maintenance pension is paid annually as in Japan.
Relationship with reproduction rights	No formal design protection system (no protection for unregistered designs). Complementary protection may be possible with copyright and trademark (overlapping protection of design and trademark is also possible).	Artistic designs can be protected under the Copyright Act even if they are not registered (However, copyright protection is limited for mass-produced products unless the design is registered, which is the purpose of the Design Act). There are also cases where three-dimensional trademarks are registered.

2. Application procedure (application method, required documents, availability of online application)

Jurisdiction and agent for filing: To register a design in Canada, file an application withthe Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO). In principle, the applicant is the creator of the design (or its successor), and if the creator created the design for another person, that other person becomes the applicant. When Japanese companies apply directly to Canada, they are not legally required to use a local agent (it is possible under the system to apply on their own without a representative). However, in practice, it is strongly recommended that you hire an agent such as a Canadian patent attorney, as the procedures and examination procedures are specialized. When appointing a representative, it is not necessary to submit a power of attorney, but the representative must be officially designated by filing a notification (notification) with CIPO as described below. Although it is possible for foreign companies (Japanese companies) to apply without a representative, it is common practice to appoint a local representative, as communications and notifications with CIPO must be conducted in English or French, and deadline management is required.
Filing Procedures and Online Filing: Design applications to Canada can be filed both online and on paper. Procedures can be completed online using the electronic filing system (Industrial Design E-Services) provided by CIPO, which has a user-friendly interface. For online applications, enter the necessary information in an electronic form, upload drawing data, etc., and submit. Paper applications are also accepted, in which case the set of documents will be mailed to the designated address (CIPO Design Department). Although electronic filing is recommended, both methods are accepted, so online filing is acceptable.

Required information: The following information is required for Canadian design applications.

Name and postal address of the applicant (applicant)
The mailing address of the applicant or agent is required for correspondence with CIPO. If you have appointed a representative, communications from the Office will be directed to the representative. If you do not appoint a representative, you will be the point of contact with CIPO.

Name of the finished article
The application documents should state the general name of the finished article to which the design will be applied. This must be a name that is commonly recognized by consumers (e.g. "car" or "chair"). Identification of the finished product is important information that determines the scope of the design right (what product is the design for?).

Image of the design (drawing or photograph)
At least one representation (reproduction) of the design is required for the application. You can submit a black and white or color drawing or photograph that clearly shows the product design. Requirements for drawings and photographs will be discussed later, but it is necessary to fully disclose the features of the design, so multiple drawings (such as views from each direction) will be submitted as necessary. It is recommended that the submitted drawings be numbered consecutively, and it is desirable to include an explanation such as "Fig.1 (front view), Fig.2 (side view)...".

Fee (application fee)
You must pay the prescribed application fee. Payments can be made by credit card, bank transfer, or check, and will be paid to CIPO in Canadian dollars. Fees may be revised from time to time, and the latest amounts are published on the CIPO website.

In addition to these, you can optionally include the following items when applying.

Priority claim: If you wish to claim priority under the Paris Convention, you must indicate the filing date and country of the application and make the claim within 6 months of the earliest priority date. In Canada, a priority claim is allowed if it is made at the latest from the filing date before the registration decision, but priority cannot normally be claimed after six months have passed.

Limitation statement: To make it clear which parts of the submitted drawings are claimed as rights, you can delineate the unprotected parts with dashed lines or add a statement to the effect that ``the design is only for part of the product.'' For example, the scope of rights can be limited by writing a statement such as ``The part indicated by the broken line is not included in the scope of the design.'' Although this is optional for the applicant, it is an important point in practice for clarifying partial designs.

(Brief) Explanation: In Canada, the description (feature description) of a design is optional. In many cases, explanatory text can be omitted if the drawings sufficiently demonstrate the features. However, it is recommended to add the name of the diagram (explanation of the diagram) for each viewpoint of the diagram (e.g., "Figure 1.1 is a front view of glasses").

Flow of the application procedure: Once the application documents are received by CIPO, the first step is to check the formal requirements (whether the application has all the required information, whether there are required figures, whether the fees have been paid, etc.). If the minimum requirements are met, you will receive aNotice of Filing and be assigned an application number. If there are any missing documents or information, CIPO will issue an **Omission Notice** and you will be given an opportunity to fill in the missing information, usually within two months.

Once you clear the formal examination, substantive examination will be conducted. The CIPO examiner first assigns an appropriate design classification (Locarno classification) to the applied design, and then checks whether the scope of the design is clear from the submitted drawings and articles (whether there are any contradictions in the drawings and whether the object of protection is clearly indicated). It is also checked whether a single application contains multiple designs. In Canada, as a general rule, one application is one design, but designs that are very similar and are considered "variants" are allowed to be combined into one application. The examiner will examine the drawings, and if the multiple designs in the application are variations that are not "substantially different," they will be accepted as one application; if not, the examiner will request that the application be divided or amended.

Once the scope of the design has been determined, a worldwide preliminary design search is conducted. The examiner searches not only the registered and pending designs database in Canada, but also overseas publication databases to see if the same or similar design has already been published. Based on this, a judgment is made on thenovelty and suitability for registration is determined.

Response to examination results: If it is determined that registration is possible as a result of the substantive examination, we will promptly proceed with registration disposition. On the other hand, if there are reasons for refusal (defects), a notice of reasons for refusal will be sent in the form ofExamination Report. The applicant (or his/her representative) usually has to respond within three monthsby rebutting the findings with a written opinion or, in some cases, amending the drawings or claims. However, this amendment cannot substantially change the scope of the design at the time of filing (amendments that significantly change the design are not permitted). If the reasons for refusal remain unresolved even after responding to the examiner, aFinal Examination Report will be issued and the applicant will be given a final opportunity to argue. If the examiner still determines that registration is not possible, a decision of refusal will be issued and the application will be rejected. At that time, the applicant mayfile an appeal in Federal Court for judicial review.
Registration and Publication: If the registration is approved, CIPO will issuea Notice of Industrial Design Registration and notify you of the registration number, registration date, etc. Design applications in Canada proceed in private from application to registration. However, if the application is not registered within 30 months from the application date (or priority date), the application will be automatically published at that time (if it is registered within 30 months, the application will be published at the time of registration). Depending on the applicant's strategy, registration may be delayed in order to coincide with product launch. In fact, you can apply for adelay of registration to CIPO to postpone the registrationup to a maximum of 30 months. On the other hand, if you wish to register early, there is also a system where you can apply for accelerated examination. The Canadian system has nopublication and opposition systemand no mechanism for third parties to comment at the application stage. Therefore, if there is an objection after registration, interested parties will take invalidation procedures (described below).

The above is the general procedure flow from application to registration. Theaverage processing time isapproximately 18 months for regular national applications and approximately 11 months for international applications via The Hague. When Japanese companies file applications, it is important to utilize electronic filing and cooperate with local agents to respond and make appropriate amendments within the deadline.

3. Protected object

Scope of protected designs: As mentioned above, what is protected under the Canadian Designs Act are the visual features of a product (finished product). Visual elements such as three-dimensional shapes (shapes and outlines) and two-dimensional designs and color schemes are eligible, and those applied to a product can be registered as a design. Finished products subject to protection refer to all tangible industrial products, ranging from daily necessities to mechanical devices and the appearance of electronic devices. For example, the unique curved shape of a car's hood, the icon arrangement and GUI design on a smartphone screen, the pattern and shape of shoes, etc. fall under the category of ``product aesthetic design.'' In Canada, it is possible to obtain design rights not only for the entire product, but also for parts and parts, and it is also permitted to obtain rights for only a part of the shape of the product (partial design). This concept is similar to Japan's partial design system, and if a part of the product is new and unique, it is possible to obtain rights for only that part.

GUI/Screen Design: As a modern topic of design protection, graphical user interface (GUI), icons, and other on-screen designs can also be protected in Canada. Although the screen display itself is intangible, if it is a visual element displayed on a finished product called a device, it is subject to design law. For example, smartphone home screen layouts and animated icon designs can be registered as "decorations applied to electronic device display screens." However, it is not an independent finished product in itself, so it must be displayed in conjunction with some product. In recent years, it has become possible to register designs for GUI images and screen transitions in Japan, and in Canada, a similar trend is in place where GUIs are included in the scope of protection (however, mere art images that are not related to the product are not subject to protection).
What is not protected: It is also clear what isnot protected in Canadian designs. First,the function itself or the shape that is necessarily derived from the function cannot be protected by design rights. For example, if the shape of a part is determined purely by functional requirements (performance, bonding requirements, etc.), that shape will not be recognized as a design because there is "no aesthetic choice." Legally, "characteristics of a practical product that are purely functional" cannot be registered (so-calledexclusion of functional form). In addition, designs that violate public order and morals (antisocial symbols, etc.) will be refused registration. Furthermore, design rights do not cover anything at the idea stage, the product idea concept itself, manufacturing methods, materials, and other elements other than appearance. For example, functional features such as ``this product is made of carbon material'' and ``a folding mechanism'' do not fall within the scope of design protection. It should be noted that design rights are only rights related to "visual beauty" and the scope of protection is different from other intellectual property (invention patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc.).

Inspection of buildings and interiors: In Canada, the definition of "finished article" under the Design Act does not include **real estate (buildings and interiors within buildings)**. Traditionally, buildings themselves are not industrially mass-produced "products," so the exterior and interior design of buildings are not protected under the Canadian Design System (and are not considered subject to design rights). On the other hand, in Japan, the 2019 revision made it possible to register the design and interior of buildings. This point should be recognized as a difference between the two countries' systems. For example, the interior concept of a store or the design of an architectural facade can be protected by design rights in Japan, but in Canada they are not directly protected by design rights (this will be considered separately under the framework of copyright and trademark).

Protection of multiple designs: If multiple design variations are possible for one product, in Canada similar variations can be protected simultaneously within a single application, but other than that, separate applications are required (*Identical or similar designs can be filed together as variants). Japan has a related design system, which allows similar designs to be protected by filing a separate application within 10 years even after registration. Canada does not have a system equivalent to Japan's related designs. Therefore, in order to protect a series design in Canada, it is necessary to include all variations in advance at the time of application (or file them separately at the same time). This is a major difference from Japan, as it is difficult to additionally protect design changes after filing, and it is important for Japanese companies to have a plan that covers the variations they wish to protect in the early stages of their Canadian filing strategy.

4. Exception system for loss of novelty

Canada also has an exception to the loss of novelty (grace period). Even if the applicant (designer) has published the design unintentionally or for the purpose of announcing a product, etc., this is a remedy that does not impair the novelty of the design as long as it is within 12 months from the date of publication. Specifically, even if there is an applicant-derived disclosure from the applicant or his or her successor in rights, if the Canadian application (or priority application) is filed within one year from the date of the first publication, the published information will not be considered an earlier design and the novelty requirement can be met. In other words,the designer has one year to publish himself/herself.

For this exception to apply, it is understood that the disclosure must be made by the applicant himself or by a third party who obtained information from the applicant. If a completely unrelated third party, such as a competitor, independently publishes the same design, the grace period will not apply, and such publication will take away the novelty (loss of novelty in the true sense), so please be careful.
Canada's grace period is 12 months, which is the same length as the current Japanese system. In Japan, since the 2018 law reform, the novelty exception period for designs has been extended from the previous six months to 12 months. Therefore, both countries have a grace period of one year. However, there are some differencesin the applicable procedures. In Japan, in order for an applicant to apply for an exception to his or her publication, he or she is required to declare in the application that he/she wishes to apply for the exception to loss of novelty at the time of filing the application, and to submit specified documents and supporting materials within 30 days of filing (if you forget to do so, the application will not apply). On the other hand, in Canada, no special notification procedures are required, and exceptions are automatically recognized by law. In other words, if an examiner finds a publication published within one year from the date of the application, and it turns out that the publisher is the applicant himself/herself, the examiner will ignore it and judge novelty. However, it may not be obvious to the examiner whether the publisher is the same as the applicant or not, so in practice, there are cases in which a note such as ``The company has released this design to the press on ◯ year, ◯ month, ◯. This application is to be filed within ◯ months from the publication.'' Although it is not officially required, it is a device to prevent misunderstandings during screening.

When claiming priority, the starting point for the grace period is the priority date. For example, if you file an application in Japan within one year of the first publication, and then claim the priority of that application and apply again within six months in Canada, Canada will use the priority date to determine whether the publication is within one year. In this respect, the treatment is almost the same as in Japan.

In general, in Canada, there is a lenient measure in place in which publications caused by the applicant will not constitute self-infringement for 12 months, and even if the patent has been published in advance at an exhibition or product test marketing, it is possible to recover if the application is promptly filed within one year. However, it goes without saying that it is desirable to apply as early as possible without relying on the grace period, as there is a risk of imitation by competitors and a risk of a third party filing a separate application between publication and filing.

5. Whether or not a power of attorney is required

In Canada, it is not necessary to submit a power of attorney when filing a design application. Even if the applicant designates an agent, there is no obligation to submit a signed power of attorney; it is sufficient to submit a Notice of Appointment of Agent and notify the agent's name and address. CIPO only accepts communications and procedures from agents who have been notified, and direct instructions from the applicant are generally ignored (to avoid confusion due to double designation of an agent). Therefore, there is no need to exchange power of attorney documents with the representative's seal and signature, as is the case in Japan, making the procedure simpler.

In practice, Canadian local agents (patent attorneys) often notify themselves as an agent at the time of filing an application and continue to act as an agent. As "No Power of Attorney is required", there is no process for mailing and submitting a power of attorney to CIPO. However, since it is assumed that the agent has been formally requested by the applicant, legally speaking, it is of course necessary to have a delegation relationship agreement between the applicant and the agent. Canada does not require that proof be shown to the agency, but it is generally recommended that agents keep their power of attorney internally in case a dispute arises.
On the other hand, In Japan, when appointing an agent to file a design application, it is basically necessary to submit a power of attorney. Particularly when a foreign company requests a Japanese patent attorney to file an application, it is customary to submit a power of attorney in a prescribed format (English is also acceptable) to the JPO (Japan Patent Office). In Japan, if a power of attorney is not submitted at the same time as the application or within a certain period of time afterward, an order to amend the procedure may be issued, and if the power of attorney is incomplete, the examination may not proceed. Canada does not have such complications, allowing forquick application procedures. This is a big difference in practice, and it is good to keep in mind that Japanese companies do not need to prepare power of attorney documents when filing directly in Canada (reducing the lead time from request to application).

6. Drawing/photo requirements (format, viewpoint, quantity, etc.)

Submission Format: Canadian design applications may be submitted in any format, either line drawings or photographs. Black and white drawings are typical, butcolor drawings andhigh resolution photographs are also acceptable if they clearly illustrate the features of the design. In the case of drawings, it is desirable to have line drawings that accurately depict the outline and pattern of the product, and in the case of photographs, the appearance of the product must be clearly distinguishable by erasing the background. In either case, the scope of the design right can only be determined based on the submitted drawings and photographs, so it is important for the applicant to fully illustrate the visual features that they wish to claim.

Required viewpoints and number of views: Although at least one figure is required, in practice it is usually necessary to submit figures from multiple angles so that the entire picture of the product can be understood. Typically, it is desirable to have six views (front, back, left and right sides, top, bottom) and perspective views, but all six directions are not necessarily required. In Japan, it was once strongly required to submit six-sided drawings, but in Canada, it has been said from the beginning that it is only necessary to submit the necessary number for "sufficient disclosure." For example, if the subject is a flat design, one front view may be sufficient, and if the subject is a symmetrical shape, it may be sufficient to show only one side. The key point is whether the form of the design can be expressed clearly enough to be reproduced by a third party. Applicants are encouraged to cover the necessary viewpoints to ensure that there are no gaps.

CIPO recommends that submitted figures be marked with a figure number. If there are multiple figures in one application, there is guidance on how to number them like "1.1, 1.2, 1.3,..." or simply "Fig.1, Fig.2,...". Additionally, by adding simple figure explanations to each figure (e.g., ``Fig. 1 is a perspective view of the finished product'', ``Fig. 2 is a front view'', etc.), it will be easier for examiners and third parties to understand. Although these are not mandatory, they provide additional information to the applicant's advantage.
Use of partial broken lines, etc.: In Canada, by using broken lines (dotted lines) in drawings, it is possible to express that the part is not included in the scope of the design. The law also stipulates that the parts drawn with broken lines are not considered to be included in the applied design. Therefore, for example, if you want to obtain rights for only a specific part of the entire product, if you draw the other parts with broken lines, the broken line parts will not be included in the registered design and will essentially be treated as a partial design. Another method is to use dotted lines + break lines to indicate that the length of only part of a movable part is variable. In this way, techniques such as broken lines or blurred lines to draw non-essential parts are permitted, allowing applicants to visually adjust the scope of their rights. On the other hand, the part drawn with a solid line is the part that is exclusive under the design right, so it must be novel and unique. In Japan, it is common to display non-parts using broken lines, and the idea is the same.

Quality of drawings: The drawings and photographs submitted must be of a quality that allows the features of the design to be clearly and accurately identified. If it is unclear or too small, you may be asked to make corrections during the review. In addition, inconsistencies between the drawings (for example, the shape of the front view and side view are different) may also be a reason for rejection. Therefore, it is necessary to pay close attention to consistency and clarity during the drawing creation stage. In Canada, there are no detailed rules regarding the thickness of lines or shading in drawings, but cases where excessive deformation or excessive use of shadows impede shape recognition are considered problematic. Basically, it is important that a third party can understand and reproduce the shape of the product from the drawing.

⚠Notes when submitting photos: When using photos, remove the background and unnecessary parts so that only the product is clearly visible. If the contrast or resolution of the photo is insufficient, it may be rejected due to "defective drawing quality." Additionally, if the colors and brightness of multiple photos are extremely different, it may not look like the same product, so we recommend submitting images that have a consistent appearance. In this regard, although Canada accepts color photographs, it is easier to maintain consistency between each image if it is unified in black and white (unless you wish to include color itself as a copyright element).

Comparison with Japan: Previously, in Japan, the submission of six-sided drawings was virtually mandatory, and if it was missing, a correction order was issued, but with the easing of enforcement in 2019, all six drawings are no longer required and it has become a case-by-case basis. However, Japan is still more formal than Canada in that, in many cases, examination standards require six drawings or sufficient drawings to replace them. In Canada, a single drawing may be accepted, but in Japan, there is a high possibility that the examiner will request missing drawings after filing. Additionally, in Japanese applications, there is a column to write "description of the article to which the design relates" and "matters related to the creation of the design," etc., but in Canada, such textual information does not, in principle, affect the examination or the scope of rights. Although they share this drawing-centricity, it can be said that formal requirements for submitted drawings are more flexible in Canada. When a Japanese company applies to Canada, there should be no problem as long as it utilizes its daily know-how in creating drawings in Japan and submits the necessary and sufficient drawings in accordance with Canadian standards (free format as long as it is not ambiguous).

7. Protection period (starting point, possibility of renewal)

Starting date of rights: Canadian industrial design registration rights accrue on registration date. It is important to note that legal effect takes effect upon completion of registration, rather than based on the filing date as with patents. The right is not established from application to registration, and even if someone else imitates the same design during that period, it will not be a formal infringement of the right (however, if the design is registered later, the right can be enforced for actions after the registration date). This treatment is similar to Japan's design law (in Japan, design rights accrue on the date of establishment and registration).
Duration: Since the 2018 amendment, the duration of a Canadian design right is up to 15 years from the filing date. However, the period will be adjusted to provide protection forat least 10 years from the date of registration. Specifically, the rights last until the later of ``10 years after the registration date'' or ``15 years after the filing date''. For example, if registration is achieved within one year of application, the registration will expire 15 years after the application date, which is approximately 14 years after the registration date. On the other hand, if the application is registered 7 years after the application due to a prolonged examination period, 10 years from the date of registration corresponds to 17 years from the application date, exceeding the 15-year rule. In this case, thelater10 years after registration (=17 years after filing) will apply, resulting in a period exceeding 15 years. In this way, it is a mechanism to compensate for the reduction in the effective period of protection due to delays in examination. However, in most cases, the application and registration process is completed within a few years, so in practice, the standard protection period is ``15 years from the filing date''.

Maintenance fee: In Canada, a maintenance fee is only payable once during the life of a design right. Specifically, the specified maintenance fee must be paid within 5 years from the date of registration. By paying this maintenance fee, you can maintain your rights for up to the maximum duration mentioned above (10 to 15 years). In other words, the right is unconditionally valid for the first five years after registration, but if the maintenance fee is not paid by the end of five years, the right will expire after five years. There is a 6-month grace period for maintenance fees, and you can pay additional late fees within 6 months after the deadline. After this period, the rights will completely expire.

Once paid, the maintenance fee will be valid for the entire remaining period. For example, if you pay the maintenance fee on the 5th year of registration, your rights will continue until the final expiration date (15 years from the filing date or 10 years from the registration date, whichever is later) without any additional costs. In Canada, there is no renewal (extension) system for this one-time maintenance fee, and the term of rights cannot be extended beyond 15 years. There is also no need to pay an annual maintenance pension for design rights every year (this is only done once in the 5th year). Although the fee amount is set relatively low, care must be taken to ensure that the rights do not expire after five years due to non-payment.

Comparison with Japan's term of protection: Under the current law after the 2019 revision, the term of design rights in Japan is 25 years from the filing date, which is longer than any other country in the world (before the revision, it was 20 years from the registration date, but it has been extended). Therefore, if we look only at the period of time, Japan provides 10 years longer protection than Canada. In Japan, this 25-year period cannot be extended, and after it expires, the property becomes publicly owned. Similar to Canada, there is no extension renewal system.

Regarding maintenance costs, in Japan **annual pension (registration fee)** must be paid. Rather than paying the entire period in one lump sum when registering a design, it is a system in which maintenance fees are paid on an annual basis, similar to patents. On the other hand, in Canada, the payment is only made once in the fifth year, so the maintenance effort is less than in Japan. However, in Canada, the term of protection is short to begin with, so if long-term protection is required, it will be necessary to consider protection using another type of intellectual property (for example, registering a shape trademark as a trademark).
As mentioned above, in Canada, a design right cannot be extended after expiration, but there is no extension system in Japan either (there is no medical extension like a patent for a design). Therefore, you can use it freely after the protection period expires. Because the lifespan differs significantly between Japan and Canada, Japanese companies need a strategy that takes into account that rights expire sooner in Canada than in Canada, in line with the product's life cycle. For example, a design that is protected for 25 years in Japan will expire in 15 years in Canada, and counterfeit products may then become available. If you want to monopolize an important design in Canada for a long time, you may want to take measures such as considering rights other than the design (registering a three-dimensional trademark as a trademark, asserting copyright if it exists, etc.).

8. Infringement litigation system (methods of proof, remedies)

Criteria for determining design right infringement: In Canada, design right infringement occurs when a design that is identical or substantially similar to a registered design is applied without permission to a product of the same type as the registered design. A design right holder (or exclusive licensee) has the right to prohibit the following actions with respect to products bearing his or her registered design or products with designs that are hardly different from those.

Making: The act of manufacturing a product by applying a design that is the same or similar to the registered design

selling, offering for sale, renting: the act of selling, renting, or displaying for sale such products

importing for commercial purposes: The act of importing such products into Canada for commercial purposes

If the above actions are performed without the permission of the right holder, it will constitute infringement of design rights. The main point of proof is to show thatthe design of the accused product is visually substantially the same as the registered design (not differing substantially). In Canada, in particular, the ``overall visual similarity'' test is used, giving more weight to the judge's visual impressions than to expert opinions. However, in some cases, the testimony of technical or artistic experts is admissible, and detailed comparisons of submitted drawings and photographs are made side by side at the trial.

A typical defense for the accused (defendant) is to claim that the designs are not similar (non-infringement). In other words, the company uses drawings and actual products to demonstrate that the design of its product is substantially different from the registered design. In addition, infringement will not be established if the accused product is a different type of product from the article specified in the registered design (for example, the registered design is for a "chair" but the accused product is a "table", etc.). Other possible defenses include the fact that the design right is invalid in the first place (described below) and that the right holder is not the legitimate right holder (dispute over ownership of rights).

Jurisdiction and procedure: Design infringement lawsuits are generally filed ascivil lawsuits. In Canada, intellectual property infringement lawsuits under federal law can be heard in the **Federal Court** or the High Court of each province (provincial court). Usually, cases are filed in federal court if the infringement spans multiple states or if a nationwide injunction is desired. On the other hand, if, for example, there is an issue of unfair competition (such as unauthorized use of business indications) at the same time as infringement of a design right, cases may be brought together in state court. In any case, when a right holder determines that an infringement has occurred, he or she can file a lawsuit seeking an injunction or damages.
The issues in the lawsuit are the establishment of infringement and the validity of the design right. These are usuallytried within the same proceeding. In other words, if the defendant argues that the registered design is invalid due to lack of novelty, the court will decide on infringement and validity at the same time (in Canada, there is no opposition system for design registration, so invalidity claims are filed as a defense or as a separate request for invalidation trial). Court proceedings proceed through the normal civil litigation process, including pleadings between the parties, discovery, and testimony from witnesses and expert witnesses. Settlement negotiations often take place in the preliminary stages.

Proof method: The plaintiff (design right holder) obtains the accused product and creates comparison drawings with drawings of the registered design to prove the visual similarity. In some cases, an appraiser (such as an industrial designer) may submit a written opinion stating that the two designs are essentially the same. On the other hand, the defendant points out the "differences" in detail and argues that they give a different impression from the perspective of general consumers. Canadian courts determine whether there is infringement based onthe overall aesthetic impression of the design. At that time, if part of the design is a functional shape, that part may not be considered in determining similarity (because functional parts are not subject to protection). A single substantive difference may be considered non-infringement, but an overall difference that is trivial may constitute infringement.

Remedies: If the rights holder is successful, the following civil remedies are available in Canada:

Injunction: The court can order the defendant to stop infringing activity. Provisional injunctions (temporary injunctions) are theoretically possible, but the requirements (such as proof of serious damage) are strict, and they are rarely granted in practice. A final permanent injunctionis typically issued upon infringement and prohibits the defendant from making or selling the design in the future.

Damages or Accounting of Profits: Compensation for damages suffered by the rights holder is ordered. The amount of damages is calculated based on the profits the right holder has lost due to the infringement (such as decreased profits due to lost sales opportunities). Alternatively, it is also possible to select a remedy called restitution of unjust enrichment in which the defendant is required to pay back the amount equivalent to the profits earned from the sale of the infringing product. Plaintiffs can choose whichever is more advantageous, but they cannot double-take. In Canada, in legal proceedings, infringement/validity and the amount of damages are, in principle, examined in the same procedure (however, it is possible to separate the examinations on the amount of damages after mutual agreement).

Punitive damages: If the defendant's conduct is particularly egregious, punitive damages may be awarded. For example, in cases where there has been intentional and planned infringement over a long period of time, a fine may be added to the amount of normal damages. Although this is an exceptional measure allowed under Canadian law, it has application in intellectual property infringement lawsuits as well.

Delivery up or Destruction of Illegal Goods: The court can order the delivery up or destruction of infringing goods and their manufacturing molds in the possession of the defendant to the right holder. This removes infringing products from the market and prevents them from being redistributed.

Cost recovery: The prevailing party can require the losing party to pay a certain amount of attorney's fees and court costs. Federal courts generally allow partial reimbursement of costs to the victor, and commercial practice may require the other party to pay between 25% and 50% of the actual costs. However, this does not mean that the entire amount will be covered, and in many cases a significant portion will have to be paid by the individual.

Points to keep in mind when proving: Canadian design infringement lawsuits have a unique provision that limits damages if the defendant is an "innocent infringer." Specifically, if the defendant did not know that the design was registered at the time of the infringement, and there is a reasonable reason why he did not know (for example, the product did not have the Ⓓ mark or the name of the right holder and was unrecognizable), the court may not award damages or return of profits and may limit the relief to an injunction only. In other words, those who use the design without malicious intent may not be held liable for financial damages. For this reason,right holders are recommended to display (mark) the Ⓓ mark and the name of the right holder on their products. If there is an appropriate indication, the defendant will not be able to claim that he did not know, and it will be easier to claim compensation. Japan does not have such provisions to protect bona fide infringers, and even if they infringe without knowing it, they are liable for civil compensation. As a point to keep in mind that is unique to Canada, it is strategically important for Japanese companies to also make efforts to mark their products and make them known, and to not provide any escape route for unintentional products.

Statute of Limitation/Exclusion Period: For infringement of Canadian design rights, the law stipulates that relief cannot be obtained if more than three years have passed since the act of infringement. This is a type of statute of limitations, meaning that you can only claim damages for the past three years before filing a lawsuit. Therefore, if you wait too long to notice infringement, you will lose your right to claim for any infringements that occurred before that point. This is why prompt exercise of rights is required. In Japan, the right to claim compensation for damages based on torts under the Civil Code is three years (extended to five years under the revised Civil Code in 2020), and the same applies to infringement of design rights. In Japan, there is also a six-month period for filing criminal charges. It can be said that in Canada, there is no criminal law, but there is a clear 3-year civil statute of limitations.

Availability of criminal penalties: Canada has no criminal penalties for infringement of design rights. Design rights are strictly civil rights and are not considered criminal acts that can be detected by the police or prosecuted by prosecutors. Therefore, infringers are only subject to civil damages, and there are no criminal penalties such as imprisonment or fines. This is true not only in Canada but also in many other countries such as the United States, but it is a big difference when compared to Japan. In Japan, infringement of design rights can be subject to criminal penalties. Article 69 of the Japanese Design Act stipulates that a person who infringes a design right or exclusive license may be punished with "imprisonment of up to 10 years or a fine of up to 10 million yen (or both)." Furthermore, if a corporation causes an employee to commit an infringing act, there is also a dual penalty provision under which the corporation will also be subject to a fine (up to 300 million yen). In this way, in Japan, malicious infringement of design rights is a serious crime that can be prosecuted criminally, whereas in Canada there are only civil remedies. Therefore, please be aware that civil litigation is the only recourse when dealing with infringements in Canada, and that criminal intimidation (for example, reporting to the police) is generally not an option.

9. Existence of administrative detection system
Administrative injunction systems such as customs: Canada's design system does not have a system for infringing goods detected by administrative agencies. For example, in the case of trademark rights, customs (Canada Border Services Agency) has a system for interdicting counterfeit brand products, but for design rights, there is currently no system in place under the law for import injunctions by customs. There is no provision in the Canadian Designs Act or Customs Act that allows customs authorities to seize goods ex officio based on design rights. Therefore, even if a product that infringes on a design is imported from overseas, customs cannot detain it as a product that infringes on intellectual property rights, and the right holder must take action by filing a civil lawsuit. This is something that Japanese companies need to be aware of. Even if counterfeit products enter the Canadian market, unlike Japan, there is no system in place to file a complaint with customs and administratively stop the product, so they must obtain a direct court injunction and present it to the importer to have it stopped.

Police enforcement: As mentioned above, design infringement is not a crime in Canada, so the police will not investigate and arrest you. As there is no public involvement in both administrative and criminal matters with respect to designs, it is 100% dependent on civil means of self-remedy (lawsuits and injunctions). Design rights holders have no choice but to monitor the market themselves and take civil measures if they find infringing products. The CIPO (Intellectual Property Office) has also clearly stated, ``We will not monitor the market or exercise rights,'' and right holders themselves need to be proactive.

Situation in Japan: In contrast, Japan has an administrative counterfeit control system. Japan's Customs (Customs Agency) operates an import suspension petition system for not only trademarks and copyrights but also patents and designs. A design right holder can apply to the Director-General of Customs for an injunction against imported goods that are suspected of infringing on his or her design rights. Customs monitors imported cargo based on the notification, suspends customs clearance if there is any suspicion of infringement of rights, and takes measures such as confiscation and destructionafter obtaining opinions from both the rights holder and the importer. Through such border measures, the government has a role in preventing the distribution of infringing products to a certain extent in Japan. In addition, in Japan, infringement of design rights is subject to criminal punishment, so it is possible to expose malicious counterfeit companies through criminal proceedings, such as filing a complaint with the police, having them investigated and referred to the police, and then indicting them.

In short, it is a contrasting composition: Japan: Enforcement possible by administrative (customs) + criminal police and Canada: No official administrative/criminal enforcement. Japanese companies need to devise local countermeasures based on the fact that when a counterfeit product problem occurs in Canada, they cannot rely on customs or pursue criminal prosecution, but must take civil measures on their own. For example, it is essential to have a strategy centered on civil litigation, such as sending warning letters to major port operators, quickly obtaining a provisional disposition in civil litigation, and using it to suspend imports. Recognizing that the law enforcement environment is different from that in Japan, we are required to cooperate with local lawyers and provide appropriate practical responses.

10. Relationship with the Hague System (opportunity to apply internationally, required documents, procedural points to note)
Availability of international registration application: Canada joined the Hague Agreement as amended in Geneva on November 5, 2018, and it is possible to file an international application using the Hague International Design Registration System. In other words, Japanese companies can submit an International Design Application in English or French to WIPO, select Canada as the designated country, and proceed with the procedures to obtain a design right without directly filing an application in Canada. A maximum of 100 designs (all within the same Locarno classification class) can be registered in one Hague application, and the same applies when designating Canada. For example, it is possible to file an international application for 10 furniture designs belonging to the same classification and designate Canada, the EU, and the United States at the same time. By including Canada as a designated country, CIPO will receive a copy of the international registration andit will be treated as a Canadian application.

Required documents/information: The requirements for the Hague international application itself are determined by international rules, and basically include the applicant's name and address, drawings/photos of the design (one or more for each design), product name (listed in relation to the Locarno classification), designated countries, and prescribed fees. There are no additional documents required to designate Canada. For example, a power of attorney or local agent information is not required (at the time of international filing, the agent at WIPO is sufficient). When Japanese companies use international applications, they must complete the procedures in English or French (or Spanish), but it is also possible to file a Hague application via the Japan Patent Office. It is recommended that required drawings and photographs meet the standards of each designated country (resolution, number of viewpoints, etc.). In the case of Canadian specifications, as mentioned above, the standards are flexible, such as requiring at least one drawing, but it is common to consider other countries (for example, the United States requires only line drawings) when preparing the drawing.

Procedure flow: Once an international application is registered and gazetted after formality examination at WIPO, the information is sent to the IP offices of each designated country. Once the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) receives a copy of the international registration, it willcarry out a substantive examination in the same way as a regular national application. The examination content and criteria are exactly the same as for domestic applications, and checks include novelty, non-functionality, and clarity of drawings. If there are any reasons for refusal, aNotification of Refusal will be notified to the applicant (holder) via WIPO. The examination report prepared by CIPO is attached to this notification of refusal, and the specific reasons for refusal are indicated (for example, "drawing is unclear", "similar to this previous design", etc.).

The applicant must respond directly to CIPO to this ground of refusal. Even in the case of international applications, the rules for handling examinations in each country are determined by each country, so in the case of a Canadian refusal, the applicant or his/her local representative must submit a written opinion/amendment to CIPO. In principle, the response period is 3 months from the notification date. In many cases, due to language and legal barriers, it is practical to rely on a local representative in Canada. After your response, the examiner will review your case and if the issue is resolved, you will be notified of a Statement of Grant of Protection via WIPO. If the application is not finally approved, it will be a final refusal (Refusal)** and the application (the Canadian designated part of the international registration) will be rejected. If the refusal is final, the international registration itself will be valid for the other countries, but only the portion designated in Canada will be invalidated.
Registration/Creation of Rights: If the application through The Hague is registered in Canada, CIPO will issue aStatement of Grant of Protection and send it to WIPO. That date will be the date of registration in Canadaand rights will accrue. The fact that Canada has granted protection will also be recorded in the Hague International Register. The rights are the same as for domestic applications, and a Canadian registration number corresponding to the international registration number will be assigned. Please note that in the Hague application, the publication has already been made in the International Gazette, so there is no publication unique to Canada (the notification becomes a registration notice).

Duration and renewal: The duration of a Canadian design right obtained through The Hague is the same as a domestic application, within 15 years from the filing date (international registration date). Guaranteed for at least 10 years starting from the date of registration. The concept of maintenance fees is a little different.The Hague International Registration itself must be maintained by paying a renewal fee at WIPO every five years, but in Canada, if you pay the renewal fee for the first five years, there are no Canadian maintenance fees thereafter. Specifically, if you pay the renewal fee to WIPO once within 5 years from the date of international registration to maintain your international registration, the 5th year maintenance fee to CIPO will be treated as included in the renewal fee, and you will not need to pay any additional fees to Canada for up to 15 years thereafter. However, it is necessary to continue paying the international registration renewal fee to WIPO every five years, such as the 10th and 15th year (for Canada, the fee is zero or very small after the first time). In this regard, even if you go through the Hague, maintenance procedures remain, so it is necessary to keep track of renewal deadlines.

Procedural points: When a Japanese company files a Hague application with Canadian designation, the first thing to keep in mind is to meet drawing requirements according to each designated country. Canada has a high degree of freedom in the format of figures, but if you specify the United States in the same Hague application, for example, there are strict requirements such as only line drawings being allowed. Therefore, it is common practice tocreate drawings that meet the most stringent requirements of each country. Secondly, the **response period (3 months)** in the event that a reason for refusal is issued in Canada is relatively short, so it is necessary to contact the local agent promptly and devise a countermeasure. Although a local agent is not required at the time of filing the Hague application, it is almost essential at the refusal response stage, so it is a good idea to secure a reliable Canadian agent in advance.

Also, with regard to multiple design applications, in Canadian domestic applications only variants were not accepted, but through The Hague, different designs within the same class will be processed all at once. CIPO examines each design individually and registers all designs if there are no problems, but if there are problems with a certain part, only that design is notified of rejection. Therefore, applicants should be aware that there is a possibility that it will be necessary to respond to rejections for each design in the package application. If necessary, we will also consider dividing the international registration (designatable rights division).

Finally, Japan is already a member of the Hague, and acquiring a Canadian design using the Hague is a strong option for Japanese companies. Compared to filing directly in Canada (domestic filing via Paris), the advantages of using The Hague include the ability to carry out simultaneous procedures in multiple countries with one application and central management, and the ability to centrally manage the timing of design publication. On the other hand, the disadvantages are that you may end up incurring attorney fees in each country when dealing with refusals, and that international filing fees may increase. If you are applying for Canada alone, you can apply directly, but if you are applying for other countries as well, it may be more convenient to go through The Hague. In either case, there are major differences from the Japanese design system (such as maintenance fee timing and rights term), so it is important to take appropriate practical measures based on the points mentioned throughout this report.

Comparison table with the Japanese design system

The table below summarizes the main differences between the Japanese design system and the Canadian system. In addition to the differences in the system, we also include points to note in practice.

Item Canadian Design System Japanese design system

Competent authority Registration system by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO). There is no opposition system (invalidity is challenged in court). Registration system by the Japan Patent Office (JPO). There is no opposition system (after registration, it will be challenged in an invalidation trial).

Definition of design Design (shape, pattern, color) related to the appearance (visual characteristics) of an article (finished product). Shapes with only functions are not allowed. Shapes, patterns, and colors (or combinations) of articles (including buildings and images after the revision). Functional shapes are not allowed (Article 3, Paragraph 2 of the Design Act). Buildings and interiors are also protected (revised in 2019).

Protection of partial design Possible (Applications can be made even as part of the finished product). Partial designs are expressed by indicating unclaimed parts with broken lines, etc. Possible (partial design system available). Part of it can be identified as a design (indicated by a dotted line). Introduced in 2005, common in Japan.

Registration requirements Novelty is required (world standard, no known substantially identical design). There is no explicit provision regarding ease of creation (the substance is included in the determination of novelty). Violating public order and morals and purely functional designs are not allowed. Novelty and Difficulty in creation are required (previously, ``a design that can be easily created'' was a reason for refusal, but it has been relaxed in recent guidelines). Violating public order and morals and functional shapes are prohibited (Article 5 of the Design Act).

Exception for loss of novelty An exception applies if the application was filed within 12 months of self-publication (applicable only to publications originating from the applicant). No application procedure required, automatic application. Within 12 months after self-publication (6 → 12 months with the 2018 revision). Application requires a declaration at the time of filing and submission of proof (Article 4 of the Design Act).

Application method Direct national application or Hague international application. [Online application possible] (CIPO electronic system). Paper applications are also accepted. Direct national application or Hague international application. J-PlatPat electronic application system can be used (preliminary procedures required), written application is also possible.

Representative requirements Agent optional (Foreign corporations can also apply without a representative). No power of attorney is required when appointing an agent. If you do not have a local contact, a representative is recommended. A representative is required for foreign companies (such as a patent attorney residing in Japan). Submission of power of attorney is required. It is common for Japanese companies to use agents as well.

Application details Name of completed product, applicant's address and name, drawings/photos, free application format (special format recommended). Explanation optional. Product name, applicant information, explanation of matters related to creation, 6 drawings (*flexible after 2019), etc. Use the prescribed application format.

Drawing/photo requirements Drawings or photographs are acceptable. At least one drawing is acceptable (more than one is recommended). There is no regulation on the number of viewpoints. Unprotected areas can be displayed using broken lines. Diagram description optional. Drawings are the rule (Photos are also acceptable, but drawings are recommended). Previously required 6-view drawings → now flexible operation. Request sufficient diagrams. Partial design is indicated using broken lines, etc. A brief explanation of the diagram is required (legal provision).

Multiple designs in one application Not possible (in principle). However, **"variations"** (similar designs for the same product but differing only in details) can be included in one application. Multiple designs that are significantly different need to be separated. Possible (revised 2019). Multiple designs can be submitted in one application (each design will be examined and registered separately). This was not possible before the amendment. There is a related design system (it is possible to file a separate application for a similar design within 10 years of the original design application).

Examination method Substantive examination available (not an unexamined registration system). Estimated review period is 18 months. Method → Substantive examination. Notification of reasons for refusal/response (3 months). If you are dissatisfied with the refusal, you can apply for judicial review in the federal court. Substantive examination available. The average review period is about 6 to 12 months. Notification of reasons for refusal/response (3 months in principle). Appeal for appeal against decision of refusal → Intellectual Property High Court.

Publication system Non-disclosure system: Applications are kept private until registration. However, it will be automatically published 30 months after the application/priority date. Published at time of registration. Registration delay system: Registration can be voluntarily delayed for up to 30 months and publication postponed. Public design gazette system: In principle, the application is published as an application announcement (design gazette) within 6 to 8 months from the date of application. Secret design system: Can be kept private for up to 3 years upon application (Article 14 of the Design Law).

Duration of life 15 years from the filing date (or 10 years from the registration date, whichever is longer). The actual maximum period is about 15 years. Cannot be extended. 25 years from the filing date (after application of the 2019 amendment). Cannot be extended. Applications before amendment are valid for 20 years from the date of registration.

Maintain/Update One-time maintenance fee (paid by the 5th year of registration). Valid thereafter until expiry. Rights expire if payment is made within 5 years. No renewal system. Annual pension payment (lump sum for the first to third years, then annually). No renewal system. Pension rights are forfeited due to non-payment of pension.

Rights The right to injunction against the application of the same or substantially similar design to similar products and the right to claim compensation for damages. Design rights arise on the date of registration. The rights are almost the same (Article 23 of the Design Law). A design right arises on the date of registration.

Civil remedies for infringement Civil injunction/damage compensation is the main focus. Profits can be claimed. Punitive damages are possible. You can request up to the past three years. No-fault (good faith) infringer cannot be compensated for damages (only injunction). Civil injunction/damage compensation is the main focus. If it is malicious, there may be extortionate measures of up to three times the amount of damages (estimated according to the Design Law Enforcement Regulations). Statute of limitations: Same as general torts, the statute of limitations for intellectual property rights is 3 years after discovery of damage (5 years under the revised Civil Code), etc. Infringers in good faith are also liable for compensation (no good faith exemption clause).

Criminal punishment None. Infringement of design rights is not a crime. No criminal proceedings. Yes. Infringement of a design right is subject to criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to 10 million yen (a violation of the law). Police and prosecutors may be involved.

Administrative control (customs, etc.) None. There is no system for customs to stop products that infringe on designs. Rights holders themselves can respond by filing civil lawsuits, etc. Yes. It is possible to apply for an import suspension to customs. Infringing goods can be confiscated and destroyed through administrative procedures.

International Application (The Hague) Member countries (from 2018). Canada can be specified via The Hague. Similar to domestic applications, there is a substantive examination, and a response to the notification of refusal is required within 3 months. CIPO handles the conversion process from international registration to Canadian registration. Maintenance fees are covered by the 5th year international renewal. Member State (Accession 2005). The Hague can be specified. There is a substantive examination (a response to the notification of refusal is required). The conversion process from international registration to Japanese registration is handled by JPO. Maintenance pension is paid annually as in Japan.

Relationship with reproduction rights No formal design protection system (no protection for unregistered designs). Complementary protection may be possible with copyright and trademark (overlapping protection of design and trademark is also possible). Artistic designs can be protected under the Copyright Act even if they are not registered (However, copyright protection is limited for mass-produced products unless the design is registered, which is the purpose of the Design Act). There are also cases where three-dimensional trademarks are registered.

*The numbers in [ ] in the table indicate the source. The article numbers of the Japanese system are also listed for reference.

As mentioned above, there are some important differences between the Canadian and Japanese design systems in terms of term of protection, objects of protection, means of enforcing rights, etc. In particular, compared to Japan, the term of protection in Canada is shorter and administrative and criminal enforcement measures are limited, so Japanese companies need to be careful when formulating strategies to utilize their rights in Canada. For example, in Canada, practical measures can be taken, such as managing the life cycle of product designs on a different basis than in Japan, as design rights expire early, and moving swiftly to counter counterfeit products with civil injunctions in mind. Also, at the application stage, it is necessary to take measures such as filing designs with variations all at once, in case a follow-up application cannot be filed like related designs in Japan. Overall, it is important to properly understand the Canadian system and devise an IP strategy that is compatible with local rules while taking into account the experience in Japan.

Sources/References

Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) – Industrial Designs Guide etc.
Official guidance for the Canadian designs system. Comprehensive explanation of design definition, registration requirements, application, registration/maintenance, and compliance with the Hague system.

Marks & Clerk – Insights into Designs Laws and Regulations: Canada
Canadian Design Law Q&A (ICLG Designs Law 2023 Edition) from international IP firm Marks & Clerk. Practical points such as grace periods, no need for a power of attorney, remedies for infringement, and reasons for invalidity are summarized in a Q&A format.

Japan Patent Attorneys Association (JPAA) – Overview of the Design Law and revision points
Explanatory articles on the Japanese design system. It explains the extension of the term of existence to 25 years due to the 2019 amendment, the introduction of multiple design applications at once, and the expansion of the related design system, making it a useful reference for comparing Japanese and foreign systems.

Taketo Nasu “Industrial design law in Japan” (2024)
Explanation of Japanese design law included in the design law book published by Edward Elgar. Mentioned civil and criminal remedies and customs measures for design rights infringement in Japan.

Japanese Design Act, translated
Official English translation text of Japan's Design Act (Ministry of Justice Japanese Law Translation). In particular, refer to the criminal penalty provisions in Article 69.

Industrial Design Act and Regulations, Canada
Canadian federal law "Designs Act" and its implementing regulations. The original source of the definition of novelty, the provisions for excluding the scope by broken lines (Regulations 3(3)), the term of design rights, etc.

WIPO Hague System – Guide to International Registration
Guide to the WIPO Hague Agreement. Provides basic information on points to note when joining Canada, renewal procedures, etc.

DLA Piper – Industrial designs: A lesser-known form of IP protection
Article on Canadian designs from the DLA Piper law firm. Concisely mentions the limitation of the scope of rights by broken lines in drawings and important points for utilizing design rights.

(or more)

Overview of Canada's design system

1. Registration requirements (design definition, originality, novelty, etc.)

2. Application procedure (application method, required documents, availability of online application)

3. Protected object

4. Exception system for loss of novelty

5. Whether or not a power of attorney is required

6. Drawing/photo requirements (format, viewpoint, quantity, etc.)

7. Protection period (starting point, possibility of renewal)

8. Infringement litigation system (methods of proof, remedies)

9. Existence of administrative detection system

10. Relationship with the Hague System (opportunity to apply internationally, required documents, procedural points to note)

Comparison table with the Japanese design system

Sources/References

Related posts

Overview of Saudi Arabia’s design system

Overview of the Italian design system

Malaysian design system overview