<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Section 45 Proceeding Practices to Change Again?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.trademarkblog.ca/section-45-proceedings-to-change-again/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.trademarkblog.ca/section-45-proceedings-to-change-again/</link>
	<description>Commentary on Canadian Trademarks &#038; Technology Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:51:26 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeffrey Vicq</title>
		<link>http://www.trademarkblog.ca/section-45-proceedings-to-change-again/comment-page-1/#comment-131363</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey Vicq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:04:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.trademarkblog.ca/section-45-proceedings-to-change-again/#comment-131363</guid>
		<description>I saw that - I&#039;ve always wondered if cancellation of the proceedings on consent was arguably outside of the scope of the authority provided the Registrar under s. 45; perhaps the Office has come to the same conclusion.  We&#039;ll have to wait and see what they do with the final version of the new Notice. 

Thanks for reading, Megan.  All the best.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw that &#8211; I&#8217;ve always wondered if cancellation of the proceedings on consent was arguably outside of the scope of the authority provided the Registrar under s. 45; perhaps the Office has come to the same conclusion.  We&#8217;ll have to wait and see what they do with the final version of the new Notice. </p>
<p>Thanks for reading, Megan.  All the best.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Meg Langley Grainger</title>
		<link>http://www.trademarkblog.ca/section-45-proceedings-to-change-again/comment-page-1/#comment-131225</link>
		<dc:creator>Meg Langley Grainger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:27:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.trademarkblog.ca/section-45-proceedings-to-change-again/#comment-131225</guid>
		<description>The deletion of the phrase &quot;the Registrar may terminate the proceedings upon receipt of a request to cancel the Section 45 proceedings signed by or on behalf of both partiesâ€ in the new Practice Notice may require a change in strategy when counseling clients on the use of a Section 45 proceeding as leverage in an opposition proceeding.  

If parties can no longer settle and stop a Section 45 proceeding, they may be reluctant to request one in the first place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The deletion of the phrase &#8220;the Registrar may terminate the proceedings upon receipt of a request to cancel the Section 45 proceedings signed by or on behalf of both partiesâ€ in the new Practice Notice may require a change in strategy when counseling clients on the use of a Section 45 proceeding as leverage in an opposition proceeding.  </p>
<p>If parties can no longer settle and stop a Section 45 proceeding, they may be reluctant to request one in the first place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
