Expedited Trademark Examinations in Canada

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) recently announced that it will be accepting requests for expedited examination of trademark applications along with other measures to speed up the trademark registration process in Canada. Before the recent announcements, CIPO took approximately 24-30 months to issue an examiner’s report (also called an office action). The new measures are expected to greatly reduce delays in Canada. 

Expedited examinations may be requested by an applicant if one of the following conditions are met:

1. a court action is expected or underway in Canada with respect to the applicant’s trademark in association with the goods or services listed in the application.
2. the applicant is in the process of combating counterfeit products at the Canadian border with respect to the applicant’s trademark in association with the goods or services listed in the application;
3. the applicant requires registration of its trademark in order to protect its intellectual property rights from being severely disadvantaged on online marketplaces; or
4. the applicant requires registration of its trademark in order to preserve its claim to priority within a defined deadline and following a request by a foreign intellectual property office.

Other measures to reduce delays in trademark registration include:

1. examiners providing fewer examples of goods and services that would be considered acceptable in examiner’s reports;
2. faster examinations of applications with goods and services from CIPO’s pre-approved list of goods and services; and
3. reduced number of examiner’s reports for each application and issuance of refusals in a timely manner. 

If you have a pending trademark application that has yet to be approved and you believe you meet one of the four conditions above, you may wish to request expedited examination for your application. If a request for expedited examination is accepted, the application will be examined as soon as possible. 

Please reach out to a member of Voyer Law’s IP team if you would like to request expedited examination for your trademark application.

Founder Leaving the Company

While founders embark on the journey of launching a company with an abundance of optimism it may be the case that their relationship does not last as long as the company, leading to the question of how to handle a founder leaving the company? This situation goes one of two ways: (1) the company and its founders entered into agreements that address this situation and the process set forth in these agreements is followed; or (2) no agreements are in place and the company and founder are left to try and work out a resolution (difficult if the departure was not amicable).

In this post we will detail two agreements to put in place early-on in a company’s life that could ease a founder’s departure:

1. Reverse Vesting Agreement. A reverse vesting agreement subjects a founder’s shares to repurchase by the company if the founder leaves/is fired from the company within a particular period of time. Each time shares “vest”, meaning that a particular period of time has elapsed and a certain number of shares cease to be subject to the company’s repurchase right. Typical terms are described as “4 years with a 1 year cliff”. This means that the agreement lasts for 4 years and that 1/4 of the shares vest after 1 year and are no-longer subject to the company’s repurchase right. After the cliff, shares typically vest in monthly or quarterly instalments for the remaining 3 years. The repurchase price is a nominal amount, typically the amount the founder paid for the shares upon incorporation (ex. $0.00001/share).

BENEFITS: If the founder leaves within the vesting period, the company can exercise its repurchase right and repurchase those unvested shares. This is especially useful if a founder leaves early, such as within the first year and allowing the company to repurchase all the founder’s shares. Without this agreement, a founder could leave the company within the first year yet retain all their shares.

COMMON MISTAKES: (1) Too short of a term, for example 2 year vesting term when the founder is needed for at least 3 years in order to complete the product; and (2) setting the repurchase price too high resulting in shares that are too expensive for an early-stage company to repurchase.

2. Shareholders Agreement. A Shareholders Agreement addresses the relationship among the shareholders and the company and may often contain clauses addressing founders specifically. Relevant to a founder’s departure, the Shareholders Agreement may contain a section permitting the company and/or the shareholders (or maybe the other founders) to repurchase the departing founder’s shares. The Shareholders Agreement would contain a mechanism for valuing the shares and a process for completing the repurchase. Additionally, even if the shares were not purchased or no purchase mechanism exists, it may contain a voting trust serving to transfer the votes held by the founder’s shares to a company designee.

BENEFITS: By including a repurchase mechanism, the Shareholders Agreement can kick-in following expiration of a Reverse Vesting Agreement, providing a way to easily repurchase shares of a departing founder once that agreement has expired. Additionally, the voting trust ensures that the founder receives the financial benefit in the future of any shares they retain but by transferring the votes associated with those shares to a company designee it ensures that only people actively involved in the company can vote on company matters.

COMMON MISTAKES: (1) Drafting the Shareholders Agreement to only apply to initial shareholders and not containing provisions whereby the agreement automatically applies to new shareholders; and (2) not creating a clear process for valuing shares and a process for resolving any dispute over share value.

In summary, if you plan for shareholder problems at the start you will be well equipped should those problems arise in the future. While founders may not want to dwell on a divorce when they are optimistic about the future they will be glad they did if things turn for the worse down the road.

Priced Rounds

As part of our day-to-day practice, we advise clients on different structures available for early-stage financing rounds.  As part of these discussions, convertible notes and SAFEs are inevitably raised by the founder yet the concept of a priced round is rarely raised and sometimes not even understood by the founder.  Priced rounds were the common approach to financing startups at all stages for over 25 years and are slowly making a comeback, which should be to the benefit of founders.

Understanding the Priced Round.  Priced rounds are simple:  the company and investors agree to a company valuation and the investors purchase shares in the company at this valuation.  Conversely, convertible notes and SAFEs are premised on the parties NOT agreeing to a company valuation, which is answered at a later date when a priced round occurs (typically the series A round) and the convertible notes or SAFEs convert.

When are Rounds Priced?  These days, priced rounds first arise during the Series A financing, where preferred shares are sold to investors.  At this stage convertible notes and SAFEs usually convert.  However, as advocated for in this post, any round can be priced including angel and seed rounds.

What are the Benefits to a Priced Round?  The company knows exactly what % of the company is being sold in the round and the founders know exactly how much they are diluted.  In a convertible note or SAFE financing there is some uncertainty as to how much of the company is actually being sold as these instruments typically convert on a fully diluted basis including the increase in option pool size required by the Series A investors yet the increase in the option pool is unknown until the Series A round.  Additionally, priced rounds eliminate the confusion surrounding how numerous convertible notes and SAFEs, with different caps and conversion terms, convert (these calculations are difficult to understand, even for sophisticated parties).

We encourage our clients to explore priced common share rounds when considering the structure for their next early-stage investment round.   Admittedly, some investors prefer convertible notes and SAFEs and others will reject a priced round valuation but accept the same valuation (or higher) as the cap on a convertible note or SAFE.  While priced rounds may not work in all situations there is no harm in floating this as a possible investment structure.  Indeed, sophisticated VCs, such as Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures, agree that pricing rounds may be in the best interest of startups and their founders and should be explored rather than avoided.