CIPO Sets Out AI Declaration Guidance For Documents Submitted In Proceedings Before The Trademarks Opposition Board

On June 4, 2025, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (the CIPO) issued an updated practice notice titled “Use of AI in proceedings before the Trademarks Opposition Board” (the Notice), which provides guidance for submitting a document in proceedings where artificial intelligence (AI) is used to create or generate content in the document. 

The Notice states that a party in a proceeding under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act is expected to inform both the Trademarks Opposition Board (the Board) and the opposite party if AI was used to create or generate any content in a document prepared for a proceeding before the Board and filed with the Registrar of Trademarks (the Registrar). To comply, the first paragraph of each such document must include the following declaration:

Artificial intelligence (AI) was used to generate content in this document. All content generated by AI, and the authenticity of all authorities cited in this document, has been reviewed and verified by the [include the name of the party to the proceeding], or their trademark agent.

The Notice includes the following examples of documents the Board considers having AI-generated content:

1. written representations drafted using AI;
2. documents citing a legal authority provided by AI where the AI subjectively determined whether the authority fit the search criteria that was provided (e.g., if AI was asked to “find a case that stands for [X]”); and
3. state of the register evidence generated by AI and submitted to the Registrar where the AI subjectively determined that a trademark fit a given search criteria (e.g., if AI was asked to "find other registered trademarks that resemble [trademark]").

In contrast, the Note explained that the following do not require an AI declaration:

1. exhibits attached to an affidavit which were prepared using AI (e.g., advertising samples) and not specifically for the purpose of the Board proceeding; and
2. documents in which voice recognition, document editing, or speech-to-text software for dictating a document was used.

Failure to provide the required AI declaration, or providing a false declaration, may constitute unreasonable conduct resulting in an award of costs against the non-compliant party.

Summary By: Uday Bahal