Previous feedback

October to December 2007

Compliments	Response and additional measures taken
"I am most grateful to the examiner for his "helpful attitude".	No response/additional measures necessary
"Your department have all been exceptionally gracious and cooperative in helping me, so thank you very much".	No response/additional measures necessary
"I would just like to express a word of appreciation and thanks for the substantial and thorough searching which you undertook on these applications This has been of great assistance in allowing the applicant, to focus their limited resources on the more likely areas for profitable protection, and has thus been of very real assistance. They are most grateful."	No response/additional measures necessary
"I much appreciate your courtesy and guidance about the process of submitting a Request for an Opinion. To seek and obtain the opinion of a senior examiner from the IPO (at a cost of only £200) has got to be top value for money."	No response/additional measures necessary
"I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the very helpful way with which this matter has been dealt with. Having been used to the ways of the EPO, where decisions take months (if not years) to issue, it is refreshing that you have gone to great lengths to deal with this matter quickly so that my client can avoid unnecessary expense. Your efforts in this regard are very much appreciated".	No response/additional measures necessary
"Many thanks for your continued help with this client's applications, which is very much appreciated. The granted patent has already been utilised in the removal of at least one infringing product from vendors".	No response/additional measures necessary
"I have used the IPO for 27 years and have the utmost respect for all the examiners working in the IPO. All have been polite, informative, professional and listened and responded to all my questions. They are a very well organised group of people."	No response/additional measures necessary
"Thank you, your advice, help and assistance has exceeded all my expectations."	No response/additional measures necessary
"Thank you for your help in dealing with my irregularity letters queries and your advice and information relating to a change in practice relating to these letters."	No response/additional measures necessary
"I have received great customer service from the SAS Team. In this day and age, good Customer Service shines out like a rare diamond in the rough, so congratulations on making this happen."	No response/additional measures necessary
"Thank you for your help and attention in dealing with my trade mark application. I am seriously impressed with the level of care and attention I have received."	No response/additional measures necessary
"Thank your for providing such a high level of customer service."	No response/additional measures necessary
"I have found you very friendly and it has been a pleasure to deal with the registry and to receive such a good personal service."	No response/additional measures necessary
"I am impressed with the customer service I have received from SAS staff. They have been helpful, and extremely patient dealing with my query and they have gone over and above what I expected."	No response/additional measures necessary
"As usual, the IPO has been extremely helpful with this application and I would like to thank you all for all the consideration shown to my applications."	No response/additional measures necessary
“Thank you for your help, care and attention. This is what makes Britain great, people like you and your staff. If only we witnessed this and learned of these acts of professionalism every day performed by your office, our country would be great again.”	No response/additional measures necessary
"The Register Maintenance Staff are a great credit to the UK-IPO. They are courteous, very helpful, and very efficient and understood the urgency of the matter; they went out of their way to help. The service was brilliant; and the staff presented a fine image of the IPO to its customers."	No response/additional measures necessary
"Very professional, I received a first class service from everyone I spoke to."	No response/additional measures necessary
"You were polite and helpful and the information was easily understood, compared to the US Patent Office."	No response/additional measures necessary
"Very precise, compared to some other European Patent Offices you were excellent."	No response/additional measures necessary
"You had a very good telephone manner. I came away from the phone call smiling and pleased. Unusual to find considerate and respectful people in business these days."	No response/additional measures necessary
"Over the years I have had many dealings with your office and have always found you to be most helpful and prompt."	No response/additional measures necessary
"You were very informative, helpful, patient and professional. It was encouraging to contact a professional organization and get to speak to Real Advisors on a one-two-one basis. Please continue in the same manner. Brilliant".	No response/additional measures necessary
"First class communicator. Friendly and helpful. A wonderful service, thank you so much for your help".	No response/additional measures necessary
"You had a great understanding of the work; You were polite and efficient, the best. I would recommend this service to anyone."	No response/additional measures necessary
"Many thanks for coming all the way to Brighton to do your presentation. All the feedback has been terrific due in no small amount to your anchoring presentation and sterling work on the panel.”	No response/additional measures necessary
“Thank you so much for coming to our offices to attend the UK IPR awareness Day. All of the feedback that we have had from the guests has been fantastic, your presentation was excellent and just the right tone for the audience".	No response/additional measures necessary
"Just a short note to say an enormous thank you for sending me the IPO information. I have had a look at it and it will be very useful".	No response/additional measures necessary
"Thank you for generously giving up your time and being a speaker at the IP conference last Friday. We really do appreciate your support and your presentation was very well received. We have had some very positive feedback about the event".	No response/additional measures necessary
"What a brilliant job you have done with the Cracking ideas project and award ceremony. We had a thoroughly enjoyable day and the efforts of everybody involved made the day perfect. The children and their ideas from all schools involved were amazing and I think that they were all winners. Thanks again for a fantastic day and it was lovely to speak and meet with you".	No response/additional measures necessary
"Thank you once again for organising such a wonderful event (Cracking Ideas) for our group. The boys had a great time and are thrilled with the prizes collected on the day".	No response/additional measures necessary
"We just wanted to say a quick thank you for all the hard work you put in to making yesterday happen (Cracking Ideas). It was a great success. It was wonderful to see all the kids getting excited about inventing".	No response/additional measures necessary
"The SAS validity search was excellent and compared to other commercial searches it was much cheaper and far more detail was given with regard to the citations. Also, I liked the way in which you stated your conclusion on validity, patentability etc rather than being reluctant to give an opinion".	No response/additional measures necessary
General Feedback
You said that you contacted the office about filing a European Patent and you were told to file it direct through the European Patent Office (EPO) and this caused you a lot of difficulties.	We replied and said that you could have filed your European Patent through the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). The IPO carries out a number of basic checks on the application and then forwards it to the EPO.
You said why don’t you email applicants a PDF version of their published patent application or published granted patent before posting and give applicants the option of declining a paper copy.	We informed you that earlier this year we launched a new service from our external website where we make GB A and B Patent Publications available in PDF format on the day of publication please visit the Patents Publication Enquiry pages of our external website for more details.
You said your mark was opposed and we had not dealt with a TM33 correctly and this resulted in us putting the opponent’s name and address as your address for service.	We apologised to you and corrected our error. We have also reviewed the TM33 and revised it to avoid this error happening.
You said that the information on the Designs filing receipt was misleading.	We are looking into this issue to see if the wording of our literature needs to be amended.
You said that you had filed 4 patent applications and the claims were almost identical, yet the search results were different.	We said that these applications were examined by 2 different examiners. All patents have since been examined by the same examiner to obtain consistent search results.
You said that we should add the agent’s reference to the trade marks notification letter. You also suggested that the letters produced single sided.	We told you that for logistical reasons it was decided not to put agent’s reference numbers on the letters. It was also decided to keep the letters double sided.
You said that you were copying classification information from our website and pasting it into your applications and were surprised that we were raising objections against this classification information.	We informed you that the issue is being reviewed by the Classification Section Manager.
You said that you did not like the new trade mark search system on our website and found it difficult to use.	We contacted you and offered to talk you through the process; You were also sent copies of the new search pages with an explanation saying that we had made changes to the search to introduce new functionality that allows searching of images.
You said that you had just started filing most of your applications via our website. It would assist you considerably, if all of our notifications and in particular the electronic acknowledgements could include in their name/title your reference. You could then download them into the correct client file/folder.	We asked you to send us copies of these electronic acknowledgements and these were passed onto the Finance Manager to review.
You said your had a query relating to copyright protection for a book he was writing.	We contacted you and provided you with a comprehensive answer to your query.
You said that a link on our website was incorrect.	We thanked you for bringing this to our attention and said the error would be corrected immediately.
You said you did not state on the application form that you wanted the mark in colour. You were now concerned about what exactly your rights were and wondered whether you would have to re-file in black and white.	We informed you that in this case it was unlikely that colour would have any influence on the trade marks distinctive character or the scope of protection and that it was probably unnecessary to re-file the application in black and white.
Formal Complaints
You said the new notification system was a barrier to those who wanted to register a trade mark.	We explained that the previous system was almost unworkable because so many Section 5 objections were being raised. Under the new system it will be left to the owner of a trade mark to decide whether later filed marks were in conflict with theirs.
You said you were extremely disappointed that a number of the links on our website did not work.	We apologized for any inconvenience that any problems with our website may have caused you. We were investigating the problem with the broken links and taking measures to ensure that the problem does not reoccur.
You said that you were unhappy with the way that we had dealt with an assignment issue.	We apologized because in some areas the standard of service was not as good as it should have been. The CEO said that if you were unhappy with the Hearing Officer’s decision on this case, you should consider contacting your MP to pursue your complaint via the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
You said you were not treated courteously and fairly and that you were unhappy with the examination report.	We agreed that the examiner's reports could have been more thorough and this feedback was passed onto the examiner. It was suggested that an informal interview might be a better way to progress the case. You were told if you were still not satisfied with the way your complaint was being dealt with, you could make a formal complaint.
You said that you were unhappy because your name and address were appearing on Google.	We asked you to provide us with an alternative address so that we could amend the information on our web site. You were also told we were introducing measures to stop this happening again in the future.
You said that you were unhappy with matters relating to a hearing held on your trade mark.	We wrote to you to clarify any misunderstandings and to apologise for any services that we provided that fell below an acceptable level.
You said you were unhappy because you had sent in 2 payments and we had not acknowledged these payments.	We investigated this issue and explained that we had acknowledged the first payment. We also apologized for the time taken to acknowledge your second payment.
You said that you were unhappy with the way that your patent was examined.	We explained that the patent did not include a claim or abstract and this was requested from you before the patent could be examined. We did not believe that the examiner was at fault and had acted reasonably in these circumstances.
You said that you were unhappy that a prohibition order has been put on your patent.	We explained that the prohibition order was made under Section 22 of the 1977 Patents Act. You have given consent for the Ministry of Defense to review your application. If after their review the prohibition order is withdrawn then your patent could continue.
You said that we had accepted a trade mark in error and that you had since opposed the mark.	We explained we could not get involved as it might prejudice the opposition proceedings. The validity of this trade mark would now be determined during the opposition proceedings.
You said you did not state on the application form that you wanted the mark in colour. You were now concerned about what exactly your rights were and wondered whether you would have to re-file in black and white.	We informed you that in this case it was unlikely that colour would have any influence on the trade marks distinctive character or the scope of protection and that it was probably unnecessary to re-file the application in black and white.
You said that your combined Patent search and examination report was sent to the wrong address.	An apology was sent to the agent for our delay in responding to his e-mail. The agent was promised that he would be sent the appropriate documents.
You said that you were unhappy with the SAS Patent search done by the IPO, as the search missed an earlier patent that was similar to yours. You wanted to know why we missed this earlier prior art and wanted to know what could be done to avoid this happening again.	We said that the examiner has reviewed their search and did not believe that their assessment of patentability was incorrect .We reminded you of the limitations of these searches and offered to discuss with you ways of trying to improve the service that you receive from us.
You said that you had filed an application and were told that you could not add unrelated goods to your specification.	We informed you that you could not add unrelated goods and that you would have to make a fresh application. You were given details of our complaints procedure in case you wanted to make a formal complaint about this issue.
You said it was simply unacceptable that our systems for filing an E-TM3 application did not support certain browsers.	You were told that this system was under review and we were presently in the process of developing a replacement form. This form would enable customers to use a number of operating systems.
Informal Complaints
You said that you could not find consent information on our website.	We informed you that this information had been removed from our website because under the new system, notifications were not official objections and did not need to be overcome with a letter of consent. TMD managers were considering whether or not to put consent information back onto our website.
You said that you should have been told about unofficial registration companies. You had sent a cheque for £500 to one of these companies because you thought they were connected to the IPO.	We started sending out warning notices in December 2006 with our journal letters to inform customers about these companies. Therewas also a warning notice on our website. The Customer Feedback Officer contacted you and gave you information about these companies and confirmed that they were not connected to the IPO. You decided to stop your cheque and this prevented your payment being made.
You said you wanted to discuss the examination report covering earlier rights and were unhappy that the consent option was not detailed in the examination report.	We told you consent was still an option. TMD managers were considering whether or not to put consent information back onto our website.
You said you were annoyed because you received between 5-6 e-mails as part of the E-TM3 filing process and felt that this number should be reduced.	We said that this issue was being considered by TMD senior managers and was likely to result in the number of e-mails sent to customers being reduced to 2-3 e-mails.
You said that you had sent in a letter of consent, which had not been received in the office.	We contacted you and asked if you would send us a copy of this consent letter.
You said you were unhappy about the new Trade Marks notification system because you thought it was biased and it encouraged small businesses not to proceed with their applications.	We told you that if you did not want to proceed with your application you could withdraw it and avoid any possible opposition costs. You felt that the letter should clearly state this option. This has been passed onto TMD managers to consider.
You said that the new Trade Marks Notification letter could be improved and you made a number of improvement suggestions.	We informed you that the notification letter was being reviewed and your feedback would be looked at under that review.
You said you had problems filing an E-TM3; You tried 3 times and were concerned that you might have to pay for 3 applications. You also said that you had spoken to IPO staff about this but they did not call you back even though they promised that they would.	We contacted you and apologised for not contacting you earlier. You were told that you would only be charged for 1 application and that your comments would be passed onto staff who were reviewing the E-TM3 process.
You said that you checked an OHIM mark on our website and informed us that we were displaying an incorrect status for this mark.	We explained that the information on our website relating to OHIM marks was never 100% accurate. This was because although we receive the updates about OHIM marks, we only update this information once a week. We gave you details for the OHIM website so that you could check the up to date status of the mark.
You said that you had searched for a particular design and although it picked up all the recent designs, your search results did not include any designs over 25 years old.	We explained that when our website was set up in 1997 it was decided to just back capture all the designs back to 1982. You were told that details about all other design registrations could be obtained from Kew National archives at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk .
You said that your combined Patent search and examination report was sent to the wrong address.	An apology was sent to the agent for our delay in responding to his e-mail. The agent was promised that he would be sent the appropriate documents.
You said that you were unhappy with the SAS Patent search done by the IPO, as the search missed an earlier patent that was similar to yours. You wanted to know why we missed this earlier prior art and wanted to know what could be done to avoid this happening again.	We said that the examiner has reviewed their search and did not believe that their assessment of patentability was incorrect .We reminded you of the limitations of these searches and offered to discuss with you ways of trying to improve the service that you receive from us.
You said that you had filed an application and were told that you could not add unrelated goods to your specification.	We informed you that you could not add unrelated goods and that you would have to make a fresh application. You were given details of our complaints procedure in case you wanted to make a formal complaint about this issue.
You said it was simply unacceptable that our systems for filing an E-TM3 application did not support certain browsers.	You were told that this system was under review and we were presently in the process of developing a replacement form. This form would enable customers to use a number of operating systems.