This site uses cookies to help make it more useful and reliable. Our cookies page explains what they are, which ones we use, and how you can manage or remove them.

Customer feedback - April - June 2011

General feedback received from customers during April to June 2011. Feedback received is listed in the first column. Read across the row to find our response and any additional measures taken.
General feedback Response and additional measures taken
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IBIP requesting 1537.10 Euros. We replied, "Thank you for alerting us to the unsolicited mail you received relating to a Community Trade Mark. In response to the complaints we have received about this type of problem we have issued a mail shot to all unrepresented Trade Mark proprietors of registered marks warning them that they may receive unsolicited mail. New customers are also warned when filing their application, a notice is sent to them along with their filing receipt and there is also a notice on our website. This is in addition to ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that can be done from a legal perspective in the UK, as well as discussions with the IP profession, who are also of course very much affected. We realise of course that we must engage others in this particular issue and there is no simple solution but we have been and are taking it very seriously. I apologies for the delay in replying to you."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You told us, "Are we able to put the contact us email address/telephone number on the header page as you find it takes you quite a while to dig out where the email address is buried on the appropriate page. Even entering Contact in Search does not find it. I thought it used to be a link at the bottom of the header/home page but it is not there now. As I do not regularly contact you I do not remember the email address." We said, "Thank-you for taking time to comment on our website and suggesting a contact us link be made available on our home page. I am sorry the link is not more prominent we have considered including such a link however in the current economic climate within government departments such as ours there is a central drive to try and make websites contain enough relevant information to lessen the burden on our customer contact centres. We do display our contact details deeper within the site but the theory is that by increasing the availability of electronic information and improving web services will in turn reduce costs. (Sorry if this seems a little customer unfriendly).Therefore on this occasion I'm going to have to say the contact us information will not be going onto the home page. If you need to refer to our e-mail address and details why not bookmark the contact page"
You required a commercial search to confirm your internal search and have a double check with another perspective. You would like to see more in depth analysis even if the price is higher. You also mentioned that the Search and Advisory Service should respect the deadline in urgent cases. You were satisfied with the overall service you had received from the Search and Advisory Service and do not use any other search provider. Your response was forwarded to the relevant SAS examiner for reference.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from GAIA requesting £1350.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You required a commercial search to assess patentability prior to preparing and filing a full Patent specification. You have used the UKIPO SAS previously and found the results similarly useful. You were satisfied with the overall service you had received. Your response was forwarded to the relevant SAS examiner for reference.
You essentially required a search to discover whether you had freedom to operate. Yes, the search provided you with a number of relevant Patents and applications on the subject matter to which you did not have access. Yes, having discussed the results with IP21, a firm of Patent attorneys, you decided to continue. The search results gave you the bare minimum. It would have been helpful if more analysis could be provided, but you understand there are cost issues. However, as a startup company funds are incredibly tight and you are sure that a large number of startups would be put off by the fees involved. Your view is that services should be provided at a very low cost to encourage new businesses. The cost will be recouped many times over in corporation tax of those companies which go on to make profits. The search results were clearly and systematically laid out. To make the service first class, however, the results should be reviewed by an experienced examiner who can opine as to the relevance or otherwise of the results. This would increase the value to the searcher considerably. You confirmed that the IPO is relatively good value for the service it provides (although see above). Its search is more comprehensive than someone like you would be able to achieve. You confirmed that you were satisfied with the overall service you had received. Your response was forwarded to the relevant SAS examiner for reference.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You told us, "In the Trade Mark Search pages I could find no basic description of the legislative or geographic extent of the Search I was making. Is it UK or are there EU Trade Marks also included in the results, for instance? There ought to be a proper description of the extent and nature of the Trade Mark Searches being offered at your site." We replied, "Thank you for contacting the IPO about your recent query concerning our Trade Mark search pages. At the bottom of the 'Trade Mark Enquiry' search page, the 'availability' details of the service can be found. Within this area it is mentioned that UK, Madrid & OHIM Trade Marks will be returned between 03:15 - 00:15 daily (Please see Example 1 attached) Where the results from conducting a search (i.e. Happy) are displayed (Please see Example 2 attached) you can click on the highlighted number link under the 'Trade Mark No.' heading on the left hand side of the table. When clicking on the highlighted link a new window will open (Please see Example 3 attached). The new window gives full details concerning the Trade Mark, including the details highlighted at the top of the page. Thank you for contacting us with your comment regarding the 'Basic description of the legislative or geographic extent of the search'. We are constantly looking to improve our service to our customers and therefore this comment has been noted and will be passed to the relevant area for further contemplation. I hope the information supplied above has helped, please let us know if we can help any further."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from WOIP requesting 1629.50 euro's. No response required as Trade Marks have already spoken to customer.
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We said, "Thank you for your letter telephone call regarding a Trade Mark renewal service letter from the Intellectual Property Agency (IPA). I can confirm that this organisation is not related to the Intellectual Property Office in any way. We have received many letters from our customers recently about the IPA and as a result we are seeking advice from our lawyers about the validity of the invoices they issue. We shall take the appropriate remedial action based on the legal advice we receive. We are also speaking to trading standards officials (our home authority) about the complaints we have received about this type of unsolicited mail. We understand that this situation will be discussed further within the trading standards organisation. Our request was that the trading standards organisation also alert businesses to this issue. A warning notice has been on our web site for a while but in light of the increasing complaints we are receiving we are considering moving this notice to a more prominent position. For your ease I have copied the relevant renewal reminder paragraph below: Unsolicited renewal reminders are being issued to the holders of UK Patents and Trade Marks inviting the rights holder to sign and return a document and pay a fee in order to renew. There is no obligation to pay them. The only office that issues an official reminder for renewal of a UK IP right is the Intellectual Property Office. We are also looking into how we can alert Trade Mark owners earlier about their renewals and the costs involved; receiving this information will enable our customers to make an informed choice about their options when renewing their Trade Marks. I would advise that you are under no obligation to take up the service being offered by the IPA. If you decide to renew your Trade Mark, the fee is £200 for one class of goods, plus £50 for each additional class. These fees can be paid directly to us. The Intellectual Property Office will send you a reminder about your renewal, and the form that needs to be completed, around three months before it is due. I hope this letter has clarified the situation for you. If you require any further information please get in touch with me."
You required our services for fulfilling a statutory filing requirement of a Hong Kong short-term Patent application. The search did provide you with the necessary information and will help your client make a decision. No particular comments on the quality of service. No further comments on how to improve in this case. As their client is English-speaking, they needed to obtain a search report drawn up in English to facilitate their client's understanding. They do use another search service provider for search reports for such purposes. You were satisfied with the overall service you had received. No response required.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.95. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You told us, "Hi, I have used your 'filing forms on-line' service before and complained at the time that the presentation of the system was unclear and required guess work to complete. It stipulated that I fill in my name no less than three times. If you click the next/back buttons you can change what page comes up next. The layout and presentation of the pages is unclear. Your system not only has technical problems, its design is also flawed. I use a lot of sites in this way and yours is the worst. It must be a huge embarrassment to the person in charge if it stands to reflect the standards they deem acceptable particularly within an important establishment such as yours. Poor show." We responded that "We are sorry that you do not like the design of our web filing service. We tried to make it as user friendly as possible and it is being used by hundreds of customers each month who successfully file Patent applications and other documents. The number of times that you have to enter your name does depend on the roles you perform in connection with the Patent application. For example, if you are the applicant, the inventor and the contact for PDAS and/or correspondence then you will be asked to enter your name for each of those roles if the tick the boxes at Step 2, which are provided to enable you to indicate your details should be used for each of those roles, are not used. The other point that you raise in your e mail relates to issues you have had using the "next/back" buttons. We have tested the software supporting the Previous/Next buttons in the web filing service and we cannot replicate the fault you describe. However, if you are referring to the "next/back" buttons in your browser software, we do advise customers on our website not to use those buttons to move through the web filing screens."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You said, "I tried calling the hotline three times and each time I was hung up on when my call was answered. THREE TIMES. I sat in the queue and each time I could hear the call being answered and then cancelled, without anyone even saying hello to me. The queue response said that the organisation was experiencing a high volume of calls. If this is how a high volume of calls is dealt with, it's very concerning." We said, "Our IT department have searched under the number that you gave me, but were unable to find your call. I will speak to all of the Information Centre team and make them aware of your complaint. I will advise them that this type of behaviour isn't acceptable, and I will be monitoring this from now on. For information on Intellectual Property, please visit our website. If you would like me to contact you to discuss any queries that you have on Intellectual Property, please provide me with a convenient date/time."
You said, "It would be very nice to be able to view what I have submitted, to be absolutely sure that I submitted the right spec' and drawings." We responded, "You suggest it would be nice to be able to view what you had submitted so you could be sure that you have filed the right spec and drawings. We will take your suggestion into account when we next get the opportunity to upgrade the service, but in the meantime we hope you will make use of the confirmation screen at Step 13 (of the Form 1 web filing service) which enables you to view and/or save all of the documents and forms before you actually file them. I know this does not provide you with visual confirmation of what we actually receive, but when designing the system we thought it more closely reflected the paper filing process."
You said, "The event was not well signed when entering the showground." Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You said, "More time is needed to put this content across to the group." Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You said, "The time could have been longer. A one day course?" Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You said, "Found very distracting lady in seminar typing on her laptop throughout. Did the seminar leader have the power to ask her not to do that?" Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You had received unsolicited mail form EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We said, "Thank you for informing us of a Trade Mark renewal service letter you have received from the Intellectual Property Agency (IPA). I can confirm that this organisation is not related to the Intellectual Property Office in any way. We have received many letters from our customers recently about the IPA and as a result we are seeking advice from our lawyers about the validity of the invoices they issue. We shall take the appropriate remedial action based on the legal advice we receive. We are also speaking to trading standards officials (our home authority) about the complaints we have received about this type of unsolicited mail. We understand that this situation will be discussed further within the trading standards organisation. Our request was that the trading standards organisation also alert businesses to this issue. A warning notice has been on our web site for a while but in light of the increasing complaints we are receiving we are considering moving this notice to a more prominent position. For your ease I have copied the relevant renewal reminder paragraph below: Unsolicited renewal reminders are being issued to the holders of UK Patents and Trade Marks inviting the rights holder to sign and return a document and pay a fee in order to renew. There is no obligation to pay them. The only office that issues an official reminder for renewal of a UK IP right is the Intellectual Property Office. We are also looking into how we can alert Trade Mark owners earlier about their renewals and the costs involved; receiving this information will enable our customers to make an informed choice about their options when renewing their Trade Marks. I would advise that you are under no obligation to take up the service being offered by the IPA. If you decide to renew your Trade Mark, the fee is £200 for one class of goods, plus £50 for each additional class. These fees can be paid directly to us. The Intellectual Property Office will send you a reminder about your renewal, and the form that needs to be completed, around three months before it is due. I hope this letter has clarified the situation for you. If you require any further information please get in touch with me."
You said, "It might be useful if you could provide a service whereby replacement registration certificates could be obtained. As you will know, it is possible to simply download copies of the reg. certificates from the OHIM website." We replied, "Thank you for your suggestion for an on-line replacement registration certificate service. The Trade Marks and Designs registry already offer a replacement certificate service to their customers but as you know this is not an electronic service. We will of course keep your suggestion on our records for consideration in the future. I apologies for the delay in replying to you."
You said, "One of our clients has recently made payments to several unofficial registers of Patent services. Please could you add these examples to your website?" We responded, "Thank you for informing us of the various Patent registration letters that your client has received. I can confirm that none of these organisations are related to the Intellectual Property Office in any way. We have received many letters from customers about such companies and as a result we are seeking advice from our lawyers about the validity of the invoices they issue. We shall take the appropriate remedial action based on the legal advice we receive. We are also speaking to trading standards officials (our home authority) about the complaints we have received about this type of unsolicited mail. We understand that this situation will be discussed further within the trading standards organisation. Our request was that the trading standards organisation also alert businesses to this issue. A warning notice has been on our web site for a while but in light of the increasing complaints we are receiving we are considering moving this notice to a more prominent position. I hope this e-mail has clarified the situation for you. If you require any further information please get in touch with me."
You told us, "When applying online, I can't provide a first name or second name as a contact, because the boxes are greyed out." We responded, "Thank you for pointing this out. It is a bug in the software as the warning messages should not appear because the company name has been selected as the address for correspondence. We have raised a call for our technical team to fix the bug as soon as resources allow. If, however, you do want to enter an individual's name as a contact point, where the named applicant is a company, then you should not check the box "Tick to use these details for all correspondence" at step 2 of 14. Instead, at step 3 of 14 (the Address for Service question) you should select the 'No' radio button, click Next and then you can enter a individual as the contact name within the Address for Service section. At this stage, the Company name entered at step 2 will be shown in the Company Name field, but at least you can add an individual as a contact."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We tried to contact you by telephone without success and left a voicemail for you to return our call - however you did not respond.
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We replied, "Thank you for alerting us to the unsolicited mail you received relating to a Community Trade Mark. In response to the complaints we have received about this type of problem we have issued a mail shot to all unrepresented Trade Mark proprietors of registered marks warning them that they may receive unsolicited mail. New customers are also warned when filing their application, a notice is sent to them along with their filing receipt and there is also a notice on our website. This is in addition to ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that can be done from a legal perspective in the UK. You may also be aware that we are also discussing this with the IP profession in one of our regular forums with them. We realise of course that we must engage others in this particular issue and there is no simple solution but we have been and are taking it very seriously. I apologies for the delay in replying to you."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You were irritated you could not find the MM2 form on the WIPO website using our link to the form. The link does not take you to the form It takes you to the country directory. We replied, "I am writing in response to your complaint about the incorrect link from the IPO website to the WIPO website (the forms required for the international registration of a mark page). Thank you for pointing out this error to us, our IT section have been notified and they will be making the changes shortly. I apologise for the delay in replying to you on this issue."
You had received unsolicited mail from GAIA requesting 1350 Euros. We responded, "Thank you for alerting us to the unsolicited mail you received. In response to the complaints we have received about this type of problem we have issued a mail shot to all unrepresented Trade Mark proprietors of registered marks warning them that they may receive unsolicited mail. New customers are also warned when filing their application, a notice is sent to them along with their filing receipt and there is also a notice on our website. This is in addition to ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that can be done from a legal perspective in the UK, as well as discussions with the IP profession, who are also of course very much affected. We realise of course that we must engage others in this particular issue and there is no simple solution but we have been and are taking it very seriously. I apologise for the delay in replying to you."
You said, "Your search facility is pretty well useless. How do you search for proprietor when you can't select it?" We contacted you to explain how to do a proprietor search and provided a screenshot accordingly.
You told us, "You have spelling mistake in the word, "accept". We responded, "Many thanks for notifying us of a spelling error on our website. I can now confirm that the relevant correction has been made to the section you highlighted. Thank you for taking the time to point out this error."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £470.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You told us, "I have just completed two online applications using the online Form TM3. My suggestion is two-fold: (1) Before the payment screen comes up, it would seem logical to me to present the applicant with a draft form to check, much as HMRC does when submitting a SDLT form or otherwise online; and (2) The cookies are set on your website in such a way that the text boxes in the online TM3 seem to automatically fill with all text previously entered into them. In most cases, this is helpful, however, when it comes to the payment page this ought to be "turned off" so that confidential card information is not stored. I hope you find these suggestions helpful and will action them." We replied, "Thank you for your suggestion about the processing of the form TM3 online. Your comments have been referred to our IT Department who will consider them. I apologise for the delay in replying to you."
You said, "Not happy that our GB Patent Filing receipts do not give the title of the Invention. This is problematic if you have filed more than one Patent and don't know which one is which." We said, "Thank you for contacting this Office on 5 May 2011. You informed us that you were not happy that the Patent filing receipt does not give the title of the invention and that this can be problematic if more than one Patent application is filed. I have now looked into this matter and can confirm that we would only capture the title of an invention if it was included as the customer's reference in section 1 of the Patent application form 1. Section 1 is designed for customers to provide a unique reference which would help them to identify their applications. We do not currently have any plans to change our existing processes. However we will keep your feedback on file to use at such time as we do review our procedures. I hope that I have clarified the position and thank you once again for taking the time to provide us with feedback."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from WPTI requesting 1968.00 Euros. We replied, "Thank you for your letter dated 19 April 2011 alerting us to the unofficial IP registers invoices that some of your clients have received. The copies of the invoices are most useful as we are gathering evidence. In response to the complaints we have received about this type of problem we have issued a mail shot to all unrepresented Trade Mark proprietors of registered marks warning them that they may receive unsolicited mail. New customers are also warned when filing their application, a notice is sent to them along with their filing receipt and there is also a more strongly worded notice on our website. This action is in addition to ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that can be done from a legal perspective in the UK, as well as discussions with the IP profession, who are also of course very much affected. We realise of course that we must engage others in this particular issue and there is no simple solution but we have been and are taking it very seriously. I apologise for the delay in replying to you."
You said, "I have spent three hours trying to pay a search fee on line but cannot because you want a copy of claims which you have already. This is a very anxiety making process as the filing date was 7 May 2010. Please do not penalise me by refusing my request for a search because it is late. Surely, there must be a straight forward easily identifiable way of paying on line for a search of an already filed Patent application. Three hours of looking for this and repeatedly filling in details is a terrible way to spend time." We contacted the customer via telephone. She may have been filing the wrong form. She has now successfully filed the F9A.
You had received unsolicited mail from a company requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from PIA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM renewal service requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You said, "Please let us know when it will be possible to file all Patent forms online, especially form 51." We responded, "Although we are keen to extend our electronic filing services to cover all forms, we do not have any specific plans to do so in the short term because of the current constraints on our IT resources and budgets. The cost of adapting our internal legacy IT systems (eg a mainframe system which is over 20 years old) to support the extended and new e business services that you and our other customers need, make it difficult for us to justify the expenditure. We are, however, planning to start a major, long term programme to modernise Patents practice, processes and customer services. Initially, we aim to hold stakeholder workshops to help inform us of the requirements for the Patent processes and services of the future. Thank you again for taking the time to send us your suggestions for improving our e-filing services, these will be taken into account when we start our modernisation programme."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £450.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from Community TM Filing support requesting £600.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You asked, "A very helpful individual on the Intellectual Property Office phone line advised that I e-mail with queries I have about Trade Marks. I’m currently looking into Community Trade Marks and the problems created when companies/ individuals apply for Trade Marks that are the same or similar to existing Trade Marks. Through my research I noticed that prior to October 2007 the Intellectual Property Office had the ability to reject Trade Mark applications that were the same or confusingly similar to existing Trade Marks. Are you able to provide me with information on the process used, prior to Oct 2007, to assess whether a Trade Mark application should be approved or rejected and why the system changed?" We said, "Thank you for your e-mail dated 11 May 2011. We can confirm that prior to October 2007; Trade Mark applications were refused protection in relation to the same or confusingly similar Trade Marks that had an earlier application date. In assessing the latter a Trade mark examiner would carry out a search that included UK pending or registered Trade Marks, Community Trade Marks applied for at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) and International marks designating the UK. Where a conflict was found, an objection was raised under the then Section 5 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The applicant could argue that the objection was unfounded or seek letters of consent allowing the new application to proceed to registration. This system was considered to be unfair on UK traders for a number of reasons. For example, as the OHIM did not refuse registration on earlier rights, but operated a notification system, it was possible for a mark simultaneously filed at both the UK and OHIM, to be refused registration in the UK, but be awarded protection via OHIM (which grants rights in the 27 EU member states including the UK). Further, taken together with the huge numbers of CTMs applied for, one in every three applicants for a UK Trade Mark faced objections based on earlier rights. Over half of these objections were based on earlier CTMs – many of the owners of the latter having no interest in the UK market. This situation was considered unsustainable. After two consultations with stakeholders, one in February 2006 and a further one in December it was agreed to simplify the Trade Mark registration system. Therefore since October 2007, we no longer refuse to register a new Trade Mark application because of an earlier conflicting Trade Mark, unless the owner of the earlier mark successfully opposes the new application. Examiners still search the relevant registers as part of the examination process and send the applicant the results. If the examiner thinks that there may be any potential earlier conflicting marks already on the register, the applicant must choose between continuing with the application, restricting the specification to remove any conflicting goods or services, or withdraw the application. Thus, this decision has now become a commercial decision for applicants. If the applicant decides to continue with the application, we write to the owners of earlier conflicting UK marks automatically and in relation to EU marks only those who have opted in to receive notifications. You may also be interested in statistical information regarding oppositions rates both prior to the implementation of the simplified system and post. Prior to 2007 the opposition rate was between 3% – 4%, post October 2007 there was an increase to 7.34% which has now stabilised at 5%. I hope the above answers you question."
You said, "Great website, very informal but factual and informative. I just wish that there was a way one could find out where to take ideas and also if there was a place where one could take their idea and have it registered in some way without incurring the initial costs of Trade Mark and Design right." We replied, "Thank you for your feedback via our online web form dated 10 May 2011 - please accept my apologies for the late reply. I have managed to obtain some information for you regarding the comments you made.
Trade Marks - There are automatic unregistered rights. The cost of a UK Trade Mark filed on line is £170 for one class of goods and lasts for 10 years. You could use "Right Start" which on a pro rata basis would cost £100 initially and a further £100 if you wish to pursue from the date upon receiving the Office's IP report
Design - There are automatic rights see link below on Design Right. The registration for a UK design initially is £60 and this gives 5 years protection in the UK. Design costs
In conclusion, whilst registered rights are not free our fees are relatively low in cost and ultimately it is the choice of the rights holder how he wishes to manage his IP portfolio. I hope that this information is useful to you."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.50. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We responded, "Thank you for providing us with a copy of the unsolicited invoice you received. We are gathering as much information as we can about this problem. In response to the complaints we have received about this type of problem we have issued a mail shot to all unrepresented Trade Mark proprietors of registered marks warning them that they may receive unsolicited mail. New customers are also warned when filing their application, a notice is sent to them along with their filing receipt and there is also a notice on our website. This is in addition to ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that can be done from a legal perspective in the UK, as well as discussions with the IP profession, who are also of course very much affected. We realise of course that we must engage others in this particular issue and there is no simple solution but we have been and are taking it very seriously. I apologise for the delay in replying to you."
You had received unsolicited mail from Trade Mark Renewal Service requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £980.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from Trade Mark Renewals requesting £910.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You rang with regards to the Renewal Reminder letter we recently issued. We explained why we had done this and if applicable referred you to Trading Standards.
You rang with regards to the Renewal Reminder letter we recently issued. We explained why we had done this and if applicable referred you to Trading Standards.
You required a search to assess novelty pre-filing. Results have been helpful. Cost is an issue. You are requesting a large number of searches from the office and would like to discuss a discount. You use the office as it is local and convenient. You also use the Norwegian Patent Office, and RWS." A courtesy telephone call has taken place. A member of management will look into this at a later time.
You required a patentability search. You used the service to make a decision on whether or not to proceed with an application which has not yet been made. You said that it seems to be of good quality; as requested, the Examiner did not provide a detailed opinion on the relevance of the documents. You said that they choose the office due to cost (although this one was somewhat higher than usual given the subject matter). You tend to use RWS for freedom to operate and either UKIPO or Norwegian Patent Office for patentability searches. You were satisfied with the overall service received." A thank you e-mail was issued to the customer.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you," To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewal Service requesting £760.00. We told you," To contact Trading Standards."
You rang with regards to the Renewal reminder letter we recently issued. We explained why we had done this and if applicable referred you to Trading Standards.
You rang with regards to the Renewal reminder letter we recently issued. We explained why we had done this and if applicable referred you to Trading Standards.
You rang with regards to the Renewal reminder letter we recently issued. We explained why we had done this and if applicable referred you to Trading Standards.
You were very confused by the Trade Mark search results. When you view the results and there is a logo it also says mark text underneath so you thought a third party has protection for the text and for the logo. You wanted to know how you enter the text and the image on the online form to get protection for both. We explained you cannot do both. No reply is needed to the customer as we explained, but it would be better in the future if it was made clear what the mark actually protects. Information Centre receive a lot of calls regarding this which causes confusing and frustration for customers.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from Trade Mark Renewal Service Ltd requesting £750.00 We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from Trade Mark Renewal Service Ltd requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You rang with regards to the Renewal Reminder letter we recently issued. We explained why we had done this and if applicable referred you to Trading Standards.
You told us, "Please could your website make clear the correct pronunciation of the first syllable of the word "Patent". Does it rhyme with "hat" or "hay"? A courtesy phone call was made to you explaining the UK pronounce it as "Patttent" and the USA "Paytent" which you were fine with.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We replied, "Thank you for providing us with a copy of the unsolicited invoice you received. We are gathering as much information as we can about this problem. In response to the complaints we have received about this type of problem we have issued a mail shot to all unrepresented Trade Mark proprietors of registered marks warning them that they may receive unsolicited mail. New customers are also warned when filing their application, a notice is sent to them along with their filing receipt and there is also a notice on our website. This is in addition to ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that can be done from a legal perspective in the UK, as well as discussions with the IP profession, who are also of course very much affected. We realise of course that we must engage others in this particular issue and there is no simple solution but we have been and are taking it very seriously. I apologise for the delay in replying to you."
You had received unsolicited mail from EEIC requesting £479.75. We replied, "Thank you for your letter dated 14 May (and the enclosed invoice) about the unsolicited mail you have received. We are gathering as much information as we can about this problem. In response to the complaints we have received about this type of problem we have issued a mail shot to all unrepresented Trade Mark proprietors of registered marks warning them that they may receive unsolicited mail. New customers are also warned when filing their application, a notice is sent to them along with their filing receipt and there is also a notice on our website. This is in addition to ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that can be done from a legal perspective in the UK, as well as discussions with the IP profession, who are also of course very much affected. We realise of course that we must engage others in this particular issue and there is no simple solution but we have been and are taking it very seriously. In relation to your query about the cost of an international registration you can find information about this on our website. However if you prefer, you can ring the Information Centre on 0300 300 2000 where you will be transferred to a member of the Trade Mark and Designs Registry who will be able to assist you. I apologise for the delay in replying to you."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You told us, "Would have liked a long q&a session for issues specific to UWIC." Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You said, "Very productive morning - could there be a tailored version for educational practitioners." Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You said, "Just thought I'd let you know that I tried to read the guidance notes but they were down. On the whole it was quite difficult to use this online application, If you wanted it to be easier you might consider: Allowing .doc uploads as well as PDF files, these are hard for some people to modify, due to the nature of how they are created, (either a tricky new software, or some knowledge in code is required to make them) And when Trying to submit all documents on a single page I encountered such trouble that I had to go back and use the other method. And you might also consider making a quick price calculator for people to use, before they fill in the forms to file the Patent." We said, "Thank you for your e mail about the Patents web filing service. I am sorry that you found the service difficult to use. I regret that we are unable to accept text documents through the web filing service as our receiving systems are designed specifically to accept and process only PDF documents. We chose this technical solution as PDF files are a widely used document type and because most current word processing software enables you to save files as PDFs. Alternatively, PDF file conversion software is freely and readily available on the internet. Your suggestion about making a price calculator available is certainly one we will keep in mind when we are next able to look at making improvements to the service. In the meantime, you may find the following links to pages on our website useful as they provide more information about the various fees associated with the Patent application process.
Award of costs
Patent forms and fees
Thanks again for taking the time to send us your comments they are much appreciated as they help us to understand the issues faced by our customers when using this service."
You had received unsolicited mail from Trade Mark Renewal services requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We responded, "We are aware of companies sending out these reminders and have sent letters to all Trade Mark existing customers warning them of these companies. Please see website for information. Yours renewal is due on the 13 June 2011 and the cost is £250."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA and TM Renewal service requesting £1280.00 and £760. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewal service requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewal service requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You told us, "Customer was unhappy they had left a voicemail on the copyright answer phone weeks ago and had no response. She wanted to speak to the copyright department when she called today, but I explained they do not take calls you have to leave a message. She was then unhappy that she had already done that and couldn’t understand why she could not follow up her enquiry she asked weeks ago." We told you, "Thank you for the recent feedback you provided, although I am sorry to hear that you were dissatisfied with the service you received from the Copyright Enquiries team. I have since referred to the Copyright Enquiries log and can confirm that your query on The King James Bible was taken from the answering service on 11 May. After seeking advice from a Policy Advisor, you were then called back on 16 May at 15:40 but unfortunately, there was no answering service available to leave a message. Unlike the Information Centre who specialise in taking and responding to customer enquiries, the Copyright Enquiries team respond to the more specific queries in between other roles. This is the reason why the answering service was initially set up and subsequently, why we are unable to take calls directly. During busy periods we only have the capacity to call customers once but wherever possible, a message is left. We often suggest that customers give a suitable time (between the hours of 9 and 5) when we can return their call or to leave an alternate contact number. We also respond to enquiries via email so if you have any further enquiries, you may find this service more suitable. You can email the Information Centre in the first instance at information@ipo.gov.uk and if they are unable to answer your query, this will then be passed to the Copyright Enquiries team for a more detailed response. I hope this has offered some explanation as to why your query was not answered and that you will continue to seek advice from The Intellectual Property Office in the future."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. You were confused whether to send the payment to the IPO or IPA. You sent a cheque for £1280.00 to the IPO. The renewals department sent it back to you. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM renewals service requesting £760.00 We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from European Trade Mark Organisation requesting £2900.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You said, "We should make it clearer that a formal objection should be received within the last month of opposing a mark after making tm7a. Not enough clear information for a lay person regarding the opposition process." We replied, "Thank you very much for the feedback we received with regard to the opposition procedure. I am very sorry that you feel the wording is confusing to you. I have discussed your comments with my colleague from the Tribunal section. She will make further investigations to see if the wording can be made clearer and let you know by letter early next week."
You had received a renewal reminder from us and were unhappy about the fee, it looks like the renewal reminder is in fact from Intellectual Property Agency Ltd. We replied, "Thank you for informing us about the unsolicited invoice you received. We are gathering as much information as we can about this problem. In response to the large number of complaints we have received we have issued a mail shot to all unrepresented Trade Mark proprietors of unregistered marks warning them that they may receive unsolicited mail. New customers are also warned when filing their application, a notice is sent to them along with their filing receipt and there is also a notice on our website. This is in addition to ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that can be done from a legal perspective in the UK, as well as discussions with the IP profession, who are also of course very much affected. We realise of course that we must engage others in this particular issue and there is no simple solutions but we have been and are taking it very seriously. You should note that you can renew your Trade Mark directly with the Intellectual Property Office. The process is fairly simple and further information about the fees and form required can be obtained from our website."
Customer advised in earlier e-mail that we have a link on our website warning of unsolicited mail. Customer had asked if we were aware of this. Informed customer of the relevant link. Customer responded and said "I did not see the link on your web site! Maybe it needs to be highlighted". We replied, "Thank you for taking the time to comment upon the warning notice on our website about unsolicited mail. Our website does need to include quite a lot of detailed information about our services which means that the pages are quite "full". However we do in fact have two places on the Trade Marks front page that refers to unsolicited mail. Also you should note that in response to the complaints we have received about this type of problem we have issued a mail shot to all unrepresented Trade Mark proprietors of registered marks warning them that they may receive unsolicited mail. New customers are also warned when filing their application; a notice is sent to them along with their filing receipt. This is in addition to ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that can be done from a legal perspective in the UK, as well as discussions with the IP profession, who are also of course very much affected. We realise of course that we must engage others in this particular issue and there is no simple solution but we have been and are taking it very seriously. We will keep a note of your comment and will refer to it when we next review the content of our website."
You had received unsolicited mail. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewal service requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail form TM renewal service requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA and TM renewal services requesting £1280.00 and £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM renewal services requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We replied, "Thank you for contacting us about the unsolicited mail you received recently. We are gathering as much information as we can about this problem. In response to the complaints we have received about this type of problem we have issued a mail shot to all unrepresented Trade Mark proprietors of registered marks warning them that they may receive unsolicited mail. New customers are also warned when filing their application, a notice is sent to them along with their filing receipt and there is also a notice on our website. This is in addition to ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that can be done from a legal perspective in the UK, as well as discussions with the IP profession, who are also of course very much affected. We realise of course that we must engage others in this particular issue and there is no simple solution but we have been and are taking it very seriously."
You said," When sending copies of filed Form 7s to inventors, I recommend sending a covering letter, to explain that it is for information purposes, and that they do not need to return it to the IPO. It would be helpful to mention that they should check that their details are listed correctly, and that they have been correctly named as an inventor." We replied, "I have been passed your suggestion from our customer services unit. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, feedback is always welcome. We do currently (and have done for many years) attach a covering note to copies of the Patents Form 7 sent to inventors. The note states that; ‘Statement of inventorship and right to grant of a Patent. We are required by law to send you the enclosed form. You have been identified as an inventor in connection with an application for a Patent made by the applicant named in section 3 of the form. Part 5 of the form is the applicant’s statement of why he is entitled to apply for the Patent. You do not have to take any action in response to this notification, but if you disagree with the details given on the form you can raise this with the applicant. If you want to contact us, please quote the application number given at part 2 of the form.’ I apologise if the note was missing on any Form 7 your clients received and I would be grateful if you could let me know if you discover any other incidences of the note being omitted from the Patents Form 7."
You had received unsolicited mail. We replied, "Thank you for contacting us about the unsolicited mail you received recently. We are gathering as much information as we can about this problem. In response to the complaints we have received about this type of problem we have issued a mail shot to all unrepresented proprietors warning them that they may receive unsolicited mail. New customers are also warned when filing their application, a notice is sent to them along with their filing receipt and there is also a notice on our website. This is in addition to ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that can be done from a legal perspective in the UK, as well as discussions with the IP profession, who are also of course very much affected. We realise of course that we must engage others in this particular issue and there is no simple solution but we have been and are taking it very seriously. I hope that this has clarified the situation for you."
You told us, "I took a call from Information Centre regarding a general query about providing search results from other Offices, which was settled with no issues. However, the customer then asked if he could take the opportunity to make a general observation about quality of searches. He said that the general opinion of he and his colleagues was that the quality of searches from the IPO had "gone downhill and become weaker" in the last 6-12 months, and equivalent searches at the EPO generally yield far more relevant results." We thanked the customer for his feedback and assured him that search quality was an issue we take seriously. We explained that the EPO often have the benefit of seeing the IPO search first and so are able to "build" on the results we have found. The customer said that on many cases the difference in results is so apparent that it couldn't just be down to the EPO building on IPO results. We asked if the results were from a particular area of technology and the customer informed us that their applications relate mainly to mechanical and electrical subject matter. We assured the customer once again that his feedback would be considered in depth. He said that he was happy to be contacted if we needed any further details." We replied to the customer again on the telephone dated 7 July 2011. He was concerned that one or two of his clients had applied to EPO on the basis of the GB search results and then EPO had found much better documents. At the moment he has no evidence of this but he has kindly volunteered to send me case numbers etc when they occur in the future. I stressed to him that we were very concerned at any possible drop in quality and emphasised our sophisticated quality-control procedures (sic) and regular comparison of the quality of our searches with those of EPO which showed that we give as good as we get. I hope this is a satisfactory conclusion but please let me know if you want me to do more. I will let you know when I get any examples from the customer."
You said, "Should be able to request certified copies online. The office should provide software to aid with supplying drawings, especially due to the landscape mode problem." No contact details to respond to customer.
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewal services requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewal Service requesting £1272.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewal Service requesting £1060.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from GARA Hungary requesting £1350.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewal Service requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from GAIA requesting 1350.00 Euros. We said, "We are aware of companies sending out unsolicited mail and directed you to the information regarding these companies on our website. We also said that there is a ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that could be done. We told you to contact Trading Standards. "
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail and asked what the office is doing about it. We replied, "Thank you for contacting us about the unsolicited mail you received recently. We are gathering as much information as we can about this problem. In response to the complaints we have received about this type of problem we have issued a mail shot to all unrepresented Trade Mark proprietors of registered marks warning them that they may receive unsolicited mail. New customers are also warned when filing their application, a notice is sent to them along with their filing receipt and there is also a notice on our website. This is in addition to ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that can be done from a legal perspective in the UK, as well as discussions with the IP profession, who are also of course very much affected. We realise of course that we must engage others in this particular issue and there is no simple solution but we have been and are taking it very seriously."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewal Services requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You said, "You will be aware that there are some UK Patents in force that cannot (as far as I know) be obtained on-line. They are older UK Patents granted through the Patent Office rather than the EPO. Typically, it takes several days to obtain them from you because (I understand) you keep them in an off-site warehouse and then insist on sending them out by post, rather than email or fax. Nowadays, clients expect prompt access to Patent information so they can make quick decisions. In today’s world I think it’s reasonable to expect that any Patent that is in force in the UK, and therefore imposing a limitation on what businesses can do in the UK, should be available on line. Anything less is imposing unnecessary costs on UK industry. Assuming I am right, and these Patents aren’t available somewhere I haven’t found on your website, can I ask what is the IPO doing to reduce those costs?." We replied, "Thank you for your e mail about obtaining copies of granted GB Patent specifications. I am sorry that we are unable to meet your expectations concerning the availability of electronic copies of granted GB Patent specifications. Some years ago when we were faced with ever increasing demand for electronic services the IPO, like many other businesses and government services, had to make choices about which electronic services to develop as we did not have the resources required to meet all of the demand. We decided then, that we should concentrate our efforts on ensuring that the front file production of Patent specifications ('A' & 'B') moved from paper to electronic records as quickly as possible and that any back file conversion of paper would concentrate on the specifications for which there was most demand, ie the GB 'A' specifications. Following that decision, we have developed services that provide free access to electronic copies of all 1977 Act 'A' specifications and to other GB Patent specifications back to 1900, and we have also provided electronic access to all 'B' specifications granted since 2002. To complete the back file scanning and indexing of 'B' specifications produced under the 1977 Patents Act would cost over £100,000. As demand for paper copies of granted GB Patent specs is so low (we sold less than 100 last financial year) it is difficult for us to make a business case to justify such a large investment. This is why we are not currently planning to start capturing the back file of 'B' specs. I have spoken to our Finance Section who manage the sale of paper Patent specifications and they have confirmed that you can purchase a copy of a 'B' spec and have it sent to you by fax, but there are additional charges. If you would like more details about this service please see our website. I am sorry I cannot be more helpful, but I hope the above explains why we are not in a position to provide free access to electronic copies of all granted GB Patent specifications."
You told us, "In the web on-line filing interface for filing documents, I would like to suggest that you add an "other" or "miscellaneous attachments" option in the drop-down list of document types. In my case, as well as filing amended claims I was filing a copy marked up to show the changes made. I had to classify these as "amendments", which was not really accurate. At other times, I have also filed documents as evidence (e.g. extracts from technical dictionaries or textbooks). There needs to be an appropriate category to put such documents in." We replied, "Thank you for your e mail about extending the list of document descriptions in our web filing service to include "other" or "miscellaneous". We have tried to avoid including general categories in the drop down list because specific document descriptions can be more efficiently managed by our internal systems and they reduce the risk of incoming documents being misplaced. However, we have had a number of similar suggestions about adding more options, so we will take your suggestions into account when we next have an opportunity to consider improvements to the service. In the meantime, if the next time you use the service you cannot find an appropriate document description I suggest you select "covering letter", but please remember that this service should not be used to withdraw a Patent application as there is a dedicated e-mail address that can be used for withdrawals. Thanks again for taking the time to send us your feedback it is much appreciated."
You said, "Can it be possible to save the electronic form 1 so you can return to it later?" However, you only wanted to file the form. You did not have description and drawings ready. We rang you and explained that this is not possible as we do not have this facility - you thanked us for contacting you as you now had your description and drawings and were going to file this afternoon. You will ring the Information centre should you have any further difficulties.
You said, "I spoke to 3-4 advisors by telephone and had mixed messages. Still in the dark about the difference between a Trade Mark and registering for intellectual property." We arranged for a Trade Mark examiner to contact you and discuss your application. This resulted in us sending you out an application for a Design registration. We apologised for the earlier confusion.
You said, "She was helpful but let down badly by your internal search engine. It was not able to find our mark without the ADP number. Once this was available it recognised our name as you have it listed. We were able to renew our Trade Mark in 2010 via the present address without any indication that your records still referred to an old address. It was scam notification from you that drew attention to the error. You need to improve your search engine." We replied, "Thank you for the feedback you gave us on the 10th June and taking the time to speak to me on the telephone. I am pleased to inform you, the form TM21 you filed on 4 June has been actioned and our records now show your current address. Attached are copies of your TM21 and our confirmation letter to you confirming the changes."
You said, "Looking to see if IPO/you would consider an event for Cambridgeshire Chamber of Commerce (Ely Branch mainly)." Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You said, "Very good service overall. E-mailing back the forms is very reassuring. My suggestion is that the spec and drawings could also be emailed back." We replied, "Thank you for your e mail about our web filing service. I was pleased to read that you think the service is generally very good and that you like the e-mailing back feature and would like to see it extended to cover the spec and drawings. Unfortunately, we do not have the resources available to make changes to these services immediately, but we do take all suggestions we receive from our customers into account when deciding what improvements we can make to the service. Your suggestion will be considered when we next have an opportunity to consider enhancing the service. Thanks again for taking the time to contact us, it is much appreciated."
You told us, "I applied for a Patent using form 1 and provided information in the section asking for PDF files of description, claims, abstract and drawings. I had multiple pages of each of these and entered them all but when I reviewed the application, only the last page of each came up. Do you have all the pages or can I send you the rest of them if they are missing. It would be good if you could accept multiple pages in these categories." We rang you and determined that it doesn't appear all your pdf's were successfully filed. We explained you can add them to your application and have it re-dated, or re-file and claim priority form the application. We explained at what stage of the submission you do this. We also explained how the pdf's should be supplied and depending on this you will either upload as a single doc or multiple docs. If you needed any further assistance we told you to give us a ring or email us.
You had received unsolicited mail. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA and signed the returned the reminder letter. We replied, "Thank you very much for the feedback you gave to our office on 10 June with regard to the reminder letter you received from the Intellectual Property Agency. The Intellectual Property Agency has no relation to the Intellectual Property Office, and therefore, the contract you have signed is with them as opposed to us. Attached is a copy of the mail shot which has been sent to our customers who have registered Trade Marks, highlighting a particular practice that is on the increase. You can, as mentioned in our mail shot, contact Trading Standards and your solicitors for their advice. We have also been seeking legal advice concerning this practice. For your future reference, you can renew your Trade Mark directly with us. Our direct line is 01633 814000. If you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call on the above number."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from ICO requesting £500. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting 1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM renewals requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM renewals requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.95. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewals requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You told us, "I have been asked by one of the partners of this firm to draw to your attention the fact that your website does not display correctly on certain browser versions. The versions where I have seen issues are Internet Explorer 9 (on Windows 7) and Firefox 4.0.1 (on Windows XP). I have attached an example screen capture to illustrate the problem." We replied, "Thank-you for your mail in relation to our web-site not displaying properly. I was sorry to read you have been experiencing problems; our site is tested regularly in those browser versions. Following your mail we tested them again through our browser farm and the site and the page you refer to seems to be fine when running both IE9 and Firefox 4.0. The only thing we can attribute to this loss of display is that the actual on-line service being used (TM classification) was accessed during a period of down time. The service can be down for around half hour on occasions for maintenance and we should in hindsight add a "service unavailable" message in the future. Have you experienced any problems with any other pages or was it just this page? - we are keen obviously to replicate and fix this issue."
You said, "Having read the guidance notes, a green route was mentioned, suggesting fast tracking of applications for inventions with environmental benefits. No option was available to me to specify this in my application." We replied, "Thank you for your feedback provided via the Intellectual Property Office website on 14 June. You explain that when you filed your Patent application electronically using our web-filing system there was no option available for you to request Green Channel processing. To request Green Channel processing for this application, you will need to provide a covering letter requesting acceleration under the Green Channel, giving a brief explanation of how the invention is environmentally-friendly, and specifying which parts of the process you wish to accelerate (search, examination, combined search and examination, and/or publication). You can provide such a covering letter using the "subsequently filed documents" part of the web-filing system and quoting your application number. You will also need to request a search (Form 9A) and pay the necessary fee in order for your application to proceed to the search stage. If you want your application to be subjected to combined search and examination then you should at the same time request both search (Form 9A) and examination (Form 10). These Forms can also be filed using the subsequently filed documents part of the web-filing system. I am aware that our current guidance does not include details on how to request green channel processing using the web-filing system. In light of your feedback we will consider how best to provide such guidance. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information about the Green Channel procedure."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewals requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You said," Your site is so convoluted it is almost impossible to do an easy search of past Patents. Just copy the methods used on the US Patent site External Link" We replied, "Thank you for taking the time to provide us with your feedback of 16 June 2011 in relation to searching for a Patent on our website. We welcome customer feedback in relation to any aspect of the Intellectual Property office and when we next look to improve the service you refer to your feedback will be taken into account."
You had received unsolicited mail requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewals requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewal service requesting £760.00. We said, "We are aware of companies sending out unsolicited mail and directed you to the information regarding these companies on our website. We also said that there is a ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that could be done. We told you to contact Trading Standards. "
You said, "I find your website as helpful as a deaf interpreter. It does not tell you in simple language that an ordinary person could understand how to do a Patent search, nor indicate how to apply for Patent protection. In short it is typical of a public sector website as useless as third t*t." We wrote to you on 23 June 2011 to ask for further specific detail before we could pass this to the senior manager responsible for the website. There was no response to this so we closed the matter off accordingly.
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewals requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewal service requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You told us, "That you were aggrieved that there appears to be no means to assist a disabled party to file a form electronically on our website and hence benefit in the reduction of costs. It would appear that when you did phone the office for advice you were informed that we cannot fill in the form for you." No response could be issued as both of the contact numbers we had for you were incorrect.
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewals requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewals requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from WOIP Globex World Organisation IP. We replied, "Thank you for contacting us about the unsolicited mail you received recently. We are gathering as much information as we can about this problem. In response to the complaints we have received about this type of problem we have issued a mail shot to all unrepresented Trade Mark proprietors of registered marks warning them that they may receive unsolicited mail. New customers are also warned when filing their application, a notice is sent to them along with their filing receipt and there is also a notice on our website. This is in addition to ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that can be done from a legal perspective in the UK, as well as discussions with the IP profession, who are also of course very much affected. We realise of course that we must engage others in this particular issue and there is no simple solution but we have been and are taking it very seriously."
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewals services requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You said, "Mixed messages." We arranged for a Trade Mark examiner to contact you and discuss your application. This resulted in us sending you out an application for a Design registration. We apologised for the earlier confusion.
You said, "You found the Patents part of the event quite confusing. It could be broken down and explained better." Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You said, "I thought it was a little disjointed because no control was exercised and the interruptions in the form of question. Questions were not always relevant to the subject of the slide. Save questions to the end of individual slides and keep them relevant. I do have knowledge of IP and was seeking a refresher." Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You said, "Would have liked handout straight away." Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail requesting £1710.50 and £1682.50. We directed you to the information on our website regarding unsolicited mail. We also told you to contact Trading Standards.
You said, "Uninformed." Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You said, "Called in spoke to someone who was very polite thank you unfortunately could not help me. Needed information on Trade Associations for Inventors and how to get a product to market, if possible please add links on your website, this would be very helpful. Thank you. I do not wish to be kept informed of future new services." Your comments were passed onto our website team for reference.
You said, "My guess is that the majority of delegates are business owners/entrepreneurs and therefore be most interested. The moniterisation of the subject-far more time should be devoted to this subject-attendance of accountant case studies." Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You said, "Handout at the start of the session would have been more helpful." Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You said, "Could have been longer to advise about international market requirements of Patents etc." Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You said, "Would have liked more data on difference between various types of IP. The exercises show we don't know! Hope notes will make clear." Your feedback was forwarded on to the marketing team for information purposes.
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewal service requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You told us, "I note that you publish your feedback on a monthly basis on your website. The feedback is informative as it can contain details of important issues that have been raised by users of the UKIPO and the action you have taken in response. However, I have an issue in the way in which the feedback is presented. The feedback is presented on a single webpage in the following order: compliments, general feedback, informal complaints, formal complaints. This is a completely counter-intuitive and potentially misleading way in which to present the feedback. The compliments and, to a slightly lesser extent, the general feedback is of little or no interest to the users of the UKIPO. In contrast, there are fairly regularly important legal and practical issues raised in the informal and formal complaints. Despite this, a reader has to scroll through pages and pages of compliments and general feedback before they reach the potentially much more important informal and formal complaints. Being kind I believe this is probably just poor web page design. However, if they were less kind, somebody could believe you are trying to bury the complaints below the compliments with the intent that the reader gets bored of scrolling through the compliments and general feedback and never reaches the complaints. May I suggest that you either change the order in which you publish the feedback or that you put each category of feedback on a separate subpage in order to improve the usability of the feedback section?" We said, "Thank you for your feedback. We have taken your comments on board and we intend to review the web pages in the future. I have forwarded your comments to the customer relations manager who will then respond in due course." On the 25 August 2011 we replied, "Thank you so much for your feedback regarding how we structure the previous feedback on our website. We have taken on board your suggestion and now implemented the change as requested and also backdated it to the beginning of 2006. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your feedback.
You had received unsolicited mail from TM Renewal service requesting £760.00. We said, "We are aware of companies sending out unsolicited mail and directed you to the information regarding these companies on our website. We also said that there is a ongoing liaison with our legal team to ascertain if there is anything that could be done. We told you to contact Trading Standards. "
You had received unsolicted mail from TM Renewal service requesting £760.00. We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."
You had received unsolicited mail from WOIP requesting £1625.00 We told you, "To contact Trading Standards."