Customer feedback - October to December 2006

Informal complaints	Response and additional measures taken
Compilation of informal complaints made by our customers during the period of October to December 2006. The complaint received is listed in the first column. Read across the row to find out our response and any additional measures taken.
A Patent Agent informed the Litigation Manager that he had been given information by a member of staff in that section, that a revocation case that had been withdrawn would only be pursued in the public interest if it was a high profile case. He advised his client accordingly. Based on the information he had received he assumed that the case would not be pursued in the public interest as it did not meet the criterion required so was surprised when the Office pursued the case. The information originally supplied to the Patent Agent was incorrect.	The Litigation Manager has spoken to the Patent Agent and advised him of the correct procedures. Staff in Litigation Section have been advised that Inter Partes cases can be complex and balancing the interests of the parties is not always easy. In view of this, procedures have been put in place to ensure that staff refer any queries regarding Inter Partes cases to Case Officers to deal with.
A Patent Examiner received a complaint that new citations mentioned in an examination report were not included.	The missing citations were sent out immediately with a covering letter apologising to the customer.
A client e-mailed the Chief Executive via Box 49. He described a problem relating to a dispute between his Managing Director, who is an inventor, and a Patent Agent. The dispute concerned money said to be owed by the inventor to the Agent. Because of this, the Patent Agent was withholding all copies of work that he was reported to have submitted to the UK Patent Office. The client asked if there was a possibility of getting copies so that he could continue with the work himself as he had some legal knowledge.	The Chief Executive replied to the client stating that he was sorry to hear that his Managing Director was having problems with a Patent Agent, and that if the Agent was a member of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, he must abide by the rules of professional conduct. He then advised the client that he was welcome to have copies of papers that he might require from the files of his Managing Director’s applications. He also gave instructions of how this could be done along with the cost.
A Private Applicant wrote to the Chief Executive complaining that he had not received answers to general questions that had been asked.	The Chief Executive replied stating that he was sorry that the applicant was dissatisfied with the responses that had been sent to him. In view of the nature of his complaint, correspondence with the examiner had been reviewed by a member of staff who had no previous dealing with the applicant. The Chief Executive stated that he believed that the examiner had pursued the correct course of action with respect to answering the questions. The issues raised were not ones on which the Patent Office could provide answers except in general terms. The Chief Executive stated that he considered them to have been answered as fully as the Patent Office was able.
During a Freedom to Operate search a new preparation in EPOQUE had been used. The preparation uses the EPOQUE memory function and if the search has already used up the memories then the same document is run giving the same status information. As a result the family matching for some of the later listed documents was incorrect as the memories were full.	An amended report was drafted and sent to the applicant with a letter of apology. The preparation has been rewritten so that the memories are cleared prior to the preparations being run. This has been tested and in this case the search re-run.
A Private Applicant wrote to the Chief Executive making allegations about his Patent Agent and the Patent Office.	The Chief Executive replied to the applicant stating that if he had any information that bribery had occurred, then he should pass this information to the authorities i.e. the Police. He also asked the applicant to pass on such information to the Patent Office so that he could consider whether there had been any misconduct on the part of his Patent Agent. The Chief Executive explained that Patent Agents have internal complaint procedures, and that those agents who are members of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) are subject to their rules of conduct and disciplinary procedure.
A Patent Examiner received an e-mail from a client asking whether there are moves within the United Kingdom Patent Office (UKPO) to make all GB ‘B’ patents available electronically. The client was informed that there are currently no plans to back-date the collection of ‘B’ documents prior to July 2002. He expressed his dissatisfaction at this, saying that when away at conferences and seminars he was often asked why the UK Patent Office doesn’t make ‘B’ documents available electronically.	The examiner replied to the client advising him that his comments would be reviewed along with other customer feedback received on the topic.GB ‘B’ patents published since the beginning of June 2002 have been made available electronically. It has been considered backdating them which would require conversion of a backfile collection (only available as paper) to a suitable electronic format, as well as indexing. The costs involved are significant (estimated in 2005 to be at least 5000-7500 euros per year of backfile data) and so a decision was made to not proceed with the backfile.Generally speaking ‘B’ patents are only going to be of interest during the first 20 years (25 years for those which can benefit from a Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) of a patent's life (i.e while they are potentially in force). With time, addition of the front-file data will build the collection into a complete collection of active granted GB patents. The front file is done as part of the publication process and the plan is to continue this.
A customer wrote to the Chief Executive with a complaint regarding Harmsworth House. He complained that he had recently visited Court Room 1 and that the room was unsatisfactory and was not suited for the purpose, and went on to say he thought the room was frankly appalling.	The Chief Executive replied that the Patent Office had occupied Harmsworth House since 1999 and from this date the hearing rooms had been extensively used by members of the Patent and Trade Marks profession, largely without complaint. He stated that he could not justify hiring an alternative room (as suggested by the customer) when a suitable facility was available in Harmsworth House. He also commented that we would keep his points in mind when we review the position on the expiry of our lease.
A representative of one of the parties to an inter-partes entitlement proceedings complained about the length of time being taken to issue the decision. He also complained that he had been informed on a number of occasions that the decision was about to be issued and then it wasn’t.	The Office noted that in each case the Hearing Officer had underestimated the amount of work remaining. An apology was given to the representative. The decision, which was in any event due for issuing, was issued 4 days after the complaint. Patents Directorate are currently working to a target of issuing 80% of decisions within 4 months. The following measures have been put in place to address the late issuing of decisions: (a) ex parte hearings are now allocated on a rota to spread the workload more widely; (b) a regular check is made of cases that are getting close to the deadline so Divisional Directors can take action; (c) guidelines on efficient decision writing have been produced to help reduce the time taken to write them; (d) ex parte hearing officers have been encouraged to make greater use of C2 examiners as drafting assistants; (e) hearing officers have been encouraged and coached to issue more oral decisions; and (f) additional resources have been created for ex parte work by retaining a Deputy Director part time after his retirement.
Two applicants were unhappy that we could not give them an exact date of when their application would be registered following publication of their mark in the trade marks journal.	At the moment customers are not given an exact date of when their applications will be registered following the publication of their trade marks.This issue is being carefully considered to see if it is possible to give our customers better information on the date that their trade mark will be registered following the publication of their mark in the Trade Marks Journal.
A customer complained that the search facility for Trade Marks on our website should not be limited and that the website should give customers access to the search facilities that are at the disposal of the trade mark examiners.	The existing search system on our website only allows users to search for identical trade marks or trade marks beginning with certain letters. A new, improved search facility was introduced on the website on 1 December 2006 which has more options available for the customer to expand or restrict their search. This will help to prevent them missing citations or confusingly similar marks.
During August, 24 customers received invoices from companies offering unofficial registration services. Although not a complaint regarding the Patent Office, this has been included for information purposes.	Most customers realised that these invoices were invitations or offers to put their trade marks on registers. However, they were still unhappy at being targeted by these companies and asked the Patent Office to do something about this particular practice.A cross-directorate working group has been looking at ways of providing our customers with improved information relating to companies that invite customers to put their trade marks on unofficial registers. Initiatives will shortly be introduced to provide customers with clearer information relating to these companies. The recent Charter Mark Compliance Visit Report praised us for this initiative and identified it as “best practice”.
A customer was unhappy that both his electronically filed applications were abandoned and he had to re-file them. He received 2 e-mails for each application, the second e-mail requested payment within 2 months. He said that the second e-mail was not very clear and that it did not look like an invoice requesting payment within 2 months. The customer was very dissatisfied and was considering making a formal complaint.	The client was contacted by a member of the New Applications Team and he accepted that he had received both e-mails but he did not think that the second e-mail was a request for payment of the fees. The applicant was directed to the part of the e-mail that asked for the fees to be paid. He was told that as a result of his feedback and that of a few other customers, we were revising the wording in the second e-mail.A Change Proposal has been drafted and the e-mail has been revised to make it easier to understand.
A customer was unhappy because when he contacted the Central Enquiry Unit (CEU) he was told that his query would be passed onto the relevant person who would return his call. He waited 2 weeks and nobody contacted him.	The customer was contacted by a member of the Designs Team, who apologised for the delay in contacting him. The customer’s query related to patents and they were passed on to the Patents Private Applicant’s Team to deal with his query.The CEU Manager is looking into this issue and staff have been reminded of the need to see queries through.
A private applicant wrote to the Chief Executive to complain because he was unhappy with the information he had been given regarding a request for an extension of time to pursue his trade mark. As a result he felt that he had unnecessarily paid an extra £50. The applicant also contacted the Patent Office on a number of occasions and although staff said that they would ring him back, they never did.	The Chief Executive wrote to the applicant and explained that he had been granted an extension of time to pursue his trade mark application. However, in view of the circumstances, no charge has been made for this extension and a refund of £50 has been made to the applicant. The Chief Executive apologised for the fact that we had failed to respond to his telephone calls.All of the managers of the sections have been asked to review their procedures to ensure that there is no repetition of such shortcomings.
A Trade Mark examiner had to deal with an agent who was unhappy with the service he had received from the Patent Office e.g. decisions on Section 3 and specifications, and inability to deal with issues via e-mails. Because we do not publicise e-mail addresses, examiners were not prepared to discuss objections over the phone and very rarely would they even consider waiving an objection over the phone. The agent was quite forthright and when invited to make a formal complaint, he said that even if he did complain, nothing would be done about it.	The Customer Feedback Officer contacted the agent. The agent quickly said that he did not have any complaints about the way that the examiner that he had spoken to had dealt with his cases. The agent said that using e-mails and the phone was a quicker and more customer friendly way of dealing with the Office, as he had to charge the customer for every letter he sent the Office. The agent was told that the office was looking at the option of allowing customers to correspond with us via e-mail. The agent was also informed that we treat all feedback and complaints very seriously. He was also told that if he had specific examples of poor service he has received from the Office, he should make a formal complaint. He was assured that his complaint would be dealt with fairly and quickly.
An applicant expressed her dissatisfaction that the publication regarding European (Community) Design failed to mention that multiple applications must be restricted to a single class of goods. She was a little annoyed that she had to pay a further fee of €350 as it contained designs in two different classes.	This particular publication was reviewed by the Designs Team Leader.An additional paragraph will be added to this particular publication to deal with this particular problem.
At a hearing, an applicant was given information about the Search and Advisory Service (SAS). The applicant indicated that she felt let down by the Office because this was the first time she had heard about the SAS. She told the Hearing Officer that she had made several telephone calls to the Office prior to making the application [which she has documented]. She told the Hearing Officer that she had made it clear during those conversations that she was a private applicant, yet not once was the SAS mentioned. She feels she has thrown £950 down the drain.	The Hearing Officer suggested that she should write to us if she felt the service we had provided did not meet her expectation and that we would look into her complaint. All Examination Team Leaders and the CEU Manager have reminded their staff to mention the SAS service if appropriate when dealing with inexperienced customers.
At a hearing, an applicant was given information about the Search and Advisory Service (SAS). The applicant indicated that she felt let down by the Office because this was the first time she had heard about the SAS. She told the Hearing Officer that she had made several telephone calls to the Office prior to making the application [which she has documented]. She told the Hearing Officer that she had made it clear during those conversations that she was a private applicant, yet not once was the SAS mentioned. She feels she has thrown £950 down the drain.	The Hearing Officer suggested that she should write to us if she felt the service we had provided did not meet her expectation and that we would look into her complaint. All Examination Team Leaders and the CEU Manager have reminded their staff to mention the SAS service if appropriate when dealing with inexperienced customers.
A private applicant wrote to the Chief Executive to complain because we had accepted the “London Sound” trade mark application.	The Head of Law Section informed the applicant that the trade mark “London Sound” was registered in July 2005. If he wanted to object to this mark he would have to file to invalidate the trade mark. He was sent information directing him to the section on the Patent Office website relating to invalidity proceedings. The Head of Law Section explained the invalidity process and said that initially it would cost £200 to start the proceedings. The applicant was also advised to seek legal advice before starting proceedings as they can generate quite a high level of costs.
A private applicant wrote to the Chief Executive complaining that a letter from us was inadvertently sent to the wrong address. The applicant was very concerned that their personal details, including their name and address, were made available to complete strangers. They felt that this was a breach of the Data Protection Act. The applicant had paid £96 for a Search and Advisory (SAS) search and was now being asked for £250 to pay for their trade mark. The applicant was irate and thought that this could damage their business and was a negligent act on behalf of the Patent Office.	The Chief Executive apologised for the fact that the applicant’s correspondence had been sent to a different address. However, it was noted that the correspondence was a request for payment for the SAS search rather than confidential information relating to the SAS search report. Nevertheless, under the circumstances, it was agreed that an ex-gratia payment of £94 (which was the cost of the SAS search) was appropriate in this case in recognition of any distress that was caused by our error. The applicant also said that apart from this unfortunate issue she had received excellent service from the Patent Office since applying for her trade mark application.
A private applicant wrote to the Chief Executive complaining that it was possible to carry out a trade marks proprietor search on our external website. He felt that this information was commercially sensitive and should not be in the public domain. He asked us to remove any details on our website relating to trade marks that he had applied for.	The Chief Executive informed the applicant that this search facility had been introduced in May 2000. There was a press release at the time and has been continually available since May 2000. Section 49 of The Trade Marks Rules (2001 and 2004) gives an obligation to the Register to make trade mark applications available for inspection by the public so opting out was not possible. Public accessibility of trade mark data is highlighted both on our web site and in our application guidance allowing an informed choice to be made over products/branding prior to application.
A private applicant wrote to the Chief Executive to complain that we had objected to the trade mark “FOOK”, yet we had accepted the trade mark “FCUK”, which he felt was more offensive.	The Chief Executive informed the applicant that our decision to refuse the mark “FOOK” was upheld on appeal by the Appointed Person. The “FCUK” marks were also attacked and were the subject of invalidity proceedings. The Patent Office dismissed the invalidity claim and this was upheld by the Appointed Person. The applicant was informed that, if he felt that he had sufficient grounds, then he could also apply to have the “FCUK” marks declared invalid. He was given contact details for the Head of Law Section in case he wanted further information.
A private applicant wrote to the Chief Executive to complain that his application had been abandoned. He had filed electronically and was not aware of an e-mail that was sent to him asking for the fee to be paid within 2 months. He said that he did not have access to his e-mails at the time it was sent and that it was probably considered to be junk mail and was automatically deleted after 7 days. He was very unhappy when he was told that his application was abandoned and that he would have to start the whole process again. He felt he should be able to just pay the fee and continue with his application.	The Chief Executive informed the applicant that under Section 32(4) Rule 11(b) of the Trade Mark Rules 2004, if any deficiencies were not put right (including paying the fee) within 2 months, then the application would be abandoned. However, in this case he was prepared to allow the present application to proceed as long as the fee was paid. However, the application would have a new filing date and this filing date would be the date the applicant agreed to this option as long as payment was made at the same time. The applicant also made a number of observations relating to this issue, which are being carefully considered and we will be making a number of changes to improve the process taking these into consideration.
A private applicant wrote to the Chief Executive complaining that he believed another party had stolen his intellectual property rights.	The applicant was informed that his written communications were considered to be observations on the acceptance of a particular trade mark as detailed under Section 38 of the 1994 Trade Marks Act. Observations can only be filed once a trade mark has been advertised. In this case the applicant was told that his communications would be put on the relevant file and as soon as the trade mark was advertised they would be treated as observations. These observations do not allow the applicant to be a party to the proceedings, because disputes relating to ownership are dealt with in opposition proceedings. The applicant was given information about the opposition process and he was also given contact details for the Head of Law Section in case he decided that he wanted to oppose this trade mark. He was also told that it would cost an initial £200 to start the opposition process.
A private applicant complained to the Chief Executive because he was told by an examiner that when he converted his Community Trade Mark application into a number of national applications, these national applications would not enjoy the earlier seniority date claimed in the Community Trade Mark. The applicant disagreed with the information he was given and quoted areas of European Trade Mark Legislation to back up his arguments.	In his reply, the Chief Executive informed the private applicant that seniority dates have a narrow application on conversion and are limited to the EU country where they are claimed e.g. if the seniority was claimed from a French Mark, on conversion it would only apply to the conversion in France, not in any other EU country where conversions may be requested. The applicant was given an apology for any inconvenience caused by the examiner not explaining his query precisely enough.
A customer called to enquire about a contact e-mail address for a member of staff on the Search and Advisory team. He then went on to say how bad he thought the new website was, as he was unable to find any details regarding the Search and Advisory Team. He also found it hard to find other information without trawling first. He said that he would be writing to the Chief Executive to lodge his dissatisfaction.	This issue will be closely monitored to see whether the Search and Advisory information should be made more prominent on our website. This might involve putting a link to the information on the "Should You Apply" page on the Trade Marks section of the website.
A call was passed to a Designs Admin manager by the Central Enquiry Unit (CEU). The customer was very unhappy with the way a member of the CEU had dealt with her. The CEU member of staff had said that as it was 5 o’clock in the afternoon, it was time for them to go home. The customer felt that the CEU member of staff became quite impatient with her. The Designs Admin Manager apologised to the customer.	The CEU manager and the Designs Admin manager listened to a recording of the telephone conversation and they understood why the CEU member of staff was getting so frustrated. The call should have been passed to the Designs Team much earlier. The customer was confused with certain elements of the DF2A and this was later explained to her. The customer thanked the Designs Admin Manager for his help and said that she was now in a position to file for her Design.CEU staff have been reminded that if they have any difficulty in dealing with customers’ queries, they should pass them on to the relevant part of the Patent Office, for more specialist staff to deal with the query.
When a customer tried to use a Firefox browser to file an E-TM3, he was unable to access the online TM3 form.	The customer was told that our systems did not support the Firefox browser, although it was hoped that this facility would be available to him during 2007. He was advised to use the Microsoft Internet Explorer Browser.
An agent complained about the opening times of our databases and thought that 10 pm was too early to close a website, making it most inconvenient. The agent hoped that if enough people complained about this matter, one day things would change. They also commented that they liked the new-look site which was very user-friendly.	It is envisaged that a planned new system will not have this problem and will allow customers 24/7 access to the website.Improvements are still being made to the system, but there is no date available yet as to when access to the system will be improved.
A private applicant complained to the Chief Executive that the examiner dealing with his trade mark had told him that the limitation on his trade mark could not be removed. The applicant originally filed the following specification “Alcoholic beverages (excluding beers); Whiskey; imported to the Texas state (US) from the UK”.	The Deputy Head of Trade Marks Examination informed the applicant that the limitation could not be removed as this would be widening the scope of his application. The applicant was informed that if he wanted to discuss this point any further that he should apply for a hearing on this issue. He was told that the hearing could be done on the telephone or at various designations across the UK.
A private applicant has complained because we have advertised his trade mark on our website. He is afraid that other people will now be able to copy his trade mark and use it on their goods. He wants the Patent Office to do something otherwise he will take legal action against us and write to his MP.	In his reply, the Head of Examination explained to a senior Trade Marks manager that the status of his trade mark as advertised on our web site was “examined” which meant it had not been accepted by the Registry. He also informed him that if the mark was finally accepted, it would be published in our Trade Mark Journal.
A private applicant wrote to the Chief Executive to complain that he could not file his trade mark electronically. He used a Firefox Browser and, when he read our information on the Patent Office website, it clearly stated that it did not support Firefox and only supported the Microsoft Internet Explorer browser. The applicant was unhappy that he had to file a paper trade mark applications and felt that the Patent Office should be able to accept electronic applications from all leading browsers and not just the Microsoft one.	The Chief Executive wrote to the applicant and explained that the vast majority of our customers used Microsoft Internet Explorer. However, for many of our prospective customers this was no longer the case and we would be working towards developing our systems so that other browsers could be used to file trade mark applications electronically in the future.
A private applicant wrote to the Chief Executive to complain because she felt that she had been given incorrect advice by Patent Office staff. The applicant said that she was assured that a full SAS search would be carried out prior to her paying £250 for a formal trade mark application. Three months after she applied for the trade mark she was informed that there was another company with the same or similar name trading in the same or similar financial sector. She had gone to a lot of expense setting up her business and was now asking for a refund of her application costs.	The Chief Executive wrote to the private applicant and said that the Patent Office staff were trained to give clear and precise advice on the services provided by the Office. However, in this case there was clearly some misunderstanding and, as a gesture of good will, if the applicant withdrew their application, we would make them an ex-gratia payment of £250 which would be made exceptionally and without prejudice. The applicant withdrew their application and accepted the ex-gratia payment.
A private applicant made a number of complaints. His agent filed the wrong mark, he was unhappy that the examiner could not deal with his questions, he supplied evidence of passing off his trade mark at a hearing and the hearing officer did not take any action against the other parties. He was also unhappy at the delay in publishing his mark following the hearing.	The Chief Executive wrote to the private applicant and explained that if the wrong mark was filed, he should discuss this with his representative. The hearing with the hearing officer was only to discuss any outstanding objections on the application and not to provide advice on passing off. The applicant was also informed that as a result of exceptionally high volumes of applications, there was a slight delay to our publication timescale.
A customer was unhappy that he was unable to search for device only trade marks on our website.	The customer was informed that this facility was not available yet although it was expected to be available sometime during 2007. He was also informed that he could conduct this type of search at one of the Patent Office Buildings or at designated libraries that had one of our terminals. He also said that he would probably call into Newport to conduct the search although he was unhappy that he had to do this as it was time consuming and inconvenient for him.
The applicant complained because he had not received the second e-mail for his e-filed application. He said that he was consciously looking out for the e-mail but it was received as spam at his end and was deleted. He would like to suggest that a hard copy of the e-mail should be sent as a back up.	The application was re-instated and given a later filing date. The applicant did not have to re-file with a fresh application.
A Trade Mark examiner noticed that there was no punctuation in the specification of a trade mark that they were examining. They punctuated the list of goods and then wrote to the applicant asking if it was acceptable. The applicant was unhappy because when she tried to punctuate the specification our system wouldn't accept the application form electronically until the punctuation was taken out.	The examiner punctuated the specification and sent it back to the applicant to review. The applicant was happy with the examiner’s amendments and the application was allowed to proceed to publication.
The applicant used our website and then contacted the office using the CEU number given on the website before making his application. He was very surprised when he received the examiner’s report which raised a series objection, Section 3 as well as specification queries. The examiner explained why the objections had been raised. The applicant understood the principles behind the objections but said that he never would have filed the application if he had been given the same advice when he phoned the CEU. They did not advise him about contacting a trade mark attorney. Also they gave him the wording for the specification which the examiner queried. He thought he had been misled. The applicant explained that he had a small, new business and that he had told CEU staff that he knew nothing about trade marks and he thought the advice he had been given should have been better.	Details of this complaint have been passed onto the CEU Manager so that she can review the telephone conversation.The CEU Manager will review the telephone conversation and take any appropriate action if necessary.
An examiner raised a citation in their examination report which was not raised in the SAS examination report that the customer had paid for prior to filing for their formal trade mark application. The customer was unhappy that the citation was not raised in the SAS examination report.	The SAS Manager was asked to review this complaint. Following the review, it was discovered that the applicant filed a slightly different specification in their formal application compared to the specification filed in their SAS application and that was why the citation was raised. The examiner has since offered a restricted specification as a way of overcoming the citation.
A customer noted that our captured version of their E-TM3 filing displayed the text differently from the version entered. The displayed text from the version entered was VWATER, V WATER, V_WATER, V WATER. The captured text requested by the customer was: VWATER V WATER V-WATER V WATER The final V should be displayed above the word water not in front of it.	The amendment has been made in line with the customer’s original request.
A client was unhappy that the database was not available 24/7. She felt that our instructions on our website do not state when the website is available to use and queried the description of the database as being rather odd. She said that what people wanted to know was what trademarks had already been registered.	A senior Trade Marks IT manager explained the reasons why our database was not available 24/7 i.e. we need to back up the databases and that we were striving to improve access times in the future. She also explained that the access times are on all of the search pages. The applicant was told that applications were given a different status as they progressed through the examination cycle. We were obliged to update the status as sometimes applications took years to progress through to registration and it was important that the public knew at what stage applications were at in the examination cycle. The Trade Marks IT Manager also explained that when a search was done to find any confusingly similar marks, it was important to search all live marks and not just registered marks. The applicant was told that it was possible to search just for registered marks and this could be done on the new trade marks search facility, and was directed to this page on our website.
A client complained that we had failed to act on his company’s instructions about the processing of fees for a PCT application, as a result of which the application lost its priority claim.	As the instructions were given over the telephone from someone who had since left the complainant’s company, we accepted that we may have been so instructed and allowed the application to proceed. We reminded the client of our procedures and reminded him of his responsibility to give us written instructions regarding fees in future.Staff have been reminded that when there are insufficient fees in deposit accounts, we will fax customers to tell them they must give us clear instructions to take fees after they have topped up their accounts, and not assume this is something we do automatically.
A customer had contacted the Office to request a copy of a licence filed on GB Patent 2201548. The Register entry and previous correspondence to the proprietors indicated that we had a copy of this licence which led the customer to complain when we were unable to provide the relevant documents.	The original licence request had been processed correctly without a copy of the licence when it was recorded in 1996. However, at the time, standard Register entries and confirmation letters were issued which made reference to copies of the licence being filed with the application. This was not the case for this patent and many others and our practices and standard Register entries and letters were changed in 1999 to reflect this. An amended Register entry will now be added to this particular patent to remove the reference to a certified copy of the licence. Changes were made in 1999 to reflect whether registrable transactions are accepted on the information filed on the form 21/77 or whether additional documentation has been necessary. No further additional measures taken.
A customer sent an e-mail to the Office on 22 September via the “Enquiries” e-mail address on the Patent Office Website, and a second one to the “commercial services” e-mail address on 24 September. His complaint was that he had not received acknowledgement from either of them by 27 September. He feels that the Office’s standards have fallen below an acceptable level.	A reply was sent to the customer apologising for the fall in standards. It also admitted that human error occurred in both instances, as it was not recognised that a response was needed. In relation to his Search & Advisory request, it was processed but we failed to inform him of such.Procedures have been revised in both departments to ensure such errors do not occur again. A request has been made to issue the report to the customer as soon as possible.
A client e-mailed the Office expressing his dissatisfaction with the Patent Office website. He claimed that it did not comply with internet standards and did not work on all browsers, as text is hidden within elements. He also wanted to know what testing had taken place prior to publishing the site and requested evidence of such. In his e-mail he mentioned that this enquiry came under the Freedom of Information Act.	A response was sent to the client apologising for the difficulties he was experiencing with the website. He was asked to provide specific information so the problems could be resolved.The query has been forwarded to the Freedom of Information Officer.
A customer e-mailed the Office complaining that the information regarding opening times of the London Front Office as published on the Patent Office website is out of date. As he had taken a client from Cheltenham to London specifically to visit the Office, he was most frustrated and embarrassed to find the details were incorrect.	A Director replied to the customer apologising for any embarrassment caused. It was explained to him that the website is up to date, and stated the services that were available from the London Office. Staff in London are trained to provide all the services advertised on the website. Any other queries are generally telephoned through to the Central Enquiry Unit (CEU) in Newport to be responded to.