Customer feedback - January to March 2008

Compilation of general feedback received from customers during the period of January to March 2008. The feedback received is listed in the first column. Read across the row to find out our response and any additional measures taken.
General feedback Response and additional measures taken
You said that you were receiving unofficial invoices and you were not sure if they needed to be paid. We gave you information about these companies and you were told that these invoices had nothing to do with your applications. Warning notices are still being sent out with journal letters informing you about these companies and there is also a warning notice on our website that relates to these unofficial registration companies.
You said that you felt that the wording in the trade marks examination fact sheet was misleading and should be changed. We agreed and the wording is to be amended.
You said you wanted to know where you could find the information regarding filing priority documents after you had filed your application, as this information was not included on the guidance notes that accompanied the TM3. We found the information in Chapter 3 and forwarded it onto you via email. This issue was reviewed by the Deputy Head of Trade Marks and he is considering whether to include this information in the next revision of the Trade Marks Guidance Notes.
You said that you wanted your personal details removed so that they were not searchable on Google or similar search engines. We amended your personal details. Changes have also been made to our website so that applicant’s addresses are no longer shown in the electronic TMD journal unless they want them to be. These changes will also be reflected in future revisions to the TM3 notes and the notes on our website.
You said that our website only allowed you to access 100 documents and you wanted to search over 800. You tried looking for Tribunal Practice Notices using the website search engine box. It brought back over 800 hits; however, the system would not allow you to view more than 100 hits. We located the relevant Tribunal Notice and sent it to you. Tribunal Notices (IP professional area) are listed in year order on our website. Work is presently being done to improve the search engine on the IPO web site.
You said that on two occasions you were sent the wrong Designs Form. We have asked staff to take more care in the future to try and ensure that this mistake does not happen again.
You said that all of our electronic acknowledgement invoices look the same when they arrive in your inbox. You suggested that we add something to help you to distinguish one e-mail from another, by including the applicant’s reference number or application number. We are is reviewing this problem to see if a solution can be found.
You said you had difficulty finding ECJ cases on our website. We found the relevant ECJ cases and sent them to you. We also sent you the ECJ website address so that you could book mark it. This problem navigating our website and finding things was passed onto our website developers to consider.
You said that it would be very helpful to have online access to the English translations of European patents granted in another language and validated in the UK. At present, these can only be obtained as paper copies by filing patent form 23. They cannot even be obtained electronically by email. We told you that by filing a Patents Form 23, machine translations are freely available through Esp@cenet. We do offer an electronic Form 23 service but this only covers GB Cases at the moment not EP/UK's. However, with the ratification of the London Agreement, from the 1 May there will be no need to file a translation to confirm the granting of the EP/UK application in the UK.
You said that you did not know who to make the cheque payable to and that we should put this on the forms. We informed you that nearly all of the fee bearing patent forms have payment details on them. And the fee sheet also clearly states 'Cheque, made payable to 'UK Intellectual Property Office'
You said you filed two patents at the same time and did not complete the reference box on the Patent Application Form (which is optional). So when you receive correspondence from us, you are not sure which patent it relates to. When we write to you our letters clearly identify which patent is which because we use the title name, which needs to be completed on the form when an application is made. This is not the first time that this has happened and we are reviewing this issue to if any improvements can be made to try and avoid this happening again.
You said you had difficulty contacting the Human Resources Team by e-mail. You wanted to find out if you had been successful in a recent patent examiner recruitment exercise. We contacted you and apologized for any difficulty you had contacting the recruitment team through the normal e-mail channels. You were told that your application had been received and was still being considered as part of the initial sift, which had been delayed. You were told that the results would be known in a few days.
You said it was difficult to find the IPO’s Patent search engine on our website. You suggested that we looked at other websites such as: esp@cenet., The US Patent and Trade Mark Office or the German Office. We passed your feedback onto the Internet Review Team to consider as part of their review.