| You said that you were unhappy that we would not return your original patent drawings to
you. |
We sent you a letter that explained that the drawings formed part of his application and
could not be returned. Copies of your drawings were enclosed so you could re-file to meet the requirements. We are also looking
at our procedures to see if they can be improved. |
| You said you were unhappy that you had to contact the IPO on a number of occasions in order
to get information about your patent. |
We investigated the issue and sent you copies of letters that we had originally sent you,
which you said you had never received. As these were sent to the address that you gave us, there were
no irregularities in our procedure to rectify as we had done nothing wrong. |
| You said you were unhappy that we would not allow you to renew your patent. The patent should
have been renewed in 2000 and was not renewed within the agreed timescales so has now been allowed to
lapse. |
We responded explaining the legal reasons why the patent could not be renewed. We also said
that we were happy with the way that this case had been dealt with. You were told that you still had
the option of taking your case to the Ombudsman if you were not satisfied with the
way that we had dealt
with your complaint. |
| You said you were unhappy because you did a search on our external website prior to filing
your application and this search did not show any possible conflicting marks. You were also disappointed
when the examiner highlighted 2 conflicting marks in the examination report. |
We considered your request for a refund of your fees and the case was passed to a senior
officer to review. This officer did not consider that a refund would be appropriate in this case and
the application was allowed to proceed to publication. |
| You said you were unhappy with the length of time that it took to get your application to
the publication stage. |
We said that two of the pieces of correspondence were dealt with in a timely fashion, however,
a third piece of correspondence was not responded to very quickly. You were given the contact details
for the Head of Trade Marks in case you wanted to pursue your complaint. |
| You said you had been given incorrect information relating to a series application. You
applied for the series and then the examiner told you that the marks did not constitute a series. You
felt that you had been given poor advice and asked for a refund on your application fee. |
We apologised for any incorrect advice given by IPO staff. We also offered an ex gratia
payment to cover the costs of any divisional fees, if you decided that you wanted to divide these applications. |
| You said that we were wrong to accept a number of marks that related to the 2012 Olympics.
You had made observations about these marks; however the marks were allowed to become registered. You
were now aware of similar marks being applied for by the same proprietor and said that you would be
making observations on these marks if the office allowed them to proceed to publication. |
We addressed the issue of the earlier now registered marks and gave a full explanation of
the reasons why the office allowed these marks to become registered. We also said that the arguments
that you had raised, should be resolved at inter-partes proceedings and you were told that the filing
of opposition proceedings would be more appropriate than filing observations. We said it would be inappropriate
for the office to comment on this complaint as we might be
adjudicating on
future invalidation
proceedings and did not wish to prejudice these proceedings. |
| You said that you had called our Central Enquiry Unit and a very rude man slammed the phone
down on you. You had a priority claim query and were put on hold several times before the phone was
put down on you. |
We said that following a full investigation, we contacted you and said that we had listened
to a recording of the phone call. We apologised for the unacceptable level of customer service you had
received. The operator regretted their behaviour on this occasion and the office apologised unreservedly
about this incident. |
| You said that you had sent in a letter covering a number of issues relating to the patent
process, the disclosure of information and advice given out at different Inventors Fairs. You were still
waiting for a reply to your letter. |
We replied and apologised for the delay in replying to your earlier letter and then went
onto give a detailed response to all of your points that were raised in your earlier letter. |
| You said that you wanted to pay your patent renewal fees by direct debit by paying £5 a
month. |
We informed you that the IPO did not accept payments in this form and that an applicant
was allowed to make a full payment of the renewal fees 3 months before the date of the patent renewal.
Late payments could also be made up to 6 months after the renewal date, subject to the payment of a
late payment fee. The initial £5 payment was returned to you. |
