| The EP application was filed with us, well within the 14 months prescribed. |
A letter from the CEO was issued to the customer and to the EPO. We explained that the application had been received in the office on time but that following investigation we were unable to prove where the subsequent error occurred, whether we did not send the application or whether the EPO did not
collect the application from the server to which it has access and has responsibility for collecting
applications from. We apologised that the service provided jointly by the IPO and European Patent Office
had not been satisfactory. In view of the doubts regarding where the processing error occurred we wrote
to the President of the EPO in order to persuade her that the EPO should rescind their original decision
to withdraw the EP application. Initially the EPO refused so we arranged for the applicant to convert
the application into national applications for each designated country. However the EPO subsequently
agreed the application could be accepted with the original filing date. |
| The customer was unhappy because he said someone else had registered the same name with a different image under the same classes and he had not been informed by the office. |
We explained that it is not our policy to telephone trade mark holders to whom we send notifications as the administrative burden would be too great. Our legal obligation is to send any relevant information, which would include letters of notification, to the recorded address for service. In this case we fulfilled this obligation. The customer was given the option to invalidate the registration and was directed to the page on our website explaining the process further. The customer was also given the option of speaking to the Head of Tribunal Section to discuss the matter. His direct telephone line was provided. |
| The customer was concerned following receipt of a letter from the office warning that he had not responded to earlier letters and that his designs would not be registered. He had used the 'in-house' postal service at Bouverie Street. He suggested the use of a purpose built secure mail box. |
We explained that the boxes used in Harmsworth House were intended to receive deliveries of all sizes however we were aware that there had been instances where deliveries had been too big for the box and so in light of this and the customer’s comments we would review and change the box as necessary. We confirmed that one piece of documentation had not been received and this was a considered a serious matter and a thorough review of the process had been initiated. Following the review we confirmed that the documentation filed in London on the 9th December had been found. Having reviewed our practices and procedures we confirmed that this was an isolated case. We apologised for the inconvenience and worry caused. |
| The customer was unhappy as he had e-mailed the office requesting we amend an out of date address in relation to his client's Trade Mark application. We had failed to do this and had failed to respond to the customer within the 5 day turn around we had promised him. Consequently he did not receive a reminder to renew his Trade Mark and it had expired. The customer asked for the extra fee of £50 to reinstate the TM be waived. |
We apologised unreservedly for the poor service the customer had received and waived the £50 fee for late renewal. |
| The customer was unhappy as she felt she had been badly advised by the classification team regarding her Trade Mark and as a consequence requested to be covered free of charge for an additional class. |
We explained that classification advice is given in respect of the goods that are in use or that there is an intention to use. The law states that there must be a 'bona fide intention' to use the mark. As a consequence the classification team had given advice only in respect of those goods the customer had confirmed she intended to use with her Trade Mark. They would not have provided advice in relation to the goods of a competitor company, unless there was confirmation that the mark would also be affixed to such goods. It was unclear why the customer thought she needed cover under an additional class. Therefore there appeared to be no grounds to suggest that IPO had provided incorrect advice in relation to this application and a refund to the application fee would not be appropriate. |
| The customer was unhappy as he felt his case had been mishandled in the application of the legal procedure surrounding the opposing party in a legal dispute. He felt he was at a disadvantage because he was representing himself and that legal proceedings were more favorable toward the other party who were represented by an agent. |
We explained that we had looked carefully into the issues raised and were satisfied that at every stage, both parties had been dealt with fairly and impartially in accordance with the practices and procedures of the Registrar's Tribunal. We also explained that as the customer was a party to ongoing legal proceedings it would be improper to comment any further on the issues surrounding proceedings. In the mean time the customer was invited to address any further issues in respect of proceedings to the Head of Tribunal Section. |
