| You were unhappy that you had received incorrect information on which of your cases had been electronically submitted with a description. You felt the web service should not allow an application to be filed without a description and that the filing receipt should state what had been filed. |
We telephoned you and apologised for our error. We explained our procedure. The web filing system must allow applications to be filed without a description, Rule 17 allows a reference to be made under section 15(1) (c) (ii) which does not require a description at the time of filing. The filing receipt does list the documents filed but there is also an option when submitting the application
to receive a copy of the submitted PDFs with the filing receipt. |
| You were unhappy as the specification of the application was captured incorrectly, by the time you had informed us we had issued an incorrect filing receipt and the mark had been advertised. |
We scheduled an erratum to correct the original data capture. |
| You complained as the second mark in the series of two did not have the correct spacing between words. |
We resolved the error with an erratum. |
| You felt the website was not user friendly. You wanted to know why there wasn't a simple button to click on to search for a trademark as there used to be before the website was changed. |
We explained that there had never been a 'search for a trade mark button' on the homepage of the website although during the recent redesign process we did review this. We took the decision to only have search facilities available on the relevant pages of the trade mark area. This was simply to keep the homepage clear and easy to navigate. We would continue to monitor feedback from customers and review if necessary. |
