Customer feedback - April to June 2009

Compilation of general feedback received from customers during the period of April to June 2009. 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 suggested an improvement to the priority option section when filing on-line. A check box could be added to provide details of an original patent and also to explain that the new patent is superseding the original. We explained that due to space constraints it is not always possible to provide additional notes within the web filing service to cover all topics. Therefore, we have to rely on customers reading the additional guidance available elsewhere on our website. The suggestion will be taken on board when we next consider changing the web filing software.
Could we identify the Patents form 23 as something more helpful. We wrote back to the customer for further information but did not receive a response.
You were unable to view Patent PDF forms once submitted, an error message appeared saying the files were fatally flawed and could not be opened. We testing a number of web browsers but were unable to replicate the problem. Our IT section will investigate if there is a more general problem with Firefox & PDF.
You reported errors when using the online Form 23. Using the 'next' tab kept leading to errors. We explained that our technical staff had investigated the problem but had not been able to replicate it. We asked the customer to send us another e-mail if it happened again.
You asked if we could amend Form 23 so that priority documents for the UK original priority could be obtained. The customer also wanted to know when online patent and trademark renewal would be possible. We explained that there is no need to request copies of a UK priority application as our formalities staff will do this. We also explained that online renewals are something we aim to provide but do not have a date yet.
The customer had submitted a Patent application online but the automated email response was corrupted. We sent the customer the missing files as a PDF.
You had a problem with the online Form 23 which mixes up boxes 7 and 8 on the confirmation copy. We investigated the problem and asked the customer to email a copy of the form so it can be tracked.
When filing a Patent online, the customer couldn't tell if his additional document had been uploaded. We explained that the filing receipt displays this information. We agreed with the customer that it would be clearer if it showed on the declaration and acknowledgement screen and so we will investigate this further.
You advised us of unsolicited letters and invoices received from a company that could mislead others into incurring unnecessary expense. We thanked the customer and confirmed that we have a warning on our website to inform customers. In addition, we also add warnings to some of our correspondence.
The customer would like to know how long it will be until they can pay for and renew designs online. We explained that we do not currently have a date that this service will be available, although it is part of our future plans.
You wanted to let us know about another company using 'TM' after their company name, without having registered the Trade Mark. We advised of the legal position regarding use of TM and R in relation to Trade Marks.
The customer found the blue lettering on our website pages a strain on the eye and difficult to read. We said we were sorry that the customer had found the font colour difficult to read. The website had been through a series of usability tests on colour and all tests proved successful.
You asked if provision could be made to print a copy of the customer feedback question. Our internet development team will investigate the suggestion. It is a first of its kind and at present we cannot confirm a timescale for implementation.
Directions to the new London Office were incorrect. Steps have been taken to update the directions page on the website. The directions incorporated are those of a straightforward nature.
You wanted further information on PRS and PPL licenses for playing the radio in the workplace. We explained that you will need a license from both PPL and PRS. PRS safeguards the rights of the songwriters, composers and publishers and PPL acts on behalf of the performers.
The customer asked whether he needed a PRS license for using his mobile phone or walkman. We explained that the customer would not need a license for this. However, a license would be needed if speakers are used and it constitutes a public performance.