Customer feedback - October to December 2009

Compilation of formal complaints made by our customers during the period of October to December 2010. The complaint received is listed in the first column. Read across the row to find out our response and any additional measures taken.
Formal complaints Response and additional measures taken
You wrote to us claiming, "That the examiner had acted negligently in the objections raised in the examination report." We issued a letter that explained that the objections quoted related to an amended claim and the second was originally objected to in the first exam report. The most recent report, with a hearing on the case anticipated shortly, the examiner comprehensively set out all the outstanding objections to make clear what matters remained to be dealt with. There was nothing on the file to justify that the case had been negligently handled.
You advised, "I applied for a patent, I never hired a solicitor as one of the people working at the patent office offered to help me put the application together. I did not know what all the jargon meant so I was very grateful for the help. But it turns out now that the advice given to me by your office was incorrect as I was told that not to do the substantive search was actually going to promote my idea and attract foreign investment I was not told that I would lose all rights to my invention. I understand that you have rules to stick to but if the rules don’t follow logic I think that it should be clearly stated what the rules are which they were not. I still have the form for the substantive search and it does not say anything about losing the rights to your invention if not completed. I phoned your office today and I was told that I should have received letters explaining this but I never received any letter saying that I would lose my right to my own invention. I don’t want this dragged into court so I am asking you to make an exemption in my case." Our letter explained that the IPO must operate within the law. The case has been referred to a hearing officer for a decision according to the law on whether to reinstate the application. You were given the opportunity to put forward any further arguments you wish to make.
You claimed that the, "Examiner's technical background not fitting him to examine this case reasonably and fairly." We confirmed that the technical background of the examiner had no bearing on the outcome of your case.
You explained, "I asked CEU why our name was not yet in the Trade Marks Journal. They explained that there could be a lapse of up to 3 weeks before publication, but kindly said they would check the position for me. They reported that no objection had been raised. I don't recall the exact wording, but I'm sure I asked and they confirmed that any objections received from that time would be invalid. This conversation was reported to my Board of Trustees and has been recorded in the Minutes accordingly. On checking your website this morning I find that an objection has not only been received, it has been allowed, even though it was not received in your office (as per the website instructions) until a full five days after the deadline. It is argued that the objection was lodged at one of your satellite offices within time, but your website seems to suggest that the Objection should be received in your Head Office in Newport."
How to oppose an application		 We confirmed that we had misinformed you when you rang the CEU to ask about the opposition and also confirmed that the opposition was filed on time in our London office. We arranged for a Senior Trade Mark official to contact you to discuss the opposition procedure.
You wrote to tell us about the, "Invalidation of a Trade Mark; a letter was sent to the IPO requesting the immediate invalidation; the reasons are detailed in the statements & exhibits that were submitted at the evidence stage. These pieces of evidence were not included on the grounds that there were not a matter of evidence as such. The IPO has clearly failed to follow its own rules and information provided." We explained, "The IPO does not have the power to take any action against the other Trade Mark. We provided you with detailed reasons as to why we are unable to do anything."
You wrote to tell us about an, "Issue regarding CTMFS as customer has paid out £3440 to them and feel they have been duped. Can the office do anything about this?" We advised you that we have been in touch with Trading Standards and that we will write detailing what action they will take when known.
You advised, "I am astounded, given that the IPO is a government department, that upon payment for a Trade Mark application, no receipt is automatically generated and sent to the applicant, either electronically or in paper form! I have just made two trademark applications and as a Limited Company, our Accounts require proof of amounts paid. I was under the impression that any customer purchasing goods or services in the UK is entitled to an invoice or receipt for payment. All we have been emailed is a copy of the application form which does not mention any financial transaction whatsoever. I made a telephone call to request an invoice or receipt and was at first contradicted and then very begrudgingly told I would receive one by post. I shouldn’t have had to make such a call, nor should your customer service team begrudge my entitlement to such documentation." We sent copies of invoices to you with an explanation and apology that there was an issue with our online filing fees sheet acknowledgement that day. This is still being investigated but an interim measure has been put in place to deal with this should it happen again.
You wrote to let us know, "The individual below is trying to fool individuals into giving up their domain names because he claims he holds a trademark on them. I own ibed.com for over 6 years and he emailed me stating there is a UK Trade Mark on it which he owns. Upon doing further research it seems that this individual has tried to trademark other questionable work marks that are existing websites.
Please let me know what you will do about it."		 We advised that, "The Intellectual Property Office cannot cancel the registration as registration of a domain name does not prevent the registration of the same words by someone else as a Trade Mark. You may be able to apply to cancel the registration on the grounds that the owner of the trade mark acted in bad faith when they made their trade mark application. Further details PDF document(111Kb) of what is involved in this process can be found on our website. You should be aware that for any action to succeed in this way you would need to provide evidence that you were trading under the domain name before the relevant trade mark was registered and also that the domain name was known to the person who applied to register the trade mark. Evidence of "Trading under" would require more than just use of the words as an Internet address. If you wish to take any action such as this I strongly advise that you seek professional guidance through a trade mark attorney or other legal adviser. Names of people who may help can be found on the ITMA External Link, or CIPA External Link websites or through the Yellow Pages."
You were unhappy because we, "Issued an e-mail to the third party before an interlocutery hearing took place" We advised this is normal procedure in such circumstances as was in relation to the date and time of the hearing so both parties would need to partake in this element.
You complained that, "One Trade Mark was advertised without notifying the holder of another Trade Mark." We advised that because an invalidation is in progress we were unable to make a comment regarding this.
You told us, "I am considering applying for a patent however I notice that many of the forms are in Microsoft's Word format. The uninitiated might think that they need to buy a Microsoft operating system and also Microsoft Office in order to file a patent online. Why do you appear to support a particular specific software vendor when there is a well established Open Document Format, or even Google Docs (which is free to use and secure to share), that you could use without such bias?" We issued an e-mail explaining why we use Microsoft Word and also offering other alternatives as well as pointing you to the PPWG section of our website for future reference when we next look to review these forms in this format.