Customer feedback - October to December 2009

Compilation of informal complaints made by our customers during the period of October to December 2009. The complaint received is listed in the first column. Read across the row to find out our response and any additional measures taken.
Informal complaints Response and additional measures taken
A letter was received from an agent that indicated that a search report had been forwarded to him from another agent. It appears that the search report (and accompanying citations) had initially been received by another agent.
i.e. somehow the search report had been sent to the wrong address. We telephoned the agent to confirm that the AFS was correct and gave an apology. We have arranged for the missing citations to be sent.		 Staffing levels in the Post Room have been cut recently, this being the most likely reason why correctly addressed post may have been incorrectly sorted. We have arranged a trial system whereby Formalities will sort correspondence into their various destinations - the correspondence will not travel randomly unsorted to Document Despatch for them to sort out. It is envisaged that Formalities will collate all correspondence from all Formalities teams for Document Despatch into one consolidated group of docs, all sorted into their various destinations. All Document Despatch will need to do is transfer them into the corresponding pigeon holes when the work arrives there. The file copy confirms that Formalities addressed the correspondence to the correct agent. There is no evidence to identify where the error occurred. We have made some investigations as to procedures in Formalities and Document Despatch and a new system is being trialed. The trial system will need to be reviewed to ensure it is working to ensure it is a practical solution to the problem?
In an email and letter, you wrote to say, among other things that: "a) He has a legal action before the European Court of Human Rights about deficient initial patent examination by the IPO resulting in him being denied a patent grant certificate. b) Instructing us to present all email correspondence between him and the examiner to the court. c) He reserves right to withdraw his patent application, d) he wants us to inform him of the outcome of the hearing at the ECHR, e) The ECHR has requested information about our appeals procedure." We sent a detailed and lengthy email to you covering all of your points. You were advised that any comments relating specifically to his patent application should be referred to the examiner. It's possible you may request a hearing.
A Patent Examiner advised that, "The agent contacted us to say that he had still not received the NPL citations that he should have been sent. Initially, it appears that the NPL citations were not sent out with the search report. The agent contacted me about this: I duly sent out a TELREP via PROSE. This TELREP apologised for the missing citations and stated that they were now enclosed. I made an explicit reference in the PROSE checklist (highlighted in red to indicate the changes to the usual checklist) to ensure that the citations were enclosed along with the letter. The agent subsequently received this TELREP, but in fact the citations were not present. Therefore two errors have occurred: 1) The NPL were not sent out with the original search report; 2) The NPL were not sent out with the subsequent TELREP. In both cases this appears to be due to human error. In group EX06 we regularly cite NPL documents that are present in the PECS dossier. I understand that proper procedure is for ESOs to check that all citations listed on the search report are sent to the applicant (and if necessary print off NPL from the PECS dossier). Furthermore, in this case, even the TELREP was sent without any apparent reference to the instructions on the checklist." The Examiner made reference in his Prose checklist (in red) to the ESO, to ensure that the citations were enclosed with the report. It appears the ESO missed the instruction in the checklist and did not read the telecom which read “I enclose the missing citations”. The error was due to human error by the ESO, who did not follow instruction correctly. The ESO has been reminded about the importance of following instructions correctly.
You wished to, "Complain regarding the quality of the Examination Reports received on the application. Firstly, the application was fast-tracked under the accelerated prosecution procedure. When one of the applicants telephoned the Examiner to enquire when an Examination Report could be expected, the Examiner apparently stated that he did not know that the application was fast-tracked. The applicants consider this to be unacceptable. Secondly, during the same discussion between the applicant and the Examiner, the Examiner apparently promised the applicant that an Examination Report would be provided within a week, whereas the Examination Report was actually provided considerably later than this. Again, the applicants consider this to be unacceptable. Thirdly, the Examiner has now issued two Examination Reports and in the each Examination Report the Examiner appears to have cited prior art documents, three in the first Examination Report and six new prior art documents in the second Examination Report, and made general statements that the claims are either not new or would be obvious with common general knowledge in light of the cited documents. The applicants form the firm opinion that the objections made in both Examination Reports lack any explanation, reasoning or argument from the Examiner to support his statements. In particular, the applicants consider that the Examiner’s comments were clearly incorrect in relation to at least some of the claims. The applicant considers that the lack of reasoning or explanation given by the Examiner as to why he considered the claims to be anticipated by the cited documents to put an undue burden on the applicant to try and determine why the Examiner considered the claims to be not novel or not inventive before being able to consider a response. The applicants consider the Examiner’s objections to be totally unjustified and as such, consider the lack of reasoning and explanation given to support the Examiner’s case to reflect badly on the Examiner. This lack of explanation or support given by the Examiner for his arguments is considered by the applicants to be unacceptable. In particular, the applicants consider the lack of support or explanation given by Examiner to be unreasonable given the detailed support of the arguments presented on behalf of the applicant in response to the Examination Report. The applicants operate a small start-up business and are heavily engaged in the onerous task of preparing and commercialising a commercial product based on the teachings of the patent. The applicant considers that the lack of explanation or reasoning given by the Examiner to support his statements places an undue cost and time burden on the applicant to respond. The applicant considers the above to be service from the UK Intellectual Property Office that falls below the standards that might reasonably be expected in the circumstances, and wishes steps to be taken so that this does not happen again." We provided a comprehensive response via letter to your agent apologising for missing that this was an accelerated request but stating that the exam report contents were correct and sufficient.
You told us, "I'm sorry to say that I am unable to continue paying for the refinement of the Claims, to the above application. A great deal of work has gone into this application and it is surprising to me that I am unable to patent protect this work. The endless changes to the Claims could continue for some time yet and I do not have the money to pay my patenting agents to keep changing the claims, in order to meet objections raised.
This is very disappointing, that the examiner and the agent are playing a ping pong of objections for which I have to pay at every change made. I am a lone inventor and have to earn every penny that I pay over to the IPO and my patenting agents. Just cannot be done and I am being forced to forego my IP because I cannot afford to pay the fees involved. A very sad situation indeed!"		 We responded, "I am sorry that you feel that you are unable to proceed with your patent application. In order to grant a patent, the Intellectual Property Office aims to balance the rights of the general public with the interests of the applicant. Thus, there are key requirements that patent must meet. In particular, the invention must be new and not an obvious extension of what has already been done. Clearly, many patent applications that we receive relate to inventions that do not meet these criteria. The refining of the claims, to ensure they meet these requirements often takes some rounds of correspondence between the examiner and the applicant (or the applicant's attorney). This is to ensure that the patent, if it is eventually granted, is valid and can be used by the patentee with confidence. It also means that the general public can have confidence in granted patents and be clear on what they can or can't do. Please note that the Intellectual Property Office charges for search and substantive examination (£130 + £70) but does not make any additional charges for further rounds of correspondence."
You told us, "We wish to bring to your attention the registration of a brand by a different company while it is registered to us. We have registered this brand as a Community Trade Mark in classes 30 and 31. The other company has registered it and also under classes 29, 30 and 32 for food items competing against ours. I am surprised that we were not informed of this by yourselves and we only found out while randomly browsing through your website. We would appreciate if this error is rectified immediately, The brand is limited for our use only as we are first registered on the brand, the registration of the other company for our brand is reversed and your website is updated accordingly." We replied, "Regretfully the UK Intellectual Property Office is unable to assist you in this matter. Both your own mark and the other mark referred to are Community trademarks and are therefore dealt with by the Community Trade Mark Office (more formally known as OHIM - Office for the Harmonization of the Internal market) in Alicante, Spain. Although both marks appear on the UK Intellectual Property Office website, we would not notify you of the later mark's existence because both marks are community trademarks rather than UK domestic trademarks. Likewise we cannot remove the later mark as you have requested. In order to raise your concerns about this mark, you would have had to formally oppose the mark at the Community Trademark Office when it was advertised. I appreciate that this not the answer you were looking for and I am sorry that I am unable to assist you on this matter. I can only suggest that you seek legal advice, perhaps from a trademark agent, if you wish to pursue this matter further."
You advised that you, "Filed two fast track applications, but attached a series of marks to each application. We contacted the agent to advise that our practice with fast track applications means that they can apply for a single mark only, via this method. The agent was unaware of this, and pointed out that this information is not readily available on our website. For example, the following page does not make any reference to us not accepting a series of marks on a fast track application: Our application services and fees The agent has now down-graded both applications to a standard filed electronic application, but would like us to consider amending the website to make this information clearly visible, to avoid a similar situation again. I understand the only reference to a series of marks not being applicable to a fast track application, appears on page 12 in the 'Essential Reading' guide. I also note on the webpage mentioned above, that the information does not make it clear that we will charge for a series of marks, if a customer is filing a standard electronic TM3, or a Right Start case." The new applications team dealt with the complaint and we asked the operation managers to update the web site to make it more informative and user-friendly.
You told us that, "The applicant's case had been examined and the report issued (posted). She failed to receive report and a refusal letter was issued (now rescinded). I did inform her that the report was issued when the Royal Mail was taking strike action, but she felt disappointed as her application obviously had not progressed. She said that she was looking on our website and had noted that it was showing "examined" and was just waiting for the report. She felt that the website should show not only "examined" but also "report issued" then she would have known there was a problem with the report not arriving. She also felt that postal filings should be tracked - I said this could have an impact on costs." We apologised for the problems you had receiving your Trade Mark examination report and explained the majority of our reports are received with no problem and we now send reports out electronically for those applications that are e-filed with us. We have added your suggestions to an initiative currently looking at improvements to our IT systems.
You advised that, "Your web site is more difficult to negotiate (and counter intuitive) than any I have encountered." We advised, "We are sorry you have found the site difficult to navigate and counter intuitive. The site has recently been redesigned in light of customer feedback and we hoped it would be easier for customer to navigate and to find the information they require. We intend to monitor closely the customer feedback we receive with a view to continually improving the site."
You advised that you were, "Treated unfairly - The UK IPO aren't seeing that recommendations 11 and 12 of the Gower’s' Review are implemented, which stuffs me right up as a UK artist - recorded via the online survey." We advised, "With regard to your comments on the Gower's Review of Intellectual Property recommendations 11 and 12, the issues surrounding recommendation 11, such as broader use of works, have been considered in the UK’s recently published Copyright Strategy. This acknowledges that, although the UK cannot act independently to change its law, which is governed by EU law in this context, there may be a case for change at EU level, particularly in relation to non-commercial use, and possibly pre-commercial use. Recommendation 12 (parody, caricature and pastiche) has been addressed in the recently launched ‘Taking Forward the Gower's Review of Intellectual Property: Second Stage Consultation on copyright Exceptions’ and as you may be aware we do not propose to change the current approach. Responses to the first consultation indicated there were conflicting views, and overall did not persuade us that the advantages of a new parody exception were sufficient to override the disadvantages to the creators and owners of the underlying work. However, whilst the current copyright framework does not go as far as many would like, it does provide a basis for permitting parodies etc to be created, for example, through using parts of works under the fair dealing exception for criticism or through the use of licensing when seeking permission to use an underlying work."