Customer feedback - January to March 2010

Compilation of general feedback received from customers during the period of January to March 2010. 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
Customer had received an "invoice" from CTM Filing Support and asked if it was a genuine request for payment from us. Customer was informed that it was unsolicited mail and advised to disregard it. He was then advised to contact Consumer Direct and referred to our website for further guidance.
Stated, "She was afraid to give information and seemed as if she was unsure and gave very little information." Forwarded to the CEU manager to action.
You told us you were, "Satisfied with the overall service received by the SAS and chose to use us due to the fact that we were cheaper than a Patent Agent. You used our search service pending a patent application." We issued an email thanking the customer for taking the time to complete a feedback form.
You confirmed that you were "satisfied" with the overall service received from SAS. The customer required a search to check for patented art in the field and the returned information was useful and helped inform their decision. The customer confirmed that he was pleased with the turnaround time and that he used SAS because of the use of examiners to carry out work and experience of service." We issued an email thanking the customer for taking the time to complete a feedback form.
Asked us to, "Change to MyIP document due to a typo." The document was changed as required.
Told us, "Unhappy with the website comments, "I think the statement IP is created when an idea takes some tangible form is a poor choice of words. Most protection is sought and filed before the idea takes on a tangible form. Other definitions refer to the opposite Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. I agree with keeping it short and sweet though. Something like IP is created when an idea or creation is noted down or captured or IP is human generated property which cannot be physically held. I appreciate your meaning of tangible - is when the idea is captured on paper, but the more common understanding of tangible is something you can touch." We took the word "tangible" out of the sentence so that it reads as the customer suggested.
It would be very helpful if your advisors could inform on previous use or otherwise of a suggested trade mark rather than having to trawl the website. We responded back to the customer to thank them for their feedback.
You rang the central enquiry unit and stated, "That the link to how to contact CEU should be on the home page and visible rather than hidden on the about us tab on the IPO website." CEU asked at one point for this but in the external design company said in their experience a contact us type facility was deeper within the site as a good website the info you need is accessible and sites should discourage users to ring in to enquiry numbers. There is also a general government drive to encourage more web/on line type communication so I'm happy with the contact us staying where it is.
Assumed I knew the various categories, Design, Patents, Trade Marks etc - almost got the wrong form, fortunately corrected. Unable to go back to the customer as no contact details were captured, feedback sent to head of CEU for information purposes.
Informed us that, "I filed a Patents Form 23 on-line. On 8 February we had not received anything from the Office and so I telephoned and was told that the application had been abandoned before an examination report had been issued. On checking the Register today, I notice that the application is still live. I telephoned again and was told that the application had not been abandoned and that my original Patents Form 23 had not been received. I have now filed a new request for copies and thought I would make you aware of the failure of my first form in case our deposit account had been debited twice. We advised, "Your original form 23 was received on 21 January 2010 and processed. As there were no further amendments/responses on file, your request was abandoned on our Finance system and your account was credited with the £5.00 fee, on 01 February 2010. Your second form 23 was received on 09 February 2010 and processed. Again, no further amendments/responses were available and, as such, your request was abandoned and your account credited with the £5.00 fee on 22 February 2010. When, after not hearing from the Office, on 08 February 2010, you made your enquiry, you were informed that your application for an office copy had been abandoned as we could not fulfill your request. I apologise if this was not made clear and you were led to believe the application had been abandoned."
You informed our Central Enquiry Unit that, "You left a voicemail on the Copyright Floatline 24 hours ago and hadn't received a response." We confirmed that there is no 24 hr turnaround on this answer phone service - CEU were reminded not to quote this to customers when they are transferred there.
Confirmed, "I looked at the site today but found the text very small." We replied to say Thank-you for taking the time to e-mail us about our website we appreciate receiving any customer comments. I am sorry you have found the text very small we have not had any comments to this affect but I will monitor carefully feedback we receive and if seems to be a wider issue for customers I will look at changing. That said you may be able on your computer to alter the text size, internet explorer for example gives the ability in its 'view' tab to select 'text size'. You will receive a reply to your trade mark related query by separate mail.
You confirmed, "The telephonist only answered one of my questions and had to seek advice for the other questions. Perhaps telephonist could have more knowledge if she is part of the expensive phone number." An e-mail was issued to the head of CEU to investigate and deal with appropriately but we were unable to locate the original call so could take no further action.
You told us, "Our company patented our old logo, however is there any way I can update this to the new logo that we use now as I have found the website quite confusing." No response from customer so have closed down and notified the website manager of the website comment.
You advised, "As a regular user of your site, I am concerned to see that you are using it today to promote a particular private law firm. I thought you should be entirely neutral. Can you explain the reason for this?" We explained that since we launched our e-newsletter we've always published articles from Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, lawyers and various business consultants, and as part of these articles, we acknowledge who the author is and where they work. We don't consider this acknowledgement to be promoting the individuals or their firms, but merely acknowledging the source of the articles. This policy has enabled us to offer information to subscribers about a wide range of subjects and has reduced our production costs because commissioning articles to be written for the e-newsletter is expensive. We often work with attorneys and lawyers at our IP awareness events, seminars and on our publications and their contribution to this outreach work is significant and greatly appreciated. Feedback from our customers also strongly supports our use of IP professionals in our outreach work. I'd welcome an article from yourself, or a colleague at your company, on a subject that you believe would be of interest to our subscriber base of business owners and managers, academics, attorneys and lawyers.
Advised, "At least one advisor, seemed uninformed." Referred to CEU manager for feedback.
Said, "I am convinced that I submitted a revised claim in June this year - this is borne out by an email, but it does not tell me which file I submitted. I thought I had submitted rev B, but the examiner tells me otherwise. The completed form you email afterwards should contain a copy of what was submitted and the exact file name of the documents submitted. This would remove any doubt and may help to reduce errors in the future." A further e-mail received 21/01/10 stated, "Must admit I never saw the opportunity to tick a box or press a button to get the forms sent back as a confirmation or a submission or amendment - must have missed this. When you submit a new application you can, but never saw anything for amendments to already files applications." We advised, "Our e filing system does allow you to ask for copies of the statutory forms you electronically file to be e mailed back to you as part of the acknowledgement, but this facility does not extend to other documents you electronically file with us. Although we do not currently have any plans to extend this facility we will certainly take your suggestion into account when we next consider enhancing the electronic filing system." In response to the second e-mail sent 22/01/10 we advised, "I thought it would be helpful for your future reference if I confirmed that in the SFD software that you would have used to file the revised claim, there is a page that enables customers to ask for copies of statutory forms to be e mailed back to them if they are filing statutory forms. You would not have seen it when filing your revised claims as it only appears if you are filing a form. It appears towards the end of the electronic filing process on a screen called, "Completed patent form(s)" which is similar to the screen that appears at Step 14 when filing an application electronically."
You told us, "During completion of the online form 1, I could not enter any information in step 3 or 14 in the fields for Title; First name; Middle name; and Last name. It then prompted for this information at the summary stage and returned me to step 3 but still would not accept any data entry in those fields." We confirmed, "We have had to spend some time investigating the points you raised. The situation you described in your e mail occurs when a Legal Applicant i.e. a company name has been entered at step 2 and these details are used as the Address For Service details at Step 3. In this situation at Step 3, the First Name & Last Name fields are disabled, so it's not possible to edit them. This is because the Company Name is being used as the Address For Service. When you get to Step 13, (the summary screen) warning messages are displayed with hyperlinks back to Step 3, asking you to enter a Contact First Name & Surname. When you click on these links you are returned to Step 3, but the contact First Name & Surname are disabled, so it is not possible to enter these details. This is because the AFS is the Company Name. Clearly, the warning messages and hyperlinks back to Step 3 are not appropriate in the situation outlined above because you are still not able to provide the information we have requested (and it is not necessary for you to do so in these circumstances). Although it is possible to ignore the Warning Messages and continue from Step 13, we have decided to stop these warning messages appearing in these circumstances and will make the required software changes as soon as we can. We are grateful to you for bringing this issue to our attention as we can take steps to change the service in order to make it easier to use in the future."
You told us, "On the online form 1 there was not a clear option for search only." We stated, "As you rightly point out, the service does not specifically allow you to select a search only option, but it does enable you to effectively select that option at Step 12 with one click by answering "Yes" to the following question: " Do you wish to request a search on this application?" and leaving the default answer of "No" to the following question: "Do you wish to request a substantive examination with this application?". Thank you again for taking the trouble to write to us, I hope the above explanation has helped to clarify the approach we adopted when designing this service."
Asked about, "Online file inspection as they have to query with us every 3 months as to the status of all of their applications. They wish to know what plans, if any, we have in this respect." We confirmed, "This is something that we would like to do however Copyright legal issues prevent us from doing so, We are in the process of trying to amend the relevant legislation in order for this functionality to be available."
You said, "Completion of NP1 - it would be helpful to show an example format of the International filing number format in the help box or to the side.
For example PCT/GB____/____."		 We agreed that this would help and have agreed to implement this change to assist applicants.
You informed us, "It is a pity that, with the electronic patent filing facility, one cannot receive positive confirmation, after filing, of the specification filed. All that is received in the e-mail confirmation is copies of the forms, together with a filing receipt detailing the number of pages of description, claims and drawings. Copies of the actual pdf documents submitted would be very helpful." We advised, "You suggested we provide a function to enable you to receive back PDF copies of the electronically filed documents (eg description, claims, etc) as well as the forms. Although we are not currently planning to add this functionality, I am grateful that you have taken the trouble to send us the suggestion as we will be able to take it into account when we next have an opportunity to consider making changes to the system."
Queried, "The differences on EPOline regarding PCT, EP and GB filings." We responded with full details and advised that we will consider making the relevant changes but are unable to say how quickly before they can be implemented.
You queried, "The Patent Journal referred to an EP patent which was revoked on 7 July 2007 incorrectly." We told you, "Thank you for your email of 17 February 2010 enquiring about Patent Journal. I have looked into this and found that the SPC’s that depend on the basic patent were granted and the fees accepted before the European Patent Office (EPO) board of appeal decision to revoke was issued. Therefore there was no error in this case and since then third parties have been made aware of the fact that the basic patent has been revoked by a register entry then third parties have not been disadvantaged."
An, "Agent was unhappy with the WR1 and WR2 system with regard to the rule 34 compliance period." We advised we will forward on the mail to the head of formalities to review if changes are required.
Asked, "Why no option to delete the PDAS request form during the web-filing process?" We advised, "You will note that at step 13 of the electronic filing process the Request for a grant of patent cannot be deleted as this would invalidate the patent application. The information contained in both the PDAS registration and PDAS request forms are integrally linked to the Request for a grant of patent. If either of these forms were deleted at step 13 the information contained in the Request for a grant of patent would be invalidated. The only way of deleting PDAS entries is to return to either steps1 or 10 respectively by using the Previous buttons. However, I agree that this is rather cumbersome and your comments will be considered in the review for the next upgrade of the Patents Web Filing facility. In the meantime if you electronically file a patent application and inadvertently tick either the PDAS registration or PDAS request forms you can advise us of the error in writing. In the case of the PDAS registration we will withdraw the copy of the patent application from the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) data base and in the case of the PDAS request a copy of the relevant priority document must be supplied by the applicant within 18 months of the earliest date."
You advised, "Online filing went very well - a smooth & intuitive process, however, the process would have benefitted from clearer instructions regarding completing of forms as I had completed these and converted to .pdf prior to online application. I also completed form 9A prior but did not require to complete online ~ information presumably automatically taken from Form 1. Also clearer instructions as to the addition of .pdf files methodology (single/numerous documents) as I had to undertake this during my application process." We advised, "We are always pleased to receive feedback about our services as it helps us to ensure that they are developed to reflect the views of our customers. Your suggestions for improvements to the instructions on how to complete web filings will be taken into account when we next get the opportunity to upgrade the system."
You told us, "I suggest that you make it possible to order translations of granted EP patents that have been filed at the IPO under s.77(6), ie before the London Agreement came into force, online, eg using Patent Form 23 that can be filled in online. The system currently does not allow requests for copies from files starting EP*. Additionally Form 23 should be one of the forms that can be submitted using the EPOline software." We advised, "I am sorry that you are unable to use the service to order translations of granted EP patents, but the Form 23 electronic service is dependent on the availability of electronic case files which were introduced in the IPO primarily to improve the efficiency of processing of GB patent applications. We have considered extending the coverage of electronic case files, but there are insufficient benefits to justify the costs of scanning. We would also like to provide the Form 23 service via EPOline and we do plan to make the necessary changes, but demand for IT changes in the IPO is currently very high and this particular change has not been scheduled because of other higher priority work."
You stated, "It would be very useful to be able to sort in "reverse order" on this page (e.g. reverse date order), or at least to be able to jump to the last page of results if that's not possible. I'm looking for the latest filed application in a particular journal, and I can't sort in reverse date order - there are 42 pages of results, and I can't jump to page 42, only step through the results by about 4 pages at a time." We advised, "Thank you for your valuable suggestions concerning our on-line Patents Journal. Please note we have recently made some subtle enhancements to this service by introducing search text highlighting, I will ensure your suggestions are considered when we next review this service."
You confirmed, "When completing the online Patents Form 23, after putting in the details of the patent, ones presses 'next' but the message comes up that you must add a request. I did not want to add another request but you have to press that button and then press next. Not logical. It should be that if you want to add another request, then you need to press the button add a request otherwise pressing 'next' will take you to the next window." We advised, "We do not currently have any plans to make the change you suggest, however when we next get an opportunity to consider making improvements to our web filing services your suggestion, like those we receive from other customers, will be taken into account."
You stated, "I find that some of the words and terms used when filling a patent application is very difficult to make out and understand. As a reason because of this I have accidentally filled a new application as divisional. I did not understand what was meant by the term divisional application, so I said it was a divisional application. However it is not a divisional application and is a new invention application and does not have any relation to my other application. Please can you sort this out for me and make sure they are both carried out as separate applications for two different inventions." We contacted the applicant after he received the same e-mail on 22/03/2010 and confirmed that the divisional section had been crossed out as required.
Confirmed, "On filing a Patent Application on-line I could not find the country (UK, England or GB) in the drop down list. If this is not necessary for UK residents - would it help to have a note to this effect beside the item?" We explained that the option for the UK was at the top of the drop down as the majority of our customers are from the UK.
You informed us, "Don't believe USPTO. They made fake & illegal patent against my patent. Watch out! Don't work with USPTO or US company or person. They will steal your intellectual property rights." No response necessary as nothing to take action about.
Suggested, "A login system would be helpful so I can store all my applications and details are retained so I do not have to keep filling them in on each application. A larger help section on each page of form 1 giving better definitions and examples When asking for something that has a fee attached, showing the fee on that section of the form would help." We confirmed that their suggestions, particularly those concerning the introduction of a login system so you can re-use details etc would be quite a major change in approach to this simple web service. Currently, we are not planning to make those sorts of changes because we do provide an alternative electronic filing service based on the EPO EPOline system which does provide the sort of functionality you suggest, plus additional security. You may wish to consider using this alternative e filing service, but please note that you do have to register with us before you can use it. When registration is complete, you will be provided with the free software to install and a smart card, card reader and PIN number. You can find more details about how to register to use this e filing service on our website.
You told us we "Should lower the cost! You could take a 1 or 2 % share from all approved patents possibly benefit the world and still make money regards a skint inventor." We advised that we "Set our fees at levels which are designed to help us match our fees with the costs we incur for proving our services. We operate under a long-standing principle of the patent system that the initial fees for applying for and obtaining patent protection are kept low, while the renewal fees paid annually over a patents' lifetime then allow us to recover our costs for providing and administering the system in the UK. This helps ensure that patent rights are accessible to innovative UK businesses of all types from individuals to large companies. Our fees have not been increased since 1992 and have recently been reviewed and we are introducing fee increases on 6th April 2010. However, we have maintained our policy of keeping initial application fees low whilst increasing patent renewal fees. Further information on these increases can be found on our website. Customer e-mail address is incorrect."
Told us of, "A little bug: it is not possible to choose (check) PDAS reporting; I tried it after filling the "Address for correspondence" menu. The form simply does not respond at that location." We contacted the applicant by e-mail for further clarification on the issue and did not receive a response so we were unable to proceed with this any further.
You advised, "I have filed and (I think!) paid for a form 10 (Request for substantive examination) online. The online routing for payment was not particularly clear and although I have entered my debit cards details my Electronic Filing Receipt states application fee paid 'none'. I am somewhat confused whether my payment has been processed or not. I'm about to call your office (third time) to check and your staff there have been great but please can you review your online flows to try & make things easier and clearer. I am of normal intelligence and normally able to purchase / file items online without needing to bother help lines or call centre’s." We confirmed, "The reply I made to your feedback has been returned "undeliverable" to your e mail address, so I have obtained this e mail address from your company web site. Thank you for your feedback concerning our web filing service which you used to file a Form 10 on your Patent application. As I confirmed in our telephone conversation this afternoon, the Form 10 and fee (£60) were successfully filed. The "Application fee paid" on the electronic filing receipt, refers to the application fee, which is associated with the Form 1 and can be paid at the time of filing the application or within 12 months of filing, which is why the option appears on the filing receipt in the SFD module in web filing. I'll ensure your comments are considered by our IT support team."
Customers were unable to access particular parts of the website. The problem seemed to have been a faulty server. We found that the Patents publication server was being crawled by a Google Search bot. The Search bot has now been blocked completely from accessing the publication server and a "tweak" to the publication server has been applied to help memory management.
You stated, "Another query I have is that why is the fee for registering a Trade Mark Higher when going direct through IPO when other companies offer to register it via IPO for say £125-00?" We advised that the basic fee for a trade mark application for a single class is £200 (or £170 if applied for via our web site). These fees are payable whether you come to us direct or via a third party. Many companies offer to prepare an application for filing and I think the fees you quote are for this service - the official fees will be additional to this cost. This should be detailed in the terms and conditions quoted by any company. If you wish to apply for a trade mark you may wish to contact our Central Enquiry Unit by e-mail enquiries or phone (0300 300 2000) for general advice on the process. You may wish to use our RightStart service which allows you to pay £100 (plus half of any class fees) and obtain informal guidance from a trade mark examiner as to whether your trade mark is acceptable for registration, you can then decide whether to proceed with a formal application and pay the remainder of the fees. Alternatively you may wish to use the services of a trade mark professional. These can be contacted at The Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys External Link, Chartered Intstitute of Patent Attorneys External Link
www.lawsociety.org.uk. Someone from our web team will contact you separately about your concerns over text size on our web site. If you have any further queries about trade mark issues please do not hesitate to contact me.
I have just noticed that the link on this page: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/d-law-designconvention.htm to the Designs (convention countries) order 2007 actually gives you the European Designs Directive. I hope you can accept my apologies that the link in question took you to the incorrect page. I have requested that the link be fixed immediately and replaced with the below: The Designs (Convention Countries) Order 2007 No 277 External Link This could take a number of hours, however, I can confirm that the change will be made as soon as possible. Thank you for bringing this problem to our attention.
The customer would like it to be known that he thinks the form TM3a is misleading. He was under the impression that he could add extra classes to his trade mark at any time for a £50 fee, which is not the case. We contacted the customer and given him contact details. I did point out that I am not aware of any other such feedback and that there is a notice in the essential reading booklet covering the fact that you cannot add goods/services after the application has been received by us (on page 5). We thanked the customer for his feedback and apologised for any misunderstanding. I said that I think he makes a fair point and we can perhaps put some appropriate wording alongside the Form TM3A on the forms part of the website. I said that I would take a look at wording and get back to him to see what he thought in due course. He was happy with this.
Unsolicited mail from EIEC. Passed onto Trade Marks to collate and liaise with Trading Standards.
Applicant for invalidity rang on a design case. She asked why there was no information regarding the costs involved in inter partes design cases on the web site. She complained it simply says "Fill in a form and send us £50.00" there is no information regarding costs or the implications of filing a design invalidity. I took her to the trade mark site to further explain the costs involved. We replied - Thank you for your recent communication regarding Design Invalidity, I hope you can accept my apologies for the difficulties you experienced in trying to locate further information about the invalidity process. We do agree that it is difficult to find relevant information on the website. This is something we are currently looking into and plan to develop the website so that it is more intuitive. For your information, to locate further information about Designs Invalidity, you would need to follow a number of steps. First click on “Designs” on the left of our website, then “Other people’s Designs” again on the left, then “Objecting” and finally “Cancel or invalidate someone else’s design”. This page should display all the relevant information and help you further when trying to file invalidation. Unfortunately, it isn’t an obvious place to look, and as I have confirmed, we will be taking steps so that the web pages are more intuitive and user friendly. Again, I hope you can accept my apologies for the difficulties you experienced.
The customer commented "I'm Italian, self employed I don't earn a lot of money. I have applied for a Trade mark concerning my new business. I work as a chef in Hotel and Catering and I'm developing a business, just connected with these fields I work with. At the present I work as a freelance chef but I'm also experienced and qualified in Hotel management and so on. This is important to what I say after. Now, in applying for my trademark, I had to do it by myself, because I don't have money to pay an agent or seek professional advice. I'm writing to you because during the application, I have not clearly understood (from the way you describe the class of services) that, I had to relate the trade mark request (in this case of one of my services) to the field I work for: Instead I thought that the trade mark had to be described in connection to the classes which are already there in your examples and I was obliged to try to stick to those words like "detective" in my case.... So I couldn't relate it very much to something really existing there...because there was not a lot of word connecting with type of service I'd like to offer...because no one offers it yet. But in some way my understanding was to describe the words of the trade mark and not the application to the fields I work with: hotel catering and hospitality. My suggestion: would be very important to define the classes by fields and ask the applicants to define, write, specify the field they work with it and the type of use they want to do with those words...may be in a more simple way: because personally I couldn't understand from your requests "how to stand out" with my trademark when actually the trademark I'm applying for is quite unique at the present and if I relate it to my new business, even more, but I don't have a lot of money to invest in agents or advisors. If you ask applicants to be "precise" and be distinctive in the application form itself, even if they don't find the goods or services, they'll try to describe the use more and explain the distinctive aspect rather than the descriptive. I hope I was able to explain the matter from the user's point of view." We are aware that classification of goods and services can be a difficult area. We currently have specialists within the IPO who can offer assistance when classifying your goods and services. They can be contacted via e-mail or telephone. In addition, our Central Enquiries Unit are able to offer help and assistance when trying to complete your application form. We would hope that both these services would eliminate any confusion. However, we are aware that this part of the application process can still cause difficulty and so are developing an intuitive system where-by classification of your goods and services becomes more user friendly. In addition to this, we are also preparing to develop our Trade Mark booklets. I will ensure that your comments are taken into consideration before any classification information is included.
We filed a trade mark application with your office pursuant to the Madrid Protocol. We received notice of advertisement of the Trade Mark dated 8 April 2009, but received no further notice. I recently reviewed the Intellectual Property Office's online database, and I discovered that the Trade Mark had become registered. However, we did not receive a trade mark registration certificate in conjunction with this registration. Is this an oversight that we did not receive a registration certificate? If we mistakenly did not receive a registration certificate, please inform us of the procedure for requesting such a certificate. I look forward to your response. I can confirm that when making an application to WIPO to designate the UK via the Madrid Protocol, the IPO does not send out a registration certificate. You will receive a certificate of registration from WIPO. This certificate will list the countries where your client's Trade Mark is protected. E.g. GB, US, CN etc. However, you will receive a statement of grant from the IPO. This is simply a letter to confirm that we have accepted your mark. If you are yet to receive this statement of grant, please let me know and I will ensure this letter is re-issued to you.
The results page comes up: "No Trade Marks matching your enquiry comes up", which is great. However, it does not show the enquiry. So whenever I print a paper record for the file, I have to write the enquiry on the printed result. I thought I would go back to the page the I input the enquiry. I printed that and got a couple of pages with no fields filled in. Not a lot of use!! By comparison, the USPTO and Esp@cenet databases always show the search query on the results screen. I would appreciate it if you could do likewise. I can confirm that we are currently undertaking a project to develop our IT systems. I will feed this suggestion in to the project team with the hope that they are able to make the desired amendments.
Customer received unsolicited mail from IPA Ltd. We are aware that a number of companies are sending out Trade Mark/Patent renewal reminders which could be confusing to customers. Whilst we are working closely with Trading Standards to eliminate these problems, we are also currently researching your suggestion of taking action for unauthorised use of our data. I hope you will not mind me contacting you in the future with any progression on this subject. However, at this moment, I am unable to confirm whether this is a possibility or not. As soon as I am able to give a more detailed response, I will be in contact with you.
Customer received unsolicited mail from Ecto SA. We are aware that a number of companies are sending out Trade Mark/Patent renewal reminders, which are confusing and potentially misleading. We have a number of pages on our website about these companies.We would always encourage you to speak to your attorney before responding to such demands. Alternatively, you can check the status of your mark/registration on our website, along with the proposed fees. Using your registration numbers on the below links will return you the desired information: Patents, Trade Marks In addition to this, you could also raise Trading Standard's External Link awareness to the issue.
Customer received unsolicited mail from IPA Ltd. We are aware that a number of companies are sending out Trade Mark/Patent renewal reminders, which are confusing and potentially misleading. We have a number of pages on our website about these companies. We would always encourage you to speak to your attorney before responding to such demands. Alternatively, you can check the status of your mark/registration on our website, along with the proposed fees. Using your registration numbers on the below links will return you the desired information: Patents, Trade Marks. In addition to this, you could also raise Trading Standard's External Link awareness to the issue.
Customer received unsolicited mail from IPTD. We are aware that a number of companies are sending out Trade Mark/Patent renewal reminders, which are confusing and potentially misleading. We have a number of pages on our website about these companies.We would always encourage you to speak to your attorney before responding to such demands. Alternatively, you can check the status of your mark/registration on our website, along with the proposed fees. Using your registration numbers on the below links will return you the desired information: Patents, Trade Marks. In addition to this, you could also raise Trading Standard's External Link awareness to the issue. We have a close working relationship with Trading Standard's and are currently taking steps to overcome these problems.
Customer received unsolicited mail from IPA Ltd. We are aware that a number of companies are sending out Trade Mark/Patent renewal reminders, which are confusing and potentially misleading. We have a number of pages on our website about these companies. We would always encourage you to speak to your attorney before responding to such demands. Alternatively, you can check the status of your mark/registration on our website, along with the proposed fees. Using your registration numbers on the below links will return you the desired information: Patents, Trade Marks. In addition to this, you could also raise Trading Standard's External Link awareness to the issue. We have a close working relationship with Trading Standards and are currently taking steps to overcome these problems.
Customer received unsolicited mail from IPA Ltd. We are aware that a number of companies are sending out Trade Mark/Patent renewal reminders, which are confusing and potentially misleading to customers. The IPO are currently working in conjunction with Trading Standards to eliminate any confusion these invoices may cause. We would hope that in the near future, these invoices make it clear that your clients are not obliged to pay the fees they are requesting. We encourage all customers to contact their attorney before paying such fees; we also advise that any communication from the IPO will always be headed with the official letter headed paper (as this letter is).
Customer received unsolicited mail from EIEC. We are aware that a number of companies are sending out Trade Mark/Patent renewal reminders, which are confusing and potentially misleading. We would always encourage you to speak to your attorney before responding to such demands. The IPO are currently working in conjunction with Trading Standards to eliminate any confusion these invoices may cause. We would hope that in the near future, these invoices make it clear that you are not obliged to pay their fees. Any communication from the IPO will always be headed with the official letter headed paper (as this letter is). If you are ever unsure about a communication you have received, please check with us before making any payments.
Caller received unsolicited mail from a company informing him his Trade Mark renewal was due and wishing to charge him a fee in excess of £1000. The company concerned is Intellectual Property Agency Ltd based in Sweden. Put his mind at rest that we were working closely with Trading Standards to overcome the problems. He thanked me for taking the effort to telephone him, and said that he would have written a letter of complaint about that third party had we not telephoned, so was very grateful that we made the effort.
Customer received unsolicited mail from GALA almanach. We are aware that a number of companies are sending out Trade Mark/Patent renewal reminders, which are confusing and potentially misleading. We would always encourage you to speak to your attorney before responding to such demands. The IPO are currently working in conjunction with Trading Standards to eliminate any confusion these invoices may cause. We would hope that in the near future, these invoices make it clear that you are not obliged to pay their fees. Any communication from the IPO will always be headed with the official letter headed paper (as this letter is). If you are ever unsure about a communication you have received, please check with us before making any payments.
Customer received unsolicited mail from GALA almanach. We are aware that a number of companies are sending out Trade Mark/Patent renewal reminders, which are confusing and potentially misleading. We would always encourage you to speak to your attorney before responding to such demands. The IPO are currently working in conjunction with Trading Standards to eliminate any confusion these invoices may cause. We would hope that in the near future, these invoices make it clear that you are not obliged to pay their fees. Any communication from the IPO will always be headed with the official letter headed paper (as this letter is). If you are ever unsure about a communication you have received, please check with us before making any payments.
Customer received unsolicited mail from IPA Ltd. We are aware that a number of companies are sending out Trade Mark/Patent renewal reminders, which are confusing and potentially misleading to customers. The IPO are currently working in conjunction with Trading Standards to eliminate any confusion these invoices may cause. We would hope that in the near future, these invoices make it clear that your clients are not obliged to pay the fees they are requesting. We encourage all customers to contact their attorney before paying such fees; we also advise that any communication from the IPO will always be headed with the official letter headed paper (as this letter is).
Customer received unsolicited mail from EIEC. We are aware that a number of companies are sending out Trade Mark/Patent renewal reminders, which are confusing and potentially misleading. We would always encourage you to speak to your attorney before responding to such demands. The IPO are currently working in conjunction with Trading Standards to eliminate any confusion these invoices may cause. We would hope that in the near future, these invoices make it clear that you are not obliged to pay their fees. Any communication from the IPO will always be headed with the official letter headed paper (as this letter is). If you are ever unsure about a communication you have received, please check with us before making any payments.
A customer rang to see who had filed an opposition and I informed him of whom this was. We already put the opposition number on the register but he asked if we could also be put the opponent's name onto the register. He said this would be really helpful for the future when trying to find out who an opponent is. He did not leave his name but asked if we had a customer suggestion scheme could I pass on his comments. I directed him to the website and said that he could also leave his comments on there. No response due as the customer did not leave any contact details, suggestion forwarded onto the Trade Mark team to pass on to the relevant project team.