Customer feedback - April to June 2010

Compilation of formal complaints made by our customers during the period of April to June 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 confirmed that you "Were unhappy with the content of our guidance booklets and literature." We responded, "I am replying to your complaint of 10 March 2010, made in a telephone call to our Central Enquiry Unit. During that call, you made a number of points. First, you talked about the guidance that we produce for individuals who want to apply for a patent. You said that it was not helpful, did not highlight the “pitfalls” of applying for a patent, and did not discuss the costs involved. You also said that the guidance we produce “dupes” people into applying for patents, and that only “big business” benefits from the patents system. We put a lot of effort into making guidance to suit all our different types of customers, and so I am sorry that you did not find our booklets helpful. That said, I do not agree with you that our guidance hides the possible pitfalls and costs of applying for a patent. For example, our booklet "Patents: Basic Facts" is intended to help understand what the patents system is all about. It clearly warns the reader about the expenses involved in applying for and maintaining a patent, and also warns that having a patent is no guarantee of commercial success. It also suggests other ways to protect an invention. Our "Patents: Essential Reading" guide gives more detail on what someone needs to know before applying for a patent. It makes clear that applying for a patent is not right for everyone, and discusses the alternatives. It gives information on the costs involved, and talks about the financial implications for bringing a new product to market. It also discusses reasons why a patent application may fail, and what can happen to a patent after it is granted. So I do not think our guidance is misleading about the patents system and its costs. Nor do I agree that it is trying to fool people into applying for rights that they do not want or need. Furthermore, we grant patents to individual inventors, small businesses, Universities, public bodies and other organisations, as well as to large national and multi-national companies. So I cannot see any evidence for your claim that the system is there only to benefit “big business”. In your call, you mentioned taking us to court for “loss, harm and injury” that has resulted from our guidance booklets. Any decision to take court action is entirely a matter for you. Finally, you said that you wanted to apply for a patent under “your” law and not “our” law. I am not sure what you mean by “your” law, but I cannot see how this is possible. The Intellectual Property Office operates the patents system under the laws of the United Kingdom, which have been agreed by Parliament. Those laws govern how to apply for a UK patent."
You mentioned, "The IPO is in violation with the Data Protection Act 1988. The IPO is in violation of its own Information Management Charter. Please refer to: - IPO - Disclaimer “Any personal information you provide will be held securely and in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1988. Our Information Management Charter sets out how we handle and protect your personal information." IPO - Information Management Charter "When we ask you for personal information, we will: Protect it and make sure nobody has access to it who shouldn’t;" The cumbersome process thus far: On the 19 of March I called with regards to my complaint. The IPO member of staff on the phone would not direct me to any relevant department or person. I was told to email enquiries@ipo.gov.uk 11:30 sent complaint to enquiries@ipo.gov.uk 13:55 received e-mail from Steve Adkins 15:51. Replied to Steve Adkins e-mail 16:04 I made a formal complaint to: Box49@ipo.gov.uk with all attachment, as per Steve Adkins email. Via the IPO’s website, under ‘Information Management Charter’ located a link to the contact the Information Manager. 18:21 sent an e-mail with all attachments to: securitymatters@ipo.gov.uk 18:27. Received Failed Delivery Status Notification "bad destination mailbox address/user unknown". I am still waiting for a reply from box49 and from Steve Adkins and clearly, the relevant people who are in charge of your Information Management Charter do not wish to be contacted by the general public. For a government website that is there to provide information to the general public, getting any information on the IPO website is like getting blood out of a stone. You cannot find any listing for departments, directors, managers, members of staff within a relevant department, let alone their names and how to contact them. Now, how ironic is that? And you have the audacity to justify having all our PERSONAL INFORMATION strewn on the world wide web?
There is NOTHING to justify your error; we are NOT a Company; we are not an Organisation. We are individuals with rights. REMOVE IT NOW.You do not need 10 days to sort this out, unless your IT Department is in sleep mode as well as your Information Manager."		 We advised, "Having an address is part of the requirements of the Patents Act and it usually serves in the best interest of the Patent owner for licensing, selling and maintaining their Patent. It is possible to register a business address or PO Box address but this would just remove the home address to a previous address rather than remove it entirely."
You were unhappy with the content of several search and examination reports issued by the office. We explained that the UK government does not assume ownership of copyright or performer’s rights.
You were, "Unhappy with copyright laws for musicians." We explained that the UK government does not assume ownership of copyright or performer’s rights.
You were, "Unhappy with the level of response given by a CEU member of staff." We apologised for the factually incorrect response that the CEU had issued and explained that refresher training will be supplied to prevent any further incidents like this again.
You were unhappy that your address is published by us as part of your application. We advised that we were sorry to learn of your concern about the address being shown on our website. We explained that the reason we provide details of intellectual property right holders’ on our website is to enable parties, such as other businesses, to contact you. This may be for a variety of reasons, for example, to serve documentation. We do need to provide an address for service as part of our commitment to transparency in granting trade mark rights. We have taken measures to inform customers that this will happen. For example, our online trade mark application form, which most people use, requires customers to confirm their agreement to this. They cannot submit the form unless they do so. As regards third parties using details from our website to contact customers offering their services, again we have taken steps to advise customers of the possibility that this may happen. For example, we issue a notice when advising customers of the date their application is to be published in the Trade Marks Journal.We also include warnings on our website.
You were complaining about the impartiality of the office towards the other side with regards to a hearing. We confirmed that a hearing would take place in due course and if you were unhappy with this then we could look at the complaint again.
You were unhappy with the way in which your application was handled resulting in the application not being in order within the compliance period. We advised that as the case is currently with a hearing officer we would be unable to comment until the outcome of that hearing. On 12 May 2010 the customer e-mailed us to thank us for our response.
You were, "Unhappy with the level of service provided by CEU in sending out the relevant forms as agreed." We apologised for not sending the relevant forms out as requested however we explained that they would not have been submitted in time to receive a 50% discount on the renewal fee anyhow. We also explained what the customer needed to next and by when if they wished to do the same this year.
You were unhappy with the objections raised against your Trade Mark application and the service provided by the principal examiner. We advised that the best way forward in this instance would be via an ex-parte hearing.
You were not happy that you have not received your refund from your withdrawn application. We apologised for the delay in refunding the money after your withdrawal request. We advised you that we have taken steps to remind staff of their responsibilities in this area.
You were unhappy that we have delayed invalidating another design that was filed 2 years later than yours. You state that we keep delaying the invalidity because the third party keeps advising that they have not received our letters. We apologised for the delay in processing the application for invalidity due to the third party claiming that they have not received our letter. We explained that this was unacceptable but because there are ongoing legal proceedings before the registrar's tribunal it would be improper to comment any further at this stage.
You were unhappy about the grant of your Patent and subsequent government changes which you feel have taken any value away from your Patent. We had a further letter received from the customer dated 24 May 2010. We advised that we had investigated if there was anything different that we could have done. We confirmed the date of grant and date it ceased due to nonpayment of a renewal fee. We issued a further letter dated 04 June 2010 to advise that the applicant would have to return his old cheque before we can re-issue another.
You were unhappy that you did not get a Patent for your application. We explained why the application had not been granted but advised you that we would arrange for the head of formalities to contact you to discuss if you had been previously notified of what you needed to do and in what timescales to put the application in order or not.
You were unhappy that Patent renewal fees have increased by more than 54% in the last year. We explained that this is the first time that renewal fees have changed since 1992. We maintained that these are in line with an internal review after the Gowers review in 2006 and a subsequent consultation about keeping our fees in line with our costs. We also advised that renewal fees were increased to keep search and exam costs down and are incremented so that only successful applications have to pay the fee meaning that the Patents system is available to all.
You were unhappy that your Trade Mark was refused and that we had acted incorrectly in refusing it. Also that the ex parte hearing officer did not take into account the full evidence given. After receiving the CEO's response, the customer wrote back with supplementary points that are also being treated under the Box 49 system as a continuation of the original complaint. We confirmed that we could find no procedural fault, asked the customer to provide examples of where our manuals contain inaccurate text from the 1994 act.
You were unhappy with the objections that the examiner is raising with your Patent application and also with the general unhelpfulness of the examiner. In reply, we advised that it is not unusual for applicants and examiners to disagree over legal issues. We advised of the hearing procedure should the applicant wish to pursue this avenue
You were unhappy as we had failed to action a Patents Form 20/77 for approximately a year. We explained that a misunderstanding had led to the incorrect action being taken. We apologised that our level of customer service had not been up to the standard expected.
You were unhappy with the objections that the examiner is raising with your Patent application. In reply, we firstly explained how the examiner has to work within the constraints of the law. We then also explained why the examiner has taken the action they have, and reminded the applicant of their right to request a hearing should they disagree.
You are unhappy that the Office had granted a patent after it had been on public view, and you asked for revocation at the Office's expense rather than your own We advised that we do not have the legal authority to revoke the other Patent and that the onus is put on third parties to challenge a patent. We said that we regret that you are unhappy with the procedures that the office is bound to follow, but in these circumstances we do not believe that we can justify a payment to you.
You are pursuing damages from the Office in relation to a refund request and appeal for costs dating back to what you say is an unlawful decision in 2004. We confirmed that the courts judgement on this was final and there is nothing more that the office can do. We explained that we have given this answer on a number of occasions and will not be replying to future correspondence on this same matter.