Customer feedback - April to June 2010

Compilation of general feedback received from customers during the period of April to June 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
You needed, "A validity opinion and got it. They are satisfied, especially with the advice of claim interpretation - which was not expected but value adding. The copies of articles provided were not satisfactory-reduced in size so that the text was difficult to read. You usually use Uppdragshuset and other providers but wanted to try SAS. It was a success. You were satisfied with the overall service received." We issued a thank you email.
You used SAS to, "Assess whether it was justifiable to file a patent application and to reassure investors. The report contained some useful comments as well as a range of art. In view of the report investors were satisfied and the project is now proceeding towards filing a patent application. You felt that the IPO name would give the report greater gravitas than that of other providers which was useful in negotiations with investors. You confirmed that you were satisfied with the overall service you had received." We issued a thank you email.
You informed us that, "The leaflet which gives details of access for the disabled, still refers to Harmsworth House, which is no longer the Patent Office's London Office." We confirmed that, "The London office manager will be making all the amendments needed to update the details of the Disabled Facilities for customers and Visitors Leaflet and it will be uploaded on or website as soon as possible."
You told us, "Is the website at Copyright Registeration Service External Link part of your office - as it seems to imply? " We advised that the company is genuine and as far as we can tell they do not seem to imply that they are part of our office.
You suggested "Should there not be a complete list of fees payable to the office under the link Patents/Patents forms and fees on the website. For example, today I wanted to request a certified copy of an application was filed. I could easily access form 23 online but could not find the fee payable. This was available under Patents/Managing your Patents/Using and enforcing/Certified and uncertified copies!!! Is the Patent Office trying to hide this information? Surely, there should be a list of all fees payable to the office under an appropriate heading. Perhaps, under Patent Forms and Fees!" We replied "I am sorry to hear that you had a problem finding the fee information. A full list of our patent fees can be accessed from the shortcut menu on the top left hand side of the IPO home page by clicking Patents and then "Patents forms and fees" in the drop-down list. You can find the appropriate fee next to the form number in the sixth column along. The fees for Trade Marks and Design forms follow the same method."
You informed us that, "Just looking at your site and noticed the below, which doesn’t quite seem to make sense Online patent filing services. A £10 reduction applies to the application fee when will be available where the patent application and Form 1 are filed electronically and the fee is paid at the same time." We amended the page.
Hated the "Customer Charter" booklet. Really over produced and self indulgent. Information was welcome, but could have been included as a footnote. Who won't put this lavish production in the bin? Very pleased with everything else. Thanks! No return e-mail address left for reply.
You mentioned that, "Page 10 of 14 was very confusing to fill out. You asked for page numbers and when provided came up with a reason not to go on to the next page It was very frustrating and I guess many would have given up after an hour of trying all possibilities. I "got through" to page 11 after I went back to page 9 and selected the other option." We commented, "I am sorry that you had some difficulties using the service. As you explain, you initially selected the single PDF file option at the beginning of Step 10 which requires at least a description and claims which, as you pointed out, was not the best option for processing the document you subsequently filed. When we have the opportunity to consider suggestions for improvements to this service, we will take your comments into account in order to see whether we can provide more guidance on which option to select."
You advised, "It is a bit difficult to "package" all drawings into one large pdf-file, supposedly unless you own the expensive Adobe Acrobat software. Some minutes ago, I uploaded a patent application and have attached all figures except Fig 1a (which I uploaded one step before under the category drawing) as separate attachment files, as I had stored all figures in separate pdf-files. It is a bit difficult to "package" all figures coming out of various different programs (some are pictures, others are drawings etc.) into one large pdf-file containing all the figures, supposedly unless you own the (expensive) Adobe Acrobat write-software. Hopefully all my drawings/figures went through that way also." We replied, "In reply to your feedback concerning attaching ways of packaging multiple PDF documents, the Intellectual Property Office is unable to recommend, suggest or endorse any particular products. However, the way that you attached the documents was acceptable and your application is proceeding with all the separate drawing attachments merged into 10 pages of drawings (figures 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4, 5 and 6)."
You advised, "I understand from you that it is possible to avoid the time-consuming process of inserting all of an existing applicant's details by simply inserting the ADP number. Could you please include this in the information returned after E-filing a new patent application, as a matter of routine? This would be particularly useful for lodging further applications in the name of the same applicant. You already do this for Trade Marks." We replied, "In reply to your feedback concerning attaching ways of packaging multiple PDF documents, the Intellectual Property Office is unable to recommend, suggest or endorse any particular products. However, the way that you attached the documents was acceptable and your application is proceeding with all the separate drawing attachments merged into 10 pages of drawings (figures 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3a, 3b, 4, 5 and 6)."
You advised, "I understand from you that it is possible to avoid the time-consuming process of inserting all of an existing applicant's details by simply inserting the ADP number. Could you please include this in the information returned after E-filing a new patent application, as a matter of routine? This would be particularly useful for lodging further applications in the name of the same applicant. You already do this for Trade Marks." We confirmed, "You suggest that, like the TM3 service, it would be good to fill fields automatically when an ADP number is input. While it would be technically possible, I am afraid that it would require a major change to the way in which the patents web service is designed and we are not currently planning to make those changes. However, if you regularly file patents forms and documents electronically with this office you may wish to consider using our alternative electronic filing service as it does enable you to store data for re-use etc.
You received unsolicited mail from IPTD. We advised, "We are aware that a number of companies are contacting holders of IP rights with unsolicited mail requests. These companies tend to make their offers in the form of invoices, which are usually sent out after the publication of the official UK patent, design, or trade mark application. Notices warning customers of these requests appear on the IPO, OHIM, EPO and WIPO websites. The IPO is in contact with UK Trading Standards on this matter and if the company sending the invoice is based in the UK, we will forward a copy of the unsolicited mail to Trading Standards. Any communication from the IPO will always be headed with the official letter headed paper. If you are ever unsure about the authenticity of any communication you have received, please check with us before making any payments."
You told us, "I used this online service before at the end of April 2010. It is the same this time I cannot pay with my card. And I want to. Problem step 14: choose card> Enter Debit/credit card Step 14 again> Card No: No Entered > Card Type: Visa > Expiry: Dates Entered > Start Month Maestro: (no entry N/A) > Year: (no entry N/A)> Maestro Issue No: (no entry N/A)>
Maestro Customer No: (no entry N/A) > Hit send. Reply: Unable to authorise this transaction at this time. Stuck with nowhere to go as no exit procedure. Or alternative, so close browser. OK that is it. Can you please tell me how I can pay for my last two transactions?"		 We explained that this was an issue with the government gateway for which we are not directly responsible. We asked you for further information which you were unable to provide at the time. We also advised you on how you could pay other than by card on the web filing service. On 17 May 2010 - you confirmed that you were unable to give us the further information we required. On 20 May 2010 - we responded and explained that you had been successful in filing 2 applications electronically and made you aware of how you could pay 'manually' for these in the circumstances. On 20 May 010 - you responded to thank us for the information we had provided and that you will chase up payment as we suggested.
The Patent Agent would like copies of the front page of a 'B' Spec to be sent to the proprietor/agent on grant, as not everyone can download the spec from our website. We responded "Since April 2010 the Intellectual Property Office has been utilising its on-line publication server as its official means of Patent publication enabling customers to download patent documents free of charge via the Patents Publication Enquiry on the day of publication. As a result the Office ceased automatically supplying applicants with physical copies of published documents, however they are still available to purchase from the Intellectual Property sales department:
If you require a copy of a full B specification, or just a front page, the sales department would be able to supply this to you. Please note the decision to move to on-line publication was taken based on results from an on-line consultation where over 80% of responses were in favour of the change. The consultation was undertaken by the Office between 14 December 2009 and 15 February 2010 with the main drivers for change being: Increasing the emphasis on electronic communication and engagement with our customers. Streamlining internal procedures to realise further benefits from our electronic case management system and processes.
To bring our business practices in line with other national and regional offices. To reduce the amount of printed material generated by the patents granting process. The decision to cease automatic supply of physical publication documents to applicants will save approximately 400,000 sheets of paper per annum, thereby reducing our carbon footprint. As a Civil Service organisation the Intellectual Property Office has government targets to reduce carbon emissions by 12.5 % by 2010-11 relative to 1999-2000 levels. Please also note by utilising our on-line publication server as our official means of publication has also brought us in line with other national and regional offices. For instance, the European Patent Office has been utilising its electronic publication server as its official means of publication since January 2008."
You told us, "The fees I paid online was £30, but I thought the cost is £20 for web filing?" We explained, "We currently only offer fee discounts for electronically filed UK patent applications, search or examination requests. The form NP1 is used to request entry of an International application (UK) into the national phase and whilst this form can be filed with us using our on-line filing systems, it is not eligible for the e-filing discount. The fee, therefore, is £30 as you were charged when you made your application."
Stated, "Just a quick note about your plug-in you make for EPOline. The warning message External Link for the fee update of UK forms is written with underscores instead of spaces so the message doesn't carriage return as it should and disappears off the end of the box. The EPO forms all use spaces; can you please pass this on to the development team for the software?" We replied, "Thank you for your e mail about our plug in for EPOline and for drawing our attention to the underscore issue. We have raised it with the EPO (who developed this software) and we hope it will be fixed (along with other Version 5 'bugs') in a release the EPO are currently planning to make in July. Thank you again for taking the trouble and time to let us know about this problem, it is much appreciated."
The customer found the online process very straight forward and easy to use, but noted that having entered the applicant as company, when asked to add the contact details for correspondence it was only possible to add an email address. However, the Summary highlighted errors due to missing contact info which the form does not allow to be added. We outlined the circumstances when the issue would arise, explaining "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 at Step 3. In this situation at Step 3, the First Name and 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 (AFS). 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 and 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. As you rightly point out, the highlighted errors are not appropriate in the situation outlined above because you are still not able to provide the information they request (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 as they are misleading. We will make the required software changes as soon as we can. We are grateful to you for bringing this issue to our attention as it will enable us to change the service in order to make it easier to use in the future."
You received unsolicited mail from Patent Trademark Register. We advised, "We are aware that a number of companies are contacting holders of IP rights with unsolicited mail requests. These companies tend to make their offers in the form of invoices, which are usually sent out after the publication of the official UK patent, design, or trade mark application. Notices warning customers of these requests appear on the IPO, OHIM, EPO and WIPO websites.These companies are not linked to any Government or Community Institution and there is no obligation to pay them. The IPO is in contact with UK Trading Standards on this matter and if the company sending the invoice is based in the UK, we will forward a copy of the unsolicited mail to Trading Standards. Any communication from the IPO will always be headed with the official letter headed paper. If you are in any doubt about the authenticity of any communication you have received, please check with us, or contact your registered Trade Mark or Patent Attorney, or with your Solicitor."
You said, "It would be good to have links, information on document converting into PDF on the patent application process or have it done automatically." We responded, "I regret that we cannot provide links or additional information on converting documents to PDF as the Intellectual Property Office is unable to recommend, suggest or endorse any particular products. However, as we try to indicate on our website PDF conversion software is freely available on the internet for you to download and use."
You stated, "I only found some small problem in trying to add my name for the contact which I couldn't. But it was relatively very easy to use. The overview (before submission) warned me that I have not inputed any person's contact details on the applicant, apart from the contact email. When I clicked in the link, it took me to the page where the applicant's details were in. I went through this page before, and similarly I couldn't get some info in such as the person name etc for contact within the organization. The boxes seemed that could be selected but in reality I couldn't select them. I could only edit the Applicant organization details but not the person to contact in that organization. I used Mozilla 5 instead of Explorer. In response to our reply on 22 April 2010 the customer advised, "Many thanks, for a very good and detailed explanation. Still, I think a person contact within the organization could be useful information to be added to it. But not 100% required as the contact email would be enough in 99.9% of cases. But if any postal correspondence that is issued, typically a name helps to send the paperwork to the right person. Anyhow, it is a minor point, over all this is pretty good service." We informed you that, "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 and 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 (AFS). 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 and Surname. When you click on these links you are returned to Step 3, but the contact First Name and Surname are still 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 they 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."
You confirmed, "When filing online 'fill in form' is better read as 'fill in online form'. When filing amended pages - it would be good to distinguish between 'amended pages' and 'replacement pages' - both could be considered applicable in most cases." We advised, "It is always good for us to receive suggestions about ways in which we could improve the service as it helps us to understand what our customers like and dislike. It is particularly helpful for us to hear about the aspects of the service that you found straightforward or responsive as it helps us to avoid introducing changes that might make these aspects worse."
The customer raised the clarity of web-filing guidance saying "On the IPO Website the Fees for Web filing the Form 9a is not clear. Myself and colleagues read it that 9a filed online is £100.00 with the additional application Fee of £30.00 for a new application. When online filing the cost for the 9a is £130.00 and the application Fee is £30.00. Can you please give clarity to this as I believe the fee schedule on the forms and fees (how I understand it) are not clear?" We advised "The fee of £100.00 in the table relates to a request for a search under section 17(1) for an international application which has been searched in the international phase. Below that entry the table indicates that the fee for a search under section 17(1) for any other application is £130.00. The table also indicates that the application fee is £30.00 when paid with Form 9A. This is additional to the search fee. I suspect that there may have been some confusion between the fee of £100.00 for an international application and the fee of £130.00 for a domestic application. However, if this is not the case then please let me know so that I can consider the matter further."
You informed us of, "One 'error'. Prompted that no contact first and surname provided at end summary. Unable to correct as relevant input sheet will not allow those inputs (even when taken back via "correct" link on summary page)" and in response to our reply on 22 April 2010 you advised, "Thanks for the prompt and effective response - yours is the first site that I've ever known my feedback to be either properly acknowledged or acted on. I should also say that I found the whole web filing process to be extremely effective, efficient and 'user friendly' - I had no difficulties with its use and especially appreciated being automatically taken to additional 'forms' as needed and finding later pages already filled in with previously entered details and/or having inappropriate entry fields disabled. My congratulations to the team that is responsible for the specification, design and implementation. I shall be promoting the use of the web filing process both within my company and with my other professional contacts (our patent attorneys for one). Please pass on this positive feedback as appropriate." We informed you that, "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 and 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 (AFS). 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 and Surname. When you click on these links you are returned to Step 3, but the contact First Name and Surname are disabled, so it is not possible to enter these details. This is because the AFS is the Company Name. As you rightly point out, 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 they request (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 as they are misleading. We will make the required software changes as soon as we can."
You mentioned, "The online filing of amendments was a straightforward process (once I could print to pdf - which required an online search for a member of the public - perhaps you could suggest as site - I used do PDF which was free and served my purpose). From there the submission system was great with rapid response on an error I had made. This is a great improvement much appreciated." We informed you, "I regret that we cannot provide links or additional information on converting documents to PDF as the Intellectual Property Office is unable to recommend, suggest or endorse any particular products. However, as we try to indicate on our website and as you discovered, PDF conversion software is freely available on the internet for you to download and use."
The customer commented on searching for patents on the website, saying "After looking through your website, I could not find any place to look up actual patents by the patent #. Most bibliographies give the patent # for reference.This makes it nearly impossible to verify claims." We replied "I am sorry to read you couldn't find what you were looking for, we do monitor customer feedback carefully and if this problem persists I will look at changing to make the Patent search facilities more visible. We do have a dedicated online services area which contain search tools to allow you to search by various parameters such as Patent number (this page can be accessed via the last tab on the home page or by selecting Patents and then Online Patent Services from the left hand navigation) this page also gives a link to GB Esp@cenet where you are able to look at the actual patent specifications."
You advised that, "There was a hold-up in the return of £145 in relation to a patent application which I had filed for an Applicant, for which I had subsequently found there was existing prior art. The refund cheque for £145 has now been received. I provide a service to private inventors and to business, but tend, mainly, to deal with private inventors; this means that my applications go to the Private Applicants section of the IPO.
Other matters raised in this connection were: 1. On Form 9A, I tend to choose section 4b, and add the words: "Please provide a duplicate of the examination report and of the citations" I also write: b) and, please provide an accelatrated search (see enclosed letter). However, I only ever receive the citations in duplicate; not the Examination Report. My reason for making this request is so that my Client Applicant receives all of the relevant documentation from the IPO and is then fully aware of what to do. I do this because my experience is such that applicants tend to lose contact and I want them to be fully aware of the consequences of not doing things correctly. In the absence of the duplicate Examination Report, I have to photocopy the one which I receive from the IPO. 2. Even though I had specifically stated, on Form 9A, that there was an enclosed letter, I had to telephone for a repeat Filing Receipt with confirmation of the reference to the enclosed letter on it. 3. One of my Christian names, and the name of my Client Applicant, were incorrectly spelled on the first letter concerning the withdrawal of Patent Application which also concerned my enquiry about the return of £145. This has subsequently been corrected in a follow up letter from you. 4. I often find that the photocopies of the citations which I receive are badly done; often slanted and weak. 5. As a Patent Consultant for 20 years, with over 20 years previous experience in industry as a research and development scientist, I am well qualified to work for inventors, but I am currently finding it difficult to obtain custom whilst in competition with Patent Agents, and others doing what I do. I therefore feel that the IPO needs to give people doing what I do, better publicity, by not just referring readers of the standard patent literature sent out to the general public by the IPO, to Patent Agents, but also informing them of the existence of Patent Consultants! Earlier issues of the IPO literature used to refer to Ideas21, of which I am a member, so I have now lost that opportunity! I have also informed a previous IPO Chief Executive that whilst it is legally correct to call oneself a Patent Consultant or Patent Adviser the official patent forms only mention "Patent Agent". In the IPO literature, reference is made to Chartered Patent Agents but not to Patent Consultants. From my 20 years experience in working for inventors, I know that you do not have to be a Patent Agent to provide an adequate service to inventors. As you will see from my two websites, I am a member of many organisations. 		We explained, "I will comment firstly on the matters directly connected with the application which I understand have now been resolved. As you are clearly acting as the applicant’s representative this application was not handled by the Private Applicants section at the IPO as this section deals with solely with unrepresented applicants. The application was withdrawn on 15 March 2010 and the refund cheque was dispatched to you on 19 April. We aim to issue refunds within one month and I apologise that it did take longer than anticipated in this particular case. I am sorry that the original confirmation letter sent to you on contained two typographical errors. Unfortunately this occurred at the initial data capture and was corrected as soon as it was pointed out to us, a follow up letter was issued and I can confirm that our records have now been amended. I have also passed your feedback regarding the application filing receipt to the manager of our Document Reception unit. More generally, I note that you would like to receive two copies of reports issued by the IPO in order to send one to your client. I will try to ensure this happens in future but if it does not then please contact the Office by e-mail or telephone and a copy will be sent to you. I have discussed your comment about the quality of citations with the head of our printing and publishing section. The citations issued by the Office are not photocopied; they are printed directly from images stored on CD or DVD. If any copies received have been poor quality please supply the application numbers so that the images held can be replaced. I have noted your comments relating to the guidance we provide to the general public which refers them to the use of chartered patent attorneys as a way of getting help to progress their application. As our literature points out, the basis of a UK patent, the specification is a legal and technical document which some customers will need professional help to prepare. We cannot recommend any one particular adviser and so our application guides refer customers to professionals in the field of IP law who have acquired chartered status and are regulated legal service providers. Specifically, we refer applicants to the body which represents these professionals, the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA). In addition to the application guides, we also produce My IP which provides an introduction to IP and highlights the benefits of IP protection. This is one of our most popular publications and includes a wide range of useful contacts, including Ideas21."
You told us, "I have some questions about the GB Esp@cenet database I was hoping you could help me with: Are the patents listed in the database issued patents or pending/ applications? If the database includes both, how do I distinguish between the two? What is the difference between ‘Priority Date’ and ‘Publication Date’? What is the rationale for applying for a WO (world) patent over, say, an FI (Finnish) patent? Are some patents cheaper/ easier to obtain than others? Just trying to understand the rationale for why a US company for example would apply for a Mexico (MX) patent?" We replied, "1) GB esp@cenet External Link provides access to both published and granted patent applications for patents published and granted since June 2002. It provides access to only published patent applications published between January 1979 and June 2002, You can differentiate between a published patent application and a granted patent on GB esp@cenet when you receive the results page of an esp@cenet search. The published application is indicated by an "A" appearing after the publication number; similarly a "B" appears after the publication number of a granted patent. (Please see the attached Word document for an example.) 2) Under a treaty called the Paris Convention, if other patent applications are made for the same invention to other Paris Convention countries or a system (such as the Patent Co-operation Treaty) within twelve months of the original filing date, the applicant can claim that the original filing date stands. This is known as ‘Claiming Priority’ and the earliest filing date is known as the 'Priority Date’. In the UK, after a patent application is filed, only four pieces of information appear in the patent journal: the applicant’s name, the title of the patent, the application number and the filing date. For the next 18 months, the application is kept confidential - the specification is not open to public inspection and only the applicant or his authorised representative can access the file. After 18 months the application is then published and the actual specification becomes available for anyone to see. The day on which this occurs is known as the publication date. There are several reasons for publication, such as enabling third parties to challenge, but the main one is because, after the proprietor's monopoly ends, the rest of society is supposed to able to benefit from the invention. 3) Patents are territorial. A national patent would protect only in the country of origin. There is no such thing as a ‘worldwide’ patent there is a system that allows you to make a single, international application on which you can then base numerous national or regional applications. This system is known as the Patent Cooperation Treaty or PCT and is processed by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) an agency of the UN, which is based in Geneva. In the UK Patent fees are the same regardless of subject matter but there are discounts for forms filed electronically. A US company would probably file in Mexico or any other country if that is where the market for the invention would be." On 25 March 2010 the customer replied and said, "Thanks, this answers all my questions re the GB esp@cenet database."
You commented "The box for confirming wish to apply for grant i.e. file the application (I think at the end of step 13) can be easily overlooked. My suggestion is that the item is in some way made more distinctive." We replied "Thank you for your feedback about the Intellectual Property Offices patents electronic web filing service and making the confirmation tick box in step 13 more distinctive. It is not possible to submit an application without ticking the confirmation box on the mentioned page, and a warning message “Please confirm that you wish to apply for a patent” will be displayed in red to advise that it this box must be ticked. However, we will certainly take your comment into account when we next have an opportunity to consider the various suggestions we have received on how to improve the service. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to provide us with this feedback, it is much appreciated."
You told us, "I cannot make payment via Visa. It states, "Cannot accept payment at this time"." We asked you for more information on which service you were telling us about but we did not receive a response from you so no further action could be taken on this.
You stated, "It would be good if entering your ADP number could be used to automatically find and enter your details like the online TM3 does." We advised, "You suggest that, like the TM3 service,it would be good to fill fields automatically when an ADP number is input. While it would be technically possible, I am afraid that it would require a major change to the way in which the patents web service is designed and we do not currently have any plans to make those changes. There is, however, an alternative electronic filing service for patents which you may like to consider as it does enable you to store data for re-use etc.
The customer commented that he found the process (forms) very difficult and not at all straight forward. The customer said "the fact you cannot accept word documents is shocking" and the customer would like the process to be easier, or a different option for those who have difficulty with words/grammar/structure/definitions. We replied "I am sorry that you do not find our processes straight forward, but if you give us more details about your concerns, we will be happy to consider them the next time we review our processes. We do not cater for specific word processors, but our web forms will allow customers to attach files that are saved as PDF files. Most current word processors allow you to save their files as PDF, but if not, then PDF file converters are freely available on the web but we are unable to recommend specific ones. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to provide us with this feedback, it is much appreciated."
You told us, "It's not clear when applying for multiple items (e.g. combined initial search and substantive search) that you can go round the loop several times. A simple message would clarify. Furthermore when you get to the end of the application process it asks for the fee for further see for form 9A not made clear initially. I believe I paid an application fee (AF1) of £30 originally, so I deleted it. It accepted that, so I now don't know - is there another £30 fee? Also the fees don't seem to align with your published list on the website You should show the dependencies between Forms and fees and separate them out - e.g. under "request for search" at there are no less than 10 different fees, some of which appear to depend on others. UGH. How about simply indenting them to show the relationships?" We advised, "You asked about the fees you have paid in connection with your patent application. We have checked your application and, for the avoidance of doubt, I can confirm the following: Filing date 20 August 2009 - Application fee paid 10 September 2009 - £ 30 Form 9 paid 30 April 2010 - £130 Form 10 paid 30 April 2010 - £80.You are not therefore required to pay a further application fee of £30. I am sorry that you did not find the process of filing multiple forms clear, and that you did not find the list of Forms and fees easy to use. We will take your comments and suggestions into account when we next get an opportunity to consider ways in which we can improve the usability of the patents web filing service." On 21 May 2010 the customer advised, "Thanks for coming back to me - good to see the loop closed."
Re web filing - would it be possible for fields to be filled automatically if inputting ADP number? We advised, "You ask whether it would be possible to fill fields automatically if the ADP number is input. While it would be technically possible, I am afraid that it would require a major change to the way in which the service is designed and we do not currently have any plans to make those changes in the short term. There is, however, an alternative electronic filing service for patents which you may like to consider as it does enable you to store data for re-use etc.I would like to thank you again for taking the trouble to write to us as we will certainly take your suggestion into account when we next consider changing the web filing service."
You advised, "I have some Feedback on the Online Patent filing module. We have noticed that when we attach an item at the end of the input when all items are listed the attachment is not included in the list. Although we find that mention is made of the attachment on the Filing receipt it would be nice if we had the opportunity before Submitting to be see that our attachment had worked." We confirmed, "Our technical team have investigated your comments and have found that if you add a document at the end of the process, it and other attachments (if any) can be viewed before making the submission, by clicking on the 'View' button located on the bottom half of the File Manager screen. Alongside this button the number of attachments will be listed, and clicking the 'View' button launches a pdf viewer display which will display any attachments."
You had received unsolicited mail from CTMFS requesting £370 for their TM renewal services. You were advised to contact Trading Standards and Consumer Direct.
You received unsolicited mail from CTM Filing Service offering to apply for a CTM at a fee of £560. We replied, "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. We would also like to encourage you to report the instance to your local branch of Trading Standards, and in addition, to Consumer Direct's specialist Scambuster team External Link on the following link: 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."
You received unsolicited mail from GALA almanach. We advised, "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."
You told us, "I applied for a trademark back at the start of the year, during my initial application & amended the application to include my logo. I am concerned as to the status of the application as online it tells me it is withdrawn? My concern has risen due to the fact that a competitor is using a similar name in fact identical name just in reverse This is the reason I amended the original application to include my logo. I would be grateful of any help." We investigated and replied as follows "On 2 December 2009 you applied for a word only trade mark. On the 3 December 2009 you contacted the office by email to request to recall the application as you wanted to add a logo to your mark. Mrs Joanne Trueman of the office then responded to your email confirming that the application could be withdrawn and the application refunded. This was confirmed in an email from you on 8 December 2009 and implemented on the same day. The application then became status withdrawn. On 16 December 2009 you filed a new application containing a logo. The examination report for this application was issued on 21 December 2009 and a letter confirming that the application was being processed to publication was issued on 10 March 2010. It was published on 26 March in the Trade Marks Journal (available on our website) and will become registered status on 18 June 2010."
Customer received unsolicited mail from Patent Trademark Register. We advised, "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."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC. You were advised to contact Trading Standards and Consumer Direct.
Customer asking why there is no provision to renew a mark online when OHIM have made this process so easy. We responded "We are pleased to hear that you find our e-filing services so useful; however, as far as the e-renewals and other e-services are concerned, as you may know we are currently working on our TM10 project that aims to improve the operation of the trade marks registry by making use of the OHIM Euromarc++ Euromarc++ (project goals and success criteria may be viewed on our Euromarc++ website)
The project is in its early stages and much will depend on our resources to complete. If successful we should, be able to offer similar e-services to that given by OHIM. I'm sorry I cannot give you a timeframe for completion at the moment, but we will keep you informed of developments. You may also be aware of the proposals put forward regarding the use of OHIM resources from their Cooperation Fund to harmonise many e-services throughout the Member States; we would fully support this initiative, and if necessary, apply for funding to ensure our systems reach the same standards as other Member States. Although we cannot currently offer an e-renewal system, we can accept payments electronically. Tracey Waters, our Renewals Manager, can give you full details if you are interested; Tracey Waters."
You received unsolicited mail from IPA. We advised, "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."
You had received unsolicited mail from CTMFS. You were advised to contact Trading Standards and Consumer Direct.
The customer is withdrawing a design application as she is unhappy that it will be published on our website and put her business in a vulnerable position (she doesn't have the funds that a larger company would to start up the idea) The customer did also say "I do feel that your services and assistance given are extremely helpful at IPO and thank you all for your efficiency." The examiner spoke to you at the time and advised that this information would be passed onto the relevant staff member for consideration.
You received unsolicited mail from CTMFS. We advised, "We are currently working closely with Trading Standards to prevent such letters being sent out to our customers. It would be a great help if we could see a copy of the letter before I approach Trading Standards and ask them to take this issue up. 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."
You had received unsolicited mail from CTMFS. We confirmed, "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. We would also like to encourage you to report the instance to your local branch of Trading Standards, and in addition, to Consumer Direct's specialist Scambuster team External Link. 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 re applying for a CTM. Company based in Liverpool - fee £434.75. In response we said "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. We would also like to encourage you to report the instance to your local branch of Trading Standards, and in addition, to Consumer Direct's specialist Scambuster team External Link. 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. Thank you for raising our awareness to this company. I hope this letter has clarified things further."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC. We confirmed, "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 advise 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). We would also like to encourage you to report the instance to your local branch of Trading Standards, and in addition, to Consumer Direct's specialist Scambuster team External Link.
You received unsolicited Mail (CTMFS). In response we said "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. We would also like to encourage you to report the instance to your local branch of Trading Standards, and in addition, to Consumer Direct's specialist Scambuster team External Link. 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. Thank you for raising our awareness to this company. I hope this letter has clarified things further."
You received unsolicited mail from CTMFS. We explained, "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."
You had received unsolicited mail from I.P. Agency requesting £980 for TM renewal fees. We confirmed, "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 advise 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). We would also like to encourage you to report the instance to your local branch of Trading Standards, and in addition, to Consumer Direct's specialist Scambuster team External Link "
You advised us of unsolicited Mail received from Intellectual Property Agency Limited. We replied "Thank you for your recent communication regarding the above, we are very grateful that you have taken the time to contact us about the unsolicited mail you have received. 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. We would also like to encourage you to report the instance to your local branch of Trading Standards, and in addition, to Consumer Direct's specialist Scambuster team External Link 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. Thank you for raising our awareness to this company. I hope this letter has clarified things further."
You received unsolicited mail from EIEC. We explained, "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)."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA. We confirmed, "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. We would also like to encourage you to report the instance to your local branch of Trading Standards, and in addition, to Consumer Direct's specialist Scambuster team External Link With your permission, I am also happy to report this instance to The Office of Fair Trading. On 21 May 2010 the customer responded, "Thank you for your email. I have already reported this to scambusters. Please do report this to The Office of Fair Trading. These companies should be stopped immediately." We responded, "Thank you for your permission to report this to The Office of Fair Trading. Unfortunately, we aren't directly able to stop IPA trading, however, we hope that with persistence, we are able to encourage bodies such as OFT and Trading Standards to act on the letters which are being sent out."
You received unsolicited e-mail from China FOWA. We advised, "I can confirm that we have received a number of enquiries about the company in question, who are contacting Domain/Trade Mark owners. The company seems to be a Domain Name registration service that operate to register domains in China. We think that their primary service is to notify you of their customer's intention to register domain names which are similar to you. In turn, potentially turning you into a customer if you reply. Unfortunately, we can only speculate as to why they have targeted you with this e-mail. I can however confirm that if you are not interested in the domain names they mention, you do not need to take any further action with the below."
You told us, "I am trying to search your Designs database but I keep getting the message: Database service unavailable. Sorry, you are attempting to perform a Designs search outside of the advertised times of availability. I had trouble finding your hours of availability on your website and why are you off the air for 7 hours a day anyway? We, your Antipodean colleagues, would like access during our normal working hours!" We replied, "Thank you for your e-mail of the 21 May, I hope you can accept our apologies that you found it necessary to contact us about our website. Unfortunately, we do need to have an amount of "down time" on our website each day for critical updates and back-up procedures. The full service will usually be available between 03:15 and 00:15 UK time. However, I will pass your feedback to our strategic website team, who, with your feedback, will hopefully be able to make this downtime a little more user-friendly for customers outside the UK."
You stated, "Have just made an on-line payment for services provided by IPO. I did receive a confirmation e-mail, but it would be really useful if you could print some form of receipt, invoice or acknowledgement of payment at this time? It just helps me to recover the amounts that I have paid from my personal account." We contacted our finance department and asked them to send the customer a receipt as soon as possible.
You confirmed, "I have received a letter dated 19 May 2010. As far as I understand I have never filed any application and I know nothing about what was mentioned in the letter. I suspect my personal data had been abused. Please amend your record accordingly." We spoke to you and apologised for any inconvenience. We determined that you had no link to the company in question and so spoke to the Register Maintenance team to see if your name and address could be removed from the address for service for this case. On 26 May 2010 we e-mailed you and said, "Thank you for your recent notification that you were receiving communication about a Trade Mark which had no links to yourself. I can confirm that your address has now been removed from our systems, and you should not receive any further communication from us regarding this matter."
You received unsolicited mail from 'Intellectual Property Agency Ltd'. You were unsure if they were linked to us. They have quoted over £1000 to sort out his Trade Mark Renewal due January 2011. We advised, "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."
I see a difference between information on your site about class 35 and MKTU infor Class 35 External Link
I need to register trade mark in "operation and supervision of loyalty and incentive schemes" and I could not find these phrases in official documents. Maybe it is absent in latest edition?		 We replied, "From the information you have given I would advise the following class: - operation and supervision of loyalty and incentive schemes - would be proper to class 35."
You had received unsolicited mail from CTMFS. We advised, "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."
You had received unsolicited mail from CTMFS. We advised, "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 an 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. We would like to encourage you to report the instance to your local branch of Trading Standards, and in addition, to Consumer Direct's specialist Scambuster team External Link Any communication from the IPO will always be headed with the official letter headed paper. If you are ever unsure about a communication you have received, please check with us before making any payments."
You had received unsolicited mail from the European Institute for Economy and Commerce asking for fees of £479.75. You were advised to contact Trading Standards and Consumer Direct.
Customer requested if we could put it to EPOline, when we file late docs on a GB, it would be good to have an annotation box so that you do not have to attach a letter. We replied to say that although we do not currently have any plans to introduce that sort of change, we will certainly take it into account when we next have an opportunity to consider the various suggestions we have received on how to improve the service.