| You advised, "Website doesn’t give much guidance about online forms, you end up just going round in circles and then when you come across it by accident after an hour of clicking the online form just says you’ve run out of time even though you filled it in 30 seconds, so it’s pretty crap." |
We responded, "I am sorry to hear you had trouble with using our online forms we have tried recently following a redesign of our website to make using our online services easier with what we thought was clearer step by step guidance obviously this has not been the case on this occasion and I am
sorry if our site has not given you what you need. We do monitor customer feedback carefully and if
similar comments are received we will look at changing." |
| The customer commented "How on earth can I find a simple email address to ask a basic question? Seems you don’t actually want anyone to contact you really." |
We replied "The website was recently redesigned and we have been monitoring any customer feedback received with a view to continually improving the website. I was sorry to read that you had a problem
finding how to contact us. The contact us is a section in the about us tab but
as you suggest it may not be the first place a customer would look. We will continue to monitor feedback
on this point and look at making this easier." |
| You referred to a decision by a Hearing Officer to award a patent held by one entity to another entity. You felt it to be a remarkable decision at the time, not in the good sense of the word. You noticed that subsequently both the UK High Court and European Patent Office have revoked the patent. In what way is the Hearing Officer accountable for his decision and the damage it caused to the reputations of the original entity, and of the company who licensed the patent? |
We explained that, "The Hearing Officer retired some years ago and your comment has been passed to me as his successor. As you note, the decision was an adjudication between the two entities. I note as a point of interest that the Hearing Officers decision related only to who was entitled to apply for the patent concerned; he made no decision on whether the patent was valid. The Hearing Officer's decision is therefore not contradicted by the EPO and UK court decisions you refer
to, which appear in any event to be concerned with different patents in the same area. In any event,
the parties to the Hearing Officer's decision had the opportunity to appeal to the High Court, which
had the power to overturn it, but in the end this was not pursued. This means that the Hearing Officer's
decision became a legally final decision binding on the parties. It is not possible for the Intellectual Property Office to revisit it. |
| You were using the web filing service for the first time and were unhappy that you were unable to find assistance on the web site. You also wished to register your displeasure that there was no save facility available and a range of screen shots giving you an idea of what would be required. We referred you to the pages he needed to visit on the site and the various links to description etc as you had not prepared your pdf documents. We also offered to "walk through" the stages with you to ensure you were able to file, but you were unable to as you needed to prepare your pdf forms etc. You thanked us for our assistance and we assured you, your comments would be passed to the appropriate IT team. A save function would be useful if applicants were unable to complete their submission in one attempt. (I believe TM has the facility for their web filing service). |
We were unable to respond back to you afterwards as you did not leave any contact details however we have agreed that this will be something that will be taken into account when we next consider any changes to the web filing service. |
| A Customer called to complain that on a letter he received from the office, his patent was referred to as a patent number not an application or publication number. |
We explained the differences between the numbers used to identify a patent. |
| You told us, "It is extremely infuriating that we provide our reference when filling out your online form 23/77 yet it is not included when you send through the file history. It is difficult for our admin staff to track down the corresponding file and would be very helpful if
you could include this (preferably in the subject line). Additionally, please set up an EPOline version
of this form so we can file all online forms from one place (and use pre-populated templates to avoid
re-typing of standard information)." |
We advised, "I have discussed with our Finance Section (who process the Form 23s) your first point about us not using the customer reference in our replies to Form 23s and they have agreed to make a change to their internal systems, with the aim of including the reference in the text of the covering e mail. They expect to be able to introduce this change in the next couple of months, but I am afraid that it is not possible to provide you with a more precise target date as the work has to be scheduled to fit in with their existing priorities. I am sorry, but on your second point about
adding the Form 23 to the EPOline service I cannot be so positive. It is certainly something we would
like to do, but current resource constraints and other software development priorities mean that it
is unlikely to happen in the short term." On the 18 May the customer responded to our e-mail and
said, "Thank you, much appreciated." |
| You are resident in Portugal and received the Form 10 reminder letter today. It was however posted on 5 May 2010 but has arrived in Portugal via Germany and has a postmark and so the date for filing Form 10 (18 May 2010) has already passed and so you will have to pay the extension fee. Your "minor complaint", though certainly we feel a valid one is that the period for response is very short (2 weeks) and this can cause problems if you are outside of the UK, in the EEA or EU. We don't think we've considered this since the rules have changed to allow addresses in the EEA/EU and agree that perhaps we could issue F10 reminders a little earlier than we might have latterly. |
We advised you to file the F10 and F52 by 18 July 2010 but to put a covering letter outlining the issues and to send a copy of the postmark from Germany so that we can investigate the possibility of a refund if postal issues can be proven. You also questioned whether there might have been delays due to the ash cloud which is also a possibility. |
| You "Complained that our website did not provide enough explanatory information about the "RightStart" option. Apply for a trade mark page has the following information: If you apply online you can: Pay online using most major credit/debit cards or a pre registered deposit account. Receive an online filing discount for our Standard examination service. Choose from either of the following online examination services: - Right Start examination service. - Standard examination service. Receive your examination report by e-mail. "- Right Start examination service. - Standard examination service. Receive your examination report by e-mail." These choices should have links which provide further information." |
We responded, "I hope you can accept my sincere apologies that you found the information difficult to find on our website. We have recently appointed a strategic web developer to over-haul the Trade Marks part of our website and would hope that as part of this over-haul, the website will become more intuitive and information on our services easier to find. I will pass your feedback to the website developer who I am sure will take into account your comments when re-designing the pages in question." |
| The customer complained that the filing receipt for her TM3 on-line Right Start was not clear it indicated that she had 14 days from the receipt to pay the balance. This is not correct as it is 14 days from the examiners report that is sent later. The customer said the language used on the receipt was language we understood for the procedures we work to but does not think of the customer who does not already understand this. The receipt is too process orientated. The language of the receipt appears from the dark ages or is in Greek. |
We replied "I have reviewed an example of a RightStart filing receipt and can confirm that the receipt states at point 1 - Important Fee Information. In particular it states you must pay the balance of the fees within 14 days of the date of the RightStart examination report. As regards to your second point we endeavour where ever possible to avoid the use of jargon, as this is a legal document it must be written in a certain manner, however if you have any specific examples that you feel are poorly written I would welcome your feedback. If you wish to provide
me with further details of your application I will gladly review the particulars of that case and respond
to you further." |
| You said that a Trade Mark should not be allowed. |
We advised you that the applicant has now withdrawn this case. |
| You said that a Trade Mark should not be allowed. |
We advised you that the applicant has now withdrawn this case. |
| You said that a Trade Mark should not be allowed. |
We advised you that the applicant has now withdrawn this case. |
| You said that a Trade Mark should not be allowed. |
We advised you that the applicant has now withdrawn this case. |
| You said that a Trade Mark should not be allowed. |
We advised you that the applicant has now withdrawn this case. |
