| You wrote to complain about the way your application had been examined. You were also unhappy that calls weren't returned as promised. |
We confirmed that unfortunately the relevant calls were not returned and apologised for the poor customer service in this case. We also advised that we have arranged for the head of the section to contact you to provide further advice and help in respect of
the acceptability of the logos and to discuss
the options available to you regarding the possibility of amending the current application. |
| You wrote to complain about the way the Examiner has handled your patent application. On 20 July 2010 you queried the amount you had paid. |
We advised that the terminology used was not with regards to the potential commercial success of the Patent but moreover the likelihood of the application becoming granted. On 20 July 2010 we responded clarifying the position for you. |
| You said that the IPO had failed to provide the information you had previously requested and you demanded that this information now be provided. We wrote to you on 14 July 2010 to advise that we will deal with this in 20 working days as part of the request was for information. |
We wrote to you on 14 July 2010 to advise that we will deal with this in 20 working days as part of the request was for information. We replied to advise that we were unable to deal with an unappointed representative in relation to case specific matters. We also confirmed that we would like to get the Patent back in force as this was partly due to procedural mistake but that we had to protect the rights
of third parties also. We reminded you that hearing could take place if required but this right had
not been taken up and as an impasses seems to have been reached on this case we will ask one of our
case officers to write to you and ask for a further month to request a hearing. If one is not taken
up a senior official will make a formal legal written decision on the outstanding matters from the records
on file and you will be notified of this decision; the decision will then be appealable to the courts.
We also went back over the grounds of the FOI request and found no irregularities in the decisions we
made with regards to this. |
| You advised that you were having problems ascertaining the correct way to proceed with your application despite contacting the office on several occasions. |
We apologised and provided the relevant information as required. |
| You felt the office had let you down over the last 11 months and if you had been advised of the facts last year you would now not be out of pocket to the tune of £5000. |
We outlined the circumstances of our informal search and explained that you could request a refund of your search and examination fee if required. |
| You were unhappy with the prosecution of your patent application claiming that the office was unable to understand the basic principles of it. |
We explained that your comments were taken on board during a telephone hearing and subsequent submissions you made. We did not agree that the examiner did not understand the invention or that we misled you on the rules for extension of time. We advised that the invention cannot be patented in the UK and we support the hearing officer’s decision. We also took note that your current application should be processed by a different examiner. |
| You advised, "Further to our telephone conversation earlier I write to lodge a formal complaint concerning the transfer of the administration address. I requested a copy of your form 51 on 29 July and instead received a copy of an e mail dated 3rd December 2009 confirming previously discussed instructions for the transfer and payment of the patent renewal to which I was not consulted or gave consent. For your information, unaware of the above I also paid on behalf of both patent owners the 2009 renewal fee to CPA Global on 9 December 2009 (paid to them continuously since 2006). Please be aware that both owners are involved in an acrimonious dispute in the High Court. You have confirmed that official procedures indicated form 51 should have been completed and that your office should have notified me of the proposed assignment. I have noted you sent an official notice to the new agent notifying them of the change but not me. This failure is contrary to my rights as joint owner and for obvious legal reasons I would not have
given consent for to be shown as agent or his address to be used for such purposes. Clearly statutory procedures have not been followed and my rights under S 36 et al of the 1977 Patent
Act have been violated. During the interim period from December 2009 to date - my rights may well have been assigned, licensed
or sold without my knowledge. You state there is no activity on file but what certainty do I have when
clearly even the most basic document submission concerning assignments goes unreported - I need your
written assurance going forward that any activity concerning the above patent and must be notified to
me immediately and an undertaking that should any violation of my rights during the period under review
and ongoing, surface any new owner or assignee will need to be informed that their claim is invalid.
I note other third parties were named within the e mail and for that reason I shall be pleased to receive
copies of all email; fax and postal correspondence together with transcripts of telephone conversations
leading up to this unauthorised transfer - from the date they first contacted your office. I trust that
I will not have to issue a formal Freedom of Information Act request. In view of the above my name should
be clearly shown on the first page of the patent ownership title that’s available to public view - you
will note that priority for this patent resides with me as I completed all the designs and narrative
for the patent on 29 August 2003 these were submitted to you from my address. The new agent later amended
the application and re submitted this in December 2003. I shall be pleased to receive your proposals
on how you will redress this matter to my satisfaction - but clearly the address on the public register
as the address for service is not an option." |
We apologised for changing the address for service without your consent and taken steps to remind our staff of their responsibilities in this area. We also advised of how to overcome any difficulties with regards to future correspondence whereby we will ensure that copies are sent to both parties. We also confirmed that no transaction will take place with both parties consent as both are proprietors on this case. We also advised you that we could change the address for service to one which both parties agree to or alternatively have 2 address for services on file for each proprietor. |
| You were unhappy as your Patent application had ceased due to nonpayment of renewal fees which you claim was down to an internal error regarding your address within the office. |
We double checked the case and confirmed that we had sent the reminder to the correct address. We confirmed that this does not necessarily mean it got to your address but we did explain that the onus is on the right holder to maintain their intellectual property. We explained how the Patent could be restored using Patents Form 16 and appropriate fee. |
| You advised that we had not followed the correct procedure by offering you the opportunity to amend your Trade Mark within a specified period. |
We advised that we had acted correctly and that we could not offer for the Trade Mark to be amended after the applicant had got to the stage they were at. We confirmed that a further application could be made using the RightStart process. |
| You were unhappy with the advice given regarding the renewal of your two patent applications which resulted in them lapsing. |
We advised you that we were unable to do anything about the refusal to restore one of your Patent applications as we had informed you within the correct timeframe. We referred you to the High Court Appeals Office to see if there was anything else that could be done. |
| You told us, "I currently run my own manufacturing business so I am quite worldly. I am disturbed to find that your website has no qualms about publishing the address of the person registering a trade mark. Whilst I understand the need for access to the registrant, I can believe that there are other ways just as effective and accessible that does not put the registrant at risk with their personal address in the public arena. I am surprised given the present day attitude towards data protection that you are even allowed to do this. I find the suggestion of using a PO Box is not sufficient reason for allowing the address to be publicly displayed. Clearly you could retain the address and convey it to any interested parties upon receipt of their address. I do not see that so many applicants would be interested unless for reasons of taking advantage of the registrant, something data protection is supposed to prevent. It seems strange that an organisation set up to protect intellectual property should be deliberately broadcasting information against the better judgement of the individual (at least this individual), it all seems wrong. I hope you will understand and empathise with me on this and look to reform your arrangements." |
We explained that we had made several changes to make customers aware of this. |
