Customer feedback - July to September 2010

Compilation of general feedback received from customers during the period of July to September 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 said, "You required a search because your client was considering filing a Patent application and the search has found useful prior art. You confirmed that the search was of very good quality, it took a little longer to receive the search than they had hoped for but it was good searching at a reasonable price. You confirmed that she was satisfied with the overall service she had received." We issued a thank you email to you for your feedback. You were aware beforehand that the case would be issued slightly later than agreed by the search examiner.
You said, "You required a Patentability search for an invention to decide whether it was worth filing a Patent application for it. The search report will help your client make a decision in this regard. You confirmed that the service was fast and efficient and have used the SAS before and have been satisfied with the results as it is good value. You confirmed that you were satisfied with the overall service you had received." We issued a thank you email to you for your feedback.
You said, "I have had many many ideas in my life many of which have made their way into the market place, however, not by my hand. I am interested in patenting some idea's hence searching out this site. I like the site but find that I do not retain the information I read, having been a lecturer in a previous job I know the importance of having as many varieties of information delivery systems as possible, lots of people, myself included do not retain the information of the written word, for these people they need auditory or even video explanations before they will retain the information needed. I feel you are only catering for about 30% of the population by only having reams of writing to wade through. If you were to add an audio option or better still a video option I feel you would find many many more people using your service, me included." We replied, "I agree with everything you say, as an organisation we have just started reviewing some sections of the website and think as you suggest there are better ways of showcasing our content. Providing some bite size videos on how to fill out application forms etc would be a much better way of engaging with customers for instance. So we are actively considering other forms of communications rather than relying on such text heavy pages. That said in light of cross government cuts and efficiencies that have recently been announced we are not sure how this will affect us and whether such ideas will be implemented but we do hope that in the near future we can refresh our home page and other sections of the site so we can offer different ways of displaying our information."
You said, "I know this will sound like I'm splitting hairs but for some reason this really bothered me (also, it's Sunday and I'm bored). In the "fascinating Facts" section of your Cracking Ideas website the 3rd fact is: "The World Wide Web is so vast and complex that human beings can't navigate it without the help of web browsers." That isn't a fact. While it’s true that the World Wide Web is vast and complex AND that you can't navigate it without a web browser, there's no direct correlation between these two facts. One is not the cause of the other. It's the same as if you said, "New York City is such a large city we need a car to get there." We need to use web browsers because computers communicate differently than we do. It's much quicker for computers to talk to each other using one of their languages (like binary code and HTML) and there's less chance of a mistake or misunderstanding. Web browsers are translators. Like I said, I'm splitting hairs here and I'm sure you know what a web browser does. You probably just worded that "fact" in such a way to make it more interesting for young people to read, its hyperbole. But if you're going to teach young people I don't think you should sacrifice truth and accuracy to make a fact more interesting." We replied, "Thank you for your feedback received on 2 August 2010 regarding the Cracking Ideas website, in particular, the "fascinating facts" section. As you may be aware the Cracking Ideas website is aimed at children aged 4 - 16 years of age. Therefore, we aim to ensure that the information on the website is relevant to the wide range of children who use the site, in view of this it is necessary to simplify some facts to ensure that all our target age can understand the information and are able to engage with the material on the site. However, I have taken your comments on board and during the next revision of the website we will look again at the wording of the fact you refer to and amend as necessary. Once again thank you for your feedback and also for your positive comments about the website."
You would like a link to the esp@cenet search engine to be placed in a prominent place on our home page. He complained that had it been more easily accessible he would not have had to waste his time and ours by calling to be directed to the link. We rang and, "Thanked you for your feedback and for taking the time to comment on the site. You explained you took a while to find the esp@cenet database in order to search whether your patent had been done before and as this was surely the first step in the process it should be more prominent. We explained that we have numerous prominent services housed within the website relating to all the different IP rights. However due to issues on space and it being difficult to prioritising such services it is not possible to display links to all of popular services on the home page and such services are housed therefore under our on-line service tab. You accepted this but still felt the link ought to be on the homepage as that is the service he wanted to use. We did say if feedback continues to request one particular thing we would look to move to address this however we are not aware of any previous feedback around this."
You commented about the cost of calling on a 0845 number. We advised that as of 2 August 2010 this will be changing to a 0300 number and you were happy to have been given this information.
You advised, "I am very confused with the different kinds of legal services that you make me aware of (patents, copyright, design and trademarks. I want to set up an ecommerce website with an unusual customer service experience. I would like to protect myself against copy cats. I also have problem finding out if my idea has been done before so can you please tell me where to go to enable me to find this out. I’m not sure which one I have to check (patents, trademarks designs or copyright or all of them! For someone who does not understand legal terms this site is quite confusing, sorry!" We replied, "Thank you for your comments. A Senior Manager who deals with the website has advised "Thank-you for your comments on our website. I am sorry to read you have found it confusing. The different types of IP can be confusing and legalistic however to try and simplify this for customers we are currently undertaking a review of our home page with a view to making things more easily understood." If you provide me with a phone number I can arrange for one of our IP Advisors to contact you, and talk you through the different areas of IP that may be relevant to you."
You advised, "Make your website more user-friendly! It's a nightmare!" We replied, "Thank you for recently completing one of our customer feedback forms. I'm sorry to hear of the problems you experienced when using our website. We welcome all feedback and try whenever possible to incorporate suggestions that help us to improve customer services. With this in mind, I'd be grateful for any additional feedback on the particular problem(s) that you experienced. If there are specific areas of the website that caused you difficulties, I will ask our Website Manager to investigate and get back in touch with you to hopefully resolve them." We did not receive any further reply from you.
You advised we were, "Distant." We responded, "I am writing to thank you for completing our Customer Service feedback form. We treat customer feedback as a valuable resource as we genuinely do listen to our customers. This is why I am very disappointed to see that you felt the service you received from one of our team members was 'Distant'. I have listened to the call in which you requested Designs information. We strive to be helpful, knowledgeable, efficient and polite and I am very concerned that we have not impressed you with our service on this occasion. I would welcome further comment from you to explain how you feel we could have improved your experience in dealing with us. This will help us improve our Customer Service standards. If you would like to discuss this matter further please call me or email me direct."
You told us, "Funding IP seems to be a major sticking point for getting started." We pointed you in the right direction as to where you might be able to get funding in the Leeds area.
You advised, "I think your IP Healthcheck is great, but I still need support in helping me make the right decision so that I don't waste time or money." We were unable to respond to this as we did not have any contact details for you.
You told us, "I make all my IP free (mainly original videos) to all who wish to use it and regard much of IP as a restraint not a benefit to progress and competitiveness of our country. I personally would like to see greater freedom although I do appreciate that there are probably quite valid exceptions. I think the return "trades guilde" that I have observed over recent years is protectionism and a retrograde step." We were unable to respond to this as we did not have any contact details for you.
You advised, "Better link to the IP Healthcheck from the main homepage - it's really useful tool but seems to be hidden away." We were unable to respond to this as we did not have any contact details for you.
You confirmed, "I wish there was more guidance & that I did not have to seek a solicitor's help." We were unable to respond to this as we did not have any contact details for you.
You advised, "I would appreciate further advice." We were unable to respond to this as we did not have any contact details for you.
You communicated, "My overall comment would be that I support the initiative, but recognise the difficulties and limitations in distilling complex areas of IA management into a short Q&A survey. Not sure such surveys are the best way to communicate such concepts." We were unable to respond to this as we did not have any contact details for you.
You confirmed, "A good service, thanks: just the kind of thing entrepreneurs need. I guess only issue might be the need to "spread the word" so that others find you." We were unable to respond to this as we did not have any contact details for you.
You told us, "Excellent resource and very useful. It would be helpful to provide links to recommended IP lawyers in the UK and similar resources." We were unable to respond to this as we did not have any contact details for you.
The customer informed us that a Patents client had received unsolicited mail regarding registration at WIPO. CRM telephoned the customer and advised of the warnings that appear and the avenues to take further action. The customer was satisfied with the response.
You advised the search did find some relevant documents, which should help you make decisions. All your communication with SAS was very professional and functional. However, the fact that you seemed to be dealing with a different person every time made you fear that your request might fall through the cracks. It did not, so you are satisfied, but it would have given you more confidence to have contact information for a particular person. The search found five potentially relevant documents. One of them was a journal paper. The journal paper was in Japanese. You would have appreciated a quote for the additional work required to translate and evaluate the relevance of the paper. You were recommended this service by the Patent Counsel and were satisfied with the overall service you had received. The SAS Lead Examiner responded, "Thank you for your response to our e-mail requesting feedback on the search that we recently conducted for you. This has been passed onto me to look at in light of the comments that you made. I'm sorry if you lacked some confidence in your dealings with us due to the number of different names that you dealt with. In order to process cases as quickly as possible, our close team of front office staff deal with the workload according to their availability at the time. You can be assured that, by working this way, any e-mails sent to SAS will be dealt with as promptly as possible, since this e-mail address is constantly monitored. I hope that this goes some way to allaying any concerns that you may have had. Regarding your second point, I'm afraid that we do not provide a translation service as part of our searches. This document was identified by searching the non-patent literature database INSPEC, since its abstract appeared to be relevant to the patent in question. The document itself could not be sourced in time to send it to you with the report, though the examiner felt that you should be made aware of its existence at the earliest opportunity. We would be happy to try to source a copy of the full document and send to you if you wish. I hope that this response answers any questions or concerns that you may have had over our search; however, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries, or wish to discuss this further."
You suggested, "Perhaps more searching of non-patent literature where possible." We confirmed that no further response is needed on this one as searching of NPL citations is notoriously difficult and depends on the subject matter being searched.
You had used our online services and offered a few improvement suggestions "Form 23 - The link to ask for a copy of a patent spec is called Form 23, this isn't very clear for people outside the UK office. Can I suggest you add some English into the link? Perhaps "Inspect a file - form 23". I couldn't find the link and had to call enquiries. Also, a minor point. I wanted a complete copy of the file, however, this wasn't offered as a tick box option. Finally, the invoice for both services came through in an odd format. So odd in fact, that I couldn't find the first invoice. Perhaps a word or PDF would work better?" We replied "I am replying for your feedback on the Patents web services. Your comments/suggestions have been noted, and will take them on consider them when we next review these processes."
You advised, "I didn`t recall the card info saying don't leave spaces If you do it causes delays & confusion. If there's no prompt I suggest it is put in. If there is - I apologise." We responded, "Thank you for your enquiry regarding the supportive information displayed on the Intellectual Property Office website regarding the use of online services. You are correct that the facility does not make clear that card numbers should be entered omitting the spaces in the number as displayed on the card itself. Our Web Applications Support team are currently conducting a review of the payment mechanisms utilised by the Office web services. Whilst this is a rigorous assessment of the technical and security features of the mechanism I shall forward your suggestion of including a prompt to them for consideration in any future changes they apply to the web services."
You required a freedom to operate search from the Search and Advisory Service. The search provided you with the necessary information you required. You confirmed that the Search and Advisory Service quality of service you received was fine. You would have liked a more extensive search but holiday and other commitments prevented Search and Advisory Service from delivering this in the time available. However, you chose the Search and Advisory Service because of its reasonable value for money and you were satisfied with the overall service you had received. This information was passed onto the senior SAS examiner for information purposes.
You said "I saw nothing in the paperwork about sending £30 and there was no follow up on my correspondence that's been lying around since Feb 2010." We wrote back to you and covered all of the points you raised to include the outstanding items required and by what deadline.
You confirmed, "At summary end of online filing (Form 1) service I was able to review all forms successfully as PDF docs but unable to do the same with the PDF files (description, drawings) I had uploaded, which downloaded in greatly increased size and opened as a long filename ending .pdf.html. Your IT Helpdesk is investigating but I have filed the documents anyway) and await news on whether the entire upload is readable. Many thanks." We replied, "Thanks for your e mail about the electronic filing you made on 12 August. I have spoken to our IT Helpdesk and to the staff in the business area that are responsible for processing electronically filed patent applications and both have confirmed that the documents you electronically filed were received and can be read. Just for confirmation we received the following electronically filed documents on 12 August: F1 - 2 pages, DRWG - 2 pages, DESC - 2 pages, PDASREG - 1 page. I can also confirm that on 12 August we received fax copies of the description and drawings plus a 'covering letter'. I hope the above puts your mind at rest."
You asked, "Please enable specification and drawings and covering letter or at least first page of each to be visible on receipt page." We advised, "Thank you for taking the time to send us your suggestion for improving the patents web filing service by making at least the first page of the documents you file visible on the receipt page. We will take your suggestion into account when we next get an opportunity to review how the web filing service is operating."
You told us, "I have just completed the online patent application but could see no means of attaching 2 separate pdf files of drawings having first clicked on single pdf file for description, claims and abstract. My application is therefore missing one page of drawings." We replied, "I am sorry you had difficulty filing your drawings. I may have misunderstood the problem, but the service does not require separate PDF files for each drawing it only requires one separate PDF file for all drawings. I hope that will help you when you next use the service, but if I have misinterpreted the problem do please send me more details. I will arrange for this correspondence to be placed on your patent application file so that the case officers are aware of the fact that the application is missing a page of drawings and can take the appropriate action."
You asked, "Is there any plans to enable firms to send address for service notifications on European Patent Applications electronically. We currently send letters requesting address for service with copies of Decision to Grants." We advised, "Thank you for your e mail about our plans for expanding the e-filing service to cover address for service notifications for European Patents. We do not currently have any plans to expand the coverage of our e-filing services as our IT resources are limited and those we have are required to develop other systems with a higher priority."
You advised, "Rather than having to enter the full details of agents or applicants each time why not retrieve them automatically from the ADP number, similar to the OHIM filing system." We told you, "Thank you for your suggestion about how to improve the patents web filing service. You suggest that, like the OHIM service, the patents service could be changed 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 changes to the way in which the patents web service is designed. Currently, we are not planning to make those changes, but we will take your suggestion into account when we next review the service. If you regularly file patents forms and documents electronically with this office you may wish to consider registering to use our other electronic filing service as it does enable you to store data for re-use etc. Thanks again for taking the time to send us your suggestion, it is much appreciated."
You commented, "I understood that the application had to be a PDF. What I did not pick up from the literature was that the description/claim/abstract was one PDF and the drawings had to be another PDF. I had to recreate these whilst doing the on line application, I would have preferred to have done this in advance." We responded, "I am sorry that you did not pick up that the drawings had to be in a separate PDF file before you started the process. We do advise first time users to read the Online Form 1 Guidance Notes on our web site where we explain that a separate PDF file is required for drawings."
You advised, "I have a suggestion. The application process online was ridiculous. Don't ask people to generate PDFs. Just give them a text box we form to fill in, like I am using now and allow them to upload a jpeg image too. No brainer really. Then you can format it into a document." On 18 August 2010 you replied, "I said you could have a web form (like the one I used to submit this suggestion) for the text component. The user does not then need to have the knowledge of creating PDF files. Then you can allow the user to upload the jpeg image. Anybody who knows how to take a photo on a digital camera can make a jpeg image. In the software programs that you suggest members of the public can use to generate PDF files, such as word processors (eg open office) or online services (like cute PDF), the user cannot control the compression of their image. One consequence of this is that a diagram can degrade in quality. Whereas, if the user were to simply upload a jpeg image, then they can choose the quality of the image when they first create it (for example in free GIMP or Photoshop). Using conventional proprietary formats, such as adobe's PDF, is counter to encouraging innovation. Using open standards (or jut a text field in an html web form) means that members of the public do not have to conform to the inventions of one brand alone, like Adobe. Not everybody has knowledge of word processing and exporting as PDF. Trevor Bayliss, inventor of the wind up radio said: "The key to success is to risk thinking unconventional thoughts. Convention is the enemy of progress. As long as you've got slightly more perception than the average wrapped loaf, you could invent something" Here is a tutorial on how to write the upload section External Link of your website. I'm sure your tech guys and girls can figure it out. If not, there are a wealth of inventive minds out there that can do so. We advised, "I regret that we are unable to accept text documents or JPEG images through the web filing service as our receiving systems are designed specifically to accept and process only PDF documents. We chose this technical solution as PDF files are a widely used document type and because most current word processing software enables you to easily save files as PDF. Alternatively, PDF file conversion software is freely and readily available on the internet." On 19 August 2010 we responded, "Thank you for your further email which I read with interest. I will pass your views on to our technical team so that they can take them into account when we next consider changing our web filing services."
You told us, "The online filing which asked whether there are any applicants who are not inventors did not allow me to respond "NO"." We replied, "Thank you for your e mail about the patents web filing service. You describe a problem you had with Step 5 (Inventorship and derivation of rights). I will try to explain why the service works in this way. At Step 2 in the process you are asked to input applicant details (Person); the details you are asked for include a tick box which should be completed for each applicant if they are also inventors. If that box is not ticked for each applicant, the radio button at Step 5 is automatically set to "Yes" because not all applicants have been confirmed as also being inventors. I think this is what may have happened when you used the service because we have checked the software and it is working as designed. In these circumstances, should you wish to indicate that all applicants are also inventors I am afraid that you will have to go back to Step 2 (using the "Previous" buttons) and tick the appropriate boxes that were not ticked when Step 2 was originally completed. I hope the above clarifies the process and that it will make it easier for you to use the service in future."
You told us, "I originally sought to submit this application electronically, but encountered difficulties with your system - acknowledged by us - so, to expedite progress, sent via post. The attached submission should duplicate the submission. I would propose to carry out further dealings regarding this application via the electronic system and seek your confirmation that this is feasible." We replied, "We explained when we spoke to you, we did have technical problems with our web filing service when you originally tried to file your application, but these have been resolved. I am pleased to hear that you intend to use our electronic services to progress this application and I can confirm that there are no technical reasons why you should not be able to do so. Thank you again for contacting us, I will copy this correspondence to one of the case officers dealing with your application so that it can be kept on file."
You advised that you had received unsolicited mail from IPTD asking for £1200. We advised you to contact Consumer Direct and to disregard the notice.
You telephoned to ask about the citation JP 200419677. You noted that we had specifically drawn attention to paragraph [0030]. You wanted to know how we knew that paragraph [0030] was pertinent and how could you (easily) translate it. We said that online translation was possible (and we emailed you the URL for this document). You said that you thought the translation should be provided by the office. We said that office policy is not to provide such translations (since they may be inaccurate and/or copyright restricted). We said that we could record your comments as customer feedback. This is a case where provision of the URL in the search report may have been useful (since you appear unaware that the online translation tools are publically available). The conversation was very amicable and friendly, and you got the information you needed. We provided you with the URL to the machine translation. In future, we may automatically add these URLs to search reports (which is an optional route now given in MOPP). We agreed that this should be the exception rather than the rule.
You said, "I would like to ask if you could accept Microsoft Word documents online instead of only PDF?" We replied, "I regret that we are unable to accept Word documents through the web filing service as our receiving systems are designed to accept only PDF documents. We chose this technical solution as PDF files are a widely used document type and because most current word processing software enables you to save files as PDF. Alternatively, PDF file conversion software is freely available on the internet."
You required a search in order to assess the value of the invention. You confirmed that the information provided has been useful for your client to decide what to do next. You commented that the results - may be more specific about the relevant chapters in the cited documents as some were very long (up to 350 pages). You confirmed that you use the offices Search and Advisory Service because your client is British and that this is the only search office she uses. You were satisfied with the overall service you had received. These comments have been forwarded onto our lead SAS examiner to confirm if any further action needs to be taken.
You advised, "When I filled in the applicant details, I just used the name of the company and address. Then, on the Summary page, I was warned that I had not filled in the contact first name, surname and telephone number, so I clicked on the links to correct. I then found that the fields for first name and surname had been locked and I could only fill in the telephone/fax fields. Also, it was unclear that I should add a name/surname for the applicant as the form did not indicate that these were for a contact and not the actual name of the applicant (a company, not an individual)." We responded, "Thank you for your e mail about the patent web filing service. Thank you for taking the trouble to describe the issues you have had with service. We have had a number of e mails bringing similar issues to our attention and we are currently working on a fix that will hopefully correct them. We aim to have completed and implemented the fix by the end of this year."
You advised, "Please note that when filing a patent application earlier today it was not possible to fill out the co-ordinates (name, telephone) of the contact person." We replied, "We have investigated the issue you have raised, but we have not found any faults with the service when you were using it. We can only surmise that when completing Step 2 of the process (Adding New Applicants) you may have ticked the box, "to use these details for all correspondence". If that box is ticked it results in most of the contact details boxes (except email address) being 'greyed out' so they cannot be filled in. I hope that helps you when next using the service, but if we have misunderstood the issue you raised please do provide me with more details."
You advised, "The filing form on line service is very poor. Not self explanatory. The fact I have needed to fill in all my details yet again makes the point. Please look at this from the view point of the user. It’s unclear. Guide notes are not clear enough. etc." We confirmed, "I am sorry that you consider it is very poor. Filing patent applications and associated forms and documents is a complicated process and, when the service was designed, it was not considered practical to provide full guidance within the web filing service. Comprehensive guidance on applying for a patent is, however, available on our web site and we advise users to familiarise themselves with this before they start using the electronic filing services. Thank you again for taking the time to send us your views which we will take into account when we next have an opportunity to review the design of the service."
You told us, "I've just applied for my first (real) patent in my own name. My previous invention was done for the company I worked for. When I came to the last screen, the PDF generator to download the forms, sent the data as raw .ASPX (garbage) rather than PDF. This appears to be a bug and while minor it is rather confusing." We responded, "Thank you for your e mail about the patents web filing service. I am sorry you had problems on the last screen generating PDFs. We have investigated the problem you described, but as we have not been able to replicate it and we have not had any similar problems reported by other customers, I am afraid that there is nothing further we can do. However, if you would like to discuss this with one of our technical support staff please contact us."
You advised, "I have just filled in a Form P1 for online filing. It was not made clear at which point the 'next' button would cause the application to be submitted. Also at no point was there an opportunity to review the file, to correct any mistakes, or to print the completed file before submitting." We replied, "Thank you for your e mail about the Patents web filing service. I am sorry that you did not find it clear at which point the "next" button would cause the application to be submitted. I hope you will find the following explanation useful when you next use the service. 1. If a payment is being made, you are taken to step 14 of 14 when, after entering the payment, you have to click a "Submit" button, at which point the application is submitted. 2. If a payment is not being made at the time of filing, step 14 of 14 has a 'Next' button, which when clicked, submits the application. We agree that this may not be as clear as clicking a "Submit" button, so the next time the service is being changed we will consider whether we can re-label this button. Turning to your second point about reviewing the file before it is submitted, we do try to make it clear at Step 13 of 14 of the submission process by displaying the following instructions, irrespective of whether a payment is being made: "Please take this opportunity to check the content of the form(s) and specification document(s) below, then complete the declaration at the bottom of this page and click the "Next" button to proceed to the payment and/or submission pages." At this stage you can click on the F1 PDF icon to view or print the intended submission in order to assure yourself that the application is correct. Thank you again for taking the trouble to send us your feedback about this service."
You informed us a company called World Patent and Trade mark index that you believe are operating a scam that should be stopped. You advised that you were referring the case to the Met Police and said that you would copy your mail to the IPO. We advised you of the measures such as warnings to customers that we had taken. We also explained the difficulties involved, especially where a company is based abroad. We said that we would continue to monitor the issue and update any warnings as necessary.
You complained you had not been advised that you could file your patent application for free. In CEU we have been told not to give this information anymore. The customer had received the patent booklets and we informed him the information is in the booklets about the fees.
You asked, "Can you renew patents on-line?" We replied, "Thank you for your enquiry regarding online patent renewal forms on the Intellectual Property Office website. This form is not currently available as an on-line option. If you file a substantial number of renewals at one time we do have an option to do this electronically but not over the web. I do not believe this will be suitable for your circumstances, however, if you wish to discuss this option please contact us on 01633 814939. The Office is committed to developing an on-line renewals form to enable customers to renew all their Intellectual Property rights electronically. As this project is at concept/design phase I am unable to provide you with a date when it will be introduced."
You advised, "When searching under inventor name and picking one of the items, the template that comes up has, in its upper left corner: "Patent number" This is true even when this is actually a published patent application. It can be extremely misleading, particularly to the non-professional like me. I contacted (erroneously) the EPO. They pointed out to me that in their corresponding web site the problem does not exist, and told me that gb.espacenet.com is maintained by you, referring me to you with the problem." We replied, "Thank you for your e mail about GB esp@cenet. I am sorry that you consider the use of the term "Patent number" on GB esp@cenet can be misleading. As the EPO have said, the problem does not exist on their website, but this is because they have upgraded their version of esp@cenet. We are currently in the process of implementing an upgrade to the GB esp@cenet service which, when complete, will reflect the wording used on the EPO esp@cenet site, ie publication number. Although work on the upgrade has started, it is not currently possible to say when it will be completed as we have other higher priority development work to complete first."
You advised, "Using the on-line service for Patents Form NP1 I was puzzled by the screen statement which followed the opportunity to upload documents (which I did not use), stating that I had uploaded several identified documents none of which had any relevance to my situation." We advised, "We agree that the listing/Headings on the NP1 screen after attaching documents could be confusing. You seemed happy with our explanation that the "documents" he referred to were Headings and we told you that we would raise your "concern" with the business."
You asked if we could use the same method of communicating fraudulent registry requests for fee increases. We advised that this is something that we will take on board and look to implement.
You said, "This is highly sensitive and I don’t want it to be found by the general public. I found it quite easy by searching my name in Google. Please let me know when it is removed." We replied, "I'm afraid it is not possible to remove the entry from the journal. Every application, shortly after it is filed, is recorded on our register and an entry is placed in the Patents Journal. This is a requirement of the patents process. The only details about your application, that are available to the public, are those you have seen; Application Number, Applicant names, Title and Date Lodged. Please be assured that no other details are available. Your application itself and all other bibliographical details are not open to public inspection, which means that the general public cannot access them. Please be advised, there are other stages within the patent process that also result in an entry appearing in the Patents Journal. If the application does not continue and is withdrawn or terminated, an entry is placed in the journal advertising the termination of the application. The entry consists of only the application/publication number. No other details are advertised at this stage. If the application continues through the patent process, as long as you have met the formal requirements, filed form 9A together with the appropriate fees and not asked us to withdraw your application, shortly after 18 months from your filing date (or priority date if there is one), we will publish your application. This is a legal requirement of the patent process. The act of publication gives notice that you are seeking a patent and warns the public of the monopoly sought. Your application details, including your name and address, will appear on our records. They will appear in the publication of your application, once all formal requirements are met. Both our records and the Patents Journal are open to the public on our website, which can be permanently searched using most standard search engines. If you do not want your home address published, please give us a different permanent address or a PO Box number where you can be contacted and where you can receive correspondence."
You "Didn't think the fees for applying for a Patent were clear on the website. You were looking under Patent forms and fees. You said you are an agent and find it confusing, let alone a private applicant." We spoken to you by telephone and noted your specific concerns. We advised that we will take a look at the Patents Forms/Fees page to see if it can be improved, in due course.
You had applied for a RTM online and provided feedback saying "Having to change the file format of the image was clunky. The conversion tool didn't work and the list of acceptable formats appeared to be wrong (I wanted to file a .tif; however this wasn't supported-despite what it said on the screen). It's a small issue, but added a fair bit of time to the application process. Finally, the invoice for both services came through in an odd format. So odd in fact, that I couldn't find the first invoice. Perhaps a word or PDF would work better?" We advised that you should save the converted image and try to upload it again and if there was still a problem to send the original image in so we could investigate further.
You were extremely pleased with the service you had received from the TM Registry, but had a general comment to make about the form TM16. You said, "When completing the TM16, there was a query on the Stamp Duty issue, so you rang the Inland Revenue on the number provided in Note 1 on the 2nd page of the TM16, however, the person they got through to knew nothing about the Stamp Duty issue (or the Registry, by the seems of it) and asked for our telephone number." Having checked the TM16, there is no telephone number for the IPO that they could give to the Inland Revenue. Therefore, you felt it would be a good idea if the IPO telephone number was printed on the TM16 (this could also be relevant for some or all of our forms), not just for the Stamp Duty issue, but for quick and easy reference if someone is having difficulty completing one of our forms. We replied, "Thank you for the feedback re: Form TM16. We are currently reviewing forms in readiness for a new system we hope to put in place. I have forwarded your feedback to the relevant people to be included in the review."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £2000. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
A customer to CEU who called at approximately 10 am was disappointed that he had not been able to get through to Classification and despite two attempts to transfer I couldn't do so. Customer not happy but didn't complain and said he would ring back. As no customer details were taken we were unable to respond to you accordingly.
You advised you had received unsolicited mail. We confirmed, "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 had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct and then referred you to our renewals section.
You reported that your address details were incorrect on our website We responded, "Many thanks for your email regarding the address on your Community Trade mark. The amendment can only be made by the Community Trade Mark Office in Alicante. You can do this online by signing up to "My Page External Link". It is a simple process that will also allow you to manage a number of other functions for your Trade Mark."
You advised you had received unsolicited mail from EIEC. We confirmed, "Thank you for your recent communication regarding the above company. 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. Thank you for raising our awareness to this company. I hope this letter has clarified things further."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1300. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You told us, "We have received notification from one of our clients of another company sending unsolicited mail, this time concerning the renewal of marks. As you can see, they are charging £1280 for the renewal of a UK mark in one class! Could you please put Intellectual Property Agency Limited on your list of scam companies doing the rounds." We responded, "Thank you for your mail about the invoice you have received from Intellectual Property Agency Ltd. We have had a number of customer contacts about this company and forward them to Trading Standards who are the agency that deal with this type of unsolicited approach."
You advised you had received unsolicited mail. We responded by letter, "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 unsolicited mail, 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 IPA requesting £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You advised, "With reference to my telephone conversation. I have received a reminder for our trade mark, due for renewal March 2011, from Intellectual Property Agency Ltd. in London. This company is obviously trying a scam charging £1280.00 for a trade mark costing £200.00, please find attached a copy of the reminder received. Surely this sort of activity should be stopped, please let me know how you view these companies and what is being done to protect your clients?" We replied, "Thank you for taking the time to advise us of this issue. We are aware that a number of companies are sending out Trade Mark/Patent renewal reminders, which are confusing and potentially misleading. The IPO does not have the authority to take direct action, this is why we have been working with Trading Standards and the Advertising Standards Authority to try and prevent the confusion that these invoices can cause. Our hope is that these invoices will have to make it clear that they are in no way official requests and that you are not obliged to pay the fees. You may also want to consider reporting the incident directly to your local branch of Trading Standards, and in addition, to Consumer Direct's specialist Scambuster team External Link. Any invoice from the IPO will always be headed with the official IPO logo. If you are ever unsure about a communication you have received, please check with us before making any payments. I am copying this to my Trade Marks colleague Joanne Trueman. Joanne and the team are taking this issue forward and they would be able to offer up to the minute advice should you need any further information.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA asking for £1280. 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 had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1304.14 and as you had not paid the bill you received a debt recovery letter from Moreton Smith. We replied, "I have received the letters that you sent to our office regarding the Intellectual Property Agency and Moreton Smith. If you don't mind, could you please give me some more information: On the 27 July I sent you a letter in response to a communication from yourself regarding an invoice from European Institute for Economy and Commerce that you paid, advising you to contact your attorney and/or Trading Standards and Consumer Direct. Can you please confirm that you have now also received an invoice from the Intellectual Property Agency? This company generally offers a renewal service, I see from our records that we have sent you two renewal reminders for two of your Trade Marks; does the IPA invoice pertain to either of these? Did you sign the invoice or agree in any way to pay? Would you happen to have a copy of any invoices from IPA? Apologies for so many questions, but I am trying to gather as much evidence as possible." On the 29 September 2010 we further responded, "Thank you for sending the letter to us from Moreton Smith. We are aware of this company and are currently gathering evidence. We are advising customers to contact there solicitors to obtain advice and to also contact their local Trading Standards office. In the meantime, I will keep you informed of any developments."
You said, "Our company has received the attached letter from a company called "Intellectual Property Agency Ltd". We suspect that it is fraudulent. However, we would like you to confirm if that is the case or not." We replied, "I can confirm this is not an official invoice and that you need take no action. If you have a trade mark or marks due for renewal you will receive an official reminder from the Intellectual Property Office. Renewal fees are £200 for a trade mark with 1 class of goods or services and an additional £50 for each additional class. If you have professional trade mark representation you should arrange you renewal through your representative. If not renewal is a very easy process and you can download form TM11 PDF document(26Kb) from our website and send to us along with the correct fee? Unfortunately we do not have an on-line renewal option at this time. The Intellectual Property Office passes all invoices of this nature to Trading Standards who are the agency that deal with this type of unsolicited approach."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA asking for £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and told you to contact Consumer Direct.
You had received unsolicited e-mail from the Asian domain registration service. We replied, "Thank you for your e-mail of the 10 September, I apologise for the slight delay in responding. 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 appears to be a Domain Name registration service that operates to register domain names in China. We think that their primary service is to notify you of their customers’ intention to register domain names which are similar to your Trade Mark, with the intention of 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. I hope this has alleviated your concerns."
You asked, "The current journal used to appear on the Journal page with the previous journals further down and accessible from a table format. Now the current journal shows as 25 June and the recent ones are in the archive section - why?" We replied, "I've checked our web site - unfortunately it appears to be at your end but it is pretty easy to sort out. It sounds like the page is cached and you need to clear it by deleting cookies etc. If you are not sure how to do this our IT Helpdesk will lead you through it if you give them a ring on 01633 813500. If you still have problems and you need access to a specific Journal or Journals let me know and I'll arrange for a CD copy for you."
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC asking for £500. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA. 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 advised, "Attached is an example of a U.K. trade mark renewal reminder recently received by one of our clients from Intellectual Property Agency Ltd. If not actually a scam, £1280 is certainly an extortionate price for renewal of a U.K. trade mark in one class, which no recipient would pay if they were aware that they had a choice. Intellectual Property Agency Ltd must be relying on confusion between their name and yours, and on the form-like nature of the "Reminder" to deceive ill-informed recipients into thinking this is an official demand for the fee. The Terms and Conditions on the back of the reminder are too small and faint to be copied (!) but there is a link to them at the bottom of IPA's website External Link Clause 1(b) in particular is interesting: it gives IPA a unilateral right to alter the Agreement, without notice, after it has been entered into! Would the IPO be able to add a notice about this to your Unsolicited Mail Warning page, and perhaps also on the Renewing Your Trade Mark page? These reminders are being sent out more than 6 months in advance of the renewal date so a warning in your official renewal reminder is likely to be too late. I have notified the City of London Trading Standards of our concern." We replied, "We are aware that a number of companies are sending out Trade Mark/Patent renewal reminders, which are confusing and potentially misleading. 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, the invoices will 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. Thank you for raising our awareness to this company. I hope this e-mail has clarified things further."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA asking for £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1280. We replied, "We are aware that companies and individuals are sending unsolicited mail to applicants for, and owners of, intellectual property rights. We have aimed at raising awareness, for example, through our website, that these companies are not linked to any Government or Community Institution and there is no obligation to pay the fee. We are also looking at other options open to us. 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. However, in view of the position you have outlined, I am afraid that the only suggestion I can make is for you to consider obtaining legal advice in this matter. You may wish to obtain advice from one of the following: The Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys, 5th Floor, Outer Temple, 222-225 Strand, London, WC2R 1BA, tel: 020 7101 6090, e-mail: ITMA The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, 95 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1DT, tel: 020 7405 9450, e-mail: CIPA, Thank you for raising our awareness to this company. I hope this letter has clarified things further."
You received unsolicited mail from EIEC. We wrote a letter to you to confirm what actions you would need to take and that the letter is not from the IPO.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA asking for £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You had received unsolicited mail from GAIA Almanach asking for £1300. We advised you to disregard the notice and referred you to Consumer Direct.
You told us, "You were very concerned that you had received unsolicited mail from two companies seeking payment. The 2 invoices were as follows: - 1) European City Guide (based in Spain). 997 Euros per annum this was received in May 2010. 2) European Institute of Economy & Commerce this was for £479 for the registration of a CTM this was received in 5 November 2010. We explained about unsolicited mail and advised you to read the pages of our website concerning this and explained that you could contact consumer direct. You said you wanted to query the legality of someone downloading/copying images from our website and using this information in their letters/demands etc. You asked was it possible that the images on our website be marked in some way e.g. raised pixels or by words across the image so if someone uses the image from our website The public would know it is copied from an official site etc." We contacted you by telephone to advise accordingly.
You queried some unsolicited mail regarding a domain name. We referred you to the relevant section on our website regarding domain names.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA asking for £500. We advised you to disregard the notice and referred you to Consumer Direct.
Customer received unsolicited mail from CTMFS requesting £434.75. We confirmed that CTMFS are nothing to do with the IPO and referred the customer to the section on our website about unsolicited mail and also advised them that they could contact Consumer Direct about the matter.
You had received and paid some unsolicited mail from IPA. 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 unsolicited mail, 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. 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 email has clarified things further."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA asking for £1300. We advised you to disregard the notice and referred you to Consumer Direct.
Customer received unsolicited mail from European Institute for Economy and Commerce asking them to pay £479.75 for a CTM. We confirmed that EIEC are nothing to do with the IPO and referred the customer to the section on our website about unsolicited mail and also advised them that they could contact Consumer Direct about the matter.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA asking for £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and referred you to Consumer Direct.
Caller received unsolicited mail from EIEC asking for a fee of £479.95 We confirmed that EIEC are nothing to do with the IPO and referred the customer to the section on our website about unsolicited mail and also advised them that they could contact Consumer Direct about the matter.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1200. We referred you to our renewals section to discuss this further.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA asking for £2000. We advised you to disregard the notice and referred you to Consumer Direct.
Caller received unsolicited mail from EIEC re their trade mark We confirmed that EIEC are nothing to do with the IPO and referred the customer to the section on our website about unsolicited mail and also advised them that they could contact Consumer Direct about the matter.
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £400. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA asking for £2000. We advised you to disregard the notice and referred you to Consumer Direct.
Customer received unsolicited mail from EIEC re his trade mark. We confirmed that EIEC are nothing to do with the IPO and referred the customer to the section on our website about unsolicited mail and also advised them that they could contact Consumer Direct about the matter.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and referred you to our renewals section to discuss this further.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA asking for £1100. We advised you that you could pay this fee directly with us and for less and did so. Then you received a letter from IPA advising you would still have to pay their administration fee of £650. We referred you to Consumer Direct and requested you send us the correspondence you have received.
Customer received unsolicited mail from EIEC re their trade mark. We confirmed that EIEC are nothing to do with the IPO and referred the customer to the section on our website about unsolicited mail and also advised them that they could contact Consumer Direct about the matter.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1300. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA asking for £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice, referred you to our renewals section and then to Consumer Direct.
Caller received unsolicited mail from the Intellectual Property Agency re trade mark. We confirmed that IPA are nothing to do with the IPO and referred the customer to the section on our website about unsolicited mail and also advised them that they could contact Consumer Direct about the matter.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and referred you to our renewals section as well as referring you to Consumer Direct.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA asking for £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and referred you to Consumer Direct.
Caller received unsolicited mail from IBIP (International Bureau for Intellectual Property) and CTMFS re Trade Mark. We confirmed that IBIP and CTMFS are nothing to do with the IPO and referred the customer to the section on our website about unsolicited mail and also advised them that they could contact Consumer Direct about the matter.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1400. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA asking for £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and referred you to Consumer Direct.
Caller received unsolicited mail from Intellectual Property Agency re renewal of trade mark. We confirmed that IPA are nothing to do with the IPO and referred the customer to the section on our website about unsolicited mail and also advised them that they could contact Consumer Direct about the matter.
You were, "Complaining the international handling fee is hard to find on our website." We responded, "Thank you for the customer feedback which we received regarding the International handling fee on the website. There is currently a Website project in place to look at all issues, I have forwarded your feedback to the project manager for him to include in the issues log."
Caller received unsolicited mail from the Intellectual Property Agency re renewal of trade mark. We confirmed that IPA are nothing to do with the IPO and referred the customer to the section on our website about unsolicited mail and also advised them that they could contact Consumer Direct about the matter.

You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1300.

We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
Caller received unsolicited mail from the EIEC, IBIP and CTMFS re renewal of trade mark. We confirmed that EIEC, IBIP, CTMFS are nothing to do with the IPO and referred the customer to the section on our website about unsolicited mail and also advised them that they could contact Consumer Direct about the matter.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and referred you to our renewals section to discuss this further.
Customer received unsolicited mail from IPA re their trade mark renewal. We confirmed that IPA are nothing to do with the IPO and referred them to the section on our website about unsolicited mail and also advised them that they could contact Consumer Direct about the matter.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You provided, "Customer feedback for the Electronic Trade Mark Caveat service. There is no facility to view the e-caveats recorded against a customer's username, therefore there is no way to check if you've recorded one or not. It would also help if an automatic email was generated to confirm the successful registration of an e-caveat." We replied to advise, "Thank you for your feedback re: E-Caveats. We are currently in the process of reviewing the website, including the E-services. I have forwarded your feedback to be included in the review."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
Caller received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £479.75 to be placed on their register. Caller believed the request was official and paid it. We responded, "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. Thank you for raising our awareness to this company. I hope this letter has clarified things further."
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You called regarding registering a trade mark. You stated that you wanted to leave feedback re the IPO website being too complicated and you especially found it difficult to find the TM3 on-line form. We contacted you by telephone on 29/07 to advise that your comments will be looked at as part of the web review project.
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC requesting £400. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You "Didn't understand how to pay the rest of the fees for a right start application. When we directed you to the TM3S you complained the first page did not prompt him to carry on to the form." We were unable to respond back to you as you did not leave contact details but we have passed this onto the relevant team to investigate further.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You advised, "Received unsolicited mail from IP Agency, Broadgate Tower, 20 Primrose Street, London £1,280-00 to renew 1 Trade Mark. This request was received by you on 14 July 2010. You rang them to see their terms and conditions which they gave and then you became suspicious." We advised, "There is a link on our website relating to this and we also advised you to notify Consumer Direct." We checked the correct renewal fees for the Trade Marks and the due dates for payment for you and told you how to pay. You advised you will e-mail details of the invoice received for our records and information.
You had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting £1200. We advised you to disregard the notice and to contact Consumer Direct.
You received unofficial renewal notice requesting £1,200 for up to 3 classes. We advised you to simply disregard the notice.
You had received unsolicited mail from EIEC. We responded, "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. Thank you for raising our awareness to this company. I hope this letter has clarified things further."
You advised of a broken link on our website in relation to Trade Marks Essential Reading. We fixed the link as required.
You advised you had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting more than £1200 for the renewal of your Trade Mark. We advised you to contact Consumer Direct and re-directed you to our renewals team.
You advised you had received unsolicited mail from IPA requesting more than £1200 for the renewal of your Trade Mark. We advised you to contact Consumer Direct and re-directed you to our renewals team.
You advised you had received unsolicited mail from EIEC asking you to be on a register at a cost of £500. We advised you to contact Consumer Direct.