Home » Posts tagged 'UKIPO'
Tag Archives: UKIPO
For any avid readers of the IPcopy (hi mum), you will have noticed that the subject of misleading invoices rears its ugly head on a regular basis. To summarise, if you are the owner of an intellectual property (IP) right then you may from time-to-time receive communications that resemble official looking invoices for IP services. Such misleading invoices are sent directly to the IP owner and are designed such that they give the impression to the IP owner that they have to either use the service offered or pay the amount listed, often at inflated rates.
In a positive development in the fight against companies imitating official Intellectual Property Offices, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has succeeded in bringing legal proceedings against Mr Aleksandrs Radcuks (trading as ‘Patent and Trade Mark Office’) and Mr Igors Villers (trading as Patent and Trade Mark Organisation), who admitted and settled the UKIPO’s claims of passing off. (more…)
Following on from our recent blog item detailing the changes in dealing with colour marks at the UK IPO and OHIM, we would like to now consider how these decisions will affect our filing practice in respect of new trade mark applications.
Previously, it was common practice to file for a trade mark in black and white, or grey scale, in order to obtain the broadest protection possible. It was accepted that a mark registered in black and white would allow the proprietor to use the mark in colour and maintain protection. Essentially, it allowed for one application to be filed in black and white, instead of numerous applications for various colour combinations. (more…)
A couple of weeks ago, on 13 November, CIPA held a webinar (“The UPC is calling You”) on the application process for unified patent court judges. The closing date for expressions of interest for UPC judges was 15th November 2013 and according to the Unified Patent Court website there has been an overwhelming response to the call for expression of interest of candidate judges. Not bad for a job where the salary, benefits, exact training schedule etc are not yet known!
As reported here on 22 April, the UKIPO opened a consultation on a new accelerated prosecution service dubbed “superfast”. The intention of this service was to offer a premium accelerated prosecution service in addition to the free acceleration services currently available, which can already bring the time taken to obtain a UK patent to less than a year.
The Government has now publised their response to the consultation which can be found here. Not unsurprisingly, a number of concerns were raised and the Government has decided not to go ahead with the proposal.
Back at the beginning of May we looked at a consultation that was running at the UKIPO which sought the views of users and potential users of the UK national trade mark registration system about the introduction of a lower cost “fast track” opposition based on earlier registered or pending marks (see original post here). The consultation closed on 17 May 2013 and the Government’s response was released recently. In this post we take a quick look at the consultation again and the Government’s response.
Four years on from the launch of the lean, mean, Green Channel patent machine, will this process for accelerating UK patent prosecution still have any worth should the new Superfast patent processing service be launched?
In a recent post we looked at a consultation from the UKIPO which was proposing superfast patent processing. That’s not the only consultation that is running at the UKIPO and there is a further one entitled “Fast Track Opposition Procedure. Trade Mark Tribunal”. This consultation is running until 17 May 2013 and seeks the views of users and potential users of the UK national registration system about the introduction of a lower cost “fast track” opposition based on earlier registered or pending marks.
As noted in the consultation a fast track opposition process may differ from the existing procedures in a number of ways, namely:
- Lower opposition fee
- Grounds limited to s.5(1)/5(2)
- Limit to the number of earlier marks that can be relied upon
- If over 5 years old, proof of use to be filed with the notice of opposition using a pro-forma statement with exhibits
- Leave required for either party to file any further evidence
- Decisions normally from the papers
- Introduction of refundable appeal fee large enough to discourage frivolous appeals
The full reasoning behind the above proposals can be found in the consultation document but a few issues with the proposals, as highlighted by our trade mark team, are noted below:
The UKIPO has opened consultation on a new accelerated prosecution service dubbed “superfast”. The intention appears to be to offer this premium service in addition to free acceleration services currently available, which can already bring the time taken to obtain a UK patent to less than a year.
The newly be-logoed UK Intellectual Property Office has recently released a Discussion Paper on the possibility of introducing an Appointed Person for Patents at the IPO (I promised ipcopymark I wouldn’t mention that on an initial glance he read this as an Anointed Person for Patents…so you didn’t hear it from me…), and has invited comments from one and all.
Presently, the route of appeal from any decision of the IPO on patents is generally to the Patents Court (part of the High Court, or to the Court of Session in Scotland). If an Appointed Person for Patents is indeed Anointed, this would provide a new low-cost route of Appeal for patent decisions issued by the IPO. The decision of the Appointed Person would be final, and no further appeal to the High Court would be possible. (more…)
Following concerns that the strict patent infringement tests applied by the Courts in the UK are driving lucrative clinical trials overseas, the UK government has now concluded a review of the statute that would allow for a broader ‘Bolar’ exemption to enter UK law.