Home » Posts tagged 'UKIPO'
Tag Archives: UKIPO
The UK Intellectual Property Office has issued a consultation calling for views on “maximising the incentives of the Intellectual Property system to stimulate collaborative innovation and licensing opportunities”. The consultation, “Industrial Strategy: Intellectual Property Call for Views [PDF]” closes on 15 November 2017.
The consultation forms part of the government’s plans for an “ambitious new industrial strategy” and asks the question what can the government do to encourage innovators to do more collaboration and commercialisation and to stimulate knowledge exchange and follow-on innovation. (more…)
The UKIPO is currently running a consultation on proposed changes to patent fees. The fee structure is being reviewed as the Government has made a manifesto commitment to make the UK the best place in Europe to patent new ideas [IPcopy note – this consultation was opened a few days prior to the Prime Minister calling the General Election]. To support this, the IPO is investing in electronic services and increased examination capacity and therefore is considering an increase to their fees. (more…)
The UK design sector is extremely important to the UK with the Design Council’s Design Report of 2015 suggesting that the UK’s design economy generated over £70 billion in gross value added (GVA). The ability to protect intellectual property is vital and for the design sector the registered design right is a crucial available means of protection.
The recent Trunki decision at the UK Supreme Court made headlines recently with some designers fearing that the decision would cause uncertainty within the design industry (see, for example, “this decision will create chaos and confusion”; the “blow to Britain’s design community”; and, “this plunges design law into an abyss”). (more…)
The UKIPO has released a consultation on proposed changes to the Patents Rules. The deadline for making comments is 22 April 2016 (at 11:45pm). Eleven different changes are proposed which range from the helpful (providing a notice of intention to grant) to the nerdier end (removing the need to paper forms in triplicate) of the spectrum.
A summary of the various changes is provided below. The proposed changes are geared towards simplifying aspects of the patents legislation and should reduce the burdens on businesses and the IPO. (more…)
The UKIPO is currently running a consultation that proposes changes in registered design fees. According to the consultation page on the UK Gov website the consultation arises from the development of a new digital design service for design customers. The new design service is expected to streamline the registration and renewal process with an associated reduction in operation costs. The government needs (wants?) to pass on these cost savings to the customer, hence the consultation. The proposed changes would significantly reduce application and renewal fees for UK registered designs. (more…)
We are delighted to report that there has been some good news in the fight against companies/individuals issuing misleading invoices which appear to be from the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) (previous IPcopy articles can be found here).
In this regard, a company trading as Intellectual Property Agency Ltd (IPA) and its director Mr Harri Mattias Jonasson were found liable for trade mark infringement and passing off and ordered to pay £500,000 plus legal costs to the UK IPO. (more…)
The following article is a review of case O/135/15 at the UKIPO.
Keystone IEA Limited (the Opponent) opposed Keystone Wealth Management Limited’s (the Applicant) Trade Mark Application No. 2655215 for “mortgage & protection advice, financial services” in Class 36 on the basis of Section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (similar to an earlier mark for identical/similar services, resulting in a likelihood of confusion). The Opponent relied upon its Trade Mark Registration No. 2641172 covering “estate agents” in Class 36.
The Applicant responded stating that the services were sufficiently distinguishable, meaning there was no likelihood of confusion.
No further submissions were filed and a decision was made on the papers. (more…)
Excitement around 3D printing waned somewhat in 2014 from its meteoric rise in late 2013. Nonetheless, lawmakers and policymakers have been keeping an eye on this disruptive technology, leading to a UK Intellectual Property Office-commissioned report entitled A Legal and Empirical Study into the Intellectual Property Implications of 3D Printing, for which the executive summary was recently published.
The report is actually a wrapper for two separate studies. These were jointly carried out by the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM) at Bournemouth University and Econolyst Ltd, a consultancy specialising in 3D printing.
The first study comprised an analysis of how copyright law may be may be affected by the emergence of 3D scanning, and the creation and modification of digital design files. Additionally, it reviewed file-sharing websites including MakerBot’s Thingiverse, Autodesk’s 123D and GrabCad which are dedicated to computer-aided design (CAD) to provide a view on the types of print products available, their price, popularity and usage licences.
Have you ever had a client go a little bit “Maverick and Goose” and scream “I feel the need…..the need for speed!”?
No, me neither, but sometimes a client does want to know what can be done to speed up the often painfully slow prosecution process and secure a patent grant (or at least decision) as soon as possible.
The UKIPO offers three options for speeding up prosecution of a patent application: combined search and examination (CSER); accelerated search and/or examination; and, early publication. While CSER and early publication are available on request, justification needs to be given to get accelerated search and/or examination. One reason may be that you believe there is an infringement occurring and you need an early grant to enable action to be taken.
An alternative route to requesting accelerated search and/or examination however is via the Green Channel which allows applicants to request accelerated prosecution if their invention has some kind of environmental benefit. But, how popular is this option? (more…)