New EU trademark regulations - some practicalities

23 March 2016 will see some fundamental changes to trademarks in the European Union.

Gone will be Community Trade Marks to be replaced with European Union trade marks.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) will become the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

The new names are clearer but what else may change that trademark owners and representatives should note? Scroll down to the bottom if you don't have time to read all this.

New fee structure

Official fees will change. It's generally good news.

The initial filing fee will be reduced by €50 to €850. However, rather than getting "three classes for the price of one" as with the current fees, the new initial filing fee covers one class only. Trademark cluttering is considered a concern in the EU and this is a step towards discouraging it.

If you need to cover two classes then the additional class fee for the second class is €50 so for such applications there will be no fee differences under the new and old systems.

For the third class upwards, the fee will be €150 per class. It is for these multi-class applications where it will get more expensive.

If you do have a three class or more application to file then you may want to consider filing it before 23 March.

Conversely, if you have a one class application, you could consider holding off filing until 23 March or after. It is not normally recommended to delay filings and the official fee saving is fairly small but could be taken advantage of if you have a priority filing.

Renewal fees will come down significantly with the basic fee dropping from €1350 to €850. The Office will apply the fee due at the time of renewal though to avoid "tactical" timing of renewals. If you've already paid future renewals using the old fees, don't worry, you'll be reimbursed. If you've done these renewals through a third party then you may need to 'nudge' them so money returned to them can make its way to you!

There will be some small fee decreases for the likes of oppositions and revocations in due course too. N.B. Application and renewal fees presume filings are made online.

Misleading invoices

The Office does not send invoices out . However, their name change may see an upsurge in activity from scammers. A cursory check of the UK Company Registers does not show any newly incorporated companies containing "EU Intellectual Property", but such entities may be being set up in other countries.

It is important that trademark owners and representatives remain vigilant.

In terms of payments to the Office, we can anticipate a need to update the beneficiary name details for the Office for when payments are made to them by bank transfer for payment of fees or to top up current accounts.

New website

We can imagine that there will be a new website address - and euipo.europa.eu currently redirects to the current OHIM website at oami.europa.eu.

I imagine a redirection in the other direction will be put in place on or after 23 March, but users may wish to update their favourites accordingly.

Many will recall the problems faced in late 2013 and early 2014 with the Office's revamped website. Let's hope these are not faced again or you may see IP practitioners take to social media in less than jovial moods.

Speaking of which, watch out in case the Office adopts new social media handles.

If the website does go down for whatever reason then TMview should remain available for trademark searches. Be wary though that if there are problems with the Office's website that TMview may not be able to access the EU database and search results may be missing EU applications or registrations.

Old specifications for class headings

The IP TRANSLATOR case changed a previous interpretation at the Office that registrations for class headings covered the entire class and specifications were not to be interpreted literally.

Trademark owners of registrations filed before 22 June 2012 that covered class headings (and therefore thought they were getting entire class protection) can now file Declarations stating the protection they require.

• The deadline is 24 September 2016
• The goods and/or services, other than those clearly covered by the literal meaning of a class heading, must be indicated in a "clear, precise and specific manner"
• Such goods and/or services indicated must have been in the same International Class in force at the time of the application and contained in the alphabetical list for that class

If the deadline is not acted upon then any specifications for class headings will be interpreted literally (the means what it says approach).

EEA representation

Trademark owners and representatives from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, which together with the EU member states make up the European Economic Area, will be able to act directly before the Office.

Applicants from these three nations would have often covered the EU through an International Registration but may now choose to file directly.

International Registrations

A practical disadvantage to designating the EU in an International Registration was the time it took to obtain protection as there is a more long-winded publication process.

This will now be shortened by five months, but if you take into account processing times at the Office of origin and WIPO, it is still quicker to file directly, even more so if your application can fulfil the Fast Track conditions.

At this time, there has been no word of a change in Individual fees for designating the European Union in an International Registration. I imagine it's only a matter of time before they are aligned with the new regular official fees.

There will be further changes in October 2017, but the key changes you may wish to look into now or very shortly are:

1. Update records and database with the new name e.g. change Community Trade Mark to European Union trade mark.
2. Update schedules of charges to show any new official fees and any pre-populated template documents containing the current fees.
3. If you have any three classes or more applications to file then get them on file soon, if possible.
4. For any one class applications, particularly where you have the security of a priority claim, you could hold off filing until after 23 March.
5. Be as alert as ever to misleading invoices.
6. Get ready to update beneficiary name details for making bank transfers to the Office.
7. Bookmark a new website address.
8. Review pre-22 June 2012 registrations for any that contain class headings and begin preparations to clarify the protection.
9. Docket the deadline of 24 September 2016 for such cases.

Misleading invoices - a small win for the UK Intellectual Property Office

The UK Intellectual Property Office was pleased to announce this week, "IP scammers face record financial liability".

Those involved in the business of maintaining intellectual property rights will be familiar with the unsolicited letters that are sent to proprietors with exorbitant fees for maintaining these rights, or for putting these rights into a "directory". Furthermore, many of these requests look like they come from official Intellectual Property Offices, at least to many IP owners who are not familiar with dealing with Intellectual Property Offices on a regular basis.

Various Offices around the world have made it an important task to educate their customers about these organisations, for example, see the warnings from the UK, OHIM, the USA, Norway and New Zealand, and also some examples of the actual letters from WIPO.

The judgement handed down by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (and found here) orders the defendant, Intellectual Property Agency Limited and its sole director, Harri Mattias Jonasson, to pay £500,000. This is maximum this court can impose.

Bearing in mind the defendants made a profit of over £1.1 million, this is really only a small win for the Intellectual Property Office, and probably an even smaller one for those that have been duped into paying such inflated fees.

There is a lack of sympathy in some quarters for IP owners who go ahead and pay "silly" money. This is a little unfair in my view. These legal steps, added to continued awareness by Intellectual Property Offices and IP professionals alike, will hopefully go some way to making these businesses less lucrative.

However, it's flabbergasting that a firm can make such significant profits on the basis of UK rights alone, and I dread to think how much money this "industry" makes worldwide.

My own firm is very reasonably priced when it comes to UK and worldwide renewals. Perhaps we are missing trick (I say in jest). Those that have been duped, or could be in the future, will be pleased to know there are many firms out there who will provide a service tantamount to its value and who can also act as a barrier to the scammers.

Fast track examination of trade marks - UK

The UK Intellectual Property Office is seeking views on whether there is a need to reintroduce the fast track examination procedure (perhaps - or perhaps not - inspired by the bobsleigh, luge and skeleton in Sochi).

With examination of UK trade mark applications usually taking less than a month, many will ask, "What would be the point?". I feel they would be justified in making such comments.

I can think of a number of things the IPO could improve on (better electronic communications, on-line applications for International applications, etc.) that I feel should be greater priority. Needless to say, these are personal thoughts and may not be shared among other users of the IPO.

I have nonetheless filed submissions to the consultation. If you would also like to respond then you have until 15 April 2014 and make sure it's by 11.45pm (British time).

My response is self-explanatory and repeated below:

I am responding to your consultation regarding the 'Fast Track Examination of Trade Marks'.

It is appreciated that there are circumstances when more speedy (than 'standard') registration is preferable, for example, businesses needing shorter timescales for product launch, legal proceedings, etc.

I believe applicants would be prepared to pay a premium to obtain quicker registration times. The amount proposed is not much in the scale of things if an applicant finds themselves in a scenario where speedier registration is required.

However, Fast Track examination is not cutting significant time from the time from filing to registration because of, notably, the two-month opposition period. Obviously, this is not a period of time that can be moved (without a notable legislative change).

Clearly, Fast Track examination does not guarantee acceptance and does not ensure oppositions will not be filed. In the event of objections or oppositions, these would likely mean a Fast Track application would take longer than a smooth standard application.

With examination periods for standard applications (and also 'Right Start' applications, it can be added) of 20 days or less, how much time would a Fast Track application shave off the whole process?

I would not envisage an uptake of a new Fast Track examination procedure in any greater numbers than from when the scheme ran between 2008-2009.

I make some suggestions to your proposals that may see a greater uptake of Fast Track applications and ensure it provides greater value for money:

1. Applications must be made on-line.

2. Examination by the end of the next working day

This would really put the "Fast" into Fast Track. If necessary, take Examiners from standard applications to fulfil significant demand for Fast Track on a given day.

A "Money Back Guarantee" or compensation scheme should be available when this is not fulfilled.

2. Mandate the use of accepted TMclass terms

This will help enable examination to be completed within the timescale above.

3. Auto-notification of prior rights

Searches can still be performed but, where no other issues have arisen and the application is otherwise accepted, the application should proceed proactively to advertisement. Owners of prior rights, as applicable (e.g. owners of UK marks but not Community Trade Marks), can be notified automatically.

If necessary, put in place a 'Warning Box' to applicants advising them of this if they choose the Fast Track option.

4. Daily publication of the Trade Marks Journal

Under the current suggestion, an application could be made on a Friday, examined and accepted by the following Friday and then still take another week until advertisement in the Trade Marks Journal. That is not fast tracking, in my view.

A daily publication would help ensure a process is truly Fast Track. If necessary, Monday-Thursday Trade Marks Journals only need contain Fast Track applications and the regular Trade Marks Journal can be continued on Fridays only.

5. Registration issued quickly - online notification

The period from the end of an opposition period to actual registration should be improved under Fast Track.

Currently, an application published on 6 December 2013 - therefore with an opposition period running until 6 February 2014 - is scheduled for registration on 21 February 2014. This is over two weeks following the expiration of the opposition period.

For Fast Track applications at least, registration should be completed within, say, two days of the expiration of the opposition period (or other reasonable time required for the Office to process oppositions). Fast Track applicants could also be sent online notification of registration pending receipt of the physical Certificate of Registration. You could also consider sending Fast Track applicants their Certificates of Registration by guaranteed next day post (UK applicants/representatives only).

In conclusion of the above, I think it is misguided to only look at the examination aspect of a Fast Track process. Fast Track publication and Fast Track notification of registration need to be put in place too. The current resources and operations of the Intellectual Property Office may not be geared up to manage this, and making changes to accommodate Fast Track may only be justified if there is significant take-up of Fast Track examinations. Amendments to the Trade Mark Rules may also need to be made which is an added burden.

I would stress that even with the adoption of the above suggestions that, due to the opposition period and the current examination period for standard applications, that the time shaved off in a Fast Track application is still going to be fairly negligible overall, perhaps at best one month. I could anticipate that the uptake of the Fast Track process will not be significant. However, it is appreciated that the Intellectual Property Office are committed to providing a high quality service and its introduction could be useful to applicants that find themselves needing registration more quickly.

It is felt that a standard examination period of under one month is perfectly acceptable in standard cases and matches or beats the performance of most of your counterparts in Europe and the Rest of the World.

Comparing to some other countries with expedited/accelerated examination, Australia does not make additional charges for expedited examination. However, applicants must submit a witnessed declaration detailing the reasons for the request. I feel, if there is going to be a Fast Track option available, that a fee-paying Fast Track approach is better, one where the applicant justifies use of this route and not an Intellectual Property Office.

Switzerland charges 400 CHF extra for expedited examination, cheaper than the 550 CHF basic fee. The Benelux charges €193 extra for fast registration (for 1-3 three classes), again cheaper than the €240 basic fee. Although I feel the £300 proposed additional fee for Fast Track is fare, you may find it useful to benchmark with fellow Intellectual Property Offices, particularly in Europe, also to get a wider picture of uptake and perceived value, as it may paint a similar picture to what could happen for the UK.

I hope these comments are useful.

Certified Copies

I admit that this might not be the most interesting or high brow of topics. However, it might help provide some useful information.

I've had the need to order some Certified Copies recently to support a priority claim in one instance, and to substantiate applications based on United Kingdom registrations. I was wondering how quickly other jurisdictions were able to issue these documents (and how expensive they are).

A Certified Copy ordered through OHIM on 27 November took a month to be received. To be fair, the document was sealed by OHIM on 18 December and it got caught in the Christmas mail backlog although I believe "three-to-four weeks" would be typical for OHIM to issue Certified Copies. Such documents cost €30 each in Official fees.

Certified Copies ordered through the UK IPO on 23 December were issued in early January. UK Certified Copies cost £20 each in Official fees for trade marks (£22 each for designs). I believe "one-to-two weeks" would be the typical time period for the UK IPO to issue Certified Copies. In my case, the original documents went astray in the post - a service which doesn't have 100% reliability and, from time-to-time, may need factoring in - and, therefore, it ended up being more than two weeks when my replacements arrived.

In Switzerland, Certified Copies can be ordered by e-mail at no charge and are issued in about a week. However, I believe the length of time for WIPO to issue a Certified Copy (Extract) is a lot longer. In fairness, I should mention that I have not ordered such a document from WIPO for some time (obviously they cannot be used as priority documents) but WIPO suffers from some delays in their other Madrid Protocol operations. The costs involved in obtaining a Certified Extract from WIPO are variable as the link shows.

It's been a longer time since I've ordered a US Certified Copy direct from the USPTO. Usefully, they now have an on-line ordering service. A Certified Copy to serve as a priority document would cost $15 in Official fees making them cheaper than both OHIM and the UK IPO.

If readers would like to share knowledge of their jurisdictions timelines and costs for obtaining Certified Copies then perhaps this would be of use to other readers. Particularly if they have a priority claim to substantiate and are wondering when their client is likely to be able to provide this document to them.

The good news is that many countries no longer require Certified Copies to support priority claims. They will typically say that it is at an Examiner's discretion to request a priority document though.

One of the benefits of the International system is that priority claims can be made without substantiation (i.e. needing to provide a Certified Copy or other proof).

Other Offices will take the view that if they can check the on-line Register of the priority claim country then they'll do this pro-actively to verify the priority claim. OHIM's new on-line filing tool is designed so this 'link' can be made by the applicant in the application.

OHIM also provide for the self-downloading of CTM Certified Copies from the on-line record of a specific case. A third party, such as a foreign Trade Marks Office, can then verify the authenticity of the document through OHIM's website by entering an 'Identification code'. I have learned recently that the Trade Marks Office in Saudi Arabia, a country where formalities are known to be complicated, accepts these documents from OHIM to support priority claims.

Needless to say, bureaucracy is still rife in some countries and original physical documents will be required. When they require legalisation this creates another headache. OHIM provide a useful service where they will undertake the legalisation up to the European Commission Representation (for this purpose this is the equivalent of a Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Nevertheless, if such a document (i.e. originating from OHIM) requires consular legalisation then this will need to be done in Spain. If you're not in Spain then you will likely want to get an agent in Madrid to assist. Dealing with foreign Consulates is not always an easy task even when you're based in the same country, let alone when you're not.

When making priority claims or applications requiring Certified Copies, it is sensible to be prepared for the hassle and costs that can be involved.

UPDATE: In Jordan, it takes 2-3 days for a Certified Copy to be issued.

Holiday season

August is Europe's traditional holiday season and is reflected with blogs where news to blog about dries up somewhat. Aside from some short jaunts to Germany, Switzerland, Yorkshire and God's own county of Hertfordshire, I have not been on a proper holiday (sun, sea and sangria-style).

I appreciate this is a bit of a 'filler' but I decided to check if any of our IP Offices around the world made a planned shut down. It would appear not.

Unsurprisingly, employees at the USPTO are only granted leave for Federal holidays, which for 2014 will look like this. This has been this way since the mid-late 1980s.

In the UK, where we complain about our lack of public holidays compared to our European cousins, the UK IPO is closed on one day less than the USPTO. Of course, staff will receive more annual leave than their American counterparts and our public sector is known for being generous with this.

In Geneva, home of WIPO, their public holidays are more extensive including many typical European and Christian holidays as well as the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha and a purely local Geneva holiday.

There is an established Public Holiday Law in Japan which the Japan Patent Office follows. I was also interested to learn of Japan's 'Happy Monday System' whereby some holidays have been moved to a Monday to create a longer weekend. We have something similar in the UK, albeit without such a cool name, whereas in continental Europe if a holiday falls on a weekend it's tough, it won't be rolled over to the following Monday.

It will come as little shock to many that OHIM closes for the longest period of time - 18 days, with seven of these coming at Christmas and New Year. Being in Alicante on Spain's Costa Blanca, the weather isn't too bad either. For jobs at OHIM go here!

I hope readers of this blog enjoyed their holiday season. I hope I have more substantial things to blog about in the coming months.

'Fast track' opposition procedure

The UK is planning on introducing a 'fast track' opposition procedure for trade marks.

It is designed specifically with SMEs in mind and is evidence of the UK IPO's proactive efforts to help these businesses. Their outreach programme sees them regularly at business conferences and seminars as speakers and/or exhibitors. They are also approachable (with restrictions on the advice they can give) when it comes to "DIY" applicants and a large number of UK trade mark applications are self-filed.

SMEs tend to like (in all areas of their business) - and I speak from my own experiences as a business owner here - fixed indications of costs as much as possible. I believe most can handle a scale, e.g. from £x to £y. Transparency of costs is important to them. The IPO identified that the current opposition process can be unwieldy with uncertain cost outcomes and less than predictable timelines. The 'fast track' procedure will be designed to bring more certainty to the table.

OHIM (and WIPO) also have sections for SME's (here and here), but perhaps a more extensive role in engaging with SMEs will/should/must fall more within the duties of national IPOs. It is possible to envisage a future where national applications are predominantly filed by local SMEs/start-ups with the Community Trade Mark being the preferred vehicle for larger businesses; the ONEL case may also have a bearing on this. Of course, trade mark needs are determined by the nature of the products, services and markets so this is a bit of a simplistic view meant as food for thought. Larger companies will continue to use national routes when there is a purely local trade mark need or to form a less risky basis to a Madrid application, as examples, and SMEs will have reasons for filing Community Trade Marks as they do for filing in other foreign jurisdictions.

Trade Mark Watching

A challenge faced by some SMEs - particularly those that represent themselves but includes others that show reluctance to spend the additional money - is with trade mark watching. Many of these SMEs will not have set up a watching service. Owners of UK national trade marks will receive notifications from the IPO when they search subsequent applications. These may not be as extensive as a commercial watching service, but it should catch identical and near identical marks. With an SME on a limited budget in mind, it's free. Trade mark professionals can argue that the IPO's notifications are not sufficient, but the free aspect can represent value to many SMEs and we tend to have different personal definitions of "value".

What this does overlook though is Community Trade Marks. An owner of a UK national registration - or any other national registration in an EU member state (including Ireland, Sweden and those others still with relative grounds examination) - will not get notified of any Community Trade Marks even if for an identical mark with identical goods or services. If they have no watching service set up how will they find out about such a mark? If you've ever tried downloading the CTM Bulletin, published on-line every working day, then you'll know that conducting your own checks is not particularly realistic. Identical searches can be conducted periodically but you would have to remember to do them.

Nevertheless, OHIM do conduct searches - much like the UK IPO - of their own Community Trade Mark Register only and they too send notifications to the owners of these earlier marks. I understand they are looking to abolish these (this is perhaps evidence of this), but arguably it could be better to extend them. How?

Extend them by allowing owners of national registrations to notify OHIM of their rights. There could be a mechanism within TMView for doing this (so sorry owners of Greek national registrations until your country is on board you'd be ruled out). It would not need to cost anything as it would all be done on-line. It would be just as easy for OHIM to do their checks through TMView (which I imagine could easily be specially adapted for this purpose) as it is to do them on just their own Register.

Representatives could add their clients marks to this system pro-actively, particularly when they have been unable to convince a client of the merits of a watching service. This may then still give them access to avenues of possible opposition work.

OHIM may consider this as a way of helping SMEs, start-ups and those with cost constraints. It is not something national Offices can set up so while they may take the lead in meeting and educating many SMEs in their respective countries, this sort of initiative would need to be led by OHIM.

I do not believe the searches conducted are as comprehensive as a trade mark watch performed by commercial companies and I am not suggesting they are an alternative to having a proper watch in place. However, aside from cost pressures for SMEs, IPOs are not in a position to refer trade mark owners to specialist watching companies and SMEs may be reluctant to go to companies they do not know.

I should mention that the Danish Patent and Trademark Office provides a trade mark watching service as do their Swedish counterparts (neither of which are particularly cheap, I may add) but most offices do not; the UK Office has moved away from providing non-statutory, commercial services.

In conclusion, improvements to processes that make them quicker should be welcomed (when quality does not go down), but with national and Community Trade Marks working in parallel more could be done to ensure awareness if not alignment. It could be in the remit of the Convergence programme and Cooperation Fund to undertake some work in this area. National offices should bring such agenda items to the table. It's all well and good that SME owners of UK registrations can cost-effectively and quickly oppose conflicting UK applications but helping them ensure conflicting Community Trade Mark applications do not escape their radars is something that could be better addressed by the authorities.

A look back at 2012

OHIM has recently declared "a year of achievement".

The Cooperation Fund which uses the vast surplus built up by OHIM to improve systems and processes in trade marks across the EU has been well utilised.

TMView has been an extraordinary success. When I first blogged in December 2011, just 14 out of 27 Registers were available on TMView. Now 25 out of 27 are available including the major EU Registers.

Cyprus and Greece are the only countries not on board yet and they may not be joining up any time soon. My Cypriot associate has a more accurate reflection of the local Register on its own database than the local Office does, and Greece's well documented economic woes may mean it considers bringing its Trade Marks Register on board to be a low priority but the Cooperation Fund could help here.

Croatia should join the EU in July 2013. Its Register is already available on-line and I can anticipate that it should not be too much trouble in adding it to TMView's capabilities.

With full clearance searches in the EU costing a small fortune and therefore often being impractical, TMView is a very useful tool in conducting preliminary searches for trade mark proprietors with costs constraints on them. It is also challenging the commercial search companies to become more innovative in their search solutions; if you're going to pay for something then it needs to offer more than what you can get for free elsewhere.

Further international cooperation has been announced by OHIM and WIPO to link TMView with WIPO's Global Brand Database. The latter is very much more "work-in-progress" in that it currently contains only International Registers and those from Canada, Algeria and Morocco. Nevertheless, it is going to be a welcome link. In particular, US trade mark proprietors may like the ability to conduct initial screening for two key markets, Canada and the EU, through the same (free to use) platform.

Moving on to the EuroClass tool, which has also been praised by me in the past. While only one additional country has reached the final goal of harmonisation with OHIM, the EuroClass project now has all EU members on board with the exception of Latvia. WIPO is also on board, as is the USPTO and the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property. They have now been joined by the Japan Patent Office. Japan can represent a mysterious Far Eastern jurisdiction at times but now we have available to us all acceptable terms to enable us to draft specifications for filing in Japan (either nationally or through the Madrid Protocol).

Croatia is also on board with EuroClass in good time for its accession to the EU in mid-2013.

The IP Translator decision also made a significant impact on specifications in the EU.

OHIM's Seniority Tool is also making progress. Back in May when I first blogged on this project, it seemed to be making a slow start. However, if I go back to one of my examples from then, namely Irish Registration No. 94544 - which was not showing any seniority information at the time - we now see that seniority is reflected in its 'Status' and in a separate 'Seniority' field which links to the relevant Community Trade Mark record.

OHIM are also in a mood to celebrate 10 years of the Registered Community Design during 2013.

There has also been a lot going on down in Geneva this year at WIPO. Early in the year they introduced their 'Highlights' newsletter to better publicise themselves. This launched a number of new online services including Madrid Portfolio Manager. These should continue to improve users dealings with WIPO and to make WIPO more efficient too.

The Madrid Protocol has seen some notable increases in its membership during 2012 with the Philippines,  Colombia and New Zealand all coming on board with Mexico joining them in February. Who will accede to the Madrid Protocol in 2013? Will it see the waiting game with India come to an end? We may see one or more of the large ASEAN economies - Indonesia, Malaysia and/or Thailand - join up.

As for the Hague Union for designs, progress has been slower. Tajikistan and Tunisia became available during 2012. South Korea is expected to join up and the United States is getting closer. These will be significant countries to accede to Hague.

2012 has been a good year in the administration of IP rights, particularly trade marks. It is not just big players like OHIM and WIPO that are showing innovation and improvements. Closer to (my) home and the UK Intellectual Property Office has announced major enhancements to its services. Of course, as a fairly large developed country these should perhaps not be unexpected. However, with OHIM's Cooperation Fund and WIPO's support for systems for IP Offices in the developing world, 2013 could be a year of enhancements worldwide too.

Happy New Year!

Equality and Diversity in IP

In January, the IPO in the United Kingdom issued its Equality and Diversity report. I am as white and as middle class as could be but as I find myself as a minority in other respects this may explain why I find this subject particularly interesting (notwithstanding that we should all have a commitment towards it).

The IPO here has a staff of 903, comparable to roughly 1000 at OHIM, nothing compared to the thousands employed at the EPO, but 10 times that of the IP Office of Kosovo which has just 9 employees (and 3 of them are part-time!). 

The UK is a diverse country. The years following the Second World War saw an influx of people from the likes of India, Pakistan and the Caribbean and our membership of the European Union has seen many other Europeans enjoy the freedom of movement to reside here. There are also well established Chinese communities.

Ethnicity at the IPO reflects Newport's demographic profile. When it comes to religion, the response rate is too low in number to be truly representative, and this does not match the picture of Newport as a whole. Saying this, scientists are known to be less God-fearing than others so could we come to a fair conclusion that most Patent Examiners are atheists?

A response rate of only 15% makes the voluntary questionnaire sent out fairly worthless but with sexual orientation figures there is nothing to go against as this information is not sought in a census in the UK. Any other data sources are unreliable as sexual orientation is still something many do not wish to disclose.

Maybe my own experiences are not truly representative, although they stretch over 15 years and have taken in three countries, but I have found many women working in the trade marks field. This is not reflected in the IPO's gender statistics. It might be the more "masculine" patents that diverts the data towards a marginal male minority?

It is noticeable that men occupy the senior positions and this reflects my experiences where, for example, the partners in law firms have been in the majority men. Equality is still a "work in progress" when it comes to the sexes so this is not surprising and some women will still be pulled (much more than men) towards a traditional role as a stay-at-home parent or to combining motherhood with a part-time role, which may restrict their career development. However, I think the figure of "over 90% of staff return to work after maternity leave" is commendable.

In general, the IPO provides good career opportunities to the Newport area and continues to improve having not sat on its laurels since being awarded Investors in People status in 1998. The excellent and timely services that the IPO provides gives it an excellent reputation and, in my view, make it one of the best Intellectual Property Offices in the world.

Location, location, location

As my background is almost exclusively in the field of trade marks, I have been following the extensive discussions on The IPKat regarding the EU's planned Unified Patent Court wearing my geographer's hat. It seems European harmonisation has been put on the back burner for a bit as old rivalries are restored and the British, French and Germans slog it out to see who will host this Court.

The choice it seems is between London, Paris or Munich which can only lead me back to a year I can't remember, 1979.

If only this Court was due to hear copyright cases then M's lyrics, "London, Paris, Munich, everybody talk about pop muzik" could have been prophetic.

The US is also having a location debate as the USPTO is looking to establish satellite offices around the country.

Detroit is due to have the first of these offices and is slated to open its doors in the later half of next year. I read an article on this that expressed surprise at this choice as Detroit's reputation is poor by American standards and it was felt this could hinder staff retention. With an election next year, it was also suggested that swing states may prove popular choices for the other satellite offices for the current government.

I'll provide alternative views not to be controversial but because our experience in the UK is different.

The Conservative Party government of the 1980s took the decision to relocate many Government departments away from London. South Wales benefited from this with its three biggest cities receiving new organisations. Companies House, the company registration office went to the Welsh capital, Cardiff. Swansea received the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Newport received the Patent Office, since rebranded as the Intellectual Property Office. A smaller office is still maintained in London, but the headquarters in Newport opened in 1991.

Newport - in this sense comparable to Detroit - would not be high up on a list of the UK's most liveable cities. This article is about a parody of the song Empire State of Mind that went viral here, but demonstrates underlying feelings towards the city.

Conversely, Newport as a location has helped staff retention as there is little in the way of IP practices in the local area or other civil service roles on its doorstep. Whilst there is no reason Patent or Trade Mark Examiners could not be coaxed into private practice or an in-house IP department, this is less true of the administration staff that form the efficient backbone of an organisation. And Examiners have not moved with the fluidity they did when based in London. As they settle in the Newport area, perhaps with families, their ability and desire to move reduces. It's also important not to overlook work-life balance and this is a strong selling point for both the UK IPO and the USPTO no matter where they are located.

Newport, like most of South Wales, is also Labour Party heartland and the relocation of the Patent Office did little to change this. From 1987 to date, both Members of Parliament elected by the people of Newport have been Labour Party candidates with their support, in the main, strengthening over this time. Newport has a population of around 120,000 so if the direct and indirect employment opportunities the Office's relocation created had little impact on local political beliefs, what change would this make to the political landscapes of far larger American cities?

Decentralisation of a country's IPO has not been limited to the UK. Ireland and Slovakia now have their main Offices out in the provinces, in Kilkenny and Banská Bystrica respectively. Germany, whilst maintaining bases in Munich and Berlin, handles some operations through an office in Jena, which was a part of the former GDR.

We will have to wait and see if the USPTO picks politically expedient locations, economic hubs or takes its satellite offices to unexpected locations in the country. As for the Unified Patent Court, Paris is rumoured to be the favourite.