OHIM's new website

So OHIM has a new website (but this link might not load!) which launched on Monday.

It has been beset with problems. E-filings have been unavailable or just crashed too regularly to make it workable for many. I've heard that some firms have resorted to fax filings in order to get things filed. I imagine particularly for cases with a priority claim, but note that these filings carry an extra €150 fee. I wonder what OHIM's stance will be on refunding this excess, it's hardly the user's fault if they were unable to access the website due to OHIM server problems?

For small-time users an added problem will have been an inability to e-file will have had the knock-on impact of preventing them entering an on-line payment by credit card.

E-communications have been difficult to download. I have had letters addressed to firms in Germany and the Netherlands appear on my screen. They were not intended for me so I have ignored them but they could have been for unpublished Community Trade Marks and, if so, such communications should not be available to anyone other than the applicant/representative.

There are problems with replying (on-line) to e-communications with the reply button taking you to a search function rather than a reply sending facility. Again, I believe many have resorted to the 20th Century fax.

Questions are obviously being raised as to how vigourously tested the new system was. OHIM has a reputation for speed and efficiency and for embracing and developing new on-line tools. But here they have been left embarrassed.

Hopefully their techies will get the systems up and running as intended soon.

You would have thought they could have thought of holding off on sending some e-communications in the meantime. Thankfully that should be the case for today at least as it's Constitution Day in Spain today and a national holiday. Let's see what Monday brings.

WIPO Madrid Highlights‏

WIPO have launched a new and welcomed 'Highlights' newsletter. To subscribe, go here.

The publication is decent in itself and so I will only briefly comment.

WIPO has been suffering from backlogs of late. It received 173,000 Statement of Grants (mandatory since 1 January 2011) during last year which is a clear pressure on WIPO. It seems some national Offices were reporting these in bulk but to streamline WIPO operations they have now requested these on an individual basis. This makes sense; holders and representatives do not need to receive information on third parties' International Registrations.

In May 2012, WIPO will introduce three web-based communication services. The "Madrid Electronic Alert" service should be useful. You can receive your watch notices from your provider upon publication in the WIPO Gazette and then, for applicable countries, get notified by WIPO if and when a designation is published and opposable. This could be similar to the alerts offered through TMView. We have had this (available offline upon payment of a fee) in the UK for as long as I know. We call it a Caveat; they're now available online for free.

The two further services, "Madrid Real-time Status" and "Madrid Portfolio Manager" should - although there may well be teething problems - speed up various recordals and provide holders and representatives with a lot more clarity with their progress. Delays are so much at the moment that it can feel that these things are going into an uncertain black hole.

The translation steps seem sensible whereby certain translations will not be made into all three official languages but are available on request for free thus not discriminating users. This is contrary to OHIM who are obliged to translate into 22 EU languages.

I knew they existed but I've not seen the Operations Teams clarified before. Feasibly, the volumes may be too high but I would have liked to have seen the individual EU countries serviced through the same team as the European Community. Currently, applicants from Austria, Benelux, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom will work with one team when filing based on a national right, and with another team when filing based on a Community Trade Mark.

I can be a bit critical of WIPO. Their emphasis on recruiting civil servants from other Trade Marks Offices is flawed in my opinion. I feel they should be looking to get some people on board that have been customers of WIPO and who can give them this perspective. That is clearly not to suggest that civil servants are untalented and they have a notable advantage in understanding the bureaucracies of government and international organizations but a more balanced workforce could see improvements in customer empathy.

Overall, to finish positively, the web-based communication services look like an impressive leap into the right direction together with other pragmatic suggestions.