Login | Join Us | Contact Us | Search
 
 
 

 
 
  About Us   Press         Conferences   Members   Teams       Publications   Class 46     Position Papers   FAQs        Links     

Class 46 - for your European trade mark news
 

Now in its sixth year, Class 46  is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice.  This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
 
  TUESDAY, 10 MARCH 2009
UK IPO fee changes - demystified

Following our recent flurry of posts (here and here) concerning the UK IPO's planned changes to its fee structure, Class 46 has been contacted by several readers who have kindly pointed out that the Financial Times piece concerning this topic was only partly correct (see Class 46 post here). To clarify: the implementation of these plans is not imminent. Class 46 most notably thanks Tibor Gold for the information which he has sent.

This member of Class 46 has also come across some interesting rumours concerning the UK IPO's plans, which can be demystified by having a closer look at the UK IPO's consultation paper, in particular its executive summary:

"Application Fees and Services

Proposal 1
To introduce an “Early Assist” application service package for trade marks. This would have the following features:

(i) Help available over the telephone to assist applicants complete the application form;

(ii) E-filed trade mark applications (only) paying 50% of the standard application and class fees at the time of filing would be examined for registrability (including a search for earlier marks) and an examination report issued, thus allowing the applicant a choice as to whether to proceed to publication or to contest the examiner’s assessment (after paying the balance of the standard application fees) or to let the application lapse;

(iii) If there are any objections or problems with the application, the applicant would have an opportunity to informally discuss these with an examiner before making a decision as to whether to proceed with the application  ...

Proposal 2a
To offer a reduction in the application fees for e-filed trade mark applications where all the application fees are paid at the time of filing ....

Proposal 3
To abolish applications for series of trade marks altogether; alternatively, to introduce a fee supplement of £50 for each mark in a series beyond the first two.

[Class 46 comment: interesting are particularly Q7/Q8/Q9 below. This German member of Class 46 is quite intrigued by series marks and personally wonders whether this uniquely British and Irish quirk is not worth maintaining]

Q.7: Is there a continued need for the registration of series marks?

Q.8: Would you be willing to pay more to be able to apply for registration of a series of trade marks?

Q.9: As it costs us more to examine an application to register a series of trade marks than an application for a single mark, should we charge a supplement for the examination of a series?

Proposal 4
To withdraw the trade marks fast-track examination service altogether or, alternatively, to permit its suspension in particular circumstances. ...

[Class 46 wonders whether the fast-track examination service was not that successful.  Do any of our readers how many fast-track application have so far been filed?]

Trade mark tribunal fees

Proposals 5, 6, 7 & 8
To reduce the opposition fee from £200 to £100, to increase the fee for extensions of time requests made on Form TM9 from £50 to £100, and to extend the same fee to a) extensions of the nine month cooling-off period, and b) requests to stay proceedings made outside of the cooling-off procedure ..."

To read the UK IPO's proposals in full, please click here and here (Annex) and here (PDF).

Class 46 has also heard unconfirmed rumours that the proposed changes are to be effective from 1 October 2009. This rumour might be supported by the below excerpt from the Annex to the Consultation paper: "On what date will the policy be implemented? 1/10/09".

Posted by: Birgit Clark @ 21.41 
Tags: fee cuts, official fees, UKIPO; UK trade marks,

 

   0 comments:    Post a comment

 
 

Search Class 46
Search:

Who we all are...

Birgit Clark
Edith Van den Eede
Fidel Porcuna
Frédéric Glaize
Gino Van Roeyen
Jeremy Phillips
Kathrin Vowinckel
Laetitia Lagarde
Mark Schweizer
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Pedro Malaquias
Robert Börner
Tomasz Rychlicki

Receive Class 46 by email
3298 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog by email circular. Why don't you?

To subscribe, just type your email address in the box below, then click the 'Subscribe' button.
email:

Receive Class 46 by RSS Feed
515 readers now receive the Class 46 weblog via an RSS reader.

Subscribe in a reader


The Class 46 archive


+ 2013
+ 2012
+ 2011
+ 2010
- 2009
     + December (44)
     + November (55)
     + October (49)
     + September (48)
     + August (39)
     + July (54)
     + June (54)
     + May (55)
     + April (54)
     - March (57)
OHIM: fee cuts effective from 1 May 2009
Turnips, mustard and pumpkin oil head for PGI protection
New trade mark, GI regulations in Albania
Mineral water names, descriptions and labels in the EU: a short note
Exceptional extension of the opposition deadline against recently published community trade mark applications
Poland: OKPOL vs. VELUX
CERNÁ HORA to seek PGI status
PGI application for AMARENE BRUSCHE DI MODENA
Spain – Conference “Economic impact of IP piracy” hosted by the Spanish Patents and Trade Marks Office. Materials available.
Amendments requested for PROSCIUTTO DI NORCIA, LA BELLA DELLA DAUNIA GI specifications
OHIM: CTM fee cut in "early May"
CFI confirms the refusal of Anheuser-Busch's Budweiser community trade mark
Codified CTM Regulation effective from 13 April 2009
Hungarian onions in PDO application
CTM grant not contrary to Portuguese business name ruling
Spain – CTM Courts, copyright infringement and joinder of actions.
Codified CTM Regulation published this morning
Recent publications
Poland: Lindt's problems with hares
IPO gives guidance on what to do when parties want to stay proceedings
Poland: professional term cannot be registered as trade mark
Finland: Country Overview
Next week's attractions
Inactivity is not the same as withdrawal, says CFI
Brands in crisis conference in Athens
Spain - The Government to launch a “Made in/by Spain” brand campaign to seduce the US market.
Google / Vuitton hearing at the ECJ
Poland: METALCHEM versus METAL-CHEM
Spain - the Supreme Court to set criteria on when a sign in trade alters (or not) its distinctive character as registered.
Cybersquatting claims rise, Europeans suffer
Recent publications
Can THE JOURNAL ever be distinctive for a journal?
Law reform in Turkey -- and the chance of more to come
NASDAQ appeal dismissed
WIPO: “lufthanza.com” and “lufthansaairlines.com” to be transferred to Lufthansa
Finland: Comments at the Office
Poland: brands without the European Union flag
UK IPO fee changes - demystified
Shells all too common in the bakery and confectionery sector
UK IPO announces consultation on fees
UK IPO: Imminent trade mark fee cuts?
Spain – the Supreme Court to explore the limits between bidimensionality and 3D marks.
Top Estonian court rules on licensees and limitations
Preliminary ruling requested on .eu domain name
A tiny bit about the Hellenic Telecommunications & Post Commission (EETT)
Finland: Change in Individual Fee
Poland: DIX versus DIX or judgment versus judgment
More fee cut news: statement by OHIM President Wubbo de Boer
Details of the the CTM fee cut now available
News on the planned Community Trade Mark fee reduction
Domain name complaints before WIPO - US wins gold
Validity of publication title trade marks in France: a discrimination in the FEMME and GAY cases?
Poland: AJAX versus JAX
PTR and RPT marks "dissimilar", says CFI
Spain signs up for Singapore Treaty
Latest GI application
DPMA and the registrability of the trade mark "hardcore"
     + February (48)
     + January (61)
+ 2008
+ 2007

 
 

Terms of Use: The material included on this site is provided for information purposes only, and we make no representations or warranties as to its accuracy. It does not represent legal advice. Before relying on this material, you should take care to verify its accuracy, taking professional advice as appropriate. [Please click here for the full Terms and Conditions of Use]

Copyright ©2008-2013 MARQUES Ltd and Individual Contributors