The team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge, Stephen Jones, Mathilde Pavis, and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Hayleigh Bosher, Tian Lu and Cecilia Sbrolli.

Friday, 1 September 2017

Friday Fantasies

UK patent system: Building the evidence base, a new UK IPO Report

The UK IPO has produced a report titled ‘Building the Evidence Base on
the Performance of the UK Patent System.’ The research considers the UK patent system through a range of sources including stakeholder interviews, analysis of data, and existing academic literature, looking at how companies patent in the UK, who patents in the UK, and how the UK system compares to other countries.

The report suggests that overall the operation of the UK patent system is positive. The number of patents covering the UK is high; however, UK firms appear underrepresented in patent applications, with a lower proportion of domestic applicants than other countries. See the full report here.

Kats searching for answers.... 
Calling all Trade Mark Kats -  Can you help?!

One of our readers poses the following question relating to enforcement of costs orders made in UK IPO trade mark proceedings:

As we know, section 68(2)(a) of the Trade Mark Act 1994 stipulates that any such order of the registrar may be enforced— in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, in the same way as an order of the High Court. In addition, the Trade Marks Manual says at page 460 that to “enforce an order, an application must be made to the Court, but it is not necessary to obtain a judgment. This is done by filing a N322A to the High Court".  Form N322A (here and guidance note here) is used for registering a conditional order.

However, we are not sure if the wording of s68(2) reads as conditional… we Kats are wondering whether in order to enforce am IPO costs order one has to take that route, or the name and shame option at the IPO itself. Specifically, what is there to prevent collecting payment of an order of sufficient size (£750) by issuing a Statutory Demand under s123 Insolvency Act 1986 and - if still unpaid - then issuing a winding up petition?

The question of enforcement has been visited a few times in the past on IPKat (here and here) - but we don’t appear to have a direct answer to the question of whether or not a statutory demand/insolvency approach is available to enforce an IPO costs order, without having to go the High Court Form route at all. Any thoughts or comments from Readers are most welcome!

Do you need a helping hand?

Joanna Danquah is looking to enter the wonderful world of IP and is looking for voluntary work experience in soft IP (particularly trade marks) at a private practice firm or fashion company. Joanna holds an LLM in IP (Queen Mary University of London) and has completed the Legal Practice Course (LPC). If you, or somebody you know, would appreciate some assistance with IP work please email Joanna: jd.tm101@gmail.com

Events:

Research in the era of digitization – data protection, research and access
The National Library of Sweden and the European Commission Representation in Sweden invite you to join them to discuss matters such as: What does the EU framework for data protection and copyright mean in the context of globalisation of exchange of data? What implications does the proposed Digital Single Market Directive and General Data Protection Regulation on data protection have on research and libraries? Participation, lunch and coffee is all free of charge. This event takes place September 6, 2017, in Stockholm, full details here.

Russian Federation Roving Seminars on WIPO services
There are three roving WIPO seminars taking place: The first seminar will be held as part of the Eastern Economic Forum 2017, in Vladivostok on September 7, 2017. The second will be on 11 September in Novosibirsk, and the third in Moscow on 14 September 2017. There is no charge for registering or attending these events. For full details, including programs and the registration page, here.

Better Regulation for Copyright: Academics Meet Policy Makers
Academic experts are coming together for a fact-based debate on evidence-based policy making in copyright and related areas in an event curated by the Institute for Law and the Web (ILAWS) at the University of Southampton, UK. Topics include; neighbouring right for publishers, platform liability and copyright on data, with a keynote by Commissioner Mariya Gabriel. This event takes place on Wednesday, 6 September 2017, 15:00–18:30 in ASP1G3, European Parliament, Brussels. Please RSVP to sebastian.raible@ep.europa.eu. Travel subsidies may be available for interested academic visitors.

The I3PM association, a non-profit organisation dedicated to IP management topics, is hosting its 10th anniversary event, which will be held at the WIPO headquarters on 21 September. The association was born as an initiative of CEIPI students and currently is open for IP professionals, who have an I3PM member recommendation. Topics include: PPH within the PCT, WIPO tools for users of the Madrid System, and Copyrights in the digital world. Full details here and here. 

IPAN plenary Session Seminar: Protecting IT and Data Assets with Intellectual Property
Dai Davis, a technology lawyer, will speak at the Intellectual Property Awareness Network Seminar on several nuances of Intellectual Property law that will change on Brexit including; changes to the “Exhaustion of Right” regime for Intellectual Property Rights, changes to harmonising Directives such as the Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive, effect on Database Rights, changes to Data Protection legislation, and Geographical Indications. The seminar takes place on Wednesday, 27 September 2017 from 3-5pm at CIPA in Holborn, London. Full details here and registration here

Photo credit: Rick Payette

2 comments:

Barbara Cookson said...

A costs order from the IPO against an English entity can most conveniently be enforced through IPEC using the district judges that man the small claims track. A statutory demand is a bit OTT unless there is reason to believe the company is insolvent and would be better struck off. If you prefer a simple life at the desk you could just do a money claim online for the debt but the court fees are higher and if the defendant does not pay you are still back with enforcement. The Money Claim Online works with a UK company that is solvent and really does not want any judgements against it and simply has not paid because its peeved by the decision. The UK IPO name and shame procedure is best for foreign parties with no real business or assets in the UK to enforce against.

Statutory demands might be covered in the upcoming CITMA event in Leeds on 12 September .

Peter Smith said...

As far as I can see, the word "conditional" only appears on form N322A in relation to an "ACAS conditional settlement". For enforcing an order of the Registry, you would be using the form in its other role as an "Application for an order to allow enforcement of a decision that requires permission to proceed".

The guidance note EX328 entitled "I have a Tribunal decision but the respondent has not paid. How do I enforce it?" may give some insight on the use of the form. In particular, I note: "You will need to get and complete form N322B... As the type of decision you are enforcing does not require permission of the court to proceed no court fee is payable."

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':