A friendly soul whose continued existence, and possibly his pension entitlement too, depends on retaining his anonymity, writes:
"In general terms the report does not make comfortable reading and many failings are identified : lack of appreciation of brands within Government, lack of research, high litigation costs, poor education, poor access to funding, unfavourable tax regime and legal framework deficiency to name a few.Four top brands out of 100? That's not so bad, says the IPKat -- that's one out of every 25, but the UK's economy and population are surely less than one twenty-fifth of that of the brand-creating and brand-consuming world. What's more, you don't have to be a top global brand in order to be an extremely valuable commercial asset. Business-to-business branding is under-represented in the Interbrand list, and the criteria for the inclusion of brands probably disqualify many extremely valuable commercial assets. Size isn't everything!
Behind this is an inescapable fact, buried deep in the report. According to Interbrand’s list of top 100 global brands of 2009, the UK is home to just 4 (would that be Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs?) [Not while Chelsea are around, interjects one of the Kats]
What’s to be done ?
The Conference Report only seeks to identify issues and leaves any follow up firmly with Government in the shape of BIS and the IPO.
One very concrete issue to emerge is that business see the roles of Companies House and the IPO (ie in the shape of the Trade Marks Registry) as essentially similar and much greater cooperation is required to offer a one-stop shop in relation their respective services. Now this makes sense. Are trade marks really intellectual property at all ? Well, they are ‘property’, but are they ‘intellectual’?"