Company scamming IPO customers found liable for trade mark infringement and passing off.The ruling in question is Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Another v Intellectual Property Agency Ltd & Another  EWHC 3256 (IPEC), a decision of the gentle, affable Judge Richard Hacon. The learned judge observed towards the end of his judgment:
A prolific and persistent scammer, responsible for deliberately scamming Intellectual Property Office (IPO) customers, was today found liable for trade mark infringement and passing off and ordered to pay £500,000 plus legal costs.
[referred to by the court in its judgment as IPAL; incorporated in the Seychelles with a registered office address in Mahé, Seychelles, IPAL also gave a London address in Broadgate Tower, Primrose Street, EC2, plus a forwarding address in Barcelona and an address in Brussels] and the director Mr Harri Mattias Jonasson [who lives in Stockholm, Sweden] were found to have deliberately set out to deceive intellectual property owners by issuing scam renewal notices. By giving the impression that IPA was the IPO, or connected with it, IPA was able to persuade owners of trade marks and patents to engage it to renew those rights at a cost of up to 6 times the official renewal fees.
The judgment handed down by the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) provides the IPO with the maximum financial award possible from this court. ...
The IPO is working to educate its customers about the danger posed by scammers such IPA by issuing explicit warnings to users of the IPO naming the organisations concerned. Warning messages have also been placed on the IPO web site and other similar international IP offices such as OHIM and the European Patent Office.
Customer feedback has shown an overall reduction in scam renewal notices. In 2014, 262 people told the IPO that they had received such notices compared to 848 in 2013 [no, says Merpel, this only means that fewer people have told the IPO, not that the number of notices received has been reduced. Maybe more sensible souls are ignoring them or throwing them away rather than paying up, and don't therefore feel so incensed that they want to complain to the IPO].
More information is available on the Action Fraud web site.
"IPAL received a total of £1,334,234 from rightholders who responded to its Reminder form and paid out £227,724 to the IPO to renew their rights. That translates into a gross profit of £1,106,510".Since £500,000 is that maximum award that the IPEC can make, it seems to Merpel that Mr Jonasson -- who did not appear in these proceedings and was not represented -- did rather better out of it than the IPO did, assuming that £1,106,510 minus £500,000 = £606,510 [that's around US$ 917K or euro 855K at today's rates]. Or has she missed something? No injunction was sought.