tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7651430854454526599..comments2024-03-28T13:45:42.289+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Unpaid costs re-revisitedVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47200892289566581872011-09-28T12:45:51.799+01:002011-09-28T12:45:51.799+01:00The above said (about Mr Thorpe), I certainly agre...The above said (about Mr Thorpe), I certainly agree that the page could do with more/better information, rather than (seemingly) rely on imprecise 'detective work'.<br /><br />For starters, each entry should feature at least the application/registration number and the party's (clickable) ADP. Surely, implementing this technically cannot be <i>that</i> difficult?<br /><br />To my mind, and within the context of the discussion, a 'better' solution may be to 'automate' the naming & shaming system. For instance, with the promulgation of a reasonable "default compliance period" (say, 3 months?) within which the party sentenced to costs must provide payment evidence to the UKIPO (/OHIM), else it automatically goes onto the name & shame list. <br /><br />Again (momentarily putting aside legal implications, however), implementing this technically should not prove <i>that</i> difficult.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-80413642647315996892011-09-28T11:50:37.767+01:002011-09-28T11:50:37.767+01:00At a SWAG (simple wild a55 guess), have a look at ...At a SWAG (simple wild a55 guess), have a look at UK Trade Mark 2424755.<br /><br />Took me less about 15 seconds to find it, searching for any TMs owned by a Mr Geoffrey Thorpe.<br /><br />Not cast-iron, for sure, but certainly sufficient to correlate a client (or the other side's) name and address.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41157826505663681362011-09-28T11:13:49.244+01:002011-09-28T11:13:49.244+01:00The unpaid costs order page is no use at all as it...The unpaid costs order page is no use at all as it gives insufficient details for any credit reference agency to use. If we look a the latest case a Geoffrey Thorpe owes £3100 but there is no link to the case or his details and I could not find them, so this is just pointless. Mr Thorpe is in no way incomoded by this.Filemothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31312105125882808212011-09-27T14:00:32.369+01:002011-09-27T14:00:32.369+01:00"It occurred to us that the attorneys for the..."It occurred to us that the attorneys for the other side could be considered to be liable for their client’s costs, as they are acting on behalf of their client."<br /><br />What is the limit to this train of thought? Liability for costs in PCC proceedings? High Court? Court of Appeal? Supreme Court? ECJ?<br /><br />There is already a solution (to an extent) made available by the UKIPO, which publishes details of those parties who do not pay their costs orders on its website - the idea being that, particularly for repeat or serial 'offenders', security for costs will be that much easier to obtain on the basis of such evidence.<br /><br />The page is at:<br /><br />http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-unpaid-details<br /><br />Besides the matter of making clients aware of their obligations as regards costs from the onset, this page of the UKIPO should be the first port of call of the practitionner as soon as contentious proceedings are contemplated in the UK/beforte the UKIPO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3159451687560356672011-09-26T16:20:42.253+01:002011-09-26T16:20:42.253+01:00I think Andy's suggestion is a very good idea ...I think Andy's suggestion is a very good idea and should be viable. I also think many attorneys will vehemently oppose this idea (one very active participant in the recent Marques conference springs to mind, and I know many others who share his view).<br /><br />Just for the record, the Serbian IP Office also has a two-tier system where patent filings are concerned. Natural persons, as opposed to legal entities, only pay 50% of some official fees (such as the fee for filing a national patent application). Until fairly recently, they had to pay only 10% of the official fees. One of the reasons for the change in proportion of the official fee for natural persons was apparently the fact that a large number of fairly nonsensical (is that a word?) patent applications were being filed by various would-be-inventors, which placed an undue burden on the Examiners. (Not that I think that excellent inventions cannot arise from something that initially seems like nonsense….Also, examining them must have been great fun!)<br /><br />This solution would seem to have the opposite effect – it may discourage groundless oppositions and leave the Examiners more time to deal with more serious issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-63548502890944359302011-09-26T15:36:53.336+01:002011-09-26T15:36:53.336+01:00while I entirely agree that it is the duty of any ...while I entirely agree that it is the duty of any professional representative to explain the costs obligation to their client and to pass on requests for costs, it is a step too far to give them personal liability. For that, it would be necessary for regulated representatives to insist on holding client funds. If you suspect that the representative has been conducting the case on a frolic of his own without specific instructions, there might be an argument thatthis did not display the necessary integrity or duty to act in the interests of justice. However, such frolics are far easier to suspect than to prove.<br />I wonder if Mr Bridle's adversary representative was paid his own fees. In any event, the money claims online procedure is very straightforward and a great deal easier than making complaints of professional negligence.<br />Frankly, many representatives don't ask for the costs to be paid. Most organisations need some sort of invoice type document to facilitate payment and a costs order generally doesn't fit the requirement for an invoice.Filemothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.com