Hello? Is that the Property Office for Intellectuals?

The IPKat is not sure whether this is a joke, so he will let his readers figure it out for themselves.  According to an anonymous tip-off, the UK-IPO (the IPKat still prefers its proper title of 'The Patent Office') is to change its name again. This is, as readers will know, the second name change in just over a year.

The current logo.

The new logo.

Some may think the new logo is quite pretty. Others might even think that the change is in the logo only, and the name remains the same.  The IPKat, however, agrees with the tipper-off that something appears to be fundamentally wrong with it. The new logo appears to suggest that they (the patent office, that is) are the property office for intellectuals, rather than the office for intellectual property. The IPKat is now confused.  Merpel, however, is more concerned with that crown mark, which looks vaguely like the Office is getting royal pretensions. What does it all mean?

UPDATE (28/11/08): It's true! See here (before it all disappears to be replaced with something even more incomprehensible).
Hello? Is that the Property Office for Intellectuals? Hello? Is that the Property Office for Intellectuals? Reviewed by David Pearce on Friday, November 21, 2008 Rating: 5


  1. if you 'join the dots' it looks like a cupcake with a cherry on top - or perhaps these are rising bubbles in tribute to the O2 v 3trade mark case?

    either way this is a bad thing as I will want a cake and/or a G&T whenever I see this logo

  2. I'm appalled that HMG sees fit to set up a "Property Office" for Intellectuals.

    Many intellectuals of a more Marxist bent reject the concept of "property" altogether. It is utterly discriminatory and demeaning to force such intellectuals to use a "Property Office".

    I propose a picket line...

  3. At least it's not a light bulb.

  4. "Hello, is that the Intellectual Property Office? I'd like to buy an intellectual..."

  5. UK Trade Mark Application No. 2501853 would appear to confirm that this is the new logo.

    Even more confusing than the bubbles is the lack of the "UK".

  6. Is it like a lost property office? Will there be umbrellas and stuff?

    The logo looks like bubbles coming up from the bottom of the sea, as if the new UKIPO headquarters were some underwater refuge in a science fiction movie. Perhaps with global warming...

  7. Is appears to be the mark of a property office that operates on an “intellectual” basis, in contrast, let’s say, to a “Joe Six Pack" property office. Therefore, it’s either descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive.

  8. One detail that I find notable is that Application No 2501853 is for a series of 4 marks (the mark as shown by the IPKat, both in colour and monochrome; and the bubble/crown design on its own, ditto).

    The Registry regularly rejects "series" applications comprising a logo with and without words, as not being within the terms of S41(2). I will be very interested to see if this series is allowed unamended...

    PS I'd also like to see which marks they cite in the relative grounds search. I would hope that they would start with the old UNITED KINGDOM INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE registration, which is still in the name of the DTI (RIP)...

  9. This reminds me: I once had a client come to me via a lawyer in our firm's (corporeal) property department. He had an intellectual property question, and was put through to our property lawyer with an assurance from the switchboard operator that he was a very clever man.

  10. Looks like the packaging of a combined ant-acid & headache remedy

  11. They seemed to have borrowed one from here:



All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.