Reviewed by David Pearce
on
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Rating:
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
Posts
Comments
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
WIPO is very good about posting copies of any scam letters reported to them on their website (http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/warning/pct_warning.htm) - they have quite a collection and indeed I think I was the first to report FIPTR to them. I'm delighted that they and the State of Florida, on behalf of the applicant community, have managed to hit back at one of these scam artists; and perhaps some of the other jurisdictions in which these villains operate will do the same.
ReplyDeleteScams of the type mentioned have been around for at least 25 years to my knowledge. The MO is always to write direct to the rights owner and never the address for service. Owners who have had the good sense to call their professional advisors have been told to bin the documents. Others, who believe by paying direct they will avoid attorney costs, have paid up. Eventually pressure on the legal authorities in the country base results in the scam merchant being closed down. However they work on the phoenix principle and reappear elsewhere. There is obviously money being made or this would not happen. [Some years ago a particularly active "register" was operated from Switzerand. In response to complaints the Swiss authorities said no offence was being committed as they only sent their "invoices" to people outside Switzerland.".
ReplyDeleteThese days nearly ALL my clients receive such scam letters. The volume has reached the point where we are going to send our clients a form letter warning them about this and I hope others in my professsion can do so too.
ReplyDeleteMy clients received a paper looking as invoice from the FIPTR, charging them triple the basic international fee plus all designations. They were stupid enough to pay without asking their professional representative. (It’s interesting, that FIPTR are approaching the right holder directly) The happy end is in a mistake concerning the bank account – so they received there money back minus expenses.
ReplyDeleteThe explanations for the plausible advantages are meager. The charge is for creating a link in a cite to the existing data bases of registered subject-matter.
Isn’t the trade name FIPTR false or misleading (I suppose it depends on the applicable company law)?
I am pleased that WIPO have posted this and that you have reported.
ReplyDeleteI try to report these type of scams on my blog as well. If all IP blogs report, then recipients who do the minimal internet search will see that the service is a scam. Preferably, the title should be FIPTR is yet another scam" or similar, to have maximum effect.
I probably reassure about 1/3 of my clients filing PCT applications, and expect that other practitioners do as well.
It wastes time, but is a good a way as any to keep in touch with clients.
Some care is needed or this sort of thing might drop through your letterbox:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ip-brands.com/files/C.pdf
The current one doing the rounds in the UK is from 'Intellectual Property Agency Ltd' - with official-looking 'Reminders' being sent to trade mark owners three months before their TMs' renewal date. No - £980 & £220 in class fees is NOT a reasonable fee to pay to renew a trade mark, even were this figure to include official fees - which is unclear.
ReplyDeleteStrangely, this 'company' seems to have changed its company registration number from '65968' (Seychelles) to '80014'(who knows what jurisdiction) sometime between writing to my my client last week, and me looking at its website!
In fact, IPKat might wish to run one of his legendary competitions, with a prize for whomever spots the most number of breaches of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (and other such laws) in this company's standard terms and conditions. (By the way, I do like the bit about "reassigning" trade marks to someone else if a customer is late in paying or decides not to renew!) Readers who have not been sent in a 'Reminder' from their clients can view the T&Cs here: www.intellectual propertyagency.org.
More seriously, in the absence of outright fraud, the only people who can take action are the individual Registries, enforcing their copyright and database rights. If their excuse for inaction is that it is too difficult to actually enforce their IP rights in the courts, then there is something very wrong with the whole system!
I hope this comment (and others like it) will appear if anyone Googles this company's name. I suggest that readers actively comment on all such companies, to ensure the consumer is fully informed.
@Anon 09:55
ReplyDeleteOne of my clients has just received the Intellectual Property Agency Ltd "reminder" EIGHT months ahead of the renewal date.
After I told him that it was "unofficial", he phoned their UK contact number, and asked if they were connected to the Registry - "no" - "so are you passing yourself off as the Registry, then?" - CLICK!
I wish all my clients were as on the ball...
As a trademark attorney, I frequently get these fake renewal reminders from clients. We have send warning letters, but it just isn't enough to stop them. We have knowlege of these very active renewal and private register companies:
ReplyDelete- Intellectual Property Agency Ltd (Brussels)
- ECTO S.A. (Brussels): employee ms. Aime Kass signs the renewals
- European Trademark Organisation S.A.(Brussels)
- WBIP - World Bureau Intellectual Property Corp. (Aloha, USA)
There are much more, but these I have seen personally.
We should all warn our clients for this, it is the only way to put them out of business.
Several of my clients have received a letter from IPA, one of whom seems to have been convinced that it was authentic as they have said to proceed - although fortunately the reply has been addressed to us rather than IPA.
ReplyDeleteIn my view these letters breach the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
The Trade Marks Registry initially had the view that there was little they could do, but after speaking with them in connection with the previous one doing the rounds (CTMFS) I think they are now convinced that Trading Standards can take action after all (in the UK at least), so I believe they are helping out by collating evidence sent in by consumers.
Hopefully such action will be publicised and will put off those who write such letters.