tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5078498921745549217..comments2024-03-28T09:05:22.006+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Swedish-Seychelles scammer stuffed -- but has he really triumphed?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66706912200730334502015-12-01T11:05:14.584+00:002015-12-01T11:05:14.584+00:00IPaidALot asks whether this opens the doors for th...IPaidALot asks whether this opens the doors for those who paid up to bring a civil suit for recovery of money paid from IPAL. It certainly does; see <br />http://www.cearta.ie/2015/12/the-ipo-takes-down-a-scammer-and-opens-the-door-to-restitution-claims-by-rightsowners/<br />Merpel asks whether the scammer has really triumphed by retaining £606,510? Given that the defendants here are also liable to the rightsholders, the scammer has not triumphed. And to the extent that the IPO can recover from a Seychelles company with a Swedish principal, then the rightsholders can too.ceartahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02489045011567241061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-14734314902911313012015-11-13T01:42:28.981+00:002015-11-13T01:42:28.981+00:00Sadly the chances of the IPO actually recovering i...Sadly the chances of the IPO actually recovering its £500k from a Seychelles company with a Swedish director are slim to non-existent. And Slim just rode out of town.<br />Garfieldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-44541862240200076542015-11-12T19:18:41.846+00:002015-11-12T19:18:41.846+00:00Re "Zebedee", the IPO has for some years...Re "Zebedee", the IPO has for some years been an agency which now gets all its income (the recent £500k is an notable exception) from the fees paid by its users, so it is only the IPO's users users who are paying for its activities, not the taxpayer in general.ex-examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29546702781440211832015-11-12T16:00:50.912+00:002015-11-12T16:00:50.912+00:00Zebedee *BOING*
Re last anon.
IPREG appears to b...Zebedee *BOING*<br /><br />Re last anon.<br /><br />IPREG appears to be an advertising agency for the UKIPO and other "advisors".<br /><br />http://ipreg.org.uk/public/what-does-it-mean-when/<br /><br />It is really amazing to see the regulator for RPAs RTMA selling the possibility of using non-regulated services.....so why not IPAL?<br /><br />Come to think of it this is bloody outrageous. What the hell is IPREG doing?<br /><br />As to the UKIPO litigation. Just PR. In the true spirit of British Public Service they seem to take great joy in helping and supporting the complete idiots amongst us at tax payers expense.<br /><br />Time for Bed Said Zebedee *BOING*Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-2554753614382907162015-11-12T15:02:06.955+00:002015-11-12T15:02:06.955+00:00is the "Intellectual Property Regulation Boar...is the "Intellectual Property Regulation Board" in danger of being considered to infringe the IPO's trade mark? After all, both contain the wording "Intellectual Property".<br /><br />KantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-14431177793489942462015-11-12T13:48:22.964+00:002015-11-12T13:48:22.964+00:00I guess that the management consultants who presum...I guess that the management consultants who presumably had a hand in the Patent Office's change of trading name, failed to appreciate that the Patents Act 1977 only protects the expression "Patent Office" or similar wording. I also guess that, at the time the change took place, the higher echelons of the Patent Office were populated by staff from other parts of the Civil Service rather than by people who had been examiners and who were actually conversant with the Patents Act. ex-examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47876494410927416182015-11-12T11:01:12.321+00:002015-11-12T11:01:12.321+00:00Having read the decision I would say that, althoug...Having read the decision I would say that, although there was clear passing off, the judge was very, very generous in finding that there had been trade mark infringement. <br /><br />The judge found that the almost completely non-distinctive INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE is confusingly similar to the similarly non-distinctive INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AGENCY LTD and in making this assessment he completely ignored the distinctive crown logo that forms a significant (dominant?) part of the IPO's registration. To me it appears that the judge has simply stretched the law to try and arrive at what he considers to be the "correct" outcome. Incidentally, the trade mark that the IPO relied on is one they no longer use. Stannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88597402131521793072015-11-12T09:28:10.225+00:002015-11-12T09:28:10.225+00:00Why was this case not brought or transferred to th...Why was this case not brought or transferred to the Chancery Division? It appears that the Defendant has made a significant profit even if the £500,000 is paid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-61433523905203981952015-11-12T08:58:04.454+00:002015-11-12T08:58:04.454+00:00Poor decision. Lack of mispresentation. If someon...Poor decision. Lack of mispresentation. If someone sells 'Pepsi' as being the "Best Cola Around" and I buy it believing it to be 'Coke', because I believe that to be the best cola around, I am just dim. There has been no misrepresentation.<br /><br />The decision may also suggest that every sale of non-branded foodstuff is passing off, because all consumers now believe everything to be made by the brand-owner, but packaged differently.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88481886594423579192015-11-11T14:14:06.313+00:002015-11-11T14:14:06.313+00:00IPAL were not the first scammers IPO have sued for...IPAL were not the first scammers IPO have sued for passing-off https://www.gov.uk/government/news/intellectual-property-office-succeeds-in-passing-off-claim.<br /><br />IPAL got more than £1m profit from their scam and that in relation to passing themselves off as the IPO. <br /><br />No doubt there are other such entities trading in or into the UK.<br /><br />What is unclear is whether the same entities have also been passing themselves off under other confusing names [e.g. Extortive Patent Office] and gaining money from UK owners of non-UK rights. <br /><br />The WIPO site has over 50 example false invoices on their website, mostly for entries on bogus registers. [At least IPAL provided a service even if at a buccaneering profit margin].<br /><br />This really does raise a question - "How big is the IP black economy?" and a second question "Who are the beneficiaries of the IP black economy?".<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Meldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37586861294642244322015-11-11T13:18:04.472+00:002015-11-11T13:18:04.472+00:00He did at least pay the fees so a service of real ...He did at least pay the fees so a service of real value was delivered - various versions go out when fees are not due and these are clearly more profitable. Given the recent Supreme Court decisions businesses making bad bargains are not going to get much judicial sympathy so the IPO can only rely on passing off and trademark infringement. Kudos to them for doing soFilemothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57291045594742060362015-11-11T12:21:12.936+00:002015-11-11T12:21:12.936+00:00I was a little surprised to read in paragraph 40 o...I was a little surprised to read in paragraph 40 of the judgment: "Neither of the Defendants filed a response to the Points of Claim and so they stand admitted." <br /><br />Rule 16.5(4) of the CPR provides that "Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation."<br /><br />Does this not apply to the taking of an account of profits?Thomas Dillonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-21093223688911717112015-11-11T12:07:03.307+00:002015-11-11T12:07:03.307+00:00The one I come across most frequently is the IPTO ...The one I come across most frequently is the IPTO based in the Czech Republic: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/pct/en/warning/ipto.pdf.<br /><br />Every time I have registered a UK trademark, an invoice (which the small print tells you is not an invoice) has swiftly followed.<br /><br />I have clients who have paid for this and then come back to me complaining that I did not tell them about the additional fees.<br /><br />The IPTO is one organisation I'd like to see hammered into the ground. Fraudsters, plain and simple.BrisbaneIPEnthusiastnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-77791427154977003802015-11-11T10:23:38.670+00:002015-11-11T10:23:38.670+00:00Knowing how governments are always looking for way...Knowing how governments are always looking for ways to raise money, I suspect that the £500k will be treated as a windfall and creamed off to the BIS as a "Special Dividend", based on the premise that the BIS is the (sole) shareholder of the IPO business. That is what seems to have happened in previous years when the IPO's balance sheet showed a notional profit.ex-examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56149825634601468472015-11-11T09:40:26.898+00:002015-11-11T09:40:26.898+00:00Will the IPO now be taking action against other fi...Will the IPO now be taking action against other firms charging excessive fees for national renewals?<br /><br />KantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-34851757997594152412015-11-11T08:43:33.631+00:002015-11-11T08:43:33.631+00:001) Does this open the doors for those who paid up ...1) Does this open the doors for those who paid up to bring a civil suit for recovery of money paid from IPAL?<br /><br />2) Could this not have been a chance to force IPAL to make a public apology, like the Apple/Samsung one, admitting its notices had been declared fraudulent?IPaidALotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-441230393318872862015-11-11T08:28:17.989+00:002015-11-11T08:28:17.989+00:00The IPO is commended for taking this action that n...The IPO is commended for taking this action that nibbles at the edges of a much larger problem.<br /><br />The damage on which the passing-off action was founded was damage to the reputation of the IPO, and an account of profits ordered. The amount awarded was subject to the IPEC limit of £500k. The damage done to the public was twice this.<br /><br />This raises a number of questions:-<br />1) Will the IPO be sharing the award (assuming any money is ever received) with those who mistakenly paid IPAL?<br />2) Does the decision tell scammers not to be too clever in looking like an official document?<br />3) Does the IPO have any figures to calculate how much is lost to scammers? A rough calculation shows that this one person's activities amounted to about 1.5% of the IPOs annual income for renewal fees. IPAL are not the only scammers..<br />4) How much of the problem is down to credulity of users and how much to lack of distinctiveness of IPO notifications?<br />5) If some users will pay £750 for payment of a £250 fee are IP professionals missing a business opportunity?<br /><br />In short, we knew an iceberg was out there, we have now seen the size of the tip, more must be done to ensure that ill-informed or hurried users aren't scammed.<br />Meldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.com