tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5606983058139803236..comments2024-03-29T09:21:58.696+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Support our Shireen!Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68683878773423798182009-05-17T15:23:00.000+01:002009-05-17T15:23:00.000+01:00There's plenty of background on the IP Confidentia...There's plenty of background on the IP Confidential blog at http://ip-confidential.blogspot.com/ ifBennet Woodcrofthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13718389869032756530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10603979425816193962009-05-15T13:29:00.000+01:002009-05-15T13:29:00.000+01:00I think you can subscribe to data from UKIPO, bot...I think you can subscribe to data from UKIPO, both back data (historic) and front data (ongoing publications).<br /><br />Having said that, i'm stuggling to think of ANY business model initiated by an unsolicited pro-forma invoice that's not a "scam".AJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-41513060647929582842009-05-15T11:00:00.000+01:002009-05-15T11:00:00.000+01:00I would be extremely concerned if obtaining and us...I would be extremely concerned if obtaining and using this data, which the UKIPO is obliged to make public by law, would be an infringement of database rights.<br /><br />The only terms of use for the data on the IPO website are that nobody should make excessive bulk downloads which degrade the quality of the service for other users.<br /><br />http://www.ipo.gov.uk/disclaimer.htmGerontiusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-48861776811611525622009-05-15T05:11:00.000+01:002009-05-15T05:11:00.000+01:00Not sure this would be a substantial part of the d...Not sure this would be a substantial part of the database. <br /><br />But whatever the best way to go about it, surely the "IPKat community" can try to do something about this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11770896701753212912009-05-13T12:21:00.000+01:002009-05-13T12:21:00.000+01:00I assume UKIPO can take action for the infringemen...I assume UKIPO can take action for the infringement of its database rightsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27056385461135646172009-05-12T16:02:00.000+01:002009-05-12T16:02:00.000+01:00Does anyone know who the company Switch Media PLC ...Does anyone know who the company Switch Media PLC are? It would appear that they share the same address as CTMFDS (or ECTMF to use their other name) and the same fax machine. From a Google cached search, ECTMF would actually file the CTM application with OHIM but CTMFS do not even do this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1935851553794612732009-05-12T15:55:00.000+01:002009-05-12T15:55:00.000+01:00Could this be considered
21. Including in marketi...Could this be considered<br />21. Including in marketing material an invoice or similar document seeking payment which gives the consumer the impression that he has already ordered the marketed product when he has not.<br />This is in all circumstances an unfair commercial practice under<br />The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008Filemothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32810396124947331742009-05-12T15:48:00.000+01:002009-05-12T15:48:00.000+01:00We have received calls from clients also confused ...We have received calls from clients also confused by receipt of these CTMFDS 'pro-formas'. To the untrained eye they are designed to look exactly like an invoice coming from an Official source. The fact that CTMFDS print some tiny, tiny text that says otherwise doesn't alter the client's perception of this notice - they are designed to confuse and con people out of money which they mightn't ordinarily pay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-7880917705095612042009-05-12T14:21:00.000+01:002009-05-12T14:21:00.000+01:00I first came across this outfit just yesterday, wh...I first came across this outfit just yesterday, when a client called to ask why he had to pay this money after he had been advised (by us) that there would be no further charges in connection with his trade mark registration.<br /><br />He faxed a copy to me, and after I explained the situation to him, he was appalled. As he himself commented, recipients of such a communication would assume, as he had done, that it was a demand for a payment that needed to be made in order to maintain his rights, and many would simply pay up.<br /><br />Whether by design or otherwise, the communication from CTMFS was misinterpreted by the client.<br /><br />When I first spoke to the client, I guessed that he had received one of the all-too-familiar rogue directory scams, and it was only after reading the small print that I realised what was really going on.Steve Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14792553797151676078noreply@blogger.com