The IPO

3 April 2017 Updated 24 Feb 2020

The intellectual property office for the United Kingdom is known simply as the Intellectual Property Office ("the IPO"). It is an executive agency of the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and is responsible for:
  • examining and granting applications for patents and trade marks and registering designs;
  • the development of policy with regard to intellectual property ("IP") in the UK;
  • educating businesses and consumers in the UK about their rights and responsibilities in relation to IP; and
  • helping with the enforcement of IP rights.
It is based in Newport but has an office in London.

Its chief executive officer is known as the Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks ("the Comptroller"). In patent and unregistered design right matters he or she is referred to simply as the comptroller. in relation to trade marks and registered designs he or she is referred to as the registrar.

In examining and granting applications for patents and trade marks and registering designs, the IPO performs both executive and judicial functions. 

Applications for patents and trade marks are considered by officials known as "examiners" and it is they who determine initially the fate of such applications.  Appeals against examiners' decisions can be made to officials known as "hearing officers" who decide those issues on behalf of the Comptroller in his capacity as the comptroller in patent and unregistered design cases and the registrar in trade mark and registered design cases. 

Hearing officers can also hear and determine disputes between applicants for, or owners of, certain intellectual property rights and those challenging their claims to those rights. These can include "entitlement actions" in relation to patents and oppositions and invalidity and revocation applications in relation to trade marks.

Further Reading


Contact

Popular posts from this blog

Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records

Image
In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in  Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd   [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of Oasis that featured a photo of an elaborate set that included a white Rolls Royce in a country club swimming pool. The Sun's photograph was very similar to the photograph that appeared on an Oasis album cover. The similarity arose because The Sun's photographer shot the same scene at roughly the same time and from the same angle as Mr. Gallagher's photographer but he did not reproduce any part of Oasis's print or negative. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for infringement of copyright though he accepted that they had an arguable case for br...
Read more

"What is meant by "Due Cause" in s.10 (3) of the Trade Marks Act? The Red Bull Case

Image
Amsterdam   Source Wikipedia According to Wikipedia  Red Bull is the most popular energy drink in the world, with 5.2 billion cans sold in 2012. Its manufacturer, Red Bull GmbH , has registered the RED BULL mark has registered those words and their accompanying logo as word and device marks in trade mark registries around the world including the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property ( "BOIP" ) . The company registered that sign with BOIP for non-alcoholic drinks in class 32 with effect from 11 July 1983. After decades of massive sales and extensive advertising nobody could argue that that mark has a reputation within the meaning of art 5 (2) of the Trade Marks Directive (Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2008   to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks OJ 8.11.2008 p 299/25).  S.10 (3) of our Trade Marks Act 1994   implements that provision. There is in the Net...
Read more

Copyright: Creation Records Ltd. v News Group

It is trite law that if two photographers take identical pictures of the same scene at the same time from the same position each of their photographs is an original work and neither infringes the copyright in the other. However, much of the skill of a photographer lies in his choice of subject and the arrangement of the scene. The question whether copyright subsists independently in such an arrangement arose in Creation Records Ltd. v News Group Newspapers Ltd . (1997) The Times 27 April.   The Facts A swimming pool at a country club was drained and various props including a white Rolls Royce motor car assembled for a photograph of a well-known group of musicians for reproduction on their album cover. Although the public was not admitted to the session certain fans of the group who happened to be there were allowed to photograph the scene before official pictures were taken. A freelance photographer who was booked into the club photographed the scene during the session. One of his pict...
Read more