I ran an experiment of sorts yesterday. After having frequently heard officers from the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) recommend the “Interactive Guidance” facility offered on their website, I attempted to use the service myself.
[On the home page of the IPO, you can spot “Interactive Guidance” under the “Gateways” section in the left frame.]
They advertise their service thus: Every working day, one officer is available between 1500 Hrs and 1600 Hrs Indian Standard Time (+5.30 GMT) for Interactive Guidance.
It also has this disclaimer: “This Interactive Guidance is intended to provide quick replies to applicants, agents, and attorneys, and does not purport to be a legal document. In case of any variance between what has been stated in the Interactive Guidance service and that contained in the relevant Act, rules, etc., the later [sic] shall prevail.”
Undaunted, since I was not seeking legal or any other form of advice, I created a user ID, in preparation to venture into the two chat rooms (dealing with patents, and trade marks) where such guidance is offered.
I have to say I was fairly optimistic of witnessing an “interaction” between users and the IPO. I even justified my selection of Wednesday, which was mid-week enough, the IP officer in-charge would have had time to settle into the weekly routine, and recover from Monday blues. I even had a question in mind to ask at the session.
So it was that on July 1, from between 3 to 4 pm, I found I had company. There were at least four userIDs visibly present in each of the chat rooms, and I don’t know how many more like myself looking in. A few questions were asked, some reasonable, some relatively basic ones. Not too difficult to answer, I thought. Easier still, I thought, to direct users to hyperlinks on the website itself, where appropriate answers could be found. I could have done it myself, were I thus inclined.
But I didn’t. Instead, I waited. I waited for the entire hour, right down to the last minute (see screen shots). But no one from the IPO appeared. Or at least, none of the queries were addressed, or even responded to. Neither the Patent nor the Trade Mark Interactive Guidance Service was in action.
Instead, frustrated users began to post messages like:
– – Is IPO there?
– – I second the question [above]. Is anyone from the IPO present in this chat room?
– – Anybody is there to answer our query?
And so on…
At the cost of statistical rigour, I have neither the patience nor inclination to sit through the guidance session again, and have no plans to immediately replicate the experiment.
Instead, I am curious to learn from readers who may have used this service of their own experiences. Has the IPO responded to queries on any occasion? If so, what has been the quality of their response? Or am I mistaken in assuming that this service is still alive? Is it, in fact, an “inactive guidance” facility?
Also, sympathizing with the frustrations of askers of unanswered questions, I realise there are several comments I have failed to respond to in my posts here, which I shall attempt to remedy in the future.
Hi. It is extremely unfortunate that one had to witness such a scenario. However I would just like to mention that I have been using the interactive guidance service of IPO website quite often and I have never faced such a problem. In fact, I always received proper and satisfying answers from an officer from the IP Office.
I am an examiner of Trade Marks working in New Delhi IPO.
From Trade Marks side, the interaction session was dealt by Mr.Bansod, Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, till he was transferred to Ahmedabad in last week of May, 2009. In the first week of June there was a meeting headed by C.G with officers from both patent and trade marks in which the issue on the officer who will take charge of ‘interaction’ was raised from trade mark side. Taking the huge pending matters lying before the registrars for hearing, C.G. decided to stop the interaction session. But, officially it is not yet announced or informed to the public, Advocates and Agents.
Here I surprised how one Mr.Abhishek is getting interacted with IPO in recent weeks!
First of all let’s analyse what the interaction actually provides and how far it is helpful to common people.
(1) Most of the questions come around the period within which a trade mark application be registered. Usually the same answer that “it will take 2 years if there is no opposition”. But in reality even for getting examination report it takes almost 2 years.
(2) If any complicated questions are asked, the answer will be like any of the below:-
i. Mostly avoid the answer.
ii. If not possible, it will be a vague answer.
Example:In which class Multi Level Marketing is coming under?
Answer: You go through the 4th Schedule of TradeMarks Act.
iii. You, Mr.Abhishek, are residing near IPO. So, why don’t you come to office and clarify the same.
(3) Sometimes public are misled or confused or given wrong answer. I personally went through the version which I am giving below.
Q:- Can I register a name of a new variety of plant (denomination- registered under protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ rights Act, 2001) as Trade Mark under Trade Marks Act?
A:- Yes. You can.
Section 17(4) of Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ rights Act, 2001 reads as “ notwithstanding anything contained in Trade Marks Act, 1999, a denomination assigned to a variety shall not be registered as a trade mark under Trade Marks Act” .
It is better to have no information than getting wrong information from IPO. Most of the regular examiner working in IPO are neither having legal qualification nor having IPR knowledge. They take it as an another Government office not as a Quasi Judicial Body.
The Examiners of Trade Marks on contract basis are having legal qualification, experience and IPR knowledge. They have been working for the last 9 years, for the meager salary of Rs.11,230/-(which is lesser than what a regular peon is getting) without any revision of pay, with much pressure to a specific target within a specific period. But they are neither allowed take hearing nor permitted to charge of any prime duty like interaction with public. Unless any fresh appointment through UPSC or regularizing the existing examiner on contract are done, nothing fruitful will happen in IPO.
@Ahbishek –
Thank you for your comments. I wanted to humour the IPO, and that’s what I thought – that perhaps the day I picked was an aberration, and that it was an off-day for the officer in charge. I am glad to know that you have received satisfactory responses from the Interactive Sessions. Ordinarily, a comment such as yours would have left me feeling fairly optimistic about the system. But the comment below your own by Anonymous has tempered the optimism, and it may take longer than I thought for the IPO to cash in on Web 2.0.
@Anonymous –
Thank you for your comments. It is fascinating to read such a detailed explanation of the workings of the interactive guidance facility, and a tad disappointing to learn of where things are headed. Clearly, the quality of the responses, if they are on the lines of what you describe, leave a lot of room for improvement. In that regard, it may be prudent to abandon the service entirely until a dedicated and more accurate service can be guaranteed.
Understaffing, lack of competence, and lack of commensurate pay are perennial problems in any sector, particularly in government, so I am not surprised to hear of your concerns. I am not sure if the solution lies in recruitment through standardised exams, because that system needs an independent overhaul itself. However, I do agree that the contract system needs urgent revision, with a corresponding normalisation in the terms of employment, and qualifications required of contractual and regular employees. I am curious to know if a revisioning exercise is in the works, or if there have been no active attempts to improve the conditions of work for IPO officials.