tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058786915356669476.post3398052884571853319..comments2024-03-27T08:57:40.383+00:00Comments on SOLO IP <br> for sole and small IP practices<br>: How to Protect Consumers and Regulation - Titles and the UnregulatedFilemothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058786915356669476.post-68854764912074740892011-03-17T19:09:14.243+00:002011-03-17T19:09:14.243+00:00Many non-IP savvy businesses as well as individual...Many non-IP savvy businesses as well as individuals make use of the IP system so regulation is necessary to ensure people are able to appropriately provide the services they sell. Speaking as a qualified person with no interest in dealing with individuals, or for that matter, ignorant businesses who want everything done on the cheap, I still believe that these people should be protected from the rogues around us. Regulating only those who use protected titles is pointless when other non-protected titles can be used and most people do not understand the differences anyway.<br /><br />As for solicitors using the titles Trade Mark Attorney and Patent Attorney, then that is fine by me provided they have reached the same standard of qualification as Trade Mark Attorneys and Patent Attorneys.<br /><br />Intra-professional competition is indeed pointless, but is mainly because as a niche profession we are not an intimate nearmcopart of the solicitor/barrister regime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058786915356669476.post-62000512903943043222011-01-31T09:10:59.590+00:002011-01-31T09:10:59.590+00:00As a member of the CIPA Protected Titles Committee...As a member of the CIPA Protected Titles Committee, I do have to declare an interest here. It is going to be hard for Council to take the moral high ground and take Shireen's advice and recommend that their members should not do ( use trade mark attorney) what solicitors and the rest of the world can. <br />Unless and until the IPO feel that it would be preferable to exclude incompetent representatives, nothing will happen.<br />Maybe the fact that the IPO itself does not require legal qualifications for employment as a trade mark examiner or hearing officer, makes this unlikely. Trade marks are judged as perceived by the public and used exclusively in business. Although created by statute they may well have more in common with commercial activity than the legal sphere. There is a good argument we should shoo all the argumentative lawyers out of the house altogether.Filemothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058786915356669476.post-19124181267326037032011-01-31T09:07:16.858+00:002011-01-31T09:07:16.858+00:00May I add a comment that takes the issue slightly ...May I add a comment that takes the issue slightly away from the “regulated v unregulated” debate? It also includes the arrival of competitors whose activities will be governed by regulators, other than the current ones (i.e. the SRA for solicitors, the Bar Standards Board for Barristers and IPReg for Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys). This will provide competition that may have particular relevance in the litigation field. But, as Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys may react to unregulated competition in their “core” areas of work by undertaking more litigation, it may have a less direct across the whole IP field.<br /><br />This is part of the climate of reform generated by the regulatory objectives of the Legal Services Act 2007. It is already opening up the field for regulators of legal services and increasing the potential for such organisations to extend their regulatory scope, a trend that is likely to accelerate with moves to further expand the pool of approved regulators or licensing authorities for the new Alternative Business Structures from 2011.<br /><br />New and established professional, representative bodies, as well as approved regulators, appear to be involved in something akin to a regulatory “land grab” at present. The same volatility will be seen as some of those new entities seek to “cherry pick” lucrative work types and supply legal services via a variety of new business models. Although much of the commentary in the press has focused on consumer facing legal services such as conveyancing, personal injury and private client work, it seems clear that commercial areas of work will also be targeted. Specialist areas such as insolvency and business restructuring and employment may be the prime areas for this sort of activity but it seems likely that the field of intellectual property will also be targeted as providing a lucrative service sector, especially for SMEs.<br /><br />The most volatile area in the regulated sector has proved to be the acquisition of rights to conduct litigation and rights of audience before the courts. It is seen as emblematic of the status and function of “the lawyer”. Last year saw the following developments:<br /><br />a) Ambitious plans advanced by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers to acquire litigation and advocacy rights and by ILEX Professional Standards and the Institute of Legal Executives, for rights in new areas, such as to act as associate prosecutors. <br />b) The Association of Law Costs Draftsmen (“ALCD”) also unveiled plans to change its structure to encompass only two levels of membership; trainee costs lawyer and costs lawyer. The result will be to increase the number of the newly framed “costs lawyers” with rights to appear before the courts (including the Supreme Court) on costs related matters. <br />c) The publication of a consultation paper by a Joint Advocacy Group drawn from the SRA, BSB and ILEX on a common quality assurance scheme. At that stage it addressed criminal advocacy only but it reflects a trend towards common standards across all those operating in a particular field of litigation.<br />d) The relaxation by BSB of the practice requirements for barristers in recent months with the advent of the launch of the Bar Council’s new procurement company model “ProcureCo” allowing barristers to work together with other professionals and the extension of direct access provisions. <br /><br />Against this background the moves by ITMA and CIPA to revise their regulations for litigation rights are crucial. The result will be a less strenuous training regime for those wishing to undertake litigation. That will ensure that Attorneys do not face barriers to undertaking litigation that are significantly harder to overcome than those facing other professionals.Chris Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00208169485751856744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058786915356669476.post-6256352221652680102011-01-31T08:07:08.580+00:002011-01-31T08:07:08.580+00:00Shireen, what you are describing appears to be an ...Shireen, what you are describing appears to be an attempt by some in ITMA to monopolise the expression "trade mark attorney". The recent registration by ITMA of a trade mark for the name trade mark attorney indicates a similar trend. I agree that it is irrelevant to the wider world whether CIPA makes a recommendation to its fellows about such usage.<br /><br />My own view is that patent agents, trade mark agents and solicitors have far more in common than divides them, particularly now that we are all regulated under the same overall umbrella as legal service providers. The enemy is unregulated advisers, not each other. I wish this were recognised more. Intra-family squabbling over use of the name attorney is unseemly, but is likely to continue as long as extreme positions are taken.<br /><br />Whilst the position was once (back in the 1980s, when the CDPA Bill was being debated) solicitors attempting to recover the name attorney (as in patent attorney or trade mark attorney), which the Law Society abandoned in the late 19th century (see Royal Charter of 1903 at http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/downloads/royalcharters.pdf), now it is some trade mark agents trying to prevent anyone not on the register of trade mark agents from using the name trade mark attorney.<br /><br />Regrettably, as solicitors we are going to need to keep being vigilant as these ITMA initiatives keep coming.Mark Andersonhttp://www.andlaw.eunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058786915356669476.post-8217837197481945062011-01-30T11:22:40.753+00:002011-01-30T11:22:40.753+00:00By an large the user of IP services are companies ...By an large the user of IP services are companies and there is very little imbalance between those companies and their advisers. I can't see how a consumer protection argument can be used in that context.<br /><br />We live in a market economy where businesses should be free to chose whom they engage and contract with. It is up to the market and the law of contract to regulate these relationships. For example sophisticated businesses will be best placed to evaluate the risks involved in engaging a particular adviser and will no doubt do the necessary due diligence.<br /><br />It is hard to see why the state should impose extra regulation in this regard except to benefit a protected sector from competition and to create a higher barrier to entry for innovation.<br /><br />The current system of regulation is centuries out of date and if it is not modernised innovative service providers will eventually find ways to bypass it.Fred Loguehttp://www.newmorningip.comnoreply@blogger.com