Home » General Interest » Misleading invoices – IP Scammers

Misleading invoices – IP Scammers

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Privacy Policy

IPcopy’s Privacy Policy can be viewed here.

DSC03616-BWe are delighted to report that there has been some good news in the fight against companies/individuals issuing misleading invoices which appear to be from the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) (previous IPcopy articles can be found here).

In this regard, a company trading as Intellectual Property Agency Ltd (IPA) and its director Mr Harri Mattias Jonasson were found liable for trade mark infringement and passing off and ordered to pay £500,000 plus legal costs to the UK IPO.

The IPA gave the impression that it was the UK IPO, or at least connected with it, such that it was able to convince owners of trade marks and patents to instruct the IPA to renew its rights at a cost of up to 6 times the official renewal fees.

Initially, the IPA and UK IPO sought to settle the matter, but the IPA was unwilling to provide the UK IPO with the undertakings it required. Accordingly, the UK IPO continued with the proceedings where it was held that the IPA deliberately set out to deceive intellectual property owners by issuing scam renewal notices.

For full details of the case, please see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/IPEC/2015/3256.html.

Congratulations to the IPO for pursuing this matter and for their ongoing efforts to educate users of the IP system about the dangers of misleading invoices.

Whilst customer feedback suggests a reduction in scam renewal notices (848 cases in 2013 compared to 262 cases in 2014), given the list of example invoices provided at the EPO and OHIM, we suspect that it is actually the case that the problem is becoming more easily identified by clients or it is just not being reported to the UK IPO. In many cases, clients receive numerous invoices from a variety of companies within a short time frame (i.e. shortly after publication), such that the sheer number of misleading invoices may not always be reported.

This case will hopefully put others off from issuing misleading invoices, but we advise all clients to be vigilant and report such misleading invoices to their legal representatives, the UK IPO and the Action Fraud website.

Charlotte Blakey 11 November 2015

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: