# Presentation: 374461

## 2000TrademarkCustomer Satisfaction Survey

***Executive Summary***
*Prepared by:*
- Westat
- 1650 Research Blvd.
- Rockville, MD 20850
- USPTO Center for Quality Services
- Crystal Park 1, Suite 812

## Demographic Profile – In Summary

**Law firms represented three-quarters of the respondents.  Individual applicants made up only 1% of the total  respondent population.  The 1999 and 2000 profiles are basically the same.**
**Three-quarters of the respondents reported that they contacted the USPTO often during the past year, an increase of 10 percentage points since 1999.  Fewer than 10% of the respondents said they never, only once, or rarely contacted the USPTO during the year.  The percentage of respondents contacting the USPTO only occasionally declined by 6 points.**
**Three-quarters of the respondents reported they are continuous customers with the USPTO, and another 11% said they are frequent customers.  There was a slight increase in the percentage of continuous customers from 1999 to 2000.**
**Three-quarters of the respondents identified themselves as attorneys.**

## Most and Least Satisfied Questions

- T-

## What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With 

***What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With ***

- C1AP1.	Amount of time needed to submitrequired information
- B1.  	Treat you with courtesy eachtime you contact us
- C1AP3. 	Use of phone by employees todeal with examination issues
- B24.  	Issue Certificates of Registrationwith the correct information
- C15c.	Overall courteousness (in handling of problems)
- B4.  	Clearly written communications ofposition of examining attorneys

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

_**Satisfied**_

## What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With (cont.) 

***What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With ******(cont.)****** ***

- C1OE1.	Outcome met your objective
- B23.	Issue Official Gazettes withthe correct information
- C1AP2.	Handling of issues related to goods/services during examination process
- C1OE2.	Fairness of examination

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

_**Satisfied**_

**Amount of time needed to submit required information, courtesy, use of the telephone to deal with examination issues, and issuing Certificates of Registration with the correct information have the highest satisfaction ratings.**

## What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With 

***What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With ***

- C15a.	Handling of delays
- B10.	Mail filing receipts within 14 daysafter receipt of application
- B15.	Respond to Request to Divide within30 days from mail room receipt
- B20.	Respond to Section 9 Requests within30 days from mail room receipt
- B7.	Provide first action regardingregistrability within 3 months
- B19.	Respond to Section 8 Requests within30 days from mail room receipt

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

_**Satisfied**_

## What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With (cont.) 

***What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With ******(cont.)****** ***

- B26.	Resolve problems in processing ofapplications or registrations within 7 days
- C15b.	Handling of mistakes
- B18.	Respond to Section 7 Requests within30 days from mail room receipt
- B14.	Respond to Amendments within35 days from mail room receipt
- C15d.	The way problem was handled

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

_**Satisfied**_

**Respondents are least satisfied with meeting several process time standards and with the handling of problems.**

## Comparison with1999 Results

- T-

## Improvements from 1999  (4 percentage points or more)Ranked by Change in % Satisfied

- C1AP1.	Amount of time needed to submitrequired information
- B18.	Respond to Section 7 Requests
- C15c.	Overall courteousness (in handlingof problems)
- C15a.	Handling of delays
- B14.	Respond to Amendments within35 days of receipt
- B17.	Respond to Extension Requests within 30 days

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**+9***
**+8**
**+6**
**+4**
**+4**
**+4**

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

**_______________**
*** Change in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant at p < .01.  All subsequent significance testing was done at  this p level.**

**Survey items with improvements in satisfaction from 1999 include time needed to submit required information and responding to Section 7 Requests.**

## Declines from 1999  (4 percentage points or more)Ranked by Change in % Satisfied

- C1P2.	Good value for the USPTO fees
- C1P1.	USPTO fees for trademark applications
- B3.	Return calls within 1 business day
- B21.	Issue filing receipts with correctinformation
- B10.	Mail filing receipts within 14 days
- C18.	Overall satisfaction
- C1AP3.	Use of telephone by  employees to dealwith examination issues

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**-10***
**-9***
**-6**
**-6**
**-6**
**-4**
**-4**

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

**________________**
*** Change in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.**

**Survey items with significant declines in satisfaction from 1999 are good value for USPTO fees and fees for trademark applications.**

## Trends 1998 to 1999 (27 comparable items - differences in % satisfied)

**Declined**

**Improved**

**>10**

**6 - 10**

**1 - 5**

**6 - 10**

**>10**

**1 - 5**

**0**

**Percentage-Point Change**

**All comparable items improved from 1998 to 1999.  Of the 27 comparable items, 14 improved significantly.**

## Trends 1999 to 2000 (51 comparable items - differences in % satisfied)

**Declined**

**Improved**

**>10**

**6 - 10**

**1 - 5**

**6 - 10**

**>10**

**1 - 5**

**0**

**Percentage-Point Change**

**There were about equal numbers of declines and gains. Five items declined by 6 to 10 percentage points.**

## Problem Resolution

- T-

## Problem Resolution

**C13.****	****Have you experienced any problems or difficulties ****with USPTO services over the past year?**
**	****	****	****2000 ****	****1999  ****	****	**_**Results**_** ****	**_**Results**_** **
**	****	****Yes, and I contacted someone at the USPTO****	****54%****	****51%**
**	****	****Yes, but I did not contact the USPTO****	****10%****	****   7%**
**	****	****No****	****36%****	****42%**
**C14.****	****Was your problem resolved?**
**	****	****Yes, and it was handled quickly****	****24%****	****29%**
**	****	****Yes, but it was not handled quickly****	****52%****	****44%**
**	****	****No, problem was not resolved****	****24%****	****27%**

**Almost two-thirds of the respondents experienced problems/difficulties with the USPTO during the past year, compared with 58% in 1999.  About one-quarter of those experiencing problems did not have their problems resolved.**

## Questions Pertaining to the Overall Trademark Process

***(Overall Questions)***

- T-

## Overall Questions

**C18****	****Overall satisfaction**
**C1P1****	****USPTO fees for trademark applications**
**C1P2****	****Good value for USPTO fees paid for application**

**Survey**_**Item #**_

## Overall Question - Overall Satisfaction 

**Overall satisfaction declined by 4 percentage points from 1999 to 2000.  That decline is not statistically significant. Overall dissatisfaction remains low, at 14%.**

**C18.****	****Considering all of your experiences with the USPTO **
**	****trademark process, how satisfied are you OVERALL?**

**Satisfied (%)**
**Neutral (%)**
**Dissatisfied (%)**

**Change in****% from 1999**_**to 2000**_
**-4**
**+4**
**0**

## Overall Questions - Price and Value 

**C1P1.  USPTO fees for trademark applications****

**C1P2.  Good value for USPTO fees paid for application****

**Change in****% from 1999**_**to 2000**_
**-9***
**-2**
**+11***

*** The change in percentage from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.**
*** * In 1999 and 2000, the term “fees” was used instead of “costs,” which was used in 1998.**

**There were statistically significant declines in satisfaction and increases in dissatisfaction from 1999 to 2000 with respect to fees and value for fees paid.**

**Change in****% from 1999**_**to 2000**_
**-10***
**0**
**+10***

## Key Drivers:

***Questions That Have the Strongest Relationship with Overall Satisfaction***

- T-

## Service Standards	Satisfied
B2.	Direct you promptly to the 	proper office/person	68%
B4.	Clearly written communications 	of position of examining attorneys	77%
B8.	Provide final determination	regarding registrability 	within 13 months	41%
B10.	Mail filing receipts within 	14 days after receipt of 	application	27%
B14.	Respond to amendments 	within 35 days	37%
B24.	Issue Certificates of 	Registration with the correct 	information	80%
B27.	Provide clear and accurate	answers to questions through	the Trademark Assistance	Center	58%

**B2.****	****Direct you promptly to the ****	****proper office/person****	****68%**
**B4.****	****Clearly written communications ****	****of position of examining attorneys****	****77%**
**B8.****	****Provide final determination****	****regarding registrability ****	****within 13 months****	****41%**
**B10.****	****Mail filing receipts within ****	****14 days after receipt of ****	****application****	****27%**
**B14.****	****Respond to amendments ****	****within 35 days****	****37%**
**B24.****	****Issue Certificates of ****	****Registration with the correct ****	****information****	****80%**
**B27.****	****Provide clear and accurate****	****answers to questions through****	****the Trademark Assistance****	****Center****	****58%**

_**Trademark Process**_**	**_**Satisfied**_
**C1AP5.****	****Appropriateness of****	****refusals made under****	****15 USC § 1052(d) –****	****Likelihood of ****	****Confusion****	****45%**
**C1OE2.****	****Fairness of****	****examination****	****73%**
**C1OE3.****	****Efficiency of the ****	****examination process****	****52%**
**C1SC2.****	****Genuinely committed****	****to providing the best****	****possible service****	****62%**
**C1SR2.****	****Prompt and helpful****	****service****	****63%**

***Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction – ******By Service Standards and Trademark Process******(Excluding Problem Resolution Items)***

**Timeliness of the process, specific aspects of responsive customer service, and examination quality are priority areas for improving satisfaction.**

## Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction –  By Service Standards and Trademark Process/Problem Resolution*

**	****Service**
**	****Standards****	****Sat.**
**B2.****	****Direct you promptly****	****to the proper office/****	****person****	****68%**
**B4.****	****Clearly written ****	****position of ****	****examining attorney****	****77%**
**B14.****	****Respond to****	****Amendments within****	**** 35 days****	****37%**
**B24.****	****Issue Certificates****	****of Registration with****	****correct information****	****80%**
**B26.****	****Resolve problems****	****within 7 days of****	****notification****	****32%**

**	****Trademark**
**	****Process****	****Sat.**
**C1OE2.****	****Fairness of****	****examination****	****73%**
**C1OE3.****	****Efficiency of****	****the examination****	****process ****	****52%**
**C1SC2.****	****Genuinely****	****committed to****	****providing the****	****best possible****	****service****	****62%**
**C1SR2.****	****Prompt and****	****helpful service****	****63%**

**	****Problem**
**	****Resolution****	****Sat.**
**C14.****	****Problem resolved****	****and handled****	****quickly****	****24%**
**C15b.****	****Handling of****	****mistakes****	****33%**

**__________________**
*** Covers those respondents experiencing problems during the past year.**

**Items not in the key driver analysis for all respondents include resolving problems quickly (within 7 days) and handling of mistakes.**

## Moving Customers from Neutral to Satisfied in Overall Satisfaction

- T-

## Comparing the Neutral Overall and Satisfied Overall Groups 

**	****                                                                   ****	**_** **__**Satisfied Ratings of Those**_**:**
**	****	****Satisfied****	****Neutral****	**
**	****	****Overall****	****Overall****	****Difference in****	**_**Item**_**	**_**(C18)**_**	**_**(C18)**_**	**_**% Satisfied**_
**C1SC2*****	****Generally committed to****	****providing the best service****	****82%****	****27%****	****55**
**C1AP7****	****Consistency of examination****	****67%****	****23%****	****44**
**C1SC1****	****Ability to provide accurate answers****	****85%****	****41%****	****44**
**C1SR3****	****Flexibility in addressing needs****	****74%****	****32%****	****42**
**B4*****	****Clearly written position of examining****	****	****attorneys****	****93%****	****53%****	****40**
**C1OE3*****	****Efficiency of the examination process****	****67%****	****27%****	****40**
**B27*****	****Provide accurate answers through TAC****	****74%****	****37%****	****37**
**B8*****	****Provide final determination within ****	****13 months****	****55%****	****18%****	****37**
**C1SR2*****	****Prompt and helpful service****	****78%****	****41%****	****37**
**C1AP5*****	****Appropriateness of refusals under 1052(d)****	****59%****	****25%****	****34**
**______________**
***Key driver items.**

## Comparing the Neutral Overall and Satisfied Overall Groups:  Experiences with Problems

**	****	****	****Neutral****	****Satisfied****	**
**	****	****	**_**Overall (C18)**_**	**_**Overall (C18)**__**	**__**Difference**_
**C13.****	****	****Experienced problems****	****(Yes)****	****81%****	****54%****	****27**
**C15d.****	****The way your problem****	****was handled****	****16%****	****56%****	****40**

**The percentage of respondents in the neutral overall group who experienced problems is higher than the percentage of respondents in the satisfied overall group who experienced problems.  Also, respondents in the neutral overall group were less satisfied with the way their problems were handled.**

## Conclusions

- T-

## Conclusions

**Overall satisfaction remains above 60% (at 65% satisfied), and the rating for dissatisfied with overall services remains low, at 14%.**
**Satisfaction with document accuracy (with the exception of filing receipts) remains strong.**
**Aspects of customer service that show satisfaction ratings of 70% or higher are courteousness and use of the telephone to deal with examination issues.**
**Satisfaction levels regarding clearly written position of examining attorneys, fairness of the examination, and outcomes meeting customer objectives remain strong, with ratings of 70% or higher.**
**There continue to be many positive write-in comments about the professionalism and helpfulness of the examining attorneys.  Respondents are pleased with telephone contacts with examining attorneys; they perceive such contacts as a quick and productive way to handle application issues and formal matters.**

## Conclusions (cont.)

**While several areas remain strong in 2000, the results indicate some declines and some unchanging satisfaction levels from 1999 to 2000.**
**Overall satisfaction declined from 69% to 65% (the decline is not statistically significant).**
**Satisfaction ratings declined for 23 of the 51 comparable items, with 5 of the items declining by 6 to 10 percentage points (two of the declines are statistically significant: values/fees).**
**Satisfaction with customer service was basically unchanged, but some slippage occurred for returning phone calls within one business day.**
**Low levels of satisfaction still exist regarding some key examination quality issues, including sufficiency of evidence in supporting office actions, efficiency of the examination process, consistency of examination, and appropriateness of refusals made under 1052(d) and 1052(e).**
**Because they are unmet, most service standards still have low ratings.**
**The percentage of respondents experiencing problems increased. **

## Conclusions (cont.)

**Why did overall satisfaction not improve?**
**	****While there is no way to answer this question definitively, several indicators from the survey data analyses and from write-in comments suggest possible reasons for continuing low levels of satisfaction and complaints about problems and how they are handled. **
**Those who responded either neutral or dissatisfied overall (C18) have very low satisfaction ratings (35% or less) for several key items, including returning calls within one business day, providing a final determination, appropriateness of refusals, consistency of examination, sufficiency of evidence, efficiency of the examination process, and perceptions about being genuinely committed to providing the best possible service.**
**The percentage of respondents experiencing problems during the year increased.  For example, more than 80% of those responding neutral or dissatisfied to the question on overall satisfaction experienced problems during the year.  Also, the percentage of respondents whose problems were resolved quickly declined by six points.**

## Conclusions (cont.)

**Why did overall satisfaction not improve from 1999? (cont.)**
**There were many more write-in comments this year concerning inconsistencies in examination, inappropriate refusals, and perceptions of poor searches and judgment on the part of examining attorneys. **
**There were also many write-in complaints about poor telephone service.  The percentage of respondents satisfied with calls being returned within one business day declined by 6 points. **
**Respondents report that the majority of in-process time standards established by the Trademark Office are not met.  Write-in comments demonstrated the importance of prompt first office actions.**
**Is the fee increase related to overall satisfaction?  **
**A fee increase was implemented at the beginning of the year.  Analysis of the data shows a weak relationship between USPTO fees for trademark applications (C1P1) and overall satisfaction (C18).  However, value for fees paid has a stronger relationship with overall satisfaction.  **

## Conclusions (cont.)

_**Targets for Improvement—The Vital Few**_
**From the write-in comments and the results of the data analyses, the following targets for improvement have been identified:**
**Revise the standards for issuing refusals, and issue refusals only when it is clear that the refusals are appropriate.  For customers who still have complaints, have a process for reviewing their complaints and responding to the customers.**
**Provide additional training, especially to new examining attorneys, on issues related to decisions under 1052(d) and 1052(e).**
**Acknowledge problems/difficulties reported in faxes and letters, and notify those reporting problems of the steps that will be taken to solve the problems.**
**Re-focus attention on returning phone calls within one day and, where appropriate, provide alternative customer service contacts through the voice mail system.  In addition, continue to explore the feasibility of using e-mail to respond to general questions from applicants.**

## Conclusions (cont.)

_**Targets for Improvement—The Vital Few (cont.)**_
**Consider establishing additional training modules for the TAC staff on the application process and on contact information for examining attorneys. Respondents continue to cite concerns about the Trademark Assistance Center; they have difficulty in getting through (are placed on hold too long), and only 58% of the respondents reported they receive accurate answers to questions. **
**Carefully analyze the types of administrative mistakes and errors being reported and notify applicants about efforts to improve quality control procedures within the administrative structure.**
**Develop an action plan to expand the number of applicants using electronic filing. Electronic filers are extremely positive about accessibility and ease of use of electronic filing and the accuracy of filing receipts.**