2 Quality Management Methods for Trademark Examination Basedon Evaluations by Applicants/Agents(*)
In addition to quality control in individual cases, comprehensive and systematic quality management
is also important for promoting efforts to maintain and improve the quality of trademark examination.
Therefore, we conducted this study to examine the desirable trademark examination from the standpointof external users and quality methods to manage it, using surveys on the actual conditions of quality
management at overseas intellectual property offices and through hearing and analysis of the opinions
and requests of domestic users. We also conducted a questionnaire survey to evaluate the quality of theoverall trademark examination, the quality of the trademark examination in individual cases, and quality
management methods for trademark examination in Japan, targeting 1,000 applicants and agents in total.
In order to understand the questionnaire in greater detail, we conducted an interview survey targeting 20
applicants and agents in total in Japan. According to the results of the survey, more than 80% of users feelthat the “quality” of the recent trademark examination procedures by examiners is appropriate. However,
we believe that it is necessary to make continued efforts to further improve quality based on the various
opinions and requests from applicants and agents. In addition, there have been improvements inexpediting the examination in relation to the first action pendency. Expediting reexamination of written
opinions or written amendments and maintenance and improvement of the quality of the examination are
considered to be tasks for the future.

Ⅰ Introduction
In order to maintain and improve the qualityof trademark examination, efforts have been madefor greater promptness and precision. In addition,
the examinations that secure transparency andfairness have been promoted based on a common
understanding with the users of the trademark
system, by further increasing transparency in theformulation of the Examination Guidelines for
Trademarks.
To ensure prompt and precise examination
for individual cases, the trademark examination
department has continuously conducted thequality control of trademark examination bychecking the content of individual trademark
examinations by the head of each examination
office, etc. up to the present date. At the sametime, the Trademark Division and the trademark
examination department have exchanged opinionswith and collected opinions from various industry
groups in order to understand user needs.
Furthermore, they also hold discussions on
the mechanism of quality management intrademark examination in order to makeorganized efforts to improve the quality, by
mapping out environmental changes in andoutside of Japan and by efficiently providing(*)

consistently high-quality services that are
sensitive to the voices of the users.
In this study, we surveyed and analyzed
problems with the current state of trademark
examination and user needs while focusing on thequality management method for the trademark
examination adopted at overseas intellectual
property offices and external evaluation thereof(evaluation of the trademark examination by
applicants and agents). We conducted this study
for the purpose of providing basic data useful for
considering desirable trademark examinationfrom the standpoint of external users and thequality management method for trademark
examination.

Ⅱ Quality Management Method for
the Trademark Examination and
Evaluation System by External
Users in Other Countries
1

Quality
management
methodfor
trademark examination at intellectual
property offices in seven countries andone region
We conducted a survey on departments inThis is an English translation of the summary of the report published under the Research Study Project on Issues
with Industrial Property Rights System FY2010 entrusted by the Japan Patent Office. IIP is entirely responsible forany errors in expression or description of the translation. When any ambiguity is found in the English translation,
the original Japanese text shall be prevailing.
●

IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

1 ●charge of quality management for trademark
examination at each intellectual property officeand on management methods as well as
evaluation thereof by external users (including
customer satisfaction survey). We sent aquestionnaire targeting intellectual property
offices in seven countries and one region,
specifically, the United States, Europe, South
Korea, China, the United Kingdom, Germany,
Australia, and Singapore. However, intellectual
property offices in Europe, South Korea, China,
and the United Kingdom answered thequestionnaire on the condition that their answers
would be kept undisclosed. Therefore, for thesefour offices, only the results of the bibliographic
survey are included in this report.
(1) United States Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO)The USPTO has the Office of Trademark
Quality Review and Training (OTQRT), which is a
department in charge of quality management,
under the control of the Deputy Commissioner
for Trademark Examination Policy of theTrademark Office.
The OTQRT is a department independent
from the Trademark Examination Organization(TMEO) and it objectively evaluates the quality oftrademark examination. A review is conducted
mainly at the examination stage; however, it isalso possible to conduct evaluation even before
examination or after registration. The OTQRT
evaluates the quality of determinations byexaminers, of individual documents, and of
support documents based on evidence, and stores
related data. Moreover, the OTQRT analyzes thisdata to specify the need for quality, which isincorporated through various kinds of training
provided to improve the quality of examination
operations at the USPTO.
With regard to evaluation by external users,
the USPTO has been implementing the Customer
Panel Quality Survey since 2006.
(2) Office of Harmonization for the InternalMarket (OHIM)The OHIM has obtained ISO 9001:2000
certification and has introduced a Quality
Management System (QMS) for the entire OHIM,
thereby making efforts for quality management,
including checking the quality of sample cases.
The OHIM User Satisfaction Survey, whichis conducted as part of the OHIM QMS, has been
conducted once a year since 2005 up to thepresent.
●(3) Korean Intellectual Property Office(KIPO)The KIPO has the “Examination Quality
Assurance
Officer”
undertheDeputyCommissioner, as a “department” in charge of
quality management for overall examination
operations.
The KIPO outsources evaluations byexternal users to external specialist researchorganizations, and has conducted the customer
satisfaction survey twice a year (semi-annually)
and the user-friendliness survey four times a year
(quarterly) by phone or by other means since2003. The survey results are published on its
website to coincide with each fiscal year.
(4) China Trademark Office (CTMO)The
CTMO’sexamination
quality
management framework is a means ofstrengthening organization control, with the aimofappropriately
implementing
quality-management operations for trademark
examination.
The CTMO’s specialized staff conducts thecustomer satisfaction survey when they speakwith users in the telephone service set up forreceiving inquiries.
(5) United Kingdom Intellectual Property
Office (UKIPO)The UKIPO has a department in charge ofthequality
managementoftrademarkexamination, which is independent from theexamination department.
With regard to the customer satisfaction
survey, the UKIPO conducts an Online Survey via
the Web on a steady basis and conducts a
Customer Survey once every two years.
(6) German Patent and Trademark Office(DPMA/GPTO)
The DPMA has a department that has
jurisdiction
overorcoordinates
quality
management of the examination, and carries out
thequality
managementoftrademarkexamination independently, separately from thequality management of the examination of otherindustrial property rights (patents/designs).
The quality checking of the examination
starts immediately after data is retrieved for the
first time; and all procedures during the durationof a trademark are subject to the check. This
includes quality checking in terms of whether theexamination procedures themselves have beencorrectly implemented and whether all the2 ●IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

internal instructions have been observed.
The DPMA does not implement any measurefor evaluation of the quality of the trademark
examination by external users at present.
However, it plans to do so during the period fromfiscal 2012 to 2013.
(7) IP Australia (IPA)
The IPA has a “Quality Improvement
Section,” which administers quality management
for examinations. The Quality Improvement
Section is operated independently from theexamination department.
In the examination-results quality-review
process at the IPA, examination operations bytrademarkexaminers,
excludingassistanttrademark examiners, are subject to review. The
process is carried out by sampling examination
results. Samples for each examiner are reviewed
by checking with a series of evaluation standards.
The IPA implements measures for evaluation
by external users through the IPA Customer
Benchmark Survey.
(8) Intellectual Property Office of Singapore(IPOS)The IPOS has no department in charge of
quality management for examinations.
The IPOS formally introduced the CaseManagement Conference (CMC) system in March2009 after going through a trial operation fromFebruary to July 2008, so that it could holdinterviews with the parties concerned moreproactively at an early stage of the examination
procedures and could promptly and effectively
process the cases to be examined.
So far, the IPOS has yet to conduct any
customer satisfaction survey.
2

Survey targeting overseas agents andapplicants

In addition to the survey on the actual
conditions of quality management method for the
trademark examination targeting intellectual
property offices in the aforementioned sevencountries and one region, we conducted a survey
by using one representative or law firm for eachcountry/region in order to gain an understandingof external users’ (applicants’ and agents’)evaluation of the quality management method forthe trademark examination adopted at intellectual
property offices in the seven countries and one
region.
The survey results revealed that overseas●

IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

agents and applicants regarded evaluations byexternal users, including customer satisfaction
surveys, as one of the appropriate methods forthequality
managementoftrademarkexamination.
In addition, many agents and applicantsbelieve that an effective way to improve thequality of the trademark examination is byreflecting the results of surveys, including
customer satisfaction surveys, on the actual
practice of the trademark examination.

Ⅲ Quality Management Method fortheTrademarkExamination
Based on Evaluation by Domestic
Applicants/Agents
We conducted a domestic questionnaire
survey targeting 650 domestic applicants who
filed 10 or more applications for trademark
registration in 2008 and 350 agents who acted for
applicants in filing applications for trademark
registration in 2008 (1,000 in total).
1

Quality evaluation of
trademark examinationtheoverall(1) Degree of satisfaction with the trademark
examination
Those who evaluate overall procedures
carried out recently (within around one year) as
appropriate (total of those who answered“Appropriate” or “Rather appropriate”) accounted
for more than 80%.
(2) Key points in the trademark examination
It was revealed that applicants and agentsregard “appropriateness of determination ofsimilarity” (85.5%) and “appropriateness ofdetermination of distinctive feature” (84.9%) as
the most important viewpoints for measuring thedegree of satisfaction with the examination,
followed by “examiner’s understanding ofdesignated goods and designated services”(39.8%) and “promptness of the examination”(38.9%).
With regard to “appropriateness ofdetermination of distinctive feature,” most
respondents consider “invariable determination
among examiners” (74.5%) to be important,followed by “determination based on the actual
conditions of transactions” (65%), “determinationthat does not depart from the Examination
Guidelines for Trademarks” (43%), and3 ●“determination that does not depart fromtrial/court” (33.8%).
With regard to “appropriateness ofdetermination of similarity,” most respondents
consider “invariable determination among
examiners” (75.4%) to be important, similar totheaforementioned
appropriatenessindetermining a distinctive feature, followed by“determination based on the actual conditions oftransactions” (56.1%), “determination that does
not depart from the Examination Guidelines for
Trademarks” (48.7%), and “determination that
does not depart from trial/court” (36.8%).
With regard to “appropriateness of
examiner’s understanding of designated goods
and designated services,” most respondents
consider “understanding of the actual conditionsof transactions” (64.7%) to be important, followedby “invariable determination among examiners”(55.2%) and “understanding of designated goods
or designated services stated in filing documents”(54.9%).
(3) Promptness of the examination
About 80% of the respondents regard thecurrent first action pendency (period from thefiling date to the day on which the firstexamination result is notified; 5.9 months on
average in fiscal 2009) to be reasonable. Most of
the respondents who answered “long” consider“three months” to be a desirable period, whilemost of the respondents who answered “short”
desire a period of more than “six months.”
With regard to the “period from submissionof a written opinion or a written amendment to
dispatch of a notice of the final examination
result,” about 60% of respondents regard thecurrent period as reasonable. However, comparedto the degree of satisfaction with the first action
pendency, more respondents consider the “period
from submission of a written opinion or a written
amendment to dispatch of a notice of the final
examination result” to be “long.”(4) Communication with examiners
Both applicants and agents cite the following
as matters that they consider particularly
important from the viewpoint of communication
with examiners, in order of descending
prevalence: “appropriateness of statements in a
notice of reasons for refusal” “appropriateness ofstatements in a decision of refusal” and“appropriateness of correspondence in interview,by phone, etc.”●2

Evaluation of the quality of the trademark
examination in individual cases(1) Statements in a notice of reasons forrefusal
In answer to a question of whether it waspossible to sufficiently understand reasons forrefusal indicated by the examiner from a notice of
reasons for refusal, more than 90% of the agentsand applicants answered “Possible to sufficiently
understand” or “Rather possible to understand.”And the percentage of applicants who answered“Possible to sufficiently understand” is 10%
higher than the agents who answered the same.

(2) Statements in a notice of reasons forrefusal
In answer to a question of whether it waspossible to sufficiently understand why thereasons for refusal indicated by the examiner
have not been eliminated from a decision ofrefusal, about 70% of respondents answered“Possible to sufficiently understand” or “Rather
possible to understand.” However, more than
20% of the agents and applicants answered“Rather not possible to understand.” The
percentage for understanding statements in adecision of refusal is 15% lower than that forunderstanding statements in a notice of reasons
for refusal. As for reasons that it was not possible
to understand statements in a decision of refusal,
besides “Others,” most respondents answered“Examiner’s view is not sufficiently indicated”
with regard to the matters asserted in a written
opinion, accounting for about 30%, followed by“Examiner’s view is not at all indicated,”accounting for 17%.
3

Survey method

With regard to the content of questions in
the questionnaire, about 80% of the respondents
answered that there was “no” question that was
hard to answer or to understand.
With regard to a desirable question form,
more than 70% of the agents and applicants intotal answered “Close-ended question.” The
breakdown is: “Close-ended question” 72.6%,“Grade-evaluationquestion”
17.4%,
and“Free-answer question” 8.8%.
With regard to a request for answering aquestionnaire about the quality evaluation of the
trademark examination in the future, more than
95% of the respondents answered “Willcooperate” or “Will cooperate with conditions.”
4 ●IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

With regard to the points to which
consideration has to be given in a survey like this,most respondents cited the handling of
information on individual cases and consideration
to personal information.

Ⅳ Domestic Interview Survey
We conducted the domestic interview survey
targeting 13 applicants and 7 agents (20 in total)
with the aim of understanding the items of thedomestic questionnaire survey in further detail.
1

Evaluation of the quality of the trademark
examination

With regard to the impression of the“quality” of recent examination procedures, there
were opinions that “Both the quality of
examination by examiners and examiners’
responses are basically appropriate,” “Thecontent of reasons for refusal has been reasonable
in the past two or three years, and there is no
problem,” “Suggestions for amendments are
written in an understandable way, and there is no
problem in terms of responses,” and “There is no
problem in terms of the overall quality oftrademark examiners.”
With regard to the examination period, manysaid that the current first action pendency (5.9months on average in fiscal 2009) was reasonable.
On the other hand, many applicants and agentswere concerned that there would be problems in
relation to the priority under the Paris
Convention and applications based on the MadridProtocol if the first action pendency were shorter
than sixth months.
Some pointed out that the “period from
submission of a written opinion or a written
amendment to dispatch of a notice of the final
examination result” differs depending on thecases. There is also a request that “a standard
should be set; for example, the final examination
result shall be dispatched within a certain period,e.g., within one to three months.”
On the other hand, where examination
appears to be delayed, agents tend to actively
submit a letter of inquiry. Applicants sometimes
submit a letter of inquiry through their agents.
However, there was an opinion that applicants
who file applications by themselves do not
actively use a letter of inquiry for fear that it
might have a negative effect on the examination
result.

●

IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

2

Method for evaluation of trademark
examination by external users

Both the applicants and the agents requested
that questionnaire and interview surveys likethose conducted at this time continue to be
conducted as they can have opportunities toexpress their opinions. In addition, they also
requested that opportunities like this interview
or the meetings for exchange of opinions between
applicants and examiners be increased if possible.
With regard to the questionnaire survey
method, there was no negative opinion. However,some said that an online survey that is conducted
via the Internet also matched the modern age.
With regard to the question form, many said thatclose-ended questions imposed fewer burdens on
respondents.
With regard to the frequency of the surveys,
most interviewees answered “once every two to
three years” or “once every three to five years.”With regard to publication of the results,
many interviewees hope that the survey results
are published (five opinions), and someinterviewees said that they would like to know
the answers of other users. In addition, there wasan opinion that respondents would have an
incentive to answer questions if they could findout how the JPO was going to use the survey
results in examinations.

Ⅴ Desirable Trademark Examination
Basedon
Evaluation
by
Applicants/Agents and Problems
with and Analysis of Quality
Management Method
1

Significance and necessity of quality
management method for the trademark
examination based on evaluation by
applicants/Agents

Evaluation of the trademark examination by
applicants and agents is important not only indirectly confirming the evaluation of the quality ofthe examination as “external evaluation” but alsoin promoting the measurement and improvementof the effect of the quality management method.
Overseas intellectual property offices are also
aware of the importance and have started related
efforts. In Japan, there is also a request to
establish a method by which evaluation by
applicants and agents can be heard efficiently and5 ●sufficiently.
Out of the overseas intellectual property
offices in the seven countries and one region forwhich this survey was conducted, those in the six
countries and one region have a department incharge of quality management intended to
improve the quality of the examination
themselves.
In
addition,adepartment
independent from the examination department
conducts evaluation of the quality of theexamination in many of those countries/region.
This should be drawn on from the perspective ofobjectivity and fairness.
Moreover, the aforementioned overseas
intellectual property offices in the six countries
and one region conduct surveys on evaluation by
external users (including customer satisfaction
survey) as part of quality management. It isconsidered necessary to establish a department incharge of quality management and continuously
conduct surveys on evaluation by external users(including customer satisfaction survey) in Japanin reference to the results of the survey targetingthe overseas intellectual property offices.
2

Desirable trademark examination basedon evaluation by applicants/Agents(1) Degree of satisfaction with the trademark
examination
According to the results of the questionnaire
survey, regarding the degree of satisfaction withthe trademark examination, respondents who
answered “Appropriate” or “Rather appropriate”
account for more than 80%. In addition, in theinterview survey, many interviewees said thatthey had no problem with the “quality” of the
trademark examination. However, 16% ofrespondents of the questionnaire survey
answered“Rather
inappropriate”
or“Inappropriate,” and this figure is not at all small.
Although some say that this figure is attributableto special cases and that the respondents do not
feel that the overall examination is inappropriate,
further improvement of the quality seems to benecessary.
(2) Key points in the trademark examination
With regard to “key points in theexamination,” which applicants and agentsanswered in the questionnaire survey, “invariable
determination among examiners” accounted for alarge percentage for every item, specifically,
74.5% for distinctive feature, 75.4% fordetermination of similarity, and 55.2% for●designated goods and designated services.
This means that, from the perspective of
uniformity and predictability of examination
results, variability in determinations within the
JPO causes significant disadvantage to users.
Alleviation of such variability seems to bestrongly requested.
<Determination of distinctive feature>
With regard to “determination of distinctive
feature,” according to the interview survey, many
hope for “determination based on the actual
conditions of transactions,” despite the opinion
that it is wrong to determine a trademark as
having distinctiveness as “there is no fact of its
use in the market.” This seems to be indicatingthat a trademark that is highly likely to be used in
the relevant field with changing times should be
refused based on the “actual conditions oftransactions” even if there is no fact of its actualuse. However, some of the actual conditions in
the relevant industry cannot be understood
through an ex officio search by examiners.
<Appropriatenessofdeterminationofsimilarity>
With regard to the “appropriateness ofdetermination of similarity,” it was pointed out, in
the interview survey, that standards fordetermining the consecution and unity of acomposite trademark are strict in some cases andare lax in other cases, and that even if one cites
past cases as examples, the examiner sometimes
simply says that “the example cases differ fromthis case.” What users request in relation todetermination of similarity is considered to be theensuringof
consistencyinexaminers’
determinations.
<Appropriateness of examiner’s understanding ofdesignated goods and designated services>
According to the results of the questionnaire
survey, many applicants and agents answered thatthey attached importance to “understanding of
the actual conditions of transactions” in relation
totheappropriatenessof
examiner’s
understandingof
designated
goods
and
designated services. It can thus be said that theunderstanding of the actual conditions oftransactions is requested.
(3) Promptness of the examination
With regard to the first action pendency,
applicants and agents appear to be basicallysatisfied with the current period. Taking into
account opinions about the first action pendency
becoming excessively short (concerns about
deterioration in quality, relationships with the
6 ●IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

right of priority, and the time limit for submissionof an information offer form), it seems thatapplicants and agents consider the appropriate
first action pendency to be around six months.
On the other hand, with regard to the “period
from submission of a written opinion or a written
amendment to dispatch of a notice of the final
examination result,” the period is long for somecases (though these are individual situations), andapplicants appear to be dissatisfied with theperiod in some cases. Therefore, it might be fine
to set a goal, for example, three months maximum.
In addition, it is necessary for the examiner topromptly render a decision in cases ofamendments as instructed by the examiner (inrelation to Article 6) and simple written
amendments (deletion of designated goods thathave been determined to be similar). We believethat priority should be given to expediting thereexamination of a written opinion or a written
amendment.
(4) Communication with examiners
Communication with examiners throughinterview/by phone and suggestions foramendments by examiners were evaluated as
being useful.
With regard to statements in a notice of
reasons for refusal, the degree of understanding
thereof among applicants and respondents was
extremely high, at 91%. However, it was only
65.9% for statements in a decision of refusal.
Where an applicant is dissatisfied with a decisionof refusal, he/she will file a request for a trial
against the decision; therefore, a decision ofrefusal subject to such a request must sufficiently
disclose the reasons for the refusal. Consequently,
it can be said to be desirable to clearly state
determinations on the applicant’s assertions if awritten opinion has been submitted.
3

Quality management method for the
trademark examination based on evaluation
by applicants/Agents(1) Survey method/question form
With regard to the method of questionnaire
survey to hear the opinions of applicants/agentsaccording to the questionnaire and interview
surveys, there was no answer showing
dissatisfaction with the survey method. Therefore,
this questionnaire survey method (sending
electronic data to those who wish) is considered
to be appropriate.
With regard to a question about desirable●

IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20

question form, according to the questionnaire
survey, close-ended questions account for 72.6%,
grade-evaluation questions account for 17.5%,
and free-answer questions account for 8.8%. In
the interview survey, with regard to the question
form in the questionnaire survey, many said thatchecking questions, such as close-ended andgrade-evaluation questions, imposed fewer
burdens on respondents. Close-ended questions
seem to be reasonable from the perspective offewer burdens on respondents and easiness oftabulating and analyzing the content.
(2) Selection of those subject to thesurveys/individual cases and frequencyof the surveys<Selectionofthosesubjecttothesurveys/individual cases>
In the questionnaire and interview surveys,
there were the opinions that “I don’t know how
the cases were selected” and “I don’t know why
the cases were selected.” With regard to themethod of selecting individual cases, some
expressed the opinion that more answers are
obtainable by having users (respondents) selectcases or by narrowing down the cases subject tothe surveys to cases in which reasons for refusal
have been notified at least once.
Some pointed out that “Four to fiveindividual cases are a bit too many,” and there
seems to be room for considering a suggestionthat “Respondents select individual cases andanswer the questions.” Even when notdesignating cases, it is considered to be a goodidea for respondents to select cases from a list
prepared in advance and to answer the questions.
<Frequency and timing of the surveys/time forresponse>
With regard to the frequency of the surveys,
some said that once every two to three years oronce every three to five years was effective. In
addition, others said that it was desirable toconduct surveys in the form of linking well toinstitutional turning points, including legal
revisions and operational reforms, for example,“revisions of the Examination Standards for
Similarity of Goods or Services” (every five
years). In addition, there was also the opinion that
it is desirable to conduct the surveys once a year;
however, it is considered unnecessary to increase
the frequency of the surveys to that level, taking
into account that the answers are not of thenature of changing significantly within a shortperiod of time if the survey content is the sameand that the survey results are analyzed and7 ●reflected on the examination and operations. It isconsidered reasonable to conduct the surveys ona regular basis at certain intervals in
consideration of burdens on the respondents.
In addition, it is also possible to use a
Web-based full-time satisfaction survey (tabulated
quarterly) and a customer satisfaction survey
conducted once a year concurrently, like in the
United Kingdom and Australia.
With regard to the response time, no one
said in the questionnaire and interview surveys
that the four weeks given for this questionnaire
survey were too short. However, it is considerednecessary to cater to respondents, taking into
account the timing of the survey, in setting the
response time, for example, by setting a little
longer period (e.g., six weeks to two months), in
order to increase the response rate as much as
possible.
<Publication/feedback of the results>
In the interview survey, many wished for
publication/feedback of the survey results. Some
said that they would like to know the answers ofother users. In addition, there was the opinion
that respondents would have an incentive toanswer questions if they could find out how the
JPO was using the survey results on theexamination. In any of these cases, it is necessary
to avoid the publication of the survey results bywhich individual cases may be identified, from theperspective of confidentiality of information.
Therefore, it is considered necessary to ensurethat only statistical results are published and to
examine the method of feedback with the greatest
care so that individual cases/respondents are not
identified.
<Points to keep in mind in the surveys (handlingof information)>In this questionnaire survey, most of
respondents who answered “Yes” to the questionof whether they think that consideration isnecessary in some cases specifically cited thehandling of information on individual cases andconsideration to personal information. Some
respondents were worried that their answers
might have a negative effect on the examination ofpending applications. Therefore, it is considerednecessary to examine, in future surveys, whether
it is desirable to adopt an answer form by which
the examiner in charge is identified.
4

procedures by examiners is appropriate. However,
we consider it necessary to make continued
efforts to further improve quality based on
various opinions and requests of applicants/agentsconcerning the quality of the examination. In
addition, improvements have been carriedforward with regard to expediting theexamination in relation to the first action
pendency. Expedition of reexamination of awritten opinion or a written amendment andmaintenance/improvement of the quality of theexamination are considered to be future tasks.
With regard to the task of maintaining/improving the quality of the examination, it isconsidered necessary to take actions, such as
establishing a department in charge of quality
management at the JPO in reference to theresults of the overseas survey, continuously
conducting surveys on evaluation by external
users (including customer satisfaction survey),
and reflecting users’ opinions. In addition, it isprobably important to publish the process andresults thereof in order to enhance awareness ofboth examiners and users.
(Senior researcher: Ong Poh Chuan)

Conclusion

More than 80% of users feel that the“quality” of the recent trademark examination●

8 ●IIP Bulletin 2011 Vol.20