1 / 31

2000 Trademark Customer Satisfaction Survey

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.

bianca-osborn
Download Presentation

2000 Trademark Customer Satisfaction Survey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2000TrademarkCustomer Satisfaction Survey Executive Summary Prepared by: Westat 1650 Research Blvd. Rockville, MD 20850 USPTO Center for Quality Services Crystal Park 1, Suite 812

  2. 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.

  3. Most and Least Satisfied Questions T-3

  4. What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With Survey Item # 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 Satisfied

  5. What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With (cont.) Survey Item # 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 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.

  6. What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With Survey Item # 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 Satisfied

  7. What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With (cont.) Survey Item # 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 Satisfied Respondents are least satisfied with meeting several process time standards and with the handling of problems.

  8. Comparison with1999 Results T-8

  9. Improvements from 1999 (4 percentage points or more)Ranked by Change in % Satisfied Change in% Satisfiedfrom 1999 +9* +8 +6 +4 +4 +4 Survey Item # 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 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.

  10. Declines from 1999 (4 percentage points or more)Ranked by Change in % Satisfied Change in% Satisfiedfrom 1999 -10* -9* -6 -6 -6 -4 -4 Survey Item # 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 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.

  11. Trends 1998 to 1999 (27 comparable items - differences in % satisfied) >10 6 - 10 1 - 5 0 1 - 5 6 - 10 >10 Declined Improved Percentage-Point Change All comparable items improved from 1998 to 1999. Of the 27 comparable items, 14 improved significantly.

  12. Trends 1999 to 2000 (51 comparable items - differences in % satisfied) >10 6 - 10 1 - 5 0 1 - 5 6 - 10 >10 Declined Improved Percentage-Point Change There were about equal numbers of declines and gains. Five items declined by 6 to 10 percentage points.

  13. Problem Resolution T-13

  14. Problem Resolution C13. Have you experienced any problems or difficulties with USPTO services over the past year? 2000 1999 ResultsResults 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.

  15. Questions Pertaining to the Overall Trademark Process (Overall Questions) T-15

  16. Overall Questions C18 Overall satisfaction C1P1 USPTO fees for trademark applications C1P2 Good value for USPTO fees paid for application SurveyItem #

  17. Overall Question - Overall Satisfaction C18. Considering all of your experiences with the USPTO trademark process, how satisfied are you OVERALL? Change in% from 1999to 2000 -4 +4 0 Satisfied (%) Neutral (%) Dissatisfied (%) Overall satisfaction declined by 4 percentage points from 1999 to 2000. That decline is not statistically significant. Overall dissatisfaction remains low, at 14%.

  18. Overall Questions - Price and Value C1P1. USPTO fees for trademark applications** Change in% from 1999to 2000 -9* -2 +11* C1P2. Good value for USPTO fees paid for application** Change in% from 1999to 2000 -10* 0 +10* * 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.

  19. Key Drivers: Questions That Have the Strongest Relationship with Overall Satisfaction T-19

  20. Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction – By Service Standards and Trademark Process(Excluding Problem Resolution Items) Service StandardsSatisfied 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 ProcessSatisfied 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% Timeliness of the process, specific aspects of responsive customer service, and examination quality are priority areas for improving satisfaction.

  21. Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction – By Service Standards and Trademark Process/Problem Resolution* 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% 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% __________________ * 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.

  22. Moving Customers from Neutral to Satisfied in Overall Satisfaction T-22

  23. Comparing the Neutral Overall and Satisfied Overall Groups Satisfied Ratings of Those: Satisfied Neutral Overall Overall Difference inItem(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.

  24. 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.

  25. Conclusions T-25

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

More Related