200 likes | 372 Views
Quality check system in OHIM. Overview on the new procedure. Beate Schmidt, Director of Trade Marks and Cancellation Department. Liaison Meeting on Trade Marks, 14./15. June 2007 Alicante. http://oami.europa.eu/en/userscorner/cons.htm. The New Quality Check System. Main Features
E N D
Quality check system in OHIM Overview on the new procedure Beate Schmidt, Director of Trade Marks and Cancellation Department Liaison Meeting on Trade Marks, 14./15. June 2007 Alicante
The New Quality Check System Main Features • Statistical relevant size of samples • 7% of CTMs examined, 102 weekly • 18% of opposition decisions, 16 weekly • Files are randomly selected • IT- support for data input and reporting
The New Quality Check System Criteria • Definition of quality criteria http://oami.europa.eu/en/userscorner/cons.htm • Harmonized checklist in the IT-Tool
The New Quality Check System Output • Ability to set and monitor public targets • Feedback to examiners • Identification of systemic problems and training needs
The New Quality Check System Who is responsible? • Classification • Classification Expert Group • Examination and opposition • Legal Advisors
Quality check Module Classification Note: If Acceptable or Not Correct is selected, a list of possible errors appears and the type of error has to be specified.
Quality Check Module – Absolute Grounds Note: If Aceptable or Not Correct is selected then a list of possible errors appears and the type of error is specified.
Examination: Checking of Format • Has the template been used? • Is the objection letter repeated in the decision? • Are the mark and the goods and services clearly identified? • Are the grounds for the objection and relevant legal and factual material clearly identified? • Does the decision summarize the relevant points made by the applicant? • Are the relevant points rebutted correctly?
Content • Is the decision in accordance with the regulations, relevant jurisprudence, guidelines, practice notes or any other source of Office practice? • Is the correct ground for refusal invoked? • Is there a correct motivation, including possible evidence? • Has the language in which this ground is applicable been identified? • Has clear and correct language been used?
Conclusion First Results • New system now applied since February 2007 • First Quarterly Reports published on our website • DIPP and TMDs to evaluate results and decide on measures for improvement
Conclusion First Results • Content of oppositions not correct: • Most errors found concerning comparison of goods and services and • comparisons of the signs • Content of examination not correct: • Classification examination • Decision on objection/refusal not taken, but it should have been taken
Results Oppositions From 02/02/07 to 08/06/2007 Number of items sampled: 302 Number of items checked: 279 Percentage of completion: 92.38% Overall error rate: 13.26% (37) Decision not correct: 4.3 % Format not correct: 2.51% Content not correct: 12.9%
Results Examination From 02/02/07 to 08/06/07 Number of items sampled: 1.938 Number of items checked: 1.785 Percentage of check completion: 92.11% Overall error rate: 9.24% Classification: 8.63% Absolute Grounds: 0.90%
Information: (+ 34) 965 139 100 (switchboard) (+ 34) 965 139 400 (e-business technical incidents) (+ 34) 965 131 344 (main fax) information@oami.europa.eu e-businesshelp@oami.europa.eu Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Avenida de Europa, 4 E-03008 Alicante SPAIN