Michael Heap warns of danger of unregulated attorneys not on the official register

Michael Heap, Chairman of the Intellectual Property Regulation Board (IPREG) today voiced concerns that his Board only has the power to regulate those trade mark attorneys who are on the official Register.

Speaking at the Open Meeting of the International Conference of the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (ITMA) in London, Mr Heap said:

“I have a major concern that my powers as a regulator for the IP profession of trade mark attorneys, only extends to those trade mark attorneys that are included on the official Register. At the present time, only qualified trade mark attorneys are entered on the official Register of Trade Mark Attorneys. However, it is not currently a requirement that all qualified trade mark attorneys are on the Register. Individuals can choose not to go on the Register for whatever reason and may withdraw from the Register at any time. My concern is what if practitioners choose to take themselves off the Register but continue to practice and, therefore take themselves out of the scope of the Regulator? Such an event is not possible in other legal professions, but it is in IP.” 

“We have brought this issue to the attention of the Legal Services Board and have offered up some thoughts on how the matter may be solved. My Board is satisfied that those who need to know of this problem do know and we await their views. However, as it stands I am unsure whether the current situation actually meets the overriding intention of Parliament to protect the consumer.”

In his address to ITMA members celebrating their 75th Anniversary as an Institute, Mr Heap ran through the history of the establishment of the IPREG from the Review by Sir David Clementi to the passing of the Legal Services Act and praised the two Institutes, ITMA and CIPA (the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys) for working together to find a regulatory solution, with the blessing of the Legal Services Board.

In the short time working as a shadow regulatory Board, which will hand over to the substantive Board in the near future Mr Heap and his team have, or are producing, consultative papers on a code of conduct, a disciplinary code, an appeals procedure, individual qualification regulations, CPD requirements, amongst other things. He adds: “Please add your contribution to this important debate.”

Mr Heap reported that the Board has established working relations with other regulators including the Bar Standards Board, the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and the Government through the Ministry of Justice and the IPO (Intellectual Property Office). “This is important in order to elicit support for issues relevant to the trade mark profession and ensures the importance of the profession in the regulatory context.”

Mr Heap warned that the issue of costs was, as yet, unresolved. “The cost of regulation has to be born from those to be regulated; not from the public purse. While there are well over 100,000 persons falling under regulatory control of the Legal Services Board, the major burden of regulation lies elsewhere and we will continue to fight for a reduced levy for IP practitioners.”

“In discussions with the Office of Legal Complaints, the argument that there are a mere handful of complaints relating to IP compared to thousands from other legal professions seems to have carried some weight. I am hopeful we will not be penalised so heavily in this respect. But on both counts only time will tell. Meanwhile IPREG itself will strive to operate prudently.”

Mr Heap concluded that his team would continue working on the regulatory framework under which IPREG will operate. “I will continue to press for proportionality to be reflected in the operation and costs of regulating the profession. The future success of my Board, in no small part, rests on a satisfactory outcome of these questions.”

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1. The Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys and the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys are the two professions directly involved in obtaining and defending intellectual property rights in the United Kingdom. Both are Approved Regulators under the Legal Services Act, but because of their common interests and the same client base they decided to set up a joint regulator which could regulate both professions and therefore the Intellectual Property Regulation Board (IPREG) was set up.

2. The Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys (ITMA) was established in 1934 as the professional body representing those persons qualified to act for the owners of trade mark and allied intellectual property rights (in particular, registered designs) both nationally and internationally. Now in its 75th year, ITMA now represents the vast majority of UK registered trade mark agents and all UK Trade Mark & Design Litigators.

3. Currently ITMA has approximately 550 practising members; it also extends associate membership to professionals in related fields of law and overseas membership to foreign trade mark attorneys. Its total membership (all classes) is about 1600 members, primarily located in the United Kingdom and Europe, but also in more than 50 other countries.

4. ITMA is regularly consulted by UK government and by international bodies when questions affecting trade mark and allied intellectual property rights arise. It has regular meetings with the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), the Community Trade Marks Office (OHIM), the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and other sister organisations in Europe and beyond. For more information visit www.itma.org.uk

Press Enquiries to Ken Storey, PR Manager, Tel: 020 8941 6079 or Mobile 07710 434 507.