February 2008 GfK GroupAd Hoc Research OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2007 ER- 0484/1/00 OHIM USER...

February 2008GfK Group Ad Hoc Research

OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2007OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2007

ER- 0484/1/00

OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY

2007

February 2008



INDEX •OBJECTIVES AND DATA SHEET•RESULTS:

•User Satisfaction Index (USI)•Complaints•Identification of STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES

•LEVEL 1: Image, Core Business, Information and Communication•LEVEL 2: Global image•LEVEL 2: Core business

LEVEL 3: Community trade markLEVEL 3: Community designLEVEL 3: AppealsLEVEL 3: Register

•LEVEL 2: Information and communicatione-business tools

•Other issues:•CONCLUSIONS AND DIAGNOSTICS

Perception of the development of the OHIM

ANNEX I: Results by countries ANNEX II: METHODOLOGY

3

GfK Group Ad Hoc Research

OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2007 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2007 February 2008

OBJECTIVES

For the third consecutive year, the OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (OHIM) has commissioned GfK to conduct a satisfaction survey of its users, the design and measurement system for which were established in 2005 and whose main objective is to measure the level of satisfaction among users regarding the various services the OHIM provides.

MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY …

OBJECTIVES

MEASURE THE LEVEL OF

PERCEIVED QUALITY of the services

that the OHIM offers its

users.

MEASURE AND RANK

THE CONTRIBUTIO

N of each aspect in

overall user satisfaction.

ESTABLISH OBJECTIVES

AND PRIORITIES

FOR IMPROVEMEN

T

EVALUATE THE

EFFICIENCY OF THE

ACTIONS that are

undertaken

11 22 4433

4



DATA SHEET

TARGET PUBLIC: any individual who has been in touch with the OHIM in the context of any proceedings in 2007, whether as an agent or as a proprietor acting on his own behalf (including proprietors’ employees and “type 5” agents).

TARGET GROUP: sampling unit is the individual.

FIELDWORK: from 10/1/2008 to 31/1/2008

QUESTIONNAIRE: CAWI (Computer Assisted Web Interview) – questionnaire conducted via the web, with two reminders.

Languages: the 5 languages of the Office.

5



TARGET GROUP AND FINAL SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION

The OHIM drew from its databases those users who met the conditions describing the target public (those having had any professional dealings with the OHIM in 2007). A total of 26,561 (13,390 proprietors / 13,171 agents) possible contacts were identified.

A total of 19,098 email addresses was available, but not all of them were correct, as 3,821 messages sent were returned as ‘undeliverable’.

By the end of the response time a total of 1,227 questionnaires had been received, which gave a net response rate of 8 % and an optimum sample size in terms of statistical representation of the results (a sampling margin of error of +/-2.85 % on a level of confidence of 95%).

The following charts show the comparison between the profiles of the users in the target public and the findings of the survey.

6



13.3909.859

13.171

9.239

26.561

19.098

3.821

Undeliverable mail

RESPONDENTS

1.227

RESPONSE RATE:8,0% of net mailing

addresses

TOTAL OHIMUsers

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS (*)

(*) INCLUDING EMPLOYEES (“type 5 “ agents)

(in the last year)

TARGET GROUP AND FINAL SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION

E-MAIL

518 709

7



TARGET GROUP AND FINAL SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTRY AND TYPE OF USER (%)

34

12

11

7

6

4

4

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

26

11

9

10

11

2

3

4

2

3

1

1

2

2

2

3

2

1

1

3

DE

GB

FR

ES

IT

AT

NL

SE

GR

PL

DK

BE

CZ

PT

FI

RO

BG

IE

HU

OTHERS

TOTAL AGENTS: 13.171

RESPONDENTS: 709

24

9

15

8

10

5

4

3

1

3

3

3

1

3

1

0

0

1

1

6

2310

17

7

9

3

2

5

2

2

3

3

0

4

2

0

1

1

1

7

DE

GB

FR

ES

IT

AT

NL

SE

GR

PL

DK

BE

CZ

PT

FI

RO

BG

IE

HU

OTHERS

TOTAL PROPIETORS: 13.390

RESPONDENTS: 518

8



The OHIM has defined and publicised on its website a set of accessibility, timeliness and quality objectives in terms of what users

can expect when dealing with the Office. Are you aware of such standards?

Yes 39%

No61%

AGENTSPROPRIETOR

S

Yes 36%

No64%

TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 518) TOTAL AGENTS (No: 709)



RESULTSUser-Satisfaction -

Index (USI)

10



AGENTS WHO HAVE NOT COMPLAINED

AGENTS WHO HAVE COMPLAINED

68,6

USI

67,0

USI AGENT

59,0

USI

RESULTSUser-Satisfaction -Index (USI) 2005 / 2006 / 2007User-Satisfaction -Index (USI) 2005 / 2006 / 2007

PROPRIETORS WHO HAVE NOT COMPLAINED

PROPRIETORS WHO HAVE COMPLAINED

62,5

USI

61,9

USI PROPRIETO

R

55,0

USI

+3,8

+5,7

2005

68,3

USI

66,2

USI AGENT

59,5

USI

63,5

USI

62,8

USI PROPRIETO

R

57,3

USI

2006

-0,8

+0,9

70,9

USI

70,0

USI AGENT

64,7

USI

69,9

USI

68,5

USI PROPRIETO

R

59,7

USI

2007



RESULTSCOMPLAINTS

12



RESULTSCOMPLAINTS

Yes17%

No83%

Yes8%No

92%

NO89%

NO76%

YES 24%

YES 11%2006

TOTAL AGENTS (No: 709) TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 518)

2007

Have you filed any complaints with the OHIM over the last year?

YES15%

NO 85%

Yes, I submitted it in writing

11%

Yes, by telephone

3%

Yes, an alternative way.

1%

Yes, an alternative way.

0%

Yes, by telephone

4%

Yes, I submitted it in writing

10%

NO 86%

YES14%

13



RESULTSCOMPLAINTS

How would you evaluate the way your complaint was dealt with?

PROPRIETORSAGENTS

EFFICIENTLY

QUICKLY

PROFESSIONALLY

AGENTS (No:108) PROPRIETORS (No:71)

COMPLAINTS AGENT COMPLAINTS PROPRIETOR

SATISFACTION

+

+

-

55%

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

INFLU

EN

CE

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

2005 2006 2007

- 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

2005 2006 2007

SATISFACTION

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

INFLU

EN

CE

STRENGTHS

QUICKLY

PROFESSIONALLY

EFFICIENTLY

+

+

-

-

15% 14%

14



RESULTSCOMPLAINTS

SOLVED63%

SOLVED66%

Has a satisfactory solution been found to your problem?

PROPRIETORS (No:49)

2006 2007

43%51%

23%12%

20% 10%

15%27%

AGENTS (No:123)

PROPRIETORS (No:71)

SOLVED

SATISFACTORILY

SOLVED

UNSAT. SOLVED

UNSAT.

PENDING

PARTLY S.

PENDING

PARTLY S.

SATISFACTORILY

41% 46%

16%11%

17% 17%

27% 25%

SOLVEDSATISFACTORILY

SOLVED

UNSAT. SOLVED

PENDING

PARTLY S.

PENDING

PARTLY S.

SATISFACTORILY

UNSAT. SOLVED

AGENTS (No:108)

SOLVED56%

SOLVED

58%

COMPLAINTS AGENT 15%COMPLAINTS PROPRIETOR15% 14%



LEVEL 1:IMAGE, COMPLAINTS, CORE BUSINESS, INFORMATION

USI (User Satisfaction Index)

OHIMIMAGE

INFORMAT. & COMMUNIC.

COM-PLAINTS

LEVEL 1

CORE BUSINESS

16



RESULTSRESULTSLEVEL1: CORE BUSINESS, IMAGE, INFORMATIONLEVEL1: CORE BUSINESS, IMAGE, INFORMATION

PROPRIETORSAGENTS

58%

41%

53%

55%(minimum)

Every user satisfied

No users satisfied TOTAL AGENTS (No: 709) TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 518)

57%57%

67%62%

59%65%

53%

68% 69%

CORE BUSINESS IMAGE INFORMATION

50%

59%

49%

57% 58%

41%

65% 67%58%

CORE BUSINESS IMAGE INFORMATION

200520062007

2005

2006

2007

68%

+ 9 + 4 + 15 + 8 + 9

+ 17

17



RESULTSRESULTSLEVEL1: LEVEL1: OHIM EMPLOYEESOHIM EMPLOYEES

AGENTS

55%(minimum)


2005 (CTM)

2007

65%65% 68% 65%

51%

80%

66%65% 67% 71%

61%

44%

80%

67%

67% 68%72%

64%

81%

70%

COMPETENT RELIABLE with PROFESSIONALISM

EFFICIENT TELPH.

EASY TO CONTACT

POLITE,FRIENDLY

RESPONSIVE TO USERS NEEDS’

52%

+ 3

+ 8

+ 3

AGENTS

55%(minimum)


TOTAL AGENTS

(No: 709)

65%65% 68% 65%

51%

80%

66%65% 67% 71%

61%

44%

80%

67%

67% 68%72%

64%

81%

70%

’

52%

+ 3

+ 8

+ 3

55%(minimum)

satisfied

No users satisfied

ENQUIRIES

PROPRIETORS

200761% 61% 63% 63%

52%

73%

61%65% 64%

69%

61%

47%

75%

64%

70% 71% 74%69%

57%

78%69%

0%

55%

+ 5 + 7 + 5 + 8

+ 10

+ 3

+ 5

55%(minimum)

Every user

TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 518)

PROPRIETORS

61% 61% 63% 63%

52%

73%

61%65% 64%

69%

61%

47%

75%

64%

70% 71% 74%69%

57%

78%69%

0%

+ 5 + 7 + 5 + 8

+ 10

+ 3 + 5

No users satisfied

2006 (CTM)

2005 (CTM)

2006 (CTM)

COMPETENT RELIABLE with PROFESSIONALISM

EFFICIENT TELPH.

EASY TO CONTACT

POLITE,FRIENDLY

RESPONSIVE TO USERS NEEDS’’

ENQUIRIES



LEVEL 2:0VERALL IMAGE

USI (Users Satisfaction Index)

OHIMIMAGE

LEVEL 2 OVERALL IMAGE

19



swiftness

transparency

RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of Strengths and WeaknessesLEVEL2: OVERALL IMAGELEVEL2: OVERALL IMAGE

PROPRIETORSAGENTS

INFLU

EN

CE

SATISFACTION

+

-

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

+

2005 2006 2007

swiftness

transparency

modernity

prestige

conscientiousness

professionalism

quality of service

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

-

2005 2006 2007

modernity

prestige

conscientiousness

professionalism

quality of service

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

+

-

+-


INFLU

EN

CE

SATISFACTION

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

TOTAL AGENTS (No: 709)



LEVEL 2:CORE BUSINESS


LEVEL 2


CORE BUSINESS

APPEAL REGISTERCTM RCD

21



PROPRIETORS

Over the last year, in which of the following areas have you personally had contact with the OHIM?

Application for a CTM

Application for an international trade mark

designating the ECApplication for an

international trade mark based on a CTM

Opposition

CTM invalidity request

Application RCD

RCD invalidity request

CTM appeal

RCD appeal

Register

93%

27%

24%

70%

20%

52%

4%

31%

2%

68%

94%

35%

31%

72%

21%

53%

3%

29%

2%

68%

91%

37%

32%

64%

21%

49%

5%

27%

2%

61%

79%

14%

9%

32%

5%

29%

1%

10%

1%

56%

80%

15%

10%

25%

4%

31%

1%

8%

0%

60%

82%

13%

12%

25%

3%

26%

1%

6%

1%

51%

AGENTS

200520062007

20052006

2007

22



RESULTSRESULTSLEVEL2: CORE BUSINESS

PROPRIETORSAGENTSEvery user satisfied

No users satisfied

55%(minimum)

60%

70%

46%50%

60%

67%

51%

59%

71%77%

44%

68%

CTM RCD APPEAL REGISTER

57%60%

45%

37%

60%

67%

52% 53%

63%72%

39%

68%

CTM RCD APPEAL REGISTER


200520062007

2005

2006

2007

(*)

(*) No :33

+ 11 + 10

+ 9 + 5

+ 15

No :193 No :657 No :344 No :431 No :443 No :133 No :266



LEVEL 3:CORE BUSINESS / CTM

USI (Users Satisfaction Index) USI (Users Satisfaction Index)

24



PROPRIETORSAGENTS

RESULTS:RESULTS: CTM



No users satisfied

55%(minimum)

57%

38%

28%

58%

39%43%

71%

56% 60%

CTM APPLICATIONS OPPOSITIONS CTM INVALIDITY

50%

26%31%

52%

40%

61%

64%59%

55%

CTM APPLICATIONS OPPOSITIONS CTM INVALIDITY

PROPRIETORS (No: 447)

(No: 657)

200520062007

(*)

(*) No : 14

+ 13

+ 13 + 23

+ 12 + 19

2005

2006

2007

(No: 451) (No: 147) (No: 447) (No: 131)


25



How important is it to you that the OHIM sets time standards for the examination, publication and registration of CTMs?

1% 0% 1% 1% 1%4%

6%

17% 17%14%

37%

0% 0% 1% 1% 2%

5% 5%

13% 13% 13%

41%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

(0) Not important ------------ Very important (10)

PROPIETORS: 81%

AGENTS: 85%

IMPORTANT (7-10)IMPORTANT (7-10)

RESULTSRESULTS: CTM APPLICATIONS

26



For CTMs, the OHIM is currently finalizing the examination of more than two-thirds (70%) of applications where no objections are raised within 8 weeks.

Are you satisfied with this service level?

PROPIETORS: 65%

AGENTS: 77%

SATISFIED (7-10)SATISFIED (7-10)

1%0%

1% 1% 1%

6%

10%

18%

24%

18%17%

2%1% 2%

3%4%

8% 9%

16%

18%

12%

18%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Have you noticed any CHANGE in

performance over the past year?

4% 3%

59%78%

38%19%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

(0) = “not satisfied” ------------ (10 )= “very satisfied”

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

BETTER NO CHANGE WORSE


27



More than three-quarters (77%) of CTMs are being published within 31 weeks of receipt.


PROPIETORS: 48%

AGENTS: 57%

SATISFIED (7-10)SATISFIED (7-10) Have you noticed any CHANGE in performance

over the past year?

5%

0%

3% 3%

5%

10%

15%

20%

16%

13%

8%

6%

2%3%

5%

7%

11%

9%

14%14%

7%

13%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4% 3%

62%82%

34%15%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS



28



For over 60% of CTM applications where no opposition has been filed, publication takes place within 13 months of receipt. Are you satisfied with this service level?

PROPIETORS: 40%

AGENTS: 50%

SATISFIED (7-10)SATISFIED (7-10)Have you noticed any

CHANGE in performance over the

past year?

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

6%

2%

3%

4%

6%

12%

14%

18%

14%

9%9%

8%

3%4%

7% 7%

12%11%

12%

10%9% 9%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4% 3%

66%84%

30%13%


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS



29



Do you think it is important that the OHIM sets quality standards for the classification of CTM applications and the absolute grounds examination?


PROPIETORS: 71%

AGENTS: 79%


1%0% 0%

1% 1%

5%7%

15%

21%

15%

29%

0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

6%

9%

18%17%

11%

26%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS


30



More than 90% of decisions comply with OHIM’s defined quality standards. Are you satisfied with this service level?

PROPIETORS: 61%

AGENTS: 66%


over the past year?

AGENTS PROPRIETORS2%

1%2% 2%

3%

7%

11%

24%

20%

14%

9%

1% 1% 1%

3%2%

7%

12%

20%

15%

12%

14%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4% 2%

77% 85%

18% 13%


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS



31



Almost all OHIM decisions on absolute grounds (98%) comply with the pre-set quality standards. Are you satisfied with this service level?

PROPIETORS: 62%

AGENTS: 68%


over the past year?

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

2%0%

1%2% 2%

8% 8%

23%

21%

15%

10%

1% 1% 0%

3%2%

6%

9%

16%

18%

11%

17%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4% 2%

80% 86%

16% 11%


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS



32



… that the OHIM sets time standards for the examination, publication and registration of CTMs?

… that the OHIM sets quality standards for the classification of CTM applications and the absolute grounds examination?

80%


For CTMs, the OHIM is currently finalizing the examination of more than two-thirds (70%) of applications where no objections are raised within 8 weeks.

85%

79%

SATISFIED (7-10)SATISFIED (7-10) POSITIVE POSITIVE CHANGECHANGE

77% 75%

71%

More than three-quarters (77%) of CTMs are being published within 31 weeks of receipt.

For over 60% of CTM applications where no opposition has been filed, publication takes place within 13 months of receipt.

More than 90% of decisions comply with OHIM’s defined quality standards.

Almost all OHIM decisions on absolute grounds (98%) comply with the pre-set quality standards.

38% 19%

57% 48% 34% 15%

50% 40% 30% 13%

66% 61% 18% 13%

68% 62% 16% 11%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

How important is it to you…

SUMMARYSUMMARY: CTM APPLICATIONS

33



How important is it to you that the OHIM sets time standards for the admissibility phase of proceedings and for the notification of the

decisions?


PROPIETORS: 80%

AGENTS: 80%


RESULTSRESULTS: CTM OPPOSITION

2%0% 0% 1%

2%4%

8%

16%

21%

13%

31%

0% 0% 0%2% 2%

5%

9%

18%

15%

18%

28%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

34



For more than two-thirds of opposition files, the admissibility phase is finalised within 2 months of receiving the opposition.


PROPIETORS: 68%

AGENTS: 63%

SATISFIED (7-10)SATISFIED (7-10) Have you noticed any CHANGE in


AGENTS PROPRIETORS


2%0%

2%

4% 5%

8%

14%

19%20%

13%

11%

1%0%

1%

3% 3%

8%

12%

24%

18%16%

10%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5% 2%

71% 85%

24%13%


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS


35



For around one-third of opposition files, the decision is notified within 4 months of finalising the adversarial part of the proceedings.


PROPIETORS: 52%

AGENTS: 50%



AGENTS PROPRIETORS



2%2%

4%5%

9%

12%12%

22%

15%

8%

6%

1%2%

2%

4%5%

14%

16%

18%

16%

9%8%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6% 3%

77% 85%

17% 11%


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

36



For CTM oppositions, how important is it to you that OHIM sets quality standards for its decisions?


PROPIETORS: 76%

AGENTS: 83%



1% 0% 0% 1% 1%3%

7%

15%

23%

17%

28%

0% 0% 1% 1% 0%

7% 6%

16% 17%

14%

29%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

37



Well over 80% of opposition decisions comply with the OHIM’s quality standards. Are you satisfied with this service level?

PROPIETORS: 60%

AGENTS: 58%



AGENTS PROPRIETORS


2%

0%

3%4%

5%

9%

14%

25%

19%

7%6%

1% 1% 1%

4% 4%5%

14%

17%18%

16%

10%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6% 3%

80% 87%

14% 10%


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS


38



SUMMARYSUMMARY: CTM OPPOSITION

… that the OHIM sets time standards for the admissibility phase of proceedings and for the

notification of the decisions?

…For CTM oppositions, that OHIM sets quality standards for its decisions?

80%


For more than two-thirds of opposition files, the admissibility phase is finalised within 2 months of

receiving the opposition

80%

83%


63% 68%

76%

For around one-third of opposition files, the decision is notified within 4 months of finalising the

adversarial part of the proceedings.

Well over 80% of opposition decisions comply with the OHIM’s quality standards

24% 13%

50% 52% 17% 11%

58% 60% 14% 10%

AGENTS


PROPRIETORS



LEVEL 3:CORE BUSINESS / RCD


CORE BUSINESS

RCD

INVALI-DITY

EMPLO-YEES

APPLICA-TIONS

40



RESULTS:RESULTS: RCD


CORE BUSINESS

RCD

INVALI-DITY

EMPLO-YEES

APPLICA-TIONS


No users satisfied

71%

62%

70%67%

52%

RCD APPLICATIONS (No: 344)

RCD INVALIDITY (No:35)*

67%

44%

67% 67%

100%

RCD APPLICATIONS (No:133)

RCD INVALIDITY (No:2)*

55%(minimum)

200520062007

2005

2006

2007

77%

+ 10 84%

+ 14

No minimum

sample

(*)

41



How important is it to you that the OHIM sets time standards for acknowledgement of receipt and publication of RCDs?


PROPIETORS: 74%

AGENTS: 81%


RESULTSRESULTS: RCD

1% 1% 0% 0%2%

4%

9%

19% 19%

14%

29%

0% 0% 1% 1%2%

5%

14%11%

18%

13%

32%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

42



For more than two-thirds of design applications, acknowledgement of receipt is sent within 5 days of receiving the application.


PROPIETORS: 82 %

AGENTS: 76 %




AGENTS PROPRIETORS

RESULTSRESULTS: RCD

1% 1% 1%3% 3%

6%8%

17%

22%

17%

20%

2%0%

2% 2% 1%

5%

8%

20%18%

20%

24%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS


3% 1%

71%84%

27%15%

43



For more than eight out of ten design applications, registration of the RCD is published within 8 weeks. Are you satisfied with this service

level?

PROPIETORS: 71%

AGENTS: 83%



AGENTS PROPRIETORS

RESULTSRESULTS: RCD

1% 1% 1%3% 3%

6%8%

17%

22%

17%

20%

2%0%

2% 2% 1%

5%

8%

20%18%

20%

24%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1% 1%

68%85%

31%14%


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS


44



How important is it to you that the OHIM sets quality standards for the registration of RCD applications?


PROPIETORS: 77%

AGENTS: 85%


RESULTSRESULTS: RCD

0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2%

6%

23%21%

14%

28%

0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

6%

9%11%

21%

15%

29%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

45



Over 90% of RCD publications comply with the OHIM quality standards. Are you satisfied with this service level?

PROPIETORS: 74%

AGENTS: 76%




AGENTS PROPRIETORS

RESULTSRESULTS: RCD

1% 1% 1% 2% 1%

4%

8%

25%

21%19%

11%

0% 1% 2% 2% 3%5% 6%

21% 20% 21%

11%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1% 1%

78%87%

21%12%


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS


46



SUMMARYSUMMARY: RCD

… that the OHIM sets time standards for acknowledgement of receipt and publication of

RCDs?

… that the OHIM sets quality standards for the registration of RCD applications?

74%


For more than two-thirds of design applications, acknowledgement of receipt is

sent within 5 days of receiving the application

81%

85%


76% 82%

77%

For more than eight out of ten design applications, registration of the RCD is

published within 8 weeks

Over 90% of RCD publications comply with the OHIM quality standards.

27% 15%

83% 71% 31% 14%

76% 74% 21% 12%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS




LEVEL 3:CORE BUSINESS / APPEAL


CORE BUSINESS

APPEAL

EMPLO-YEES

APPLICA-TIONS

48



For appeals, how important is it to you that OHIM sets time standards for acknowledgement of receipt, interlocutory revision and notification of

the decision?


PROPIETORS: 73%

AGENTS: 77%


RESULTS : APPEAL APPLICATIONSRESULTS : APPEAL APPLICATIONS

2%1% 1% 1%

0%

5%

7%

14%

20%

14%

28%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6%

15% 15%

18%

12%

27%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

49



The average waiting time from notice of appeal to receipt is 13 days, and it takes on average 14 days from receipt to interlocutory revision.


PROPIETORS: 55%

AGENTS: 59%



past year?

AGENTS PROPRIETORS


0%2% 1%

4% 4%

9%

14%

19% 19%

15%

7%

0% 0%

3%

6%

3%

9%

15%

24%

9% 9%

12%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 4%

77% 88%

19%12%


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS


50



In ex parte cases, the average waiting time from interlocutory revision to notification of the decision is 134 days. Are you satisfied with this

service level?

PROPIETORS: 30%

AGENTS: 35%



past year?

AGENTS PROPRIETORS


4%

2%

3% 4%

8%

13%

16% 16%

11%

5%

2%

6%

0%

3%

6%

9%

18%

9%

12% 12%

0%

6%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2% 3%

85% 79%

13% 18%


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS


51



In inter partes cases, the average waiting time from interlocutory revision to notification of the decision to the parties is 317 days. Are

you satisfied with this service level?

PROPIETORS: 18%

AGENTS: 21%


Have you noticed any CHANGE in performance

over the past year?

AGENTS PROPRIETORS


7%

3%4%

6%

15%

12%13%

11%

6%

3%2%

12%

3%

6%

12%

9%

12%

9%

12%

3%

0%

3%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5% 3%

86% 85%

9% 12%


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS


52



SUMMARYSUMMARY: APPEAL

For appeals, how important is it to you that OHIM sets time standards for acknowledgement of receipt, interlocutory

revision and notification of the decision? 73%


The average waiting time from notice of appeal to receipt is 13 days, and it takes on average 14 days

from receipt to interlocutory revision

77%

SATISFIED (7-10)SATISFIED (7-10) POSITIVE CHANGEPOSITIVE CHANGE

59% 55% (*)

In ex parte cases, the average waiting time from interlocutory revision to notification of the decision is

134 days

In inter partes cases, the average waiting time from interlocutory revision to notification of the decision

to the parties is 317 days.

19% 12% (*)

35% 30%(*)

13% 18% (*)

21% 18% (*)

9% 12% (*)

AGENTSPROPIETOR

S

(*) No :33



LEVEL 3:CORE BUSINESS/ Register


CORE BUSINESS

REGISTER

54



RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of needs for action: REGISTER


CORE BUSINESS

REGISTER


No users satisfied

51%

63% 62%

Swiftness Accuracy Quality

45%

59%54%

Swiftness Accuracy Quality

55%(minimum)

PROPRIETORS (No: 266) AGENTS (No: 431)

20062007

2006

2007

63%

+ 12 71%

+ 8

70%

+ 8

61%

+ 16 71%

+ 12

71%

+ 17

55



How important is it to you that the OHIM sets time standards to register recordals or to produce documents requested?


PROPIETORS: 79%

AGENTS: 84%


RESULTS : REGISTERRESULTS : REGISTER

1% 0% 1% 0% 1%3%

7%

15%

19%

16%

33%

1% 0% 0% 0%3%

6% 5%

14%

17%14%

34%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

56



More than 90% of CTM and RCD certified copies and certificates are issued within 14 days of receiving the request. Are you satisfied with

this service level?

PROPIETORS: 66%

AGENTS: 65%




AGENTS PROPRIETORS


1%0%

2% 2%

4%

9%

12%

19%19%

15%

12%

1%0% 0%

2%3%

6%7%

14%

20%

15%

18%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2% 1%

71%86%

27%13%


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS


57



More than 90% of CTM and RCD transfers are recorded within 14 days of the request. Are you satisfied with this service level?

PROPIETORS: 63%

AGENTS: 77%


Have you noticed any CHANGE in performance

over the past year?

AGENTS PROPRIETORS


0% 0%1%

2%1%

6%7%

19%

23%

17% 17%

1%0% 0%

2%3%

6%

9%

13%

19%

14%

18%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1% 1%

65%

86%

34%

13%


AGENTS

PROPRIETORS


58



SUMMARYSUMMARY: REGISTER

How important is it to you that the OHIM sets time standards to register recordals or to

produce documents requested?79%


More than 90% of CTM and RCD certified copies and certificates are issued within 14

days of receiving the request

84%


65% 66%

More than 90% of CTM and RCD transfers are recorded within 14 days of the request

27% 13%

77% 63% 34% 13%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS



LEVEL 2:INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION



60



RCD invalidity

During the last year and a half, have you asked the OHIM for any type of GENERAL INFORMATION (not related to any particular proceedings) about the following

procedures ... ?

How would you evaluate the information supplied by the OHIM in response to your request or requests?

AGENTS PROPRIETORS55%

(minimum)


No users satisfied

PROPRIETORSAGENTS

AGENTS (No: 360)

34%

26%

9%13%

2%

8%

28%

19%

6%8%

1%4%

38%

28%

6%9%

2%

9%

CTM application Opposition CTM invalidityRCD applicationRCD invalidity Appeal

25%

12%

2%

11%

1%4%

19%

8%

1%4%

0% 2%

38%

12%

2%

8%

0%3%

CTM application Opposition CTM invalidityRCD application Appeal

69 67 66

40

63 63

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007PROPIETORS (No: 239)

200520062007

2005

2006

2007

RESULTSRESULTSINFORMATION & COMMUNICATION

61






Regarding answering time to both phone calls and emails, the OHIM’s objective is to answer most phone calls (currently 90%) to its general number within 20 seconds and

most e-mails (currently 90%) to its general mailbox within two days.

1% 1% 1%

4%

6%

10%

16%

23%

17%

11%

8%

2%1%

2%

4% 4%

10%

13%

20%

17%

12%

10%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

PROPIETORS 60%

AGENTS: 59%


Are you satisfied with the performance?


Have you noticed any CHANGE in performance over the past

year?

6%

67% 80%

27% 19%

2%

BETTER

NO CHANGE

WORSE

AGENTS (No:709)PROPRIETORS (No:518)

How would you describe this objective?

5% 6%

88% 89%

7% 5%TOO AMBITIOUS

ADEQUATE

POOR

AGENTS (No:709)PROPRIETORS (No:518)

62






AGENTS

43%

48%

57%

61%

49%

59%

71%

60%

40%

45%

53%

62%

47%

57%

72%

62%

55%

53%

57%

66%

52%

60%

74%

65%

Ease of identifying the right person to speak to

Ease of obtaining the right information

Clarity of information provided by the OHIM

The tendency to replace paper by e-communications

Speed of response to enquiries

Accuracy of responses

Mastery of the languages used in OHIM

communications

Completeness of information provided by the OHIM

How satisfied are you with the following aspects related to obtaining information?

200520062007

+ 15

+ 8

Minimum

63





How satisfied are you with the following aspects related to obtaining information?

PROPRIETORS

40%

40%

46%

62%

47%

53%

68%

59%

37%

39%

45%

64%

46%

60%

71%

62%

49%

50%

51%

64%

55%

62%

75%

64%

2005

2006

2007

Ease of identifying the right person to speak to

Ease of obtaining the right information

Clarity of information provided by the OHIM

The tendency to replace paper by e-communications

Speed of response to enquiries

Accuracy of responses

Mastery of the languages used in OHIM

communications

Completeness of information provided by the OHIM


Minimum

+ 12

+ 11

+ 7

+ 9



Results:e-business tools

65



Please rate OHIM’s website with regard to the following aspects:

Are you aware of/have you ever visited the OHIM’s website?

YES 2005: 97%

RESULTSRESULTSLEVEL2: OHIM´s website

YES 2005: 88%YES 2006: 99% YES 2006: 94%

PROPRIETORSAGENTS

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

YES 2007: 99% YES 2007: 96%

53%

62%

74%

64%

58%

66%

73%

66%

56%

65%

71%

65%

CLARITY OF THESTRUCTURE

COMPLETENESS OFTHE CONTENTS

USEFULNESS OFCONTENTS

SPEED AT WHICHTHE INFORMATION

IS UPDATED

52%

56%

64%

60%

44%

53%

60%

57%

49%

58%

63%

58%

2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007

PROPRIETORS (Nº: 497) AGENTS (Nº: 703)Minimum Minimum

+ 5

+ 5

66



How often do you use the service/ database….?

RESULTS: CTM ONLINERESULTS: CTM ONLINE AGENTS

For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate CTM Online with regard to …?

55%(minimum)


No users

satisfied

Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?

12% 8% 9%5% 7% 4%5% 3% 3%

78%

84%

82%

2005 2006 2007

Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not aware

Always personally

84%

Sometimes personally

14%

Always through a third party

2%

77% 78% 74%80%78%

76% 75%

82%76%

64% 66%73%

Ease of use of the systemSpeed of the systemReliability of the systemSecurity and confidentialityof processes

200520062007

67




RESULTS: RCD ONLINERESULTS: RCD ONLINE AGENTS

For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate RCD Online with regard to …?

55%(minimum)


No users

satisfied

Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not aware

34%

21%28%

17%

29%23%

10%20% 18%

30%31%

39%

2005 2006 2007

Always personally

74%


6%Sometimes personally

20%

68% 71% 69%75%

65% 68%63%

70%64% 58% 59%

67%200520062007


68




RESULTS: E-FILING CTMRESULTS: E-FILING CTM AGENTS

For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate E-Filing CTM with regard to …?

55%(minimum)


No users

satisfied


2005 2006 2007

60%64%

59%

73%

64% 62%54%

71%

59%

51%

53%

70%

20%

17% 19%36%

25% 22%

7% 5% 5%

37%55%

53%Always

personally71%


18%


11%

200520062007


69




RESULTS: E-FILING RCDRESULTS: E-FILING RCD AGENTS

For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate E-Filing RCD with regard to …?

55%(minimum)


No users

satisfied


15%15%

47%46%

18% 12%

27%20%

2006 2007

Always personally

62%


14%


24%

58% 57%53%

65%

57%

47%

52%

65%20062007


70




RESULTS: MY PAGERESULTS: MY PAGE AGENTS

For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate My Page with regard to …?

55%(minimum)


No users

satisfied


2005 2006 2007

9%

9% 10%34%

31% 38%

44%32% 25%

14%27%28%

Always personally

74%


19%


6%

57%

50%

58%66%62%

67% 64%68%

60%

49%

55%67%

200520062007


71




RESULTS: E-OPPOSITIONRESULTS: E-OPPOSITION AGENTS

For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate E-Opposition with regard to …?

55%(minimum)


No users

satisfied


2007

15%

49%

20%

16%

Always personally

62%


24%


14%

64%

53%

61%70%

2007


72




RESULTS: CTM ONLINERESULTS: CTM ONLINE

For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate CTM Online with regard to …?

55%(minimum)


No users

satisfied


2005 2006 2007


PROPRIETORS

22%19%

25%

17%14%

9%

21%32% 24%

36%42%40% Always

personally83%


3%


14%

63% 64% 64%71%

65% 63% 64% 68%65% 68% 67% 71% 2005

2006

2007


73




RESULTS: RCD ONLINERESULTS: RCD ONLINE

For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate RCD Online with regard to …?

55%(minimum)


No users

satisfied


2005 2006 2007


PROPRIETORS

34%

9% 18%

15%

21%23%

28%

59%51%

23%

8%11%


24%


5%

Always personally

71%

54% 53% 55%59%

63% 61%62% 62% 64% 65%63%64% 2005

2006

2007


74




RESULTS: E-FILING CTMRESULTS: E-FILING CTM

For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate E-Filing CTM with regard to …?

55%(minimum)


No users

satisfied


2005 2006 2007


PROPRIETORS

29% 25%36%

31%25%

19%

21% 29% 21%

22% 24%19%

Always personally

79%



17%

65% 65% 63%68%

63% 62% 60%

60% 59% 58%

68%69%2005

2006

2007


75




RESULTS: E-FILING RCDRESULTS: E-FILING RCD

For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate E-Filing RCD with regard to …?

55%(minimum)


No users

satisfied


2006 2007


PROPRIETORS

8%17%

31%

31%

53%43%

8% 9%


23%


11%

Always personally

66%

58% 57% 53%

67%61%

56% 56%

69%2006

2007


76




RESULTS: MY PAGERESULTS: MY PAGE

For Users regularly + sometimes:

How would you evaluate My Page with regard to …?

55%(minimum)


No users

satisfied


2006

2007


PROPRIETORS

10% 9%11%

24% 19%26%

61% 64%50%

7% 13%5%

2005

Always personally

77%



20%

63% 68%60%

74%64% 63% 66%

76%

54% 55% 54%

61%

Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentialityof processes

2005

2006

2007

77




RESULTS E-OPPOSITIONRESULTS E-OPPOSITION

For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate E-Opposition with regard to …?

55%(minimum)


No users

satisfied


2007


PROPRIETORS

9%

35%

52%

5%

Always personally

62%


30%


8%

67%58% 57%

76%2007


78



SUMMARY: E – BUSINESSSUMMARY: E – BUSINESS

% USE (REGULARLY +

SOMETIMES

AGENTS

E-OPPOSITION 31% 64 53 61 70

SATISFIED (%)SATISFIED (%)

SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROCESSES

RELIABILITY OF SYSTEM

SPEED OF THE SYSTEM

EASE OF USE OF THE SYSTEM

RCD-ONLINE 59% 64 (=) 58 ( 10) 59 ( 4) 67 ( 3)

63%CTM-ONLINE 93% 76 ( 2) 64 ( 12) 66 ( 9) 73 ( 9)

E-FILING CTM 74% 59 ( 5) 51 ( 11) 53 (=) 70 (=)

E-FILING RCD 42% 57 (=) 47 ( 10) 52 (=) 65 (=)

MYPAGE 37% 60 ( 2) 49 ( 18) 55 ( 9) 67 (=)

79



% USE (REGULARLY + SOMETIMES)

PROPIETORS

SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROCESSES

RELIABILITY OF SYSTEM

SPEED OF THE SYSTEM

EASE OF USE OF THE SYSTEM

E-OPPOSITION

67 58 57 7614%

67%CTM-ONLINE 65 (=) 63 ( 5) 64 ( 3) 68 ( 3)

RCD-ONLINE 62 ( 2) 62 (=) 64 ( 3) 65 ( 2)26%

E-FILING CTM 60 ( 3) 59 ( 3) 58 ( 2) 68 (=)60%

MYPAGE 54( 10) 55( 8) 54( 12) 61( 15)24%

E-FILING RCD 61 ( 3) 56 (=) 56 ( 3) 69 ( 2)26%

SATISFIED (%)SATISFIED (%)SUMMARY: E – BUSINESSSUMMARY: E – BUSINESS

80



In 2007, the OHIM launched a new release of CTM-ONLINE. How does the system

performance compare with the 2006 version?

In 2007, the OHIM made available a daily update of RCD-ONLINE. Is such an update useful to you compared to the previous

weekly update?

How does the RCD-ONLINE system performance compare with 2006?

In March 2006, the OHIM launched a shadow user system to evaluate the stability, speed and

incident rate of CTM and RCD filing. How important is it to you that the OHIM monitors

standards in this way?

33%

0% 1% 1% 1% 2%

9%11%

15%13%

8% 7%

52%

1% 0% 0% 1% 3%6%

8%11%

6% 6% 6%

DONT

KNOW

41%

0% 0% 1% 1% 2%6% 6%

10% 10% 10% 12%

58%

1% 0% 0% 2% 1%5% 6%

9%4% 4%

10%

50%

0% 1% 1% 1% 2%6%

9% 11%8% 7% 5%

68%

0% 0% 0% 0% 1%5% 5%

8%4% 4% 5%

20%

1%0% 0% 0%

2%

5%

8%

15%

13% 13%

22%25%

1% 0% 0% 0% 1%3%

9%

12%

14%

10%

25%

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

(0) “not satisfied” ------- “very satisfied” (10)

(0) “less useful” ------- “much more useful” (10 ) DONT

KNOW

DONT

KNOW

DONT

KNOW

(0) Not important ---------------- Very important (10) DONT

KNOW

(0) “less useful” ------- “much more useful” (10 )

PROPIETORS: 29%

AGENTS: 43%


PROPIETORS: 27%

AGENTS: 42%

MORE USEFUL (7-10)MORE USEFUL (7-10)

PROPIETORS: 20%

AGENTS: 31%

MORE USEFUL (7-10)MORE USEFUL (7-10)

PROPIETORS: 61%

AGENTS: 63%


RESULTSRESULTS: e-business

81



On average, it takes 18 minutes for a typical CTM e-filing with a PDF attachment and a

single image. Are you satisfied with this?

On average, it takes 15 minutes for a typical RCD e-filing with a PDF attachment and nine

images. Are you satisfied with this?

How does CTM e-filing compare with 2006? How does RCD e-filing compare with 2006?

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

In 2007, the OHIM made improvements to and/or launched new releases of CTM e-filing and RCD e-filing.

14%

6%

1%

3%

5%6%

10%

11%

14%

12%

9%10%

13%

3%2%

1%

3%4%

7%

10%

17%

15%

10%

15%29%

5%

1%2%

4%5%

7%8%

13%

9% 9%

7%

30%

3%1% 2% 2%

4%5%

10%11%

10%

7%

14%

43%

0% 1% 0% 1% 2%

12% 10%12%

8%6% 5%

63%

0% 1% 1% 1% 1%

5%7%

9%5% 4% 4%

58%

0% 1% 0% 1%3%

8% 8% 9%5% 4%

3%

71%

0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

5% 5% 7%4% 3% 3%

DONT

KNOW

(0) “not satisfied” ------- “very satisfied” (10) DON

T KNOW


PROPIETORS: 43%

AGENTS: 38%


PROPIETORS: 22%

AGENTS: 32%


(0) “a lot worse” ------- “much better” (10 ) DONT

KNOW

DONT

KNOW

(0) “a lot worse” ------- “much better” (10 )

PROPIETORS: 22%

AGENTS: 31%

BETTER (7-10)BETTER (7-10)

PROPIETORS: 17%

AGENTS: 22%



82



The OHIM has launched an e-opposition application that allows the filing of oppositions electronically. How does CTM e-Opposition compare with CTM e-filing?

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS65%

1% 1% 0% 1% 2%7% 6% 6% 6%

3% 2%

78%

0% 0% 1% 0% 0%

6%4% 4% 3% 3% 1%

(0) “a lot worse” ------- “much better” (10 ) DONT KNOW

PROPIETORS: 11%

AGENTS: 17%


Have you noticed worse/better performance for searches/e-filing through MYPAGE?

2% 2%

26% 23%

12%7%

68%60% DONT KNOW

BETTER

NO CHANGE

WORSEAGENTS PROPRIETORS


83



AGENTS PROPRIETORS

If yes, did you find it useful?

In March 2007, the OHIM launched Online Access to Files to facilitate users’ access to all available (non-confidential) information on CTM files.

Have you used the service?

1% 0%1% 0%

1% 1%

4%6%

13%

18%17%

40%

1% 0% 1% 0%1%

3%

8%6%

18%

13%

16%

32%

PROPIETORS: 79%AGENTS:

87%

VERY USEFUL (7-10)VERY USEFUL (7-10)

DONT KNOW(0) “not useful” ------- “very useful” (10)


YES42%

NO 58%

NO 72%

YES28%

84



How would you describe this objective? Have you ever used the service?

POOR2%

ADEQUATE

89%

ADEQUATE

89%

TOO AMBITIOUS9%

TOO AMBITIOUS8%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

POOR3%

In November 2006, the OHIM launched an e-business hotline. The objective is for 90% of phone calls to be answered within 20 seconds.

YES21%

NO 79%

NO 81%

YES19%

(0) “not satisfied” ------- “very satisfied” (10 )

Are you satisfied with the reply you

received?

5%4%

1%0%

4%

2%

8%

10%

23%

19%

16%

7%

3%4%

2%1%

3%4% 4%

10%

13%

26%

9%

20%

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

DONT KNOW

PROPIETORS: 68%

AGENTS: 65%



85



Are you aware of these sessions?

RESULTSRESULTS: e-business Since the end of 2006, the OHIM has organised regular training sessions for paralegals on search

tools and e-filing that have been publicised on the OHIM website and in Alicante News.

AGENTS

NO 76%

PROPRIETORS

NO 90%

YES, AND PARTICIPATE

D6%

YES, BUT NO PARTICIPATED

18% YES, BUT NO PARTICIPATED

8%

YES, AND PARTICIPATED

2%

If participated, what was the level of satisfaction with the training received?

8%

0% 0% 0% 0%3%

5%

15%

26%28%

8% 8%9%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

18%

9%

27%

9%

27%

DONT

KNOW


PROPIETORS: 73%

AGENTS: 69%




RESULTSOther questions

87



RESULTS: RESULTS: Simplicity of the fees system, Handling of fees and Simplicity of the fees system, Handling of fees and Handling of OHIM current accountsHandling of OHIM current accounts


No users satisfied

55%(minimum)


200520062007

2005

2006

2007

68% 69% 67%65% 65%70%

67% 67% 68%

51% 50%55%

42%49%

52%48%53% 56%

Simplicity of the fees

system

Handling of fees in general

Handling of OHIM

current accounts

Simplicity of the fees

system

Handling of fees in general

Handling of OHIM

current accounts



CONCLUSIONS

89



RESULTSRESULTSPERCEIVED EVOLUTION OF THE OHIM

Generally speaking, do you feel that the OHIM has performed better than, the same as or worse than last

year? 2007

36%

43%

18%

4%

34%

24%

41%

1%

2006

41%

35%

17%

7%

31%16%

50%3%

The same

Better

Don’t know

Worse The same

Better

Don’t know

Worse

The same

Better

Don’t know

Worse

The sameBetter

Don’t know

Worse

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS





20072006

90



CONCLUSIONS: IDENTIFICATION OF THE NEEDS FOR ACTION

As a summary of everything presented here, main conclusions drawn from the research are:

A significant increase in the overall satisfaction of both types of users (agents and proprietors)

A decrease in the distance between the Propietors’ evaluacions and the Agents’ evaluations.

Number of complaints has decreased while the efficiency of resolving them has increased.

Significant improvements in satisfaction in all the areas of the core business (with the exception of the area of Appeals), in both groups of users.

Improvement in the more negative perception of last year: accessibility of Office employees.

A general decrease in the satisfaction with e-business tools, even more in Agents and remarkably regarding the system speed.

An overall perception of improvement in the functioning of the OHIM compared to one year ago.



ANNEX IRESULTS

BY COUNTRY

92



RESULTS BY COUNTRY RESULTS BY COUNTRY Generally, and Taking into account all the aspects covered by the

questionnaire, what is your overall level of satisfaction with the OHIM as a whole?

55%(minimum)


No users satisfied

80 8272

48

737366 62

46

75

DE ES FR GB IT

nº = 186 nº = 68 nº = 67 nº = 81 nº = 80AGENTS

nº = 118 nº = 38 nº = 86 nº = 50 nº = 49AGENTS

On the whole, how would you evaluate ‘THE OHIM’S OVERALL IMAGE’? 55%

(minimum)Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied DE ES FR GB IT

7076 75

39

7562 68

60

50

79

93



Overall, how would you evaluate the OHIM’S MEANS OF COMMUNICATION WITH AND PROVIDING INFORMATION for its users?

55%(minimum)


No users satisfied

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

DE ES FR GB IT

74 71 76

35

7162 61 58

38

69

Taking into account all aspects, what is your overall level of satisfaction with the OHIM's performance in dealing with

COMMUNITY TRADE MARKS? 55%

(minimum)Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

DE ES FR GB IT

76 74 74

47

79

63 6959

55

68

RESULTS BY COUNTRY RESULTS BY COUNTRY

94



How would you evaluate the OHIM’s …. in the issue of documents such as licences, transfers, copies and

certificates?

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

55%(minimum)

No users satisfied


7263 68

48

5958 60

49 52

81

No users satisfied


7867 71

61 6672 7969

6276

Every user

satisfied82

74 68 61 646880

7262

76

No users satisfied

DE ES FR GB IT

DE ES FR GB IT

DE ES FR GB IT

swiftness

accuracy

quality

55%(minimum)

55%(minimum)

RESULTS BY COUNTRY RESULTS BY COUNTRY



ANNEX IIMETHODOLOGY

96



As explained in the “Preliminary report for implementing the survey 2005”, the methodology applied was directed at the construction of two different types of information:

The User Satisfaction Index: USI

METHODOLOGYBASIC INDICATORS

between different types of user

Over time

Identification of STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES

Purpose: COMPARISON

Purpose: DIAGNOSIS To establish priorities for the ACTION NEEDS in each

of the various areas of service.

97



The User Satisfaction Index (USI) is a synthetic indicator of satisfaction built from the evaluations obtained in the various areas of action making up the service offered by the OHIM to its users.

The USI takes into account:• the evaluation obtained for each attribute.

• the influence (importance) of each attribute in the satisfaction.

• the percentage of users affected by that attribute.

using statistical correlation analysis

since not all users access the same OHIM services (for example, Trade Mark Applications and Appeals)

METHODOLOGYBasic indicators: USI

The analysis was conducted in “ladder” form, constructing each higher step from the lower steps and following the scheme set out in the following diagram:

98



METHODOLOGY CONSTRUCTION OF THE USERS SATISFACTION MODEL


OHIMIMAGE

INFO. & COMMUNIC.COMPLAINTS

LEVEL 1

CORE BUSINESS

LEVEL 2 APPEAL REGISTERCTM RCDOVERALL IMAGE

FILED COMPLAINTS

LEVEL 3OPPOSI-TIONS

INVALI-DITY

STAFF

INVALI-DITY

STAFF

STAFF

APPLICA-TIONS

APPLICA-TIONS

APPLICA-TIONS

99



The model is based on the construction of a strategic matrix where it is related the satisfaction with each aspect (TOP BOX) with the influence over the overall evaluation.

Don’t know

010

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

TOP BOX% SATISFIED

USERS

WHY THE TOP BOX AND NOT THE AVERAGE? The average is seen as highly influenced by the high and low points, and experience shows that, consequently, it hides the reality.

20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0% 90,0%

INFLUENCE

SATISFACTION (TOP BOX)

METHODOLOGYIdentification of Strengths and Weaknesses (I)

WHAT IS THE TOP BOX? It is the percentage of SATISFIED USERS, understood as those who give an evaluation (of the aspect in question) situated in any of the four top positions on the scale.

Correlation with global

satisfaction

100



IMAGE

20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0% 90,0%

To improve(priority

)

To improve(priority

)

Quadrant A:Strategic

disadvantages

Quadrant A:Strategic

disadvantages

To maintai

n

To maintai

n

Quadrant B:Strategic

advantages

Quadrant B:Strategic

advantages

To watch

To watch

Quadrant C:Advantages with lower strategic

utility

Quadrant C:Advantages with lower strategic

utility

To consider

(secondary)

To consider

(secondary)

Quadrant D:Acceptable

disadvantages

Quadrant D:Acceptable

disadvantages

INFLUENCE

SATISFACTION

METHODOLOGYIdentification of Strengths and Weaknesses (II)

HOW TO READ STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES GRAPHS

Very important and poorly

valued aspects

Very important and highly

valued aspects

Less important and poorly valued

aspects

Less important and highly valued

aspects

101



DESIRABLE: 65% o más

METHODOLOGYIdentification of Strengths and Weaknesses (III)

Another important aspect to be defined is the point at which the axis should be cut and, as a result, where the STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES quadrants should be set.

• AXIS OF INFLUENCE (vertical): by definition, and given that this is a relative measurement which is only intended to be arranged hierarchically, this was cut at the mid-point.

•AXIS OF SATISFACTION (horizontal): the question to be answered is “Above what percentage of users satisfied with one aspect can this be regarded as a STRENGTH? As there were no previous comparable experiences, in this study the acceptable minimum was applied as 55% of users, although we recommend trying to improve this figure in future exercises.

20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

INFLUENCE

0% 10%

55% SATISFACTION

EXCELENCE: 85% o más

70% 80% 90% 100%

MINIMUM: 55% users satisfied

OHIM USER SATISFACTION

STUDY

102



METHODOLOGYIdentification of Strengths and Weaknesses (IV)

Finally, when interpreting the STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES diagrams, the following must be taken into account:

SIZE OF THE POINTS REPRESENTED:

Point size reflects the VOLUME of users

affected by each aspect

INFLUENCE

SATISFACTION

+

+

-

- 55%

STRATEGIC DISADVANTAGES

ACCEPTABLE

DISADVANTAGES

STRATEGICADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGES WITH LOWER STRATEGIC

UTILITY

APPEAL

RCD

REGISTER

CTM

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 80% 90%In those diagrams were all points are de same size, this

will mean that the aspects measured affect the same

number of users.

THE NUMBER “No: “ : represents the sample (No. of responses) from which information was obtained.


103



Survey results show that both evaluation criteria and satisfaction levels with OHIM differ when evaluated by

proprietors or by agents. Therefore, their opinions have been analysed separately: the summary analysis of “TOTAL

USERS” would only lead to confusion as it does not represent any of them.

The first conclusion of the 2005 analysis was that it makes no sense to talk about the TOTAL NUMBER OF USERS:

For this reason, all the results of the report are presented separately for each group.

METHODOLOGY¿TOTAL USUERS?



Responsable del Proyecto e Informe en GfK Emer Ad-Hoc Research:

Ángeles Bacete; e-mail: [email protected]

February 2008 GfK GroupAd Hoc Research OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2007 ER- 0484/1/00 OHIM USER...

Documents

Transcript of February 2008 GfK GroupAd Hoc Research OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2007 ER- 0484/1/00 OHIM USER...