Lawyer Fees Solve

As hundreds of Gleissner’s trademark applications proceeded to examination, a number of small business owners reached out to WTR to criticise one particular IP agency: the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). In a stinging critique, the head of a small IT company questioned why the UKIPO was not providing sufficient protection for existing rights holders, claiming that the duty to oppose or seek cancellation of marks was too financially burdensome for most SMEs. “We’re essentially in a position where we can either defend our trademark or throw thousands of pounds we cannot afford into a black hole of legal fees, or suffer the potential long-term consequences of a severely diluted trademark if we do not defend it,” he said.

The comments reflected growing concern among brand owners over Gleissner’s trademark activity. What is more, they pointed to fundamental issues within the IP system. Spiralling legal costs were preventing many small business owners from moving forward with opposition proceedings. “Although we’re feeling victimised at the moment and may have to concede defeat in this case, there is a fundamental problem in the trademark system which is allowing this to happen,” our source admitted.