GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 Febrero 2009 OHIM User Satisfaction Survey 2008 February 2009 ER- 0484/1/00 A50/000021

Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research

OHIM User Satisfaction Survey 2008

February 2009

ER- 0484/1/00 A50/000021


IndexObjectives and Data SheetResults:

User Satisfaction Index (USI)ComplaintsIdentification of STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES

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

LEVEL 3: Community trade mark LEVEL 3: Community design LEVEL 3: Appeals LEVEL 3: Register

• LEVEL 2: Information and communicatione-business tools

Other issues:CONCLUSIONS AND DIAGNOSTICS

Perception of the development of the OHIMANNEX I: Results by countries ANNEX II: METHODOLOGY


Objectives

Data Sheetand

Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research

4

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


5

Data Sheet

Any individual who has been in touch with the OHIM in the context of any proceedings in 2008, whether as an agent or as a proprietor acting on his own behalf (including proprietors’ employees and “type 5” agents).

Sampling unit is the individual.

From 10/1/2008 to 31/1/2009

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

Languages: the 5 languages of the Office

TARGET PUBLIC

TARGET GROUP

FIELDWORK

QUESTIONNAIRE


6

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 70,355 (57,390 proprietors / 12,965 agents) possible contacts were identified.

A total of 29,361 email addresses was available, but not all of them were correct, as 4,283 messages sent were returned as ‘undeliverable’.

By the end of the response time a total of 1,598 questionnaires had been received, which gave a net response rate of 7% and an optimum sample size in terms of statistical representation of the results (a sampling margin of error of +/-2.5 % 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.


7

70,355

29,361 4,283

Undeliverable mail

RESPONDENTS

1,598

RESPONSE RATE:7% of net mailing

addresses

TOTAL OHIMUsers

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS (*)

(*) INCLUDING EMPLOYEES (“type 5 “ agents) (in the last

year)

E-MAIL

685 913

Target Group and Final Sample Distribution

57,390

12,965

19,118

10,243


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 38%

No62%

AGENTSPROPRIETOR

S

TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 685) TOTAL AGENTS (No: 913)

Yes 38%

No62%


ResultsUser-Satisfaction -Index

(USI)


10

AGENTS WHO HAVE NOT COMPLAINED

AGENTS WHO HAVE COMPLAINED

68,6

USI

67,0

USI AGEN

T

59,0

USI

RESULTSUser-Satisfaction -Index (USI) 2005 / 2006 / 2007/2008

PROPRIETORS WHO HAVE NOT COMPLAINED

PROPRIETORS WHO HAVE COMPLAINED

62,5

USI

61,9

USI PROP.

55,0

USI

+3,8

+5,7

2005

68,3

USI

59,5

USI

63,5

USI

57,3

USI

2006

-0,8

+0,9

70,9

USI

64,7

USI

69,9

USI

59,7

USI

2007

66,2

USI AGEN

T

62,8

USI PROP.

70,0

USI AGEN

T

68,5

USI PROP.

+2,5

+1,7

74,8

USI

61,1

USI

71,4

USI

60,5

USI

2008

72,5

USI AGEN

T

70,2

USI PROP.


Results

Complaints


12

RESULTSCOMPLAINTS

2007

TOTAL AGENTS (No: 913) TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 685)

2008

YES15%

NO 85%

NO 86%

YES14%

Yes, by

telephone

5%

Yes, I submitted it in writing

11%

No 84% 16%

YESYes, by

telephone3%

Yes, I submitted it in writing

8%No 89%

YES11%

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


13

RESULTSCOMPLAINTS

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

PROPRIETORSAGENTS

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

COMPLAINTS AGENT COMPLAINTS PROPRIETOR

2005 2006 2007 2008

EFFICIENTLY

QUICKLY

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

PROFESSIONALLY

SATISFACTION

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

INFLU

EN

CE

EFFICIENTLY

QUICKLY

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

2005 2006 2007 2008

PROFESSIONALLY

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES STRENGTHSSATISFACTION

INFLU

EN

CE55%

+

+

-

-

16% 11%


14

RESULTSCOMPLAINTS

Has a satisfactory solution been found to your problem?

2007

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

41% 46%

16%11%

17% 17%

27% 25%

SOLVEDSATISFACTORILY

SOLVED

UNSAT. SOLVED

PENDING

PARTLY S.

PENDING

PARTLY S.

SATISFACTORILY

UNSAT. SOLVED

SOLVED56%

SOLVED58%

COMPLAINTS AGENT COMPLAINTS PROPRIETOR16% 11%

34% 30%

19% 21%

19%14%

28% 34%

PENDING PENDING

PARTLY S.PARTLY S.

2008

UNSAT. SOLVEDUNSAT. SOLVED

SATISFACTORILY SOLVED

SATISFACTORILY SOLVED

SOLVED53%

SOLVED51%

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


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

Every user

satisfied

No users

satisfied

62%

53%

67% 65%59% 68%69%68%

71%77%66%

CORE BUSINESS IMAGE INFORMATION

2005200620072008

+ 9 + 3 -2

57%

AGENTS

TOTAL AGENTS (No: 913)

PROPRIETORS

50%

59%

49%

57% 58%

41%

65% 67%

58%

72%66% 64%

CORE BUSINESS IMAGE INFORMATION

+ 7 + 6

-1

55%(minimum)

TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 685)

2005200620072008


17

No users satisfied

RESULTSRESULTSLEVEL1: LEVEL1: OHIM EMPLOYEESOHIM EMPLOYEES

65% 65%68%

65%

51%

80%

66%65% 67%71%

61%

44%

80%

67%67% 68%72%

64%

52%

81%

70%73% 73% 77%70%

57%

85%76%

COMPETENT RELIABLEwith

PROFESSIONALISMEFFICIENT

TELPH.

EASY TO CONTACT

POLITE,FRIENDLY

RESPONSIVE TO USERS NEEDS

satisfied

ENQUIRIES

Every user

55%(minimum)

55%(minimum)

2005200620072008

AGENTS

TOTAL AGENTS(No: 913)

+ 5 + 6 + 5 + 6

+ 5

+ 4 + 6

61% 61% 63% 63%

52%

73%

61%65% 64%

69%

61%

47%

75%

64%70% 71%

74%69%

57%

78%

69%

77% 74% 77% 75%

64%

84%76%

COMPETENT RELIABLEwith

PROFESSIONALISMEFFICIENT

TELPH.

EASY TO CONTACT

POLITE,FRIENDLY

RESPONSIVE TO USERS NEEDS

ENQUIRIES

No users satisfied

Every user

55%(minimum)

55%(minimum)

PROPRIETORS

2005200620072008

TOTAL PROPRIETORS

(No: 685)

+ 7 + 3 + 3 + 6

+ 7

+ 6+ 7


LEVEL 2:0VERALL IMAGE

USI (Users Satisfaction Index)

OHIMIMAGE

LEVEL 2 OVERALL IMAGE


19

RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of Strengths and WeaknessesLEVEL2: OVERALL IMAGELEVEL2: OVERALL IMAGE

STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES


Swiftness

Transparency

Modernity

Prestige

Conscientiousness

Professionalism

Quality of service

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

2005 2006 2007 2008

INFLU

EN

CE

SATISFACTION

+

-

+-

AGENTS


STRATEGICWEAKNESSES

STRATEGICSTRENGTHS

STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES

Swiftness

Transparency

Modernity

Prestige

conscientiousness

Professionalism

Quality of service

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

2005 2006 2007 2008

SATISFACTION

-

INFLU

EN

CE - +

+

PROPRIETORS


LEVEL 2:CORE BUSINESS


LEVEL 2


CORE BUSINESS

APPEAL REGISTERCTM RCD


21

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

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%

61%

77%

11%

8%

17%

3%

23%

0%

4%

1%

61%

2005200620072008

93%

27%

24%

70%

20%

52%

4%

31%

1,6%

68%

94%

35%

31%

21%

53%

3%

29%

2,1%

68%

91%

37%

32%

64%

21%

49%

5%

27%

1,7%

62%

91%

34%

29%

65%

21%

45%

5%

26%

2,4%

62%

Application for a CTM

Application for an internationaltrade mark designating the EC

Application for an internationaltrade mark based on a CTM

Opposition

CTM invalidity request

Application to register aCommunity design (RCD)

RCD invalidity request

CTM appeal

RCD appeal

Register

72%

2005200620072008

PROPRIETORSAGENTS

TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 685) TOTAL AGENTS (No: 913)


22

RESULTSRESULTSLEVEL2: CORE BUSINESS

CTM RCD APPEAL Register

Every user

satisfied

No users

satisfied

2005200620072008

AGENTS


50%

59%

44%

68%

46%

70%60%

51%

67%60%

77%71%

79% 79%

58%

75%

+ 8 + 2

+ 14

+ 7

No: 245 No: 839 No: 407 No :562

CTM RCD APPEAL Register

PROPRIETORS

2005200620072008 55%

(minimum)


57% 60%

45%

37%

60%67%

52% 53%

63%

72%

39%

68%

71%78%

70% 70%

+ 8+ 6

+ 31 + 2

(*)

(*) No: 31No :561 No :160 No: 421


LEVEL 3:CORE BUSINESS / CTM

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


24

Every user

satisfied

No users

satisfied

55%(minimum)

RESULTS:RESULTS: CTM


50%

26%31%

52%

40%

61%

80%

63% 63%

72% 68%75%

CTM APPLICATIONS OPPOSITIONS CTM INVALIDITY

57%

38%

28%

58%

39%43%

71%

56%60%

80%

63% 63%

CTM APPLICATIONS OPPOSITIONS CTM INVALIDITY

2005200620072008

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

2005200620072008

PROPRIETORS (No: 561)

(No: 839)

(*)

(*) No: 20 (No: 589) (No: 193) (No: 561) (No: 115)


+ 9

+ 7 + 3 - 8 + 5

+ 12


25

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

PROPIETORS: 83%

AGENTS: 86%

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

RESULTSRESULTS: CTM APPLICATIONS

1% 0% 0% 1% 2%4% 5%

12% 13% 14%

46%

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

6%

12%9%

15%

46%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

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


26


OHIM is currently finalising the examination of 80% of CTM

applications where no objections are raised within 23

days (as of Q3-2008).

Around 80% of CTMs where no objections are raised and no

national search is requested are being published within 13 weeks of receipt (as of Q3-

2008).

Have you noticed any CHANGE in performance over the past year?

23%

5%

34%

38%

57%

3%

26%

15%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER

24%

3%

33%

40%

61%

2%23%

14%


AGENTS PROPRIETORS


27



80% of CTM applications where no objections have been raised and no opposition has been filed are

ready for registration within 27 weeks of receipt (as of Q3-2008).

25%

62%3%

2%

35%

23%38%

13%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS



28

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


PROPIETORS: 76%

AGENTS: 82%



1% 0% 0% 1% 1%

5% 5%

14% 14%

17%

36%

1% 1% 0% 0% 1%

4%

8%

13%

16%14%

33%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS


29

RESULTSRESULTS: CTM APPLICATIONSHave you noticed any CHANGE in performance over the past

year?

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

More than 90% of decisions on classification comply with

OHIM’s defined quality standards.

Well over 90% of OHIM decisions on absolute grounds comply with the pre-set quality

standards.

32%

67%5%

1%44%

23%19% 9%

36%

67%4%

1%45%

23%15% 9%


30

… 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?


86%

POSITIVE CHANGEPOSITIVE CHANGE

38%

40%

38%

19%

15%

How important is it to you…

SUMMARYSUMMARY: CTM APPLICATIONS

OHIM is currently finalising the examination of 80% of CTM applications where no objections are raised within 23 days (as of Q3-2008).

Around 80% of CTMs where no objections are raised and no national search is requested are being published within 13 weeks of receipt (as of Q3-2008)

80% of CTM applications where no objections have been raised and no opposition has been filed are ready for registration within 27 weeks of receipt (as of Q3-2008)

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

Well over 90% of OHIM decisions on absolute grounds comply with the pre-set quality standards.

15%

14%

13%

9%

9%

83%

82% 76%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS


31

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?

RESULTSRESULTS: CTM OPPOSITION

PROPIETORS: 87%

AGENTS: 81%



AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

1% 0% 0% 1% 1%

5%

8%

14% 16% 15%

36%

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

6%

13%15%

19%

40%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


32



For around 80 % of opposition files, the admissibility phase is

finalized within 54 days of receiving the opposition (as of

Q3-2008, if no suspension occurred).

For around 80% of opposition files, the decision is notified within 55 weeks of finalizing the adversarial part of the

proceedings (as of Q3-2008, if no suspension occurred).

23%

42%6%

3%

49%

41%

22%14%

35%45%

5%

6%

42%34%

17% 15%

PROPRIETORS


AGENTS PROPRIETORSAGENTS


33

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


PROPIETORS: 80%

AGENTS: 77%



AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

1% 0% 0% 0%2%

4%5%

11%13% 13%

39%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3%

6%

10%

15%17%

38%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


34


Over 85% of opposition decisions comply with the OHIM’s quality standards.

AGENTS PROPRIETORS



34% 43%

5%4%

49% 35%

12% 18%


35

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?


81%


22%

17%

12%


For around 80 % of opposition files, the admissibility phase is finalized within 54 days of receiving the opposition (as of Q3-2008, if no suspension occurred)

For around 80% of opposition files, the decision is notified within 55 weeks of finalizing the adversarial part of the proceedings (as of Q3-2008, if no suspension occurred)

Over 85% of opposition decisions comply with the OHIM’s quality standards.

14%

15%

18%

87%

77% 80%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS


LEVEL 3:CORE BUSINESS / RCD


CORE BUSINESS

RCD

INVALI-DITY

EMPLO-YEES

APPLICA-TIONS


37

RESULTS:RESULTS: RCDUSI (Users Satisfaction Index)

CORE BUSINESS

RCD

INVALI-DITY

EMPLO-YEES

APPLICA-TIONS

Every user

satisfied

No users

satisfied

55%(minimum)

2005200620072008

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

2005200620072008

PROPRIETORS (No: 160) TOTAL AGENTS (No: 407)

-2

-5071%

62%70% 67%

84%

52%

82%

58%

RCD APPLICATIONS(No:407)

RCD INVALIDITY(No:42)

67%

44%

67% 67%

77%

100%

78%

RCD APPLICATIONS(No:160)

50%

+ 6

+ 1

No minimum

sample

RCD INVALIDITY(No:2*)


38

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

RESULTSRESULTS: RCD

PROPIETORS: 80%

AGENTS: 83%



AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

1% 1% 0% 1% 1%

4%

8%

15%17%

13%

37%

0% 1% 1% 1%0%

4%

8% 8%

21%

11%

41%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


39

RESULTSRESULTS: RCD

For 80% of design applications, registration of the RCD is published

within 55 days (as of Q3-2008)

AGENTS PROPRIETORS



22%

58%3%

3%

41%

22%

33%18%


40

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


RESULTSRESULTS: RCD

PROPIETORS: 84%

AGENTS: 84%

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

PROPRIETORS

0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

5% 6%

16%

19%

14%

36%

0% 1% 0% 0% 0%

3%

8%

16% 15% 14%

39%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


41

RESULTSRESULTS: RCD

Over 95% of RCD publications comply with the OHIM quality standards

AGENTS PROPRIETORS



24%

60%2%

1%

45%

26%

29%13%


42

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?


83%


33%

29%


For 80% of design applications, registration of the RCD is published within 55 days (as of Q3-2008).

Over 95% of RCD publications comply with the OHIM quality standards.

18%

13%

80%

84% 84%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS


LEVEL 3:CORE BUSINESS / APPEAL


CORE BUSINESS

APPEAL

EMPLO-YEES

APPLICA-TIONS


44

RESULTS : APPEAL APPLICATIONSRESULTS : APPEAL APPLICATIONS

How do you rate the quality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal?

2% 1% 0%

4%6%

9%

20%18%

13%

7%

4%

14%

0% 0% 0%

3%

6%

3%

6%

10%

23%

3% 3%

42%

0 = “verypoor”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“excellent”

DONTKNOW

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

PROPIETORS: 45%

AGENTS: 60%

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


45


In ex parte cases, 70% of the decisions are notified within less than 26 weeks from remittal to the Board

How do you rate this performance?

1% 1% 0%

4%5%

11%

16%19%

17%

7%4%

16%

0% 0%

3%

0%

6%

3% 3%

19%

13%

10%

3%

39%

0 = “verypoor”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“excellent”

DONTKNOW

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

PROPIETORS: 45%

AGENTS: 47%



46


In inter partes cases, 87% of the decisions are notified within less than 26 weeks from remittal to the Board

How do you rate this performance?

2% 1% 0%

4%6%

9%

20%18%

13%

7%

4%

14%

0% 0% 0%

3%

6%

3%

6%

10%

23%

3% 3%

42%

0 = “verypoor”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“excellent”

DONTKNOW

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

PROPIETORS: 39%

AGENTS: 42%



47

SUMMARYSUMMARY: APPEAL (1)

In ex parte cases, 70% of the decisions are notified within less than 26 weeks from remittal to the Board

In inter partes cases, 87% of the decisions are notified within less than 26 weeks from remittal to the Board


47%

How do you rate …

45%

42% 39%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

the quality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal? 60% 45%


LEVEL 3:CORE BUSINESS/ Register

CORE BUSINESS

REGISTER



49

RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of needs for action: REGISTER


CORE BUSINESS

REGISTER

51%

63% 62%63%

71% 70%70%77% 78%

0%

55%

Swiftness Accuracy Quality

Every user

satisfied

No users

satisfied

AGENTS200620072008

+ 7 + 6 + 8

45%

59%

54%

61%

71% 71%62%

74% 74%

Swiftness Accuracy Quality

55%(minimum)

PROPRIETORS200620072008

+ 1

+ 3 + 3

PROPRIETORS (No: 421) AGENTS (No: 562)


50

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

RESULTS : REGISTERRESULTS : REGISTER


PROPIETORS: 81%

AGENTS: 85%

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

PROPRIETORS

0% 0% 0% 0%2%

4% 5%

12%14%

17%

41%

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

7%

15%14% 15%

38%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


51

RESULTS : REGISTERRESULTS : REGISTER


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

the request

More than 95% of CTM and RCD transfers are recorded within 14

days of the request

PROPRIETORS


AGENTS PROPRIETORSAGENTS

31%

68%4%

1%

38%

21%26%

10%

32%

69%3%

0%

37%

20%28%

11%


52

SUMMARYSUMMARY: REGISTER

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


85%


26%

28%


More than 90% of CTM and RCD certified copies and certificates are issued within 14 days of receiving the request

More than 95% of CTM and RCD transfers are recorded within 14 days of the request

10%

11%

81%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS


LEVEL 2:INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION




54



RESULTS_RESULTS_INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONHow satisfied are you with the following aspects related to obtaining information?

2005200620072008

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%

60%

60%

64%

72%

63%

68%

79%

72%

Ease of identifying the rightperson to speak to

Ease of obtaining the rightinformation

Clarity of informationprovided by the OHIM

The tendency to replacepaper by e-communications

(e-business)

Speed of response to enquiries

Accuracy of responses

Mastery of the languagesused in OHIM

communications

Completeness of information

provided by the OHIM

Minimum

+ 11

+ 7

+ 8

+ 5

+ 6

+ 7

+ 7

+ 5


55



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

RESULTS_RESULTS_INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION

Ease of identifying the rightperson to speak to

Ease of obtaining the rightinformation

Clarity of informationprovided by the OHIM

The tendency to replacepaper by e-communications

(e-business)

Speed of response to enquiries

Accuracy of responses

Mastery of the languagesused in OHIM

communications

Completeness of information

provided by the OHIM

Minimum

40%

40%

46%

62%

47%

53%

68%

59%

37%

39%

45%

64%

46%

60%

71%

62%

49%

50%

51%

64%

55%

62%

75%

64%

55%

57%

58%

68%

62%

69%

81%

69%

+ 6

+ 7

+ 7

+ 7

+ 7

+ 6

+ 5

2005200620072008

+ 4


Results

toolse-business


57

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

YES 2005 97%

RESULTSRESULTSLEVEL2: OHIM´s website

YES 200588%

YES 200699%

YES 200694%

PROPRIETORS

AGENTS

YES 200799%

YES 200796%

YES 200899%

YES 200894%

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

53%

62%

74%

64%

58%

66%

73%

66%

56%

65%

71%

65%

57%

69%

75%

71%

Clarity of the structure

Completeness ofthe contents

Usefulness ofcontents

Speed at whichthe information

is updated

2005 2006 2007 2008

52%

56%

64%

60%

44%

53%

60%

57%

49%

58%

63%

58%

63%

66%

60%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Minimum

Minimum

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

52%

+ 3

+ 2

+ 5

+ 3

+ 4

+ 4

+ 6

+ 1


58

RESULTS: RESULTS: CTMCTM ONLINE ONLINE

AGENTS

82%

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

78%

84%

82%

2005 2006 2007 2008

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

Always personally83%

Always through athird party 2%

Sometimes personally 15%

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

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

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

77% 78% 74%80%78% 76% 75%

82%76%

64% 66%73%

83%

70% 74% 78%

Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses

2005200620072008

55%(minimum

)

Every user satisfied

No users satisfied

+ 5+ 8+ 6+ 7


59

68% 71% 69%75%

65% 68%63%

70%64%

58% 59%

67%

75%66% 70%

74%


RESULTS: RESULTS: RCDRCD ONLINE ONLINE

AGENTSHow often do you use the service/

database….?



2005200620072008

55%(minimum

)


28%

34%

21%28%

24%

17%

29%23%

21%

10%20% 18% 27%

30% 31%39%

2005 2006 2007 2008


Always through a third party

5%

Sometimes personally

25%

Always personally

70%

No users satisfied

+ 11 + 8 +

11

+ 7


60

RESULTS: RESULTS: E-FILING CTME-FILING CTM

AGENTS

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

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

51%

20%

17% 19% 21%

36%25% 22% 23%

7% 5% 5% 6%

37%

55%

53%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Always personally

70%


11%


19%

60%64%

59%

73%

64% 62%

54%

71%

59%

51% 53%

70%71%

56% 59%

75%


2005200620072008

55%(minimum

)


No users satisfied

+ 12

+ 5+ 6

+ 5


61

RESULTS: RESULTS: E-FILING RCDE-FILING RCD

AGENTS


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



14%


Always personally

65%

15%15% 18%

47%46% 41%

18% 12% 18%

27% 23%20%

2006 2007 2008


58% 57%

53%

65%

57%

47% 52%

65%59%

48% 51%

69%


200620072008

55%(minimum)

Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied


62

RESULTS: RESULTS: MY PAGEMY PAGE


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



30%9%9% 10% 13%34%31% 38% 29%

44% 32% 25% 27%

14%27%28%

2005 2006 2007 2008

AGENTS


7%



57%

50%

58%

66%62%

67% 64%68%

60%

49%

55%

67%68%60%

66%74%


55%(minimum)

Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied

2005200620072008

+ 11

+ 8+ 11

+ 7


63

RESULTS: RESULTS: E-OPPOSITIONE-OPPOSITION


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


AGENTS

15% 14%

49% 49%

20% 21%

16% 15%

2007 2008

Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not awareAlways through

a third party9%



18%

64%

53%61%

70%67%58% 60%

70%


55%(minimum)

Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied

2007

2008

+ 3 + 5


64

RESULTS: RESULTS: E-RenewalE-Renewal


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


AGENTS


55%(minimum)

Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied

13%

41%

19%

27%

2008

not aware

aware but donot use

sometimes

regularly

58%20%


Always personallySometimes personally

22%

83%78% 78% 82%

2008


65

RESULTS: RESULTS: CTM ONLINECTM ONLINE

PROPRIETORS



Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied

29%

22%19%

25%27%

17%14%

9%12%

21%32% 24% 32%

40% 42%36%

2005 2006 2007 2008

Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not aware Always through a third party

3%



63% 64% 64%71%

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

68%70% 68%73% 75%


55%(minimum)

2005200620072008


+ 5 + 5 + 9+ 7


66

RESULTS: RESULTS: RCD ONLINERCD ONLINE


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


PROPRIETORS

5%

34%

9% 18% 15%

15%

21%23%

21%

28%

59% 51% 59%

23%8%11%

2005 2006 2007 2008


a third party12%



54% 53% 55%59%

64% 63% 61% 63%62% 62% 64% 65%70% 69%

76%82%


Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied

55%(minimum)

2005200620072008

+ 8 + 7 + 12

+ 17


67

RESULTS: RESULTS: E-FILING CTME-FILING CTM


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


15%

29% 25%36%

33%

31%25%

19%

20%

21% 29% 21%32%

19%24%22%

2005 2006 2007 2008


PROPRIETORS


4%



65% 65% 63%68%

63% 62% 60%

69%

60% 59% 58%

68%68% 67% 70%79%


Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied

55%(minimum)

2005200620072008

+ 8 + 8 + 12

+ 11


68

RESULTS: RESULTS: E-FILING RCDE-FILING RCD

PROPRIETORS


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


8%17%

13%

31%31%

29%

53%43%

54%

8% 4%9%

2006 2007 2008



8%



Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied

55%(minimum)

200620072008

58% 57%53%

67%61%

56% 56%

69%67%63%

68%

78%


+ 6 + 7 + 12

+ 9


69

RESULTS: RESULTS: MY PAGEMY PAGE


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



8%10% 9% 11% 10%24% 19%

26%24%

61% 64%50% 58%

5% 13%7%2005 2006 2007 2008


4%

Always personally

82%


Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied

55%(minimum)

2005200620072008

63% 68%60%

74%64% 63% 66%

76%

54% 55%

54%

61%63% 62% 66%

74%


PROPRIETORS

+ 9 + 7 + 12

+ 13


70

RESULTS RESULTS E-OPPOSITIONE-OPPOSITION


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


PROPRIETORS

9% 5%

35%33%

52% 59%

5% 3%2007 2008


a third party8%

Always personally

70%


67%58% 57%

76%73% 68% 73%

86%


Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied

55%(minimum)

2007

2008

+ 6 + 10

+ 6+ 10


71

RESULTS RESULTS E-RenewalE-Renewal


For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate e-Renewal service with regard to the following?

Do you use e-Renewal ....?

PROPRIETORS


Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied

55%(minimum)

2008

6%

33%

57%

4%

20084%


8%



84%76% 76%

81%

Ease of use of thesystem

Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security andconfidentiality of

processes


72

SUMMARY: E – BUSINESSSUMMARY: E – BUSINESS

% USE (REGULARLY

+ SOMETIMES

AGENTS

E-OPPOSITION 29% 67 ( 3) 58 ( 5) 60 ( 1) 70 (=)

SATISFIED (%)SATISFIED (%)

SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROCESSES

RELIABILITY OF SYSTEM

SPEED OF THE SYSTEM

EASE OF USE OF THE SYSTEM

RCD-ONLINE 53% 75 ( 11) 66 ( 8) 70 ( 11) 74 ( 7)

CTM-ONLINE 91% 83 ( 7) 70 ( 6) 74 ( 8) 78 ( 5)

E-FILING CTM 71% 71 ( 12) 56 ( 5) 59 ( 6) 75 ( 5)

E-FILING RCD 41% 59 ( 2) 48 ( 1) 51 ( 1) 69 ( 4)

MYPAGE 44% 68 ( 8) 60 ( 11) 66 ( 11) 74 ( 7)

E-RENEWAL 40% 83 78 78 82


73

SUMMARY: E – BUSINESSSUMMARY: E – BUSINESS

E-OPPOSITION 8% 73 ( 6) 68 ( 10) 73 ( 16) 86 ( 10)

SATISFIED (%)SATISFIED (%)

SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROCESSES

RELIABILITY OF SYSTEM

SPEED OF THE SYSTEM

EASE OF USE OF THE SYSTEM

RCD-ONLINE 20% 70 ( 8) 69 ( 7) 76 ( 12) 82 ( 17)

CTM-ONLINE 56% 70 ( 5) 68 ( 5) 73 ( 9) 75 ( 7)

E-FILING CTM 48% 68 ( 8) 67 ( 8) 70 ( 12) 79 ( 11)

E-FILING RCD 17% 67 ( 6) 63 ( 7) 68 ( 12) 78 ( 9)

MYPAGE 18% 63 ( 9) 62 ( 7) 66 ( 12) 74 ( 13)

E-RENEWAL 10% 83 78 78 82

PROPIETORS

% USE (REGULARLY

+ SOMETIMES)


74

How does the CTM Online

system performance compare with

the 2007 version?

How does the RCD-ONLINE

system performance compare with

2007?

AGENTS

PROPRIETORSRESULTSRESULTS: e-business

28%

1% 0% 1% 1% 3%

11% 11%16%

12%8% 8%

59%

0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3%8% 8% 6% 7% 6%

Don’tknow

0 = “a lotworse”

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“much

better”

47%

1% 0% 0% 1% 1%

7%9% 8% 6% 5% 4%

74%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3%

Don’tknow


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“muchbetter”

PROPIETORS: 27%

AGENTS: 44%

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

PROPIETORS: 11%

AGENTS: 23%



75How does RCD e-filing perform compared with

2007?

In 2008, the OHIM made improvements to and/or launched new releases of CTM e-filing RCD e-filing and e-

opposition

How does CTM e-filing perform compared with 2007?

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

RESULTSRESULTS: e-business

How does e-opposition perform compared with 2007?

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

44%

1% 0% 1% 1% 2%

9% 8%11% 11%

7% 6%

72%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0%3% 5% 5% 6%

3% 5%

Don’tknow


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“muchbetter”

60%

1% 0% 0% 1% 1%7% 5% 6% 6% 4% 4%

78%

0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 3% 1% 4%

Don’tknow


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“muchbetter”

67%

1% 0% 0% 0% 0%4% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3%

83%

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

Don’tknow


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“muchbetter”

PROPIETORS: 20%

AGENTS: 34%


PROPIETORS: 11%

AGENTS: 19%


PROPIETORS: 8%

AGENTS: 16%


57%74%

34%16%

8% 9%

1%2%

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

Don’t know WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER


Results questions

Other


77

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

67% 67% 68%68% 69%74%

69%68%67%65%65%

70%

0%Simplicity of the fees

systemHandling of fees in

generalHandling of OHIM current

accounts

51% 50%55%

42%

49%52%

48%

53%

56%

48%

57% 57%

Simplicity of the feessystem

Handling of fees ingeneral

Handling of OHIM currentaccounts

55%(minimum)

+ 6

2005200620072008

AGENTS PROPRIETORS

2005200620072008

PROPRIETORS (No:) TOTAL AGENTS (No:)

+ 1 + 4

+ 2 + 1


78

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?

AGENTS

PROPRIETORS

2007

36%

43%

18%

4%

34%

24%

41%

1%

The same

Better

Don’t know

Worse

The same

Better

Don’t know Worse



2007

The same

40%

20%

Don’t know

4%

Worse

35%

Better

18%The same

18%Better2%

Worse

62%

Don’t know

2008

2008


Conclusions


80

CONCLUSIONSIDENTIFICATION 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.

Significant improvements in satisfaction in all the areas of the core business, in both groups of users.

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

A general increase in the satisfaction with e-business tools, in both groups of users.

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


Results by countryANNEX I

82


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

nº = 290

nº = 95 nº = 80 nº = 87 nº = 92AGENTS

nº = 107

nº = 56 nº = 116

nº = 83 nº = 70PROPRIETORS

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

55%(minimum

)

83% 79% 79%

63%

86%78%

73% 70% 69%83%

DE ES FR GB IT


No users satisfied

73% 70%78%

40%

87%

69% 69% 65% 61%70%

DE ES FR GB IT


83

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

55%(minimum)

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


66%74% 72%

45%

77%69% 67% 65% 63%

72%

DE ES FR GB IT

78% 76% 80%

62%

85%

71% 71%64% 66%

79%

DE ES FR GB ITNo users satisfied


No users satisfied


nº = 290 nº = 95 nº = 80 nº = 87 nº = 92AGENTSnº = 107 nº = 56 nº = 116 nº = 83 nº = 70PROPRIETORS

nº = 283 nº = 92 nº = 77 nº = 77 nº = 86AGENTS

nº = 96 nº = 51 nº = 97 nº = 62 nº = 65PROPRIETORS

55%(minimum)


84

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

certificates?

No users satisfied


No users satisfied


Every user

satisfied

No users satisfied

swiftness

accuracy

quality


72% 70%62% 62%

85%72%

64%54%

60%67%

DE ES FR GB IT

77% 80%67% 67%

87%85%74%

67%78% 78%

DE ES FR GB IT

78% 77% 74%62%

87%85% 84%

67%75% 78%

DE ES FR GB IT

55%(minimum)

55%(minimum)

55%(minimum)

nº = 133 nº = 69 nº = 51 nº = 65 nº = 62AGENTS

nº = 51 nº = 36 nº = 72 nº = 57 nº = 38PROPRIETOR

S


MethodologyANNEX II


86As 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.


87

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:


88

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


89

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


90

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


91

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


92

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.



93

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]

Documents

GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 Febrero 2009 OHIM User Satisfaction Survey 2008 February 2009 ER- 0484/1/00 A50/000021