Two IPs In A Pod
Brilliant inventions, fresh product designs, iconic brand names and artistic creativity are not only the building blocks of successful business - they deliver a better world for us all. But these valuable forms of intellectual property must be protected in order to flourish. We are the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys - the UK's largest intellectual property organisation. Our hosts Lee Davies and Gwilym Roberts chat with entrepreneurs, creatives, patent attorneys and the occasional judge about how patents, trade marks, designs and copyright can improve our lives and solve problems for humanity.
Two IPs In A Pod
Insights from IP Leaders... with Keven Bader
Join Lee and Gwilym for an engaging conversation with Keven Bader, Chief Executive of the Chartered Institute of Trademark Attorneys, who shares his personal journey in the realm of intellectual property. They discuss pressing issues, such as the increase of unusual trademark filings and the critical need for collaboration among professional organizations in the field. In a world where technology and innovation are constantly progressing, they emphasize the necessity of staying aware of emerging trends and preparing for the future. Don’t miss this chance to broaden your understanding of intellectual property and gain valuable insights from industry leaders.
Lee Davis and Gwilym Roberts are the two IPs in a pod and you are listening to a podcast on intellectual property brought to you by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys.
Speaker 3:Hey Gwilym, how are you mate? Not too bad. Nice to see you the other night, Good day. What have you been up to recently? Anything exciting Been to any interesting IP events.
Speaker 1:I was going to say I rushed through the presidential reception the other night. It looked like a fantastic evening.
Speaker 3:Yeah, the welcoming Bobby is the 118th. I think it is president of SIPA. Yeah, it was a nice evening. All of the great and good of IP were there.
Speaker 1:Good turnout. How long did they go on for? Was it a big night followed by an after party, the usual? Do you know what?
Speaker 3:Unusually there wasn't a lot of afters, so I think it ran for a couple of hours and then people just very gently drifted off into the night to wherever they needed to go. I went to, I think. So it's a very august group. They probably had to go home and think IP thoughts. Yeah, yeah, no, definitely, yeah, definitely, yeah. There were some some very important people there. Anything else interesting? You're not in the UK at the moment, are you? I'm in Spain. Are you hibernating?
Speaker 1:well, do you hibernate in Spain? I'm just in Spain, I'm being okay, um, but it's actually quite nippy, so I got my fleece on because the house isn't heated, because never gets cold in spain we're talking about, except for eight months of the year.
Speaker 3:Basically, that is a bit nippy, is that for a bit of a break? Family stuff or what you're up to?
Speaker 1:yeah because lydia is um spanish I think you know that and beth therefore needs to see her abuelita and going. She's just because, because she's growing up speaking spanish as well as english, she's basically just around the corner living and just chatting to grandma at the moment, just speaking spanish the whole time.
Speaker 3:I was just saying how she found another bilingual thing. Is it just entirely now, children? I guess it's just natural, isn't it?
Speaker 1:it's amazing to watch. She's completely. It's interesting how she gets her grammar as in, the kind of the actual grammar grammatical structures mixed up, because she'll say, oh, wow, so in english, just it's mine the red, one kind of thing, which is sort of how you might say it in Spanish, I think. And in Spanish when you do verbs in Spanish, if you say I eat, you don't say yo como, you just say como. You don't say the other part of it, yo, because it's kind of implicit. You can work out the subject. In English she says obviously I eat, but now in Spanish she says yo como, which is I eat, correctly, but Spanish people don't ever say the yo bit. So she's using English grammar in Spanish and Spanish grammar in English. It's really interesting. It suggests that in your head the vocabulary is in one place and the grammatical structure is in another one Somewhere else.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's really interesting to watch.
Speaker 3:And I know we need to get our guest on and, interestingly, he comes from a part of the world where, again, they speak in an entirely different way. So that will be perhaps an interesting topic, but does she? She's probably too young to ask her this question, but does she think in English or Spanish?
Speaker 1:She dreams in Spanish, so when she talks in sleep it's in Spanish. That's really interesting, yeah.
Speaker 3:Wow.
Speaker 1:She can switch and she also knows what language she's in. So she says I'm going to speak to you in Spanish now, dad, which is great because I can't understand her, which I think she quite enjoys. So then she flips into and she'll do it. She'll be Daddy English and Papa in Spanish, so she'll start with that word and that triggers her. Then it's amazing to watch. Actually, it's really cool.
Speaker 3:We need to find someone who's big on IP and language, don't we to come on and have a little bit of a conversation about this? That would be absolutely fascinating. Unfortunately, we don't want anyone like that today, but we have got someone who's really big in trademarks, probably as big in trademarks as is possible to be. So we've got up kevin bader, chief executive of the chartered institute of trademark attorneys.
Speaker 4:Hey, kevin, how you? You all right, mate, I'm good. Thank you, lee, and thank you for that wonderful introduction this is.
Speaker 3:This has been a long time ambition of mine to get you on the podcast, so we've managed it at last yeah, I'm only slightly disappointed that I didn't get the pub invite version of it.
Speaker 4:But I guess, if Willem's in Spain and you're down near Portsmouth, then it's a bit difficult.
Speaker 3:So what we're doing? We'll get another pub car sorted and we'll get perhaps you and your pres on. We'll do a sort of sit-mart organisational one rather than a sit-mart chief exec one, so that we get you in the pub.
Speaker 4:Sounds good. You do know our president, she only drinks champagne, so just uh, just to warn you absolutely fine.
Speaker 3:Yeah, you'll be putting the bill anyway, so it doesn't matter as usual. So this, for me, this is quite interesting because you two are probably two of the I won't say the oldest people in ip. That I know because that um, because you're not well, william. I know because you're not Well, gwilym's quite old, but you're not, kevin, but the people I've known the longest in IP since I joined SIPA just over 13 years ago. So it's lovely to have the two of you together.
Speaker 1:I hadn't realised I had that accolade lately actually.
Speaker 3:You dragged me off to Kilburn and Strode within the first few weeks after I started to spend some time with you and look around the office and meet people and stuff like that. So yeah, so on the season, and I think I met Kevin at the only MOJ what was the review of the? Alice B used to be called the triennial review.
Speaker 3:Review, yeah, which, which again was in my first, first few weeks at SEPA and I didn't have a clue what was going on. Review, yeah, which, which again was in my first, first few weeks at sepo, and I didn't have a clue what was going on. Um, fortunately, another one never happened, so I didn't have to worry about um, about reviewing the lsb, ever again I only had the pleasure of doing two triennial reviews, so so let's, let's. Let's start with longevity. How long you've been at sitmar?
Speaker 4:now. So I have been at sitmar for 16 years, so I'm now into my 17th year. In november, uh, it will reach 17 years, so it's been a fair while and we've seen a lot of change that's taken place during that time. It's a longish gig, isn't it? It is, and I know that lots of chief executives in membership organizations you know come in for a few years, uh, turn things around and then disappear. But, um, yeah, I'm one of those rare ones, probably that's been there a long time, although, you know, with you at 13 years it's yeah I think we're both in that same position I'd always said to myself that the super gig was like a five to seven year stint.
Speaker 3:Um, and I've just never left because they're not bad jobs, are they?
Speaker 4:yeah, I mean that's, that's the one thing about the role at SITMAR. It's just fantastic. I love the job, I love the people. You know the profession is a wonderful profession. So I feel very privileged to be in this position. And, yeah, while you're enjoying it, why leave?
Speaker 3:I'm exactly the same. I mean, first of all, they're probably. I think there's no more exciting world than ip to work in. I mean, others would argue differently about the areas they work, but for me it's um, it's just just about as good as it gets.
Speaker 4:And, yes, the people, the people are amazing, aren't they? It's all about the people, definitely I mean I've stumbled into ip, so I don't know about you whether you have that interest into it.
Speaker 3:That was the bit that I wanted to unpack. I wanted your, your origin story. Give us your origin story.
Speaker 4:Yeah, and I don't want to just sort of go through my whole CV or anything like that, so interrupt and ask questions. But yeah, my background is I was born in Newport in South Wales, which you referred to as previously, and I came out of university with a sports science degree. And as many do when they come out of university, it's I have no idea what I really want to do now. So it happened that in newport there's a passport office and a patent office, or which is now called the intellectual property office.
Speaker 4:So my first bit of work, as a civil servant, so to speak, was at the passport office, which was, uh, granting new applications for passports and renewals, and and I was going to ask a little quiz for you, because there was one celebrity passport that I got to renew a 1980s music icon which, having listened to your podcast with Chris McLeod and Jerry Bridge Butler, I know that both of you are passionate about your music, and I think you said, lee, there's no good music after 1992. So hopefully, in the 80s you'll be well-versed on pop icons. But whose passport do you reckon it was that I renewed?
Speaker 1:Howard Jones.
Speaker 3:Incorrect. Did you say Howard Jones? Where did that come from?
Speaker 1:He's my 80s icon. What is love anyway?
Speaker 4:That's why I was trying to uncover who is your icon. So now I know it's willem is howard jones, so so we're looking for an 80s.
Speaker 3:Did you say that we've mentioned him on that podcast, or? Uh? No, you didn't.
Speaker 4:Sorry, okay, oh no, there are so many 80s where, possibly, but I know it's a bit harsh, but I just thought you got one guess and then we can move on. All right then. Okay, uh, pull you on. No, no, rick astley, never going to give you, oh, the ultimate, yeah, that was the only one.
Speaker 1:Of course there was anyone it's the first time we've been rickrolled on the on the they are.
Speaker 4:You can just put the music in there on that point and we can go anyway. Yeah, that was my claim to fame working at the passport office. Anyway. I then joined the intellectual property office as, like an administrator because it was in newport so I didn't really know anything about ip at the time and I joined their trademarks law section. So it was processing, uh, oppositions filed against applications, trademark applications, and processing defences filed by applicants when an opposition is filed, and basically I just kind of worked my way through that department in various different roles. So I was also a casework officer, where you're dealing with the evidence coming in and processing it. I was in charge of the hearings and appeals section and scheduling hearings and sending cases to the appointed person who considers appeals against the registrar, and eventually I ended up being the head of the trademark law section, which was quite unbelievable, having gone in at the administration grade. But I have another question for you because, as we're talking about Hang on the podcast, is not meant to work like this.
Speaker 3:This is what.
Speaker 1:I thought.
Speaker 4:This is what I thought this is what I thought.
Speaker 1:We need someone to prepare for this podcast. We're going to have to do it again.
Speaker 4:Because we were talking about celebrities and one of the conversations that I had with someone about an opposition case was with a very famous person called Simon Fuller, who you may know as a British entrepreneur, music mogul. Spice Girls, spice Girls, yeah. So my question to you is going to be could you name the act that he was seeking a trademark registration for? That wasn't the Spice Girls. Oh damn, and this is hard, this one is hard because they didn't become a success. Give us date range 1996. And they didn't, um, become a success. Give us date range 1996, and they didn't become a success. It depends what you class as success, but I'd say in simon fuller's books it probably wasn't a success. He told me they were going to be bigger than the spice girls biggest band ever, east 17 all sites, girl group, grill them all sites.
Speaker 4:No, it's Still a girl group.
Speaker 1:Still too good. I know that I should go back. That's too recent. I don't need girl groups. I don't need groups.
Speaker 4:Shall I tell you yeah, 21st century girls.
Speaker 3:Never heard of them.
Speaker 4:Me neither, but if you go and look it up and search for them, there's a dead registration for 24th century girls.
Speaker 3:So so why did that fail? Why did that?
Speaker 4:fall. I think he let it uh, let it die because, they? They changed their name, I think, and then disbanded and it wasn't really worth it for for him anymore.
Speaker 3:But well, that's quite interesting, isn't it, that you say that because, of course, uh, we had your chris mcleod on the podcast to talk about exactly that sort of brand and protection and those kinds of things, and I think what we learned on that podcast with him and jerry bridge butler was that people just didn't used to do this, so that that was was that unusual?
Speaker 4:not necessarily. No. I think what was more unusual is that simon fuller was taking the time to call about the uh, you know, the opposition and how it was ridiculous and how he should, should be allowed the application. Um, you know where you would expect it to be an attorney who was calling, or, or someone else, so he, he obviously felt it was worthwhile giving us a call in the office so we've I think we've sort of come to the end of your time at the ipo, have we?
Speaker 4:is it sort of yeah, you're gonna move on, sorry, yes what?
Speaker 3:what did sit mark? I'm headhunting what happened?
Speaker 4:so basically I went to the uh central government, so kind of moved to london and went to what was the department of trade and industry and I was parachuted into a policy pool, as they called it, where you would go off and do certain policy projects and I actually worked in an employment law area. So the first piece of policy that I was working on was a policy to create more opportunities for fathers to care for their children, and I was responsible for developing additional paternity leave and pay and taking the bill through Parliament. That then became the Work and Families Act 2006, I think it was, and, as you may be aware, now there is shared parental leave, which has been kind of the fallout from that but is now in place and is used, I think, by many. So it's a really good thing to see come through. So that was fascinating, to actually take legislation through Parliament and deal with all the different government departments to try and get the right policy in place.
Speaker 4:And then I went and worked on a project to enhance the ACAS helpline. So ACAS is the Advisory, conciliation and Arbitration Service which provides employment law advice to employees and to employers, and so we made their helpline. We created three super hubs and it was a multimillion-pound project investing in technology and training for them. So it was completely outside of IP, nothing to do with that, but it was really good, interesting projects. And then in 2008, I got approached, was I interested in this role with ICMA, the Institute of Trademark Attorneys, and I'd been aware of the organization when I was at the intellectual property office. I'd attended various conferences, spoken at conferences about changes in the trademark law and practice that was coming up, many, many meetings with people from ITMA. So I knew about the organization and, as it was about 10 years in the civil service, I thought why not?
Speaker 4:You know, now's the time to have a look at it. So I went through the process and, for their sins, they appointed me as their first chief executive and started in November 2008. The process, and for their sins they they appointed me as their first chief executive and started in november 2008 now I'll let you speak a minute, don't worry.
Speaker 3:So, um, so I I did a little thing with sepa council a couple of weeks ago now where I told them we were doing a little kind of we had a dinner and we were doing a little bit of strategy thinking and stuff like that and I told a story about what I felt when I first walked through the doors of sepa and learned the kind of organization it was then really to help me understand how it went on to become the organization it is. Now, what did you find? What was? What was the?
Speaker 3:itmar of um 17 years ago yeah, it was.
Speaker 4:It was a little bit of a shock, um, because I didn't really know what to expect. I knew about the organization and I had lots of interaction with the attorneys, some of the attorneys, the presidents but when I walked in and sort of got under the bonnet, it opened up the whole world of membership and some of the things that you need to think about about member retention, member engagement, member benefits, and there were things that I couldn't really understand why things were being done that way. So there was a lot of things that we could change to further professionalize the organization. So it quickly showed that there were lots and lots of opportunities to take forward both the organization and the profession, which which was quite exciting. But I hadn't really appreciated that kind of membership side of it, which maybe I should have done. But when you're a civil servant just dealing with attorneys who are, you know, complaining because you won't grant them an extension of time in proceedings, it's slightly different to you know what they're getting out of their membership of a august.
Speaker 3:It's interesting, isn't it? Because membership, engagement, is probably one of the toughest parts of the job our jobs but also where the real sort of reward is. That's what makes it the job that it is.
Speaker 4:Absolutely, yeah, yeah, and it's always a challenge to think of new and innovative things that you can do to encourage that engagement, to maintain and to make sure that members are getting value out of their, their membership and, in particular would you like to cross-examine?
Speaker 1:so I'm not just I'm, I'm letting you roll with this, don't worry.
Speaker 3:Go, go go you're okay, we carry on for a bit yeah, yeah, of course what, um, what things did you want to change first? What were the sort of two or three things that you thought, yeah, I got, I got to get to grips with this and that and that isn't. And that isn't to say that things were kind of wrong previously, but you know what were the, what were the priorities?
Speaker 4:in fairness, that the council of the organization had set a couple of big projects that they they were keen for work to be done on. So one was moving the office from Croydon back into central London, which was it's not a big office but it was still a lot to think about in terms of doing that and whether staff would come with or whether some wouldn't, and all the difficult things that you've got to think about in that situation. There's also kind of finishing the setup of the independent regulator, ipreg. So the the legal services acted, was about to come into force and kind of the foundations of ipreg was there but it was trying to make sure that those were in place and and you know it's quite a bit of work there.
Speaker 4:And the other big project was separating out the qualification route. So it was decided that using universities, academia, for qualification was the way forward. So there's a little bit of work to kind of set that up, particularly with Nottingham Law School putting in the practical side of becoming a trademark attorney, applying the law in a practical way. That course we did some work in developing that. So they were pretty big projects when you've just just walked in through the door.
Speaker 3:Yeah, that's, that's quite, that's quite a lot.
Speaker 1:To get your mind straight off I mean, okay, I will ask something then, which is this is to both of you, I don't I'll let lee go first on that one soon as I've answered the questions.
Speaker 3:So the if and you could ask this of any chief executive, any, I'll say professional body rather than membership association, because there is a distinction between two. I think if you ask the chief executive, any professional body, two professional bodies, whether they've got the same job, we do the same things, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah, we are the the sort of like the pinnacle leadership position for the professional body we've. We've got an eye on governance, we've got an eye on staffing, we've got an eye on the finance side. Yeah, we, our bag is the same bag, if you like. What makes the job different is the peculiarities of the profession and the challenges the profession faces for me. So so in, in terms of a job description, we've got the same job. In terms of a job, we've got very different jobs. I think I would answer it that way yeah, I would totally agree.
Speaker 4:I think there's, you know, some nuances within it. You know, in terms of you talk about governance even if you just look at SIPA and SIPMA and and the presidential terms and, uh, tournament council and things like that, they're they're all slightly different and you have to do things in a potentially slightly different way. But, generally speaking, the job description would be considered the same. Do you fancy it, gwilym?
Speaker 1:I'll tell you what the diverse backgrounds people come from into it. It's quite attractive. People come from all over the place into the job. It's obviously requires an unusual skill set, um, which I probably don't know how, because I could just do patents and nothing else. Basically, um, and now I think, dealing with members. I'm a member.
Speaker 3:I know I wouldn't want to deal with members you've seen the, the kind of context and the background of dealing with members, haven't you? I'm gonna leave it at that yeah, and in their defense because they're listening.
Speaker 1:They're great, we love you and they're amazing. Yeah, I'm absolutely amazing, but you get the anger you get. Sometimes you get anger and sometimes it's not. Always there's not not fully researched anger and I think that must be quite difficult to deal with. I've seen that.
Speaker 3:I've seen lee picking up that occasion and thinking there's anything wrong there, but you get quite and I think I think the other thing is that your, your professional body, will mean different things to you at different times and you want different things from it.
Speaker 3:So so I think sometimes it can come with a sense of frustration if you don't think it's really delivering on the areas that are important to you at that time in your life, in your profession, and I think that's that's what makes the job hard sometimes, trying to be all things to all people, but it's also what makes the job interesting, because it's not until a member kind of rings up or emails you and says, oh, you're not doing anything about this, that you realize you should have been doing something about something, so so, so sometimes the very best conversations are the ones where people come at you because they think that you're not delivering and then you realize it's something you should be delivering even if you do membership surveys to your death, you know you'll still find things that members still want, and it's just working out whether or not it's what all members want or a vast majority of them.
Speaker 4:One of the things interesting I've found about coming into this and into the profession of membership is where some chief execs have that background within the profession that they're looking after. You know they there might be a qualified, but many aren't, and it's an interesting dynamic between whether you know it's more beneficial or not to and something that I think is discussed quite a lot in the membership world it's an ongoing debate, isn't it?
Speaker 3:I didn't have a clue about the law, let alone ip, when I came. When I came to see, when I did, I used to sort of examine myself is it, am I doing the right thing? This seems to be an entirely ridiculous thing for me to do to come to this organization. I don't know the people, I don't know the profession, I don't know.
Speaker 4:I don't know the issues, the problems, the challenges um, you would have thought after 13 years things have changed, lee, but yeah 13 years and 100 podcasts on the topic.
Speaker 1:I'm gonna I'm gonna carry on um this edition of one ip in the pod and interview my two guests um the eos membership organizations. So do you I know you obviously collaborate where you can. Do you think you collaborate as much as you should? Do you think there's more collaboration available for you guys, or do you tend to kind of get on the phone as soon as you need to?
Speaker 3:I'll let Kevin go first this time.
Speaker 4:Yeah, I think we do. Over the time that Lee's been at the organisation, I think we've built up a really good, strong relationship. I have his WhatsApp. I can WhatsApp him with anything and he'll normally reply, and vice versa. I think we're quite good at identifying things where we could collaborate and where there is a different approach needed potentially. So for me, the balance feels about right. And so for me, the balance feels about right. I always thought, you know, when I came into the profession, why are the two organizations? What's the difference between them? But over the years you kind of understand those differences and different approaches. But I think, yeah, lee and I we have a good relationship?
Speaker 3:Yeah, definitely, and it's on different levels, isn't it? So I think we've gotten to know one another quite well. We have a good, I think, sort of personal relationship. Um, I think we've got a great professional relationship. You're right, we do have those little conversations on whatsapp when something comes up and we perhaps need to bounce something, but we also do it formally, don't we? We meet and I mean, and it's not just, uh, there are more than two parties in this marriage. Because we've got it break, because we've got Ip Prigg as well, don't forget and I don't know if Ip Prigg is our recalcitrant I can't even say the word child or is now just one of the other partners in the relationship. So, kevin Fran Gillan and I meet regularly. So it's bigger than a sitmar seeper thing, it's um we include it preg in that.
Speaker 4:Yeah, I mean there's two different relationships as the the regulatory relationship that we have and then the membership body and relationship that seeper and sitmar have. But yeah, we have a good personal relationship. I'm still waiting to have the squash match against lee to just show how great I am compared to him.
Speaker 3:Any time I'm off to play squash after the podcast. So I'll get myself in training and we'll do it.
Speaker 4:Trouble is when I play squash. I can't walk for about three days afterwards, so I need to do some training probably.
Speaker 1:IP smackdown. I can see it coming. Just carrying on with my interview, I'm enjoying this. So yeah, lots of commonality and obviously Ipwag is this kind of joint venture in a sense. How did you find yourselves actually representing disparate interests, or competing interests, should we say?
Speaker 3:Oh, what a great question.
Speaker 4:Have we had many yeah, I'm not sure competing interests necessarily? I mean, we always I'll be quite candid we always look uh closely at what seepa is doing on its events and sort of look at, well, are they doing, why are they doing, uh, you know, an event on that particular topic? Where are they going with their events? How many members are they getting? You know what's sort of happening? But it's not necessarily because we see them as a competitor. More that we can learn from from them. And actually what we've done recently is I know that many of the SIPA staff have come to SITMA events and SITMA staff have gone to SIPA events, so we can kind of learn from each other. You know best practice and things like that. So, yeah, I've not really come across anything hugely competing necessarily so.
Speaker 3:So it wasn't competing. But we did have a bit of a sort of a policy dance around Itmar's child replication before it became Sitmar. There were kind of conversations to be had there around protection of title and how that would read across and stuff like that. But I wouldn't say it was particularly. They weren't competing interests were they.
Speaker 4:It was just trying to make sure that they were complementary, yeah, and you could sort of use that as well in terms of the new delegation agreement that we put in place with our regulator you know we. There were certain things that sitmar needed to see in there and super had a slightly more relaxed view on it.
Speaker 1:So yeah, not not necessarily competing, but just because the the membership profiles are quite, I think, have drifted away from each other. I'd say a little bit. I don't think this necessarily is a ground for competition or conflict, but the membership profiles I feel, as a seeper still really is is a mix of private practice and in-house. The mix, the percentages change, the mix doesn't change massively, whereas on the trademark side I feel like over the years it used to be more a lot of trademark attorneys were with patent firms or specialist trademark firms, whereas over the years there's a lot more solicitor representation now.
Speaker 4:Is that fair? Probably not. No, I think we've still got kind of the equal distribution of, uh, you know, trademark attorneys in private practice, trademark attorneys in industry, but there are, you know, solicitors. We have a specific category of allied membership for those who are other lawyers, barristers, solicitors and that has grown over the years a bit. So maybe, you know, maybe it's slightly edged, but not in any significant numbers okay, maybe, maybe that's just my perception.
Speaker 1:Okay, there's always this. Well, we, we have this, we're always talking on the super side.
Speaker 4:Even the mix of two basic constituencies means you always have to be thinking about all your members and not just representing a specific business interest, as it were definitely and I think you know, like you, I think lee was saying in the day when, with bobby coming in as uh president from industry, you know, how does that change the dynamics? We've had a couple of presidents who have been in industry and we didn't notice any huge change in the, in the dynamics or things that we were thinking about. But it's definitely a consideration that you have to give.
Speaker 1:Thanks, certainly.
Speaker 3:Are you done, Graham? Can I come back in for a bit? Yeah, I've enjoyed that. Yeah, that's good. Yeah, you should do it more often Ask questions. It's quite good to watch your brain work. So what's on the future radar, Kevin? What are SITMAR's challenges of the day?
Speaker 4:So one of the big things you're well aware of that we we've been doing a bit of work on uh over the last couple of years is around rights of representation before the uk intellectual property office and the rules uh that currently in place on address for service. Um, there's there's been a change in uh filings, particularly in trademarks, but also in designs, where we're seeing a lot of what's been termed unusual marks or we like to call them quirky marks, because it's just random letters from a keyboard that are being filed predominantly from Chinese-based companies.
Speaker 3:So these look a little bit like those names of companies that you see on Amazon. Just a random string of letters.
Speaker 4:Random string of letters and our concern is you know what is the purpose behind that? What is their genuine use of the trademark? Is this causing problems? We believe it is to the UK trademark system. So we've been trying to work with the Intellectual Property Office to do a bit more investigations into what is this? Do they recognise the phenomenon of pretty unusual marks and can they uncover the reason why they're being filed and the effect that it's having on the UK system? And so far they've confirmed yes, there are these unusual marks being filed, but they're still investigating what's actually happening. But I think the interesting thing for me is, if you look at the statistics on top filers of trademark applications before the UK IPO, there's been a huge shift in your usual firms who are regulated to the top 10, being swamped by unregulated representatives of random companies that have an address in the UK but are not necessarily based in the UK.
Speaker 4:So it know been a big shift and we need to uncover exactly what's happening and if it's causing problems that brings the other member I was about to say something.
Speaker 3:I forgot what I was about to say that's fine, I can tell.
Speaker 1:I just said anything more than the tenth of a second. One of us is there. Um, that brings in the other member, the other member of this ever-growing relationship group, which, of course, is the IPO. I think that's the. Where does the IPO fit in? The IPO is the clergyman of your surreal marriage. There you go.
Speaker 3:You're verging on the ridiculous.
Speaker 1:Oh, here we go. I think you want to alter what you just said.
Speaker 4:Thank you, let's just keep it going I can leave this podcast if you carry on with jokes like that um, no question, yeah, no, that's of course.
Speaker 1:That's. That's another kind of joint venture, kind of partner, as it were. It is this this lovely journey is is the ipo itself. I guess there, you know, to a certain extent you talk to different bits of it. Obviously, kevin, you've got a lot of experience there anyway, but at the top it's the same people. So I guess, again, there's another area for collaboration and working together.
Speaker 4:Yeah, definitely. I mean we try and work closely with Adam Williams, the chief executive at the IPO, and all the senior management and, you know, and there's lots of really good people at the IPO, so collaboration is good. We have a president's group meeting where four or five presidents, director generals or CEOs have a regular meeting with Adam and senior people, so there's good opportunities to engage with them on strategic level and also on operational levels as well. So, yeah, rights of representation is a big, big one for us. That we're our members have said you know it's the number one priority and so it's. It's what we're continuing to do.
Speaker 4:The knock-on effect of that is obviously for individuals, encouraging them to use a chartered trademark attorney for advice before filing applications or if they get into difficulties and get into oppositions or contentious proceedings, and so we're doing quite a lot of promotional outreach work as well, trying to work with the intellectual property on some of their initiatives around supporting SMEs.
Speaker 4:And then the other challenges I suppose upcoming, I've got to say it AI and emerging technology, you know, keeping an eye on what's actually happening with that. So we've just set up a brand new AI and technology committee. We met with IPREG yesterday actually to have an initial conversation from their kind of ethical, regulatory point of view, that we want to be upskilling the profession to make sure they're understanding ai and considering how best to use it in the most appropriate manner to help service their clients. And then the final one for me, I suppose, is the uk ipo's transformation program. They've finished phase well, they're finishing phase one of them on the patent side For those who can't see Lee, but he's smacking his head against the table at the moment but they're supposed to go into phase two, which is trademarks and designs. There's been a few delays but we want to be right on top of what's happening there to make sure that it's fit for purpose for the profession.
Speaker 3:So they're probably my main challenges so that can, I, can, I can I do the legacy question then is that okay, forget if we go there. Have you have you got your legacy yet, kevin, or is it yet to come? Have you have you got your one big achievement that would define your time at sitmar?
Speaker 4:I suspect I have. Um, it's probably. I thought you might have. Yeah, yeah, I was wondering when you'd ask. It was probably the you know, getting the charter, the royal charter. Um, there'd been a project that had failed a few times, I think before I was wondering when you'd ask, it was probably the getting the charter, the Royal Charter.
Speaker 4:There'd been a project that had failed a few times, I think, before I came on board for various different reasons, not through want of trying, but it was clear that this was something that the profession wanted, and so it was an unbelievable project to be part of and to kind of lead with a couple of key people from SITMA. But to get that and to be able to allow our members to be called chartered trademark attorneys. It raised the profile of the profession. It raised the standards, same for the organization as well. We now feel we have a bigger profile and better status within the profession.
Speaker 4:So it was yeah, it was, it was really good, and it was such a an unusual project as well, because I didn't really know what to expect when you first have conversations with the privy council and there's all these processes and procedures to follow, and when you find yourself on a tube to uh west london to go and meet the calligrapher who's in his loft scribing on vellum which is calfskin, the uh, the actual charter, and seeing the gold leaf being placed on it and it's yeah, just those are things that you not not come across for for many people in their lifetime.
Speaker 4:Um, so, yeah, when we, when we were actually fully granted it and changed from itmar to sitmar in 2016, it was a wonderful achievement. And there was one thing actually I was going to say, because I was thinking about this before the podcast. I think it's the only time lee's ever told me he he's cried uh, which was at our ceremony where we unveiled the charter, and he said it was because it was something I said in a in a little speech, but I can't remember what it was.
Speaker 3:But I remember, I do remember the moment. I remember the moment. Yeah, I I think in part it was because I just knew how much work it was for you. I mean, I then got to experience it in small part myself when we did our bylaws review in 2017, 2018. It was difficult enough getting a revised set of bylaws through the privy council.
Speaker 3:You do you're praying to sort of people in tights somewhere that you never see. Uh, it's that. You know, you've got, you've got a hope that you'd get the, the lord privy seal, which I've always imagined is some big sea sea cat creature kind of sat at the end of a table clapping. It's it's fins. If they've got fins together or some such thing, it's um, no, it's a tough gig, isn't it? And I think that's probably why I got quite emotional at your um, at your, your event, when you um, you effectively launched, was because, yeah, I knew how much work that would have been yeah, and I don't think until you know, you look back and reflect on on it, of how much actually was involved and how difficult it was.
Speaker 4:But it was great because we worked hard with SIPA and other organisations who had an interest to kind of align everyone that this was a good thing and that was a big challenge in itself, so to get everyone agreeing that it would be of benefit to have chartered trademark attorneys. That was the first hurdle that we had to overcome and then the rest was kind of a bit of formalities. But, like you say, knowing that the Privy Council never sit and there's, like I imagine, a circle of people stood with the Queen in the middle as it was then the King now.
Speaker 4:Yeah, it's just bizarre, just bizarre yeah. So that should be my legacy, but you know, maybe there's something else in the pipeline.
Speaker 3:Yes, something else might come along, some great policy challenge or some existential threat or some such.
Speaker 1:I've never asked Lee that question. Actually, legacy Lee, what's yours?
Speaker 3:So my SIPA legacy.
Speaker 1:Oh, blimey. Okay, can we go back to you after this one? Your SIPA legacy.
Speaker 3:I've had more than one job. I've had more than one job, so I hope I get multiple legacies. I don't know. I'd like to think there is still something around the corner that's going to tax me and challenge me, and that that might be it.
Speaker 3:Cptpp was a biggie for us, obviously, because that I mean that was. It wasn't just the fact that it was a an enormous amount of campaigning, influencing work to try and deliver the result that the profession would want in terms of the uk joining the cptp. But we did it during lockdown. But, yeah, we did join a time when all of the normal avenues weren't open to you and it was sort of silly, silly o'clock at night, conversations with um overseas sister organizations, and then one of the things I got was I met with quite a lot of peers MPs, not so bad, but peers.
Speaker 3:When you meet with them online, invariably you just see the tops of their heads and a bookcase behind them, because they'd they'd no, no idea how to use this new technology that they had to to sort of still exist in the inner world. That was confined to your bedroom or wherever it was. So, yeah, lord so and so was just a forehead, and so so I think. I mean, I think cptp might be it, or perhaps I'll leave super in a better position than the way I found it and that might do it for me.
Speaker 4:Actually, I, I disagree that CPTPP was a big, big achievement and I know that you worked very, very hard on it, and I heard a lot of positive stories from your members and others about the way you approached it and how you got it into a safe space, so I think it shouldn't be underestimated what you did there.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it was a big gig. You didn't cry, though, did you?
Speaker 3:No, I did, I did actually cry.
Speaker 1:Not you I guess.
Speaker 3:Oh, kevin no.
Speaker 4:I did, but just in private.
Speaker 1:One of those nights.
Speaker 4:Stop texting me, Lee.
Speaker 3:Yeah, when I got my little notification, because obviously we knew before it became public, you know, shared under an ndi that we'd done it, so you can't tell anybody and you just sit there. It's like it's done, it's done do you have a legacy?
Speaker 1:then grillam oh god blimey, when did this start?
Speaker 3:you know what we've accidentally done the closer question, I know.
Speaker 1:It's funny. I think I'm really happy with all the things that I've been involved in over my career, but actually the one I want is definitely yet to come, Lee, and I definitely want to actually be involved with both of you on it which is to get that innovation economy thing going in the UK the way it should, with the support from the IP experts. That's definitely here. That's something I'll kind of want to spend the next few years on, basically because I think it's a huge challenge for the UK and we are world-leading experts in innovation and creativity. So I haven't got one yet, but that's what I'd love it to be.
Speaker 4:That's quite a big one, it'll be ambitious. Think big, always to be. That's quite a big one, ambitious. Think big, always think big. He's going to be president, that's going to be his legacy. President of what super?
Speaker 3:or the world, the world so I think we're about there. Time wise, we've done. We've done our 40 minutes or so, so that's good, which means that you are quite interesting. You, you're officially quite interesting because you've managed to get past 40 minutes. Okay, grillam, did you have a closer? Had you thought about anything else, we might just close the show because it feels like we've sort of done it. Yeah, you're happy with that one. Yeah, because I was going to go somewhere down the musical instrument line, because I know you, both you guys are accomplished guitarists and I'm not, so I was perhaps going to go down that line, but I say both you guys are accomplished guitarists and I'm not, so I was perhaps going to go down that line, but I say both of you guys are accomplished guitarists.
Speaker 1:I think Kevin is. I have. No, I have no pretense about my policy on the guitar, don't worry.
Speaker 4:I was trying to look up genius id Cause. I wanted to know you won't find it. I couldn't find it.
Speaker 3:You know what? Some, some somewhere in one of my friends who have not seen since I was a late teenager, early kind of 20 year olds, are going to have a tape, an old cassette tape, in a bedroom somewhere.
Speaker 4:That is the the last sort of relic of the genius id I managed to find an old tape of of our band and, uh, my friend or the, the ex-drummer of the band. He uh works in um music production and things, so he's got all the equipment that can convert it into proper files now that you can listen to it. So if you do find a tape and you need it converted, I'm your man to get genius it back out in the public domain. I didn't find the band members, let alone the tape.
Speaker 3:I know, I know, I know where one of them is, cause he's also my former brother-in-law, so I've not actually lost him. I mean, we could have done band names, couldn't we? So yeah, mine was the Genius Id. You've got an interesting band name story, haven't you, gwilym?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think I've done it before. It's the Barry Triffid Quintet, simply because I couldn't find a name that hadn't been done before, so I just decided that couldn't have been and, as you know, it's now become my Facebook name and I book Uber through Facebook, so when I get in an Uber, I have to say hello, I'm Barry.
Speaker 3:And what was your mob then, Kevin?
Speaker 4:We had the worst name. Honestly, it's embarrassing, but it was called Strawberry Blondes.
Speaker 2:Okay, but if you go on Spotify, you can actually find Strawberry Blondes.
Speaker 4:Okay, but if you go on Spotify, you can actually find Strawberry Blondes songs.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I've never used Spotify.
Speaker 4:Or any other good music streaming platform. Okay, I'll see what I can do. You don't strike me as a natural blonde no, definitely not, and I have no idea who came up with the name or why, but there we go. That's what it was.
Speaker 3:We're just waffling, aren't we? I probably should bring this to a close, kevin. Thank you so much for joining us. Been a real, real pleasure having you on. Gwilym, as ever, thank you for co-hosting with me. If you've listened to this one and found it remotely interesting and enjoyable, then obviously leave us a little review somewhere and that'll encourage other people to find us, hopefully. Uh, kevin, I'll see you shortly somewhere, I'm sure, and willem, I'll see you in the next one, mate looking forward to it thanks both Outro Music.