Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IPKat

Intellectual Property Law

: IPKat

Dear Interest, Dear Policy -- a case of taking the epistle

By Johanna Gibson, David Pearce, Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon.

The United Kingdom's Intellectual Property Office is one of the IPKat's favourite institutions.  It is user-friendly and has a pretty effective website too.  Every so often, however, the Kat feels that there's something slightly missing.  Last week IPKat team member Jeremy received the following missive, this being a circular email to people who have indicated an interest in knowing about upcoming actions before the Court of Justice of the European Union and who may want to give the UK government a friendly tip or two about what to tell the 'Luxemborgs':

Dear Interest,
We have received notification of an appeal to the Court of Justice against a judgment of the General Court: C-281/10. It concerns the application of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.
This case can be viewed on our website at: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ecj-2010?debugstate=3
If you would like to comment on this case please e-mail policy@ipo.gsi.gov.uk before 08 September 2010.
Regards
International Policy Directorate
Intellectual Property Office

Ouch! What can be more impersonal than being addressed as "Dear Interest"? "Dear Office" perhaps? Even "Dear Chair" isn't quite so bad.  The "Dear" bit is fine; it suggests some sort of meaningful relationship -- such as that of a civil servant and his public -- but "Interest" just doesn't do it for most folk (this Kat has asked numerous people if they like being written to as "Dear Interest" and has yet to find one who does.  Anyway, being a helpful and kindly soul, and noticing an error, Jeremy (a.k.a. Interest) responded as follows:

Dear Policy (if I may)
Your circular reads " We have received notification of an appeal to the Court of Justice against a judgment of the General Court: C-281/10. It concerns the application of the Community Trade Mark Regulation".
I think you mean "Community Design Regulation"
Best wishes
Jeremy

He received a swift and courteous acknowledgement by return:

Dear Mr Phillips, many thanks for pointing this out.
Regards
International Policy Directorate
Intellectual Property Office

A corrective email might have been sent to the circular's original recipients (though the IPKat didn't receive one), but the Kat was gratified to receive so personal a response.  Then it struck him: if the IPO could write to him as "Mr Phillips" (he never stands on ceremony), perhaps it could after all send circulars in a friendlier vein.  Accordingly he wrote:

Dear Policy
Thanks for your email.
I hope you don't mind my asking, but there's something that puzzles me.
The IPO has an excellent reputation for its friendly, helpful communications. Yet your emails are always impersonal missives from " International Policy Directorate", addressed to "Interest". Apart from the fact that I've not yet met anyone who appreciates being addressed as "Dear Interest", this mode of address just seems so cold and impersonal. I get friendlier letters from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
Can you please tell me why your circulars are so impersonal?
Best wishes
Jeremy

The Kat is certain that a response must have been sent, but he has turned his computer upside down and shaken the spam box again and again -- to no avail.  He just can't find it!  Can any reader please supply the text of the missing missive? (Please post it as a comment below).

Dear interest here
Very interesting here [note for younger readers: this is what people used to laugh at in the days before Monty Python ...]
No interest here

Full post as published by IPKat on September 13, 2010 (boomark / email).