March 14, 2025 • 45 mins
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Lee Davis and Gwilym Roberts are the two IPs in a pod
and you are listening to apodcast on intellectual property
brought to you by the CharteredInstitute of Patent Attorneys.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Hey Gwilym, how are you mate?
Not too bad.
Nice to see you the other night, Good day.
What have you been up torecently?
Anything exciting Been to anyinteresting IP events.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
I was going to say I rushed through the presidential
reception the other night.
It looked like a fantasticevening.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
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 IPwere there.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Good turnout.
How long did they go on for?
Was it a big night followed byan after party, the usual?
Do you know what?
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Unusually there wasn't a lot of afters, so I
think it ran for a couple ofhours and then people just very
gently drifted off into thenight to wherever they needed to
go.
I went to, I think.
So it's a very august group.
They probably had to go homeand think IP thoughts.
Yeah, yeah, no, definitely,yeah, definitely, yeah.
There were some some veryimportant people there.
Anything else interesting?
(01:11):
You're not in the UK at themoment, are you?
I'm in Spain.
Are you hibernating?
Speaker 1 (01:16):
well, do you hibernate in Spain?
I'm just in Spain, I'm beingokay, um, but it's actually
quite nippy, so I got my fleeceon because the house isn't
heated, because never gets coldin spain we're talking about,
except for eight months of theyear.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Basically, that is a bit nippy, is that for a bit of
a break?
Family stuff or what you're upto?
Speaker 1 (01:33):
yeah because lydia is um spanish I think you know
that and beth therefore needs tosee her abuelita and going.
She's just because, becauseshe's growing up speaking
spanish as well as english,she's basically just around the
corner living and just chattingto grandma at the moment, just
speaking spanish the whole time.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
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 (01:53):
it's amazing to watch .
She's completely.
It's interesting how she getsher grammar as in, the kind of
the actual grammar grammaticalstructures mixed up, because
she'll say, oh, wow, so inenglish, just it's mine the red,
one kind of thing, which issort of how you might say it in
Spanish, I think.
And in Spanish when you doverbs in Spanish, if you say I
eat, you don't say yo como, youjust say como.
(02:15):
You don't say the other part ofit, yo, because it's kind of
implicit.
You can work out the subject.
In English she says obviously Ieat, 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 grammarin Spanish and Spanish grammar
in English.
It's really interesting.
It suggests that in your headthe vocabulary is in one place
and the grammatical structure isin another one Somewhere else.
(02:37):
Yeah, it's really interesting towatch.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
And I know we need to get our guest on and,
interestingly, he comes from apart of the world where, again,
they speak in an entirelydifferent way.
So that will be perhaps aninteresting topic, but does she?
She's probably too young to askher this question, but does she
think in English or Spanish?
Speaker 1 (02:55):
She dreams in Spanish , so when she talks in sleep
it's in Spanish.
That's really interesting, yeah.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
She can switch and she also knows what language
she's in.
So she says I'm going to speakto you in Spanish now, dad,
which is great because I can'tunderstand her, which I think
she quite enjoys.
So then she flips into andshe'll do it.
She'll be Daddy English andPapa in Spanish, so she'll start
with that word and thattriggers her.
Then it's amazing to watch.
Actually, it's really cool.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
We need to find someone who's big on IP and
language, don't we to come onand have a little bit of a
conversation about this?
That would be absolutelyfascinating.
Unfortunately, we don't wantanyone like that today, but we
have got someone who's reallybig in trademarks, probably as
big in trademarks as is possibleto be.
So we've got up kevin bader,chief executive of the chartered
(03:51):
institute of trademarkattorneys.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
Hey, kevin, how you?
You all right, mate, I'm good.
Thank you, lee, and thank youfor that wonderful introduction
this is.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
This has been a long time ambition of mine to get you
on the podcast, so we'vemanaged it at last yeah, I'm
only slightly disappointed thatI didn't get the pub invite
version of it.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
But I guess, if Willem's in Spain and you're
down near Portsmouth, then it'sa bit difficult.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
So what we're doing?
We'll get another pub carsorted and we'll get perhaps you
and your pres on.
We'll do a sort of sit-martorganisational one rather than a
sit-mart chief exec one, sothat we get you in the pub.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
Sounds good.
You do know our president, sheonly drinks champagne, so just
uh, just to warn you absolutelyfine.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Yeah, you'll be putting the bill anyway, so it
doesn't matter as usual.
So this, for me, this is quiteinteresting because you two are
probably two of the I won't saythe 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'veknown the longest in IP since I
(04:49):
joined SIPA just over 13 yearsago.
So it's lovely to have the twoof you together.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
I hadn't realised I had that accolade lately
actually.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
You dragged me off to Kilburn and Strode within the
first few weeks after I startedto spend some time with you and
look around the office and meetpeople and stuff like that.
So yeah, so on the season, andI think I met Kevin at the only
MOJ what was the review of the?
Alice B used to be called thetriennial review.
Review, yeah, which, which againwas in my first, first few
(05:22):
weeks at SEPA and I didn't havea clue what was going on.
Review, yeah, which, whichagain was in my first, first few
weeks at sepo, and I didn'thave a clue what was going on.
Um, fortunately, another onenever happened, so I didn't have
to worry about um, aboutreviewing the lsb, ever again I
only had the pleasure of doingtwo triennial reviews, so so
let's, let's.
Let's start with longevity.
How long you've been at sitmar?
Speaker 4 (05:40):
now.
So I have been at sitmar for 16years, so I'm now into my 17th
year.
In november, uh, it will reach17 years, so it's been a fair
while and we've seen a lot ofchange that's taken place during
that time.
It's a longish gig, isn't it?
It is, and I know that lots ofchief executives in membership
organizations you know come infor a few years, uh, turn things
(06:03):
around and then disappear.
But, um, yeah, I'm one of thoserare 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 inthat same position I'd always
said to myself that the supergig was like a five to seven
year stint.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Um, and I've just never left because they're not
bad jobs, are they?
Speaker 4 (06:21):
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 thepeople.
You know the profession is awonderful profession.
So I feel very privileged to bein this position.
And, yeah, while you'reenjoying it, why leave?
Speaker 3 (06:38):
I'm exactly the same.
I mean, first of all, they'reprobably.
I think there's no moreexciting world than ip to work
in.
I mean, others would arguedifferently about the areas they
work, but for me it's um, it'sjust just about as good as it
gets.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
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 aboutyou whether you have that
interest into it.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
That was the bit that I wanted to unpack.
I wanted your, your originstory.
Give us your origin story.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
Yeah, and I don't want to just sort of go through
my whole CV or anything likethat, so interrupt and ask
questions.
But yeah, my background is Iwas born in Newport in South
Wales, which you referred to aspreviously, and I came out of
university with a sports sciencedegree.
And as many do when they comeout of university, it's I have
no idea what I really want to donow.
(07:27):
So it happened that in newportthere's a passport office and a
patent office, or which is nowcalled the intellectual property
office.
So my first bit of work, as acivil servant, so to speak, was
at the passport office, whichwas, uh, granting new
applications for passports andrenewals, and and I was going to
ask a little quiz for you,because there was one celebrity
(07:49):
passport that I got to renew a1980s music icon which, having
listened to your podcast withChris McLeod and Jerry Bridge
Butler, I know that both of youare passionate about your music,
and I think you said, lee,there's no good music after 1992
.
So hopefully, in the 80s you'llbe well-versed on pop icons.
But whose passport do youreckon it was that I renewed?
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Howard Jones.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Incorrect.
Did you say Howard Jones?
Where did that come from?
Speaker 1 (08:19):
He's my 80s icon.
What is love anyway?
Speaker 4 (08:22):
That's why I was trying to uncover who is your
icon.
So now I know it's willem ishoward jones, so so we're
looking for an 80s.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Did you say that we've mentioned him on that
podcast, or?
Uh?
No, you didn't.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
Sorry, okay, oh no, there are so many 80s where,
possibly, but I know it's a bitharsh, but I just thought you
got one guess and then we canmove on.
All right then.
Okay, uh, pull you on.
No, no, rick astley, nevergoing to give you, oh, the
ultimate, yeah, that was theonly one.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
Of course there was anyone it's the first time we've
been rickrolled on the on thethey are.
Speaker 4 (08:58):
You can just put the music in there on that point and
we can go anyway.
Yeah, that was my claim to fameworking at the passport office.
Anyway.
I then joined the intellectualproperty office as, like an
administrator because it was innewport so I didn't really know
anything about ip at the timeand I joined their trademarks
law section.
So it was processing, uh,oppositions filed against
(09:21):
applications, trademarkapplications, and processing
defences filed by applicantswhen an opposition is filed, and
basically I just kind of workedmy way through that department
in various different roles.
So I was also a caseworkofficer, where you're dealing
with the evidence coming in andprocessing it.
I was in charge of the hearingsand appeals section and
(09:42):
scheduling hearings and sendingcases to the appointed person
who considers appeals againstthe registrar, and eventually I
ended up being the head of thetrademark law section, which was
quite unbelievable, having gonein at the administration grade.
But I have another question foryou because, as we're talking
about Hang on the podcast, isnot meant to work like this.
Speaker 3 (10:04):
This is what.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
I thought.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
This is what I thought this is what I thought.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
We need someone to prepare for this podcast.
We're going to have to do itagain.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Because we were talking about celebrities and
one of the conversations that Ihad with someone about an
opposition case was with a veryfamous person called Simon
Fuller, who you may know as aBritish entrepreneur, music
mogul.
Spice Girls, spice Girls, yeah.
So my question to you is goingto be could you name the act
(10:32):
that he was seeking a trademarkregistration for?
That wasn't the Spice Girls.
Oh damn, and this is hard, thisone is hard because they didn't
become a success.
Give us date range 1996.
And they didn't, um, become asuccess.
Give us date range 1996, andthey didn't become a success.
It depends what you class assuccess, but I'd say in simon
fuller's books it probablywasn't a success.
(10:54):
He told me they were going tobe bigger than the spice girls
biggest band ever, east 17 allsites, girl group, grill them
all sites.
No, it's Still a girl group.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
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 (11:15):
Shall I tell you yeah , 21st century girls.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Never heard of them.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
Me neither, but if you go and look it up and search
for them, there's a deadregistration for 24th century
girls.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
So so why did that fail?
Why did that?
Speaker 4 (11:29):
fall.
I think he let it uh, let itdie because, they?
They changed their name, Ithink, and then disbanded and it
wasn't really worth it for forhim anymore.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
But well, that's quite interesting, isn't it,
that you say that because, ofcourse, uh, we had your chris
mcleod on the podcast to talkabout exactly that sort of brand
and protection and those kindsof things, and I think what we
learned on that podcast with himand jerry bridge butler was
that people just didn't used todo this, so that that was was
that unusual?
Speaker 4 (11:59):
not necessarily.
No.
I think what was more unusualis that simon fuller was taking
the time to call about the uh,you know, the opposition and how
it was ridiculous and how heshould, should be allowed the
application.
Um, you know where you wouldexpect it to be an attorney who
was calling, or, or someone else, so he, he obviously felt it
was worthwhile giving us a callin the office so we've I think
(12:22):
we've sort of come to the end ofyour time at the ipo, have we?
is it sort of yeah, you're gonnamove on, sorry, yes what?
Speaker 3 (12:28):
what did sit mark?
I'm headhunting what happened?
Speaker 4 (12:32):
so basically I went to the uh central government, so
kind of moved to london andwent to what was the department
of trade and industry and I wasparachuted into a policy pool,
as they called it, where youwould go off and do certain
policy projects and I actuallyworked in an employment law area
.
So the first piece of policythat I was working on was a
(12:53):
policy to create moreopportunities for fathers to
care for their children, and Iwas responsible for developing
additional paternity leave andpay and taking the bill through
Parliament.
That then became the Work andFamilies Act 2006, I think it
was, and, as you may be aware,now there is shared parental
leave, which has been kind ofthe fallout from that but is now
(13:16):
in place and is used, I think,by many.
So it's a really good thing tosee come through.
So that was fascinating, toactually take legislation
through Parliament and deal withall the different government
departments to try and get theright policy in place.
And then I went and worked on aproject to enhance the ACAS
helpline.
So ACAS is the Advisory,conciliation and Arbitration
(13:41):
Service which providesemployment law advice to
employees and to employers, andso we made their helpline.
We created three super hubs andit was a multimillion-pound
project investing in technologyand training for them.
So it was completely outside ofIP, nothing to do with that,
but it was really good,interesting projects.
(14:02):
And then in 2008, I gotapproached, was I interested in
this role with ICMA, theInstitute of Trademark Attorneys
, and I'd been aware of theorganization when I was at the
intellectual property office.
I'd attended variousconferences, spoken at
conferences about changes in thetrademark law and practice that
(14:26):
was coming up, many, manymeetings with people from ITMA.
So I knew about theorganization and, as it was
about 10 years in the civilservice, I thought why not?
You know, now's the time to havea look at it.
So I went through the processand, for their sins, they
appointed me as their firstchief executive and started in
November 2008.
The process, and for their sinsthey they appointed me as their
first chief executive andstarted in november 2008 now
(14:50):
I'll let you speak a minute,don't worry.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
So, um, so I I did a little thing with sepa council a
couple of weeks ago now where Itold them we were doing a
little kind of we had a dinnerand we were doing a little bit
of strategy thinking and stufflike that and I told a story
about what I felt when I firstwalked through the doors of sepa
and learned the kind oforganization it was then really
to help me understand how itwent on to become the
(15:13):
organization it is.
Now, what did you find?
What was?
What was the?
itmar of um 17 years ago yeah,it was.
Speaker 4 (15:21):
It was a little bit of a shock, um, because I didn't
really know what to expect.
I knew about the organizationand I had lots of interaction
with the attorneys, some of theattorneys, the presidents but
when I walked in and sort of gotunder the bonnet, it opened up
the whole world of membershipand some of the things that you
need to think about about memberretention, member engagement,
(15:44):
member benefits, and there werethings that I couldn't really
understand why things were beingdone that way.
So there was a lot of thingsthat we could change to further
professionalize the organization.
So it quickly showed that therewere lots and lots of
opportunities to take forwardboth the organization and the
profession, which which wasquite exciting.
(16:04):
But I hadn't really appreciatedthat kind of membership side of
it, which maybe I should havedone.
But when you're a civil servantjust dealing with attorneys who
are, you know, complainingbecause you won't grant them an
extension of time in proceedings, it's slightly different to you
know what they're getting outof their membership of a august.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
It's interesting, isn't it?
Because membership, engagement,is probably one of the toughest
parts of the job our jobs butalso where the real sort of
reward is.
That's what makes it the jobthat it is.
Speaker 4 (16:36):
Absolutely, yeah, yeah, and it's always a
challenge to think of new andinnovative things that you can
do to encourage that engagement,to maintain and to make sure
that members are getting valueout of their, their membership
and, in particular would youlike to cross-examine?
Speaker 1 (16:54):
so I'm not just I'm, I'm letting you roll with this,
don't worry.
Speaker 3 (16:57):
Go, go go you're okay , we carry on for a bit yeah,
yeah, of course what, um, whatthings did you want to change
first?
What were the sort of two orthree things that you thought,
yeah, I got, I got to get togrips with this and that and
that isn't.
And that isn't to say thatthings were kind of wrong
previously, but you know whatwere the, what were the
priorities?
Speaker 4 (17:16):
in fairness, that the council of the organization had
set a couple of big projectsthat they they were keen for
work to be done on.
So one was moving the officefrom Croydon back into central
London, which was it's not a bigoffice but it was still a lot
to think about in terms of doingthat and whether staff would
come with or whether somewouldn't, and all the difficult
(17:38):
things that you've got to thinkabout in that situation.
There's also kind of finishingthe setup of the independent
regulator, ipreg.
So the the legal services acted, was about to come into force
and kind of the foundations ofipreg was there but it was
trying to make sure that thosewere in place and and you know
(17:59):
it's quite a bit of work there.
And the other big project wasseparating out the qualification
route.
So it was decided that usinguniversities, academia, for
qualification was the wayforward.
So there's a little bit of workto kind of set that up,
particularly with Nottingham LawSchool putting in the practical
(18:20):
side of becoming a trademarkattorney, applying the law in a
practical way.
That course we did some work indeveloping that.
So they were pretty bigprojects when you've just just
walked in through the door.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
Yeah, that's, that's quite, that's quite a lot.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
To get your mind straight off I mean, okay, I
will ask something then, whichis this is to both of you, I
don't I'll let lee go first onthat one soon as I've answered
the questions.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
So the if and you could ask this of any chief
executive, any, I'll sayprofessional body rather than
membership association, becausethere is a distinction between
two.
I think if you ask the chiefexecutive, 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 oflike the pinnacle leadership
position for the professionalbody we've.
(19:14):
We've got an eye on governance,we've got an eye on staffing,
we've got an eye on the financeside.
Yeah, we, our bag is the samebag, if you like.
What makes the job different isthe peculiarities of the
profession and the challengesthe profession faces for me.
So so in, in terms of a jobdescription, we've got the same
job.
In terms of a job, we've gotvery different jobs.
(19:35):
I think I would answer it thatway yeah, I would totally agree.
Speaker 4 (19:38):
I think there's, you know, some nuances within it.
You know, in terms of you talkabout governance even if you
just look at SIPA and SIPMA andand the presidential terms and,
uh, tournament council andthings like that, they're
they're all slightly differentand you have to do things in a
potentially slightly differentway.
But, generally speaking, thejob description would be
considered the same.
Do you fancy it, gwilym?
Speaker 1 (20:04):
I'll tell you what the diverse backgrounds people
come from into it.
It's quite attractive.
People come from all over theplace into the job.
It's obviously requires anunusual skill set, um, which I
probably don't know how, becauseI could just do patents and
nothing else.
Basically, um, and now I think,dealing with members.
I'm a member.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
I know I wouldn't want to deal with members you've
seen the, the kind of contextand 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 (20:35):
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 andsometimes it's not.
Always there's not not fullyresearched anger and I think
that must be quite difficult todeal with.
I've seen that.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
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 thatyour, your professional body,
will mean different things toyou at different times and you
want different things from it.
So so I think sometimes it cancome with a sense of frustration
if you don't think it's reallydelivering on the areas that are
important to you at that timein your life, in your profession
(21:09):
, and I think that's that's whatmakes the job hard sometimes,
trying to be all things to allpeople, but it's also what makes
the job interesting, becauseit'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 youshould have been doing
something about something, so so, so sometimes the very best
conversations are the ones wherepeople come at you because they
think that you're notdelivering and then you realize
(21:31):
it's something you should bedelivering 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 allmembers want or a vast majority
of them.
Speaker 4 (21:45):
One of the things interesting I've found about
coming into this and into theprofession of membership is
where some chief execs have thatbackground within the
profession that they're lookingafter.
You know they there might be aqualified, but many aren't, and
it's an interesting dynamicbetween whether you know it's
more beneficial or not to andsomething that I think is
(22:07):
discussed quite a lot in themembership world it's an ongoing
debate, isn't it?
Speaker 3 (22:11):
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 theright thing?
This seems to be an entirelyridiculous thing for me to do to
come to this organization.
I don't know the people, Idon't know the profession, I
don't know.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
I don't know the issues, the problems, the
challenges um, you would havethought after 13 years things
have changed, lee, but yeah 13years and 100 podcasts on the
topic.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
I'm gonna I'm gonna carry on um this edition of one
ip in the pod and interview mytwo guests um the eos membership
organizations.
So do you I know you obviouslycollaborate where you can.
Do you think you collaborate asmuch as you should?
Do you think there's morecollaboration available for you
guys, or do you tend to kind ofget on the phone as soon as you
need to?
Speaker 3 (22:59):
I'll let Kevin go first this time.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Yeah, I think we do.
Over the time that Lee's beenat the organisation, I think
we've built up a really good,strong relationship.
I have his WhatsApp.
I can WhatsApp him withanything and he'll normally
reply, and vice versa.
I think we're quite good atidentifying things where we
(23:22):
could collaborate and wherethere is a different approach
needed potentially.
So for me, the balance feelsabout right.
And so for me, the balancefeels about right.
I always thought, you know,when I came into the profession,
why are the two organizations?
What's the difference betweenthem?
But over the years you kind ofunderstand those differences and
different approaches.
(23:43):
But I think, yeah, lee and I wehave a good relationship?
Speaker 3 (23:47):
Yeah, definitely, and it's on different levels, isn't
it?
So I think we've gotten to knowone another quite well.
We have a good, I think, sortof personal relationship.
Um, I think we've got a greatprofessional relationship.
You're right, we do have thoselittle conversations on whatsapp
when something comes up and weperhaps need to bounce something
, but we also do it formally,don't we?
We meet and I mean, and it'snot just, uh, there are more
(24:09):
than two parties in thismarriage.
Because we've got it break,because we've got Ip Prigg as
well, don't forget and I don'tknow if Ip Prigg is our
recalcitrant I can't even saythe word child or is now just
one of the other partners in therelationship.
So, kevin Fran Gillan and Imeet regularly.
(24:29):
So it's bigger than a sitmarseeper thing, it's um we include
it preg in that.
Speaker 4 (24:38):
Yeah, I mean there's two different relationships as
the the regulatory relationshipthat we have and then the
membership body and relationshipthat seeper and sitmar have.
But yeah, we have a goodpersonal relationship.
I'm still waiting to have thesquash match against lee to just
show how great I am compared tohim.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
Any time I'm off to play squash after the podcast.
So I'll get myself in trainingand we'll do it.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
Trouble is when I play squash.
I can't walk for about threedays afterwards, so I need to do
some training probably.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
IP smackdown.
I can see it coming.
Just carrying on with myinterview, I'm enjoying this.
So yeah, lots of commonalityand obviously Ipwag is this kind
of joint venture in a sense.
How did you find yourselvesactually representing disparate
interests, or competinginterests, should we say?
Speaker 3 (25:27):
Oh, what a great question.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
Have we had many yeah , I'm not sure competing
interests necessarily?
I mean, we always I'll be quitecandid we always look uh
closely at what seepa is doingon its events and sort of look
at, well, are they doing, whyare they doing, uh, you know, an
event on that particular topic?
Where are they going with theirevents?
How many members are theygetting?
You know what's sort ofhappening?
(25:49):
But it's not necessarilybecause we see them as a
competitor.
More that we can learn fromfrom them.
And actually what we've donerecently is I know that many of
the SIPA staff have come toSITMA events and SITMA staff
have gone to SIPA events, so wecan kind of learn from each
other.
You know best practice andthings like that.
So, yeah, I've not really comeacross anything hugely competing
(26:11):
necessarily so.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
So it wasn't competing.
But we did have a bit of a sortof a policy dance around
Itmar's child replication beforeit became Sitmar.
There were kind ofconversations to be had there
around protection of title andhow that would read across and
stuff like that.
But I wouldn't say it wasparticularly.
They weren't competinginterests were they.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
It was just trying to make sure that they were
complementary, yeah, and youcould sort of use that as well
in terms of the new delegationagreement that we put in place
with our regulator you know we.
There were certain things thatsitmar needed to see in there
and super had a slightly morerelaxed view on it.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
So yeah, not not necessarily competing, but just
because the the membershipprofiles are quite, I think,
have drifted away from eachother.
I'd say a little bit.
I don't think this necessarilyis a ground for competition or
conflict, but the membershipprofiles I feel, as a seeper
still really is is a mix ofprivate practice and in-house.
(27:11):
The mix, the percentages change, the mix doesn't change
massively, whereas on thetrademark side I feel like over
the years it used to be more alot of trademark attorneys were
with patent firms or specialisttrademark firms, whereas over
the years there's a lot moresolicitor representation now.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
Is that fair?
Probably not.
No, I think we've still gotkind of the equal distribution
of, uh, you know, trademarkattorneys in private practice,
trademark attorneys in industry,but there are, you know,
solicitors.
We have a specific category ofallied membership for those who
are other lawyers, barristers,solicitors and that has grown
(27:49):
over the years a bit.
So maybe, you know, maybe it'sslightly edged, but not in any
significant numbers okay, maybe,maybe that's just my perception
.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
Okay, there's always this.
Well, we, we have this, we'realways talking on the super side
.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
Even the mix of two basic constituencies means you
always have to be thinking aboutall your members and not just
representing a specific businessinterest, as it were definitely
and I think you know, like you,I think lee was saying in the
day when, with bobby coming inas uh president from industry,
you know, how does that changethe dynamics?
We've had a couple ofpresidents who have been in
industry and we didn't noticeany huge change in the, in the
(28:26):
dynamics or things that we werethinking about.
But it's definitely aconsideration that you have to
give.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Thanks, certainly.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
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 moreoften Ask questions.
It's quite good to watch yourbrain work.
So what's on the future radar,Kevin?
What are SITMAR's challenges ofthe day?
Speaker 4 (28:52):
So one of the big things you're well aware of that
we we've been doing a bit ofwork on uh over the last couple
of years is around rights ofrepresentation before the uk
intellectual property office andthe rules uh that currently in
place on address for service.
Um, there's there's been achange in uh filings,
(29:12):
particularly in trademarks, butalso in designs, where we're
seeing a lot of what's beentermed unusual marks or we like
to call them quirky marks,because it's just random letters
from a keyboard that are beingfiled predominantly from
Chinese-based companies.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
So these look a little bit like those names of
companies that you see on Amazon.
Just a random string of letters.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
Random string of letters and our concern is you
know what is the purpose behindthat?
What is their genuine use ofthe trademark?
Is this causing problems?
We believe it is to the UKtrademark system.
So we've been trying to workwith the Intellectual Property
Office to do a bit moreinvestigations into what is this
(30:00):
?
Do they recognise thephenomenon of pretty unusual
marks and can they uncover thereason why they're being filed
and the effect that it's havingon the UK system?
And so far they've confirmedyes, there are these unusual
marks being filed, but they'restill investigating what's
actually happening.
But I think the interestingthing for me is, if you look at
(30:23):
the statistics on top filers oftrademark applications before
the UK IPO, there's been a hugeshift in your usual firms who
are regulated to the top 10,being swamped by unregulated
representatives of randomcompanies that have an address
(30:46):
in the UK but are notnecessarily based in the UK.
So it know been a big shift andwe need to uncover exactly
what's happening and if it'scausing problems that brings the
other member I was about to saysomething.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
I forgot what I was about to say that's fine, I can
tell.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
I just said anything more than the tenth of a second.
One of us is there.
Um, that brings in the othermember, 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 ofyour surreal marriage.
There you go.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
You're verging on the ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
Oh, here we go.
I think you want to alter whatyou just said.
Speaker 4 (31:33):
Thank you, let's just keep it going I can leave this
podcast if you carry on withjokes like that um, no question,
yeah, no, that's of course.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
That's.
That's another kind of jointventure, kind of partner, as it
were.
It is this this lovely journeyis is the ipo itself.
I guess there, you know, to acertain extent you talk to
different bits of it.
Obviously, kevin, you've got alot of experience there anyway,
but at the top it's the samepeople.
So I guess, again, there'sanother area for collaboration
and working together.
Speaker 4 (32:03):
Yeah, definitely.
I mean we try and work closelywith Adam Williams, the chief
executive at the IPO, and allthe senior management and, you
know, and there's lots of reallygood people at the IPO, so
collaboration is good.
We have a president's groupmeeting where four or five
presidents, director generals orCEOs have a regular meeting
(32:26):
with Adam and senior people, sothere's good opportunities to
engage with them on strategiclevel and also on operational
levels as well.
So, yeah, rights ofrepresentation is a big, big one
for us.
That we're our members havesaid you know it's the number
one priority and so it's.
It's what we're continuing todo.
The knock-on effect of that isobviously for individuals,
(32:49):
encouraging them to use achartered trademark attorney for
advice before filingapplications or if they get into
difficulties and get intooppositions or contentious
proceedings, and so we're doingquite a lot of promotional
outreach work as well, trying towork with the intellectual
property on some of theirinitiatives around supporting
(33:09):
SMEs.
And then the other challenges Isuppose upcoming, I've got to
say it AI and emergingtechnology, you know, keeping an
eye on what's actuallyhappening with that.
So we've just set up a brandnew AI and technology committee.
We met with IPREG yesterdayactually to have an initial
conversation from their kind ofethical, regulatory point of
(33:30):
view, that we want to beupskilling the profession to
make sure they're understandingai and considering how best to
use it in the most appropriatemanner 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
(33:52):
them on the patent side Forthose who can't see Lee, but
he's smacking his head againstthe table at the moment but
they're supposed to go intophase two, which is trademarks
and designs.
There's been a few delays butwe want to be right on top of
what's happening there to makesure that it's fit for purpose
for the profession.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
So they're probably my main challenges so that can,
I, can, I can I do the legacyquestion then is that okay,
forget if we go there.
Have you have you got yourlegacy yet, kevin, or is it yet
to come?
Have you have you got your onebig achievement that would
define your time at sitmar?
Speaker 4 (34:28):
I suspect I have.
Um, it's probably.
I thought you might have.
Yeah, yeah, I was wonderingwhen you'd ask.
It was probably the you know,getting the charter, the royal
charter.
Um, there'd been a project thathad failed a few times, I think
before I was wondering whenyou'd ask, it was probably the
getting the charter, the RoyalCharter.
There'd been a project that hadfailed a few times, I think,
(34:49):
before I came on board forvarious different reasons, not
through want of trying, but itwas clear that this was
something that the professionwanted, and so it was an
unbelievable project to be partof and to kind of lead with a
couple of key people from SITMA.
But to get that and to be ableto allow our members to be
called chartered trademarkattorneys.
(35:10):
It raised the profile of theprofession.
It raised the standards, samefor the organization as well.
We now feel we have a biggerprofile and better status within
the profession.
So it was yeah, it was, it wasreally good, and it was such a
an unusual project as well,because I didn't really know
what to expect when you firsthave conversations with the
(35:31):
privy council and there's allthese processes and procedures
to follow, and when you findyourself on a tube to uh west
london to go and meet thecalligrapher who's in his loft
scribing on vellum which iscalfskin, the uh, the actual
charter, and seeing the goldleaf being placed on it and it's
(35:51):
yeah, just those are thingsthat you not not come across for
for many people in theirlifetime.
Um, so, yeah, when we, when wewere actually fully granted it
and changed from itmar to sitmarin 2016, it was a wonderful
achievement.
And there was one thingactually I was going to say,
because I was thinking aboutthis before the podcast.
I think it's the only timelee's ever told me he he's cried
(36:12):
uh, which was at our ceremonywhere we unveiled the charter,
and he said it was because itwas something I said in a in a
little speech, but I can'tremember what it was.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
But I remember, I do remember the moment.
I remember the moment.
Yeah, I I think in part it wasbecause I just knew how much
work it was for you.
I mean, I then got toexperience it in small part
myself when we did our bylawsreview in 2017, 2018.
It was difficult enough gettinga revised set of bylaws through
the privy council.
You do you're praying to sort ofpeople in tights somewhere that
(36:46):
you never see.
Uh, it's that.
You know, you've got, you'vegot a hope that you'd get the,
the lord privy seal, which I'vealways imagined is some big sea
sea cat creature kind of sat atthe end of a table clapping.
It's it's fins.
If they've got fins together orsome such thing, it's um, no,
it's a tough gig, isn't it?
And I think that's probably whyI got quite emotional at your
um, at your, your event, whenyou um, you effectively launched
(37:08):
, was because, yeah, I knew howmuch work that would have been
yeah, and I don't think untilyou know, you look back and
reflect on on it, of how muchactually was involved and how
difficult it was.
Speaker 4 (37:17):
But it was great because we worked hard with SIPA
and other organisations who hadan interest to kind of align
everyone that this was a goodthing and that was a big
challenge in itself, so to geteveryone agreeing that it would
be of benefit to have charteredtrademark attorneys.
That was the first hurdle thatwe had to overcome and then the
(37:38):
rest was kind of a bit offormalities.
But, like you say, knowing thatthe Privy Council never sit and
there's, like I imagine, acircle of people stood with the
Queen in the middle as it wasthen the King now.
Yeah, it's just bizarre, justbizarre yeah.
So that should be my legacy,but you know, maybe there's
something else in the pipeline.
Speaker 3 (37:59):
Yes, something else might come along, some great
policy challenge or someexistential threat or some such.
Speaker 1 (38:03):
I've never asked Lee that question.
Actually, legacy Lee, what'syours?
Speaker 3 (38:12):
So my SIPA legacy.
Speaker 1 (38:14):
Oh, blimey.
Okay, can we go back to youafter this one?
Your SIPA legacy.
Speaker 3 (38:18):
I've had more than one job.
I've had more than one job, soI hope I get multiple legacies.
I don't know.
I'd like to think there isstill something around the
corner that's going to tax meand challenge me, and that that
might be it.
Cptpp was a biggie for us,obviously, because that I mean
that was.
It wasn't just the fact that itwas a an enormous amount of
(38:39):
campaigning, influencing work totry and deliver the result that
the profession would want interms of the uk joining the cptp
.
But we did it during lockdown.
But, yeah, we did join a timewhen all of the normal avenues
weren't open to you and it wassort of silly, silly o'clock at
night, conversations with umoverseas sister organizations,
(39:00):
and then one of the things I gotwas I met with quite a lot of
peers MPs, not so bad, but peers.
When you meet with them online,invariably you just see the tops
of their heads and a bookcasebehind them, because they'd
they'd no, no idea how to usethis new technology that they
had to to sort of still exist inthe inner world.
That was confined to yourbedroom or wherever it was.
So, yeah, lord so and so wasjust a forehead, and so so I
(39:26):
think.
I mean, I think cptp might beit, or perhaps I'll leave super
in a better position than theway I found it and that might do
it for me.
Speaker 4 (39:35):
Actually, I, I disagree that CPTPP was a big,
big achievement and I know thatyou worked very, very hard on it
, and I heard a lot of positivestories from your members and
others about the way youapproached it and how you got it
into a safe space, so I thinkit shouldn't be underestimated
(39:56):
what you did there.
Speaker 1 (39:57):
Yeah, it was a big gig.
You didn't cry, though, did you?
Speaker 3 (40:00):
No, I did, I did actually cry.
Speaker 1 (40:02):
Not you I guess.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
Oh, kevin no.
Speaker 4 (40:06):
I did, but just in private.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
One of those nights.
Speaker 4 (40:13):
Stop texting me, Lee.
Speaker 3 (40:17):
Yeah, when I got my little notification, because
obviously we knew before itbecame 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 donedo you have a legacy?
Speaker 1 (40:32):
then grillam oh god blimey, when did this start?
Speaker 3 (40:37):
you know what we've accidentally done the closer
question, I know.
Speaker 1 (40:44):
It's funny.
I think I'm really happy withall the things that I've been
involved in over my career, butactually the one I want is
definitely yet to come, Lee, andI definitely want to actually
be involved with both of you onit which is to get that
innovation economy thing goingin the UK the way it should,
with the support from the IPexperts.
That's definitely here.
That's something I'll kind ofwant to spend the next few years
(41:05):
on, basically because I thinkit's a huge challenge for the UK
and we are world-leadingexperts in innovation and
creativity.
So I haven't got one yet, butthat's what I'd love it to be.
Speaker 4 (41:16):
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 (41:26):
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 quiteinteresting because you've
managed to get past 40 minutes.
Okay, grillam, did you have acloser?
Had you thought about anythingelse, we might just close the
show because it feels like we'vesort of done it.
Yeah, you're happy with thatone.
(41:46):
Yeah, because I was going to gosomewhere down the musical
instrument line, because I knowyou, both you guys are
accomplished guitarists and I'mnot, so I was perhaps going to
go down that line, but I sayboth you guys are accomplished
guitarists and I'm not, so I wasperhaps going to go down that
line, but I say both of you guysare accomplished guitarists.
Speaker 1 (42:04):
I think Kevin is.
I have.
No, I have no pretense about mypolicy on the guitar, don't
worry.
Speaker 4 (42:08):
I was trying to look up genius id Cause.
I wanted to know you won't findit.
I couldn't find it.
Speaker 3 (42:12):
You know what?
Some, some somewhere in one ofmy friends who have not seen
since I was a late teenager,early kind of 20 year olds, are
going to have a tape, an oldcassette tape, in a bedroom
somewhere.
Speaker 4 (42:23):
That is the the last sort of relic of the genius id I
managed to find an old tape ofof our band and, uh, my friend
or the, the ex-drummer of theband.
He uh works in um musicproduction and things, so he's
got all the equipment that canconvert it into proper files now
that you can listen to it.
So if you do find a tape andyou need it converted, I'm your
(42:44):
man to get genius it back out inthe public domain.
I didn't find the band members,let alone the tape.
Speaker 3 (42:54):
I know, I know, I know where one of them is, cause
he's also my formerbrother-in-law, so I've not
actually lost him.
I mean, we could have done bandnames, couldn't we?
So yeah, mine was the Genius Id.
You've got an interesting bandname story, haven't you, gwilym?
Speaker 1 (43:07):
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 donebefore, so I just decided that
couldn't have been and, as youknow, it's now become my
Facebook name and I book Uberthrough Facebook, so when I get
in an Uber, I have to say hello,I'm Barry.
Speaker 3 (43:28):
And what was your mob then, Kevin?
Speaker 4 (43:30):
We had the worst name .
Honestly, it's embarrassing,but it was called Strawberry
Blondes.
Speaker 2 (43:35):
Okay, but if you go on Spotify, you can actually
find Strawberry Blondes.
Speaker 4 (43:40):
Okay, but if you go on Spotify, you can actually
find Strawberry Blondes songs.
Speaker 3 (43:43):
Yeah, I've never used Spotify.
Speaker 4 (43:45):
Or any other good music streaming platform.
Okay, I'll see what I can do.
You don't strike me as anatural blonde no, definitely
not, and I have no idea who cameup with the name or why, but
there we go.
That's what it was.
Speaker 3 (43:58):
We're just waffling, aren't we?
I probably should bring this toa close, kevin.
Thank you so much for joiningus.
Been a real, real pleasurehaving you on.
Gwilym, as ever, thank you forco-hosting with me.
If you've listened to this oneand found it remotely
interesting and enjoyable, thenobviously leave us a little
review somewhere and that'llencourage other people to find
us, hopefully.
Uh, kevin, I'll see you shortlysomewhere, I'm sure, and willem
(44:20):
, I'll see you in the next one,mate looking forward to it
(44:50):
thanks both Outro Music.
Lee Davis and Gwilym Roberts are the two IPs in a pod
and you are listening to apodcast on intellectual property
brought to you by the CharteredInstitute of Patent Attorneys.
Speaker 3 (00:20):
Hey Gwilym, how are you mate?
Not too bad.
Nice to see you the other night, Good day.
What have you been up torecently?
Anything exciting Been to anyinteresting IP events.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
I was going to say I rushed through the presidential
reception the other night.
It looked like a fantasticevening.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
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 IPwere there.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Good turnout.
How long did they go on for?
Was it a big night followed byan after party, the usual?
Do you know what?
Speaker 3 (00:51):
Unusually there wasn't a lot of afters, so I
think it ran for a couple ofhours and then people just very
gently drifted off into thenight to wherever they needed to
go.
I went to, I think.
So it's a very august group.
They probably had to go homeand think IP thoughts.
Yeah, yeah, no, definitely,yeah, definitely, yeah.
There were some some veryimportant people there.
Anything else interesting?
(01:11):
You're not in the UK at themoment, are you?
I'm in Spain.
Are you hibernating?
Speaker 1 (01:16):
well, do you hibernate in Spain?
I'm just in Spain, I'm beingokay, um, but it's actually
quite nippy, so I got my fleeceon because the house isn't
heated, because never gets coldin spain we're talking about,
except for eight months of theyear.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Basically, that is a bit nippy, is that for a bit of
a break?
Family stuff or what you're upto?
Speaker 1 (01:33):
yeah because lydia is um spanish I think you know
that and beth therefore needs tosee her abuelita and going.
She's just because, becauseshe's growing up speaking
spanish as well as english,she's basically just around the
corner living and just chattingto grandma at the moment, just
speaking spanish the whole time.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
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 (01:53):
it's amazing to watch .
She's completely.
It's interesting how she getsher grammar as in, the kind of
the actual grammar grammaticalstructures mixed up, because
she'll say, oh, wow, so inenglish, just it's mine the red,
one kind of thing, which issort of how you might say it in
Spanish, I think.
And in Spanish when you doverbs in Spanish, if you say I
eat, you don't say yo como, youjust say como.
(02:15):
You don't say the other part ofit, yo, because it's kind of
implicit.
You can work out the subject.
In English she says obviously Ieat, 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 grammarin Spanish and Spanish grammar
in English.
It's really interesting.
It suggests that in your headthe vocabulary is in one place
and the grammatical structure isin another one Somewhere else.
(02:37):
Yeah, it's really interesting towatch.
Speaker 3 (02:39):
And I know we need to get our guest on and,
interestingly, he comes from apart of the world where, again,
they speak in an entirelydifferent way.
So that will be perhaps aninteresting topic, but does she?
She's probably too young to askher this question, but does she
think in English or Spanish?
Speaker 1 (02:55):
She dreams in Spanish , so when she talks in sleep
it's in Spanish.
That's really interesting, yeah.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
She can switch and she also knows what language
she's in.
So she says I'm going to speakto you in Spanish now, dad,
which is great because I can'tunderstand her, which I think
she quite enjoys.
So then she flips into andshe'll do it.
She'll be Daddy English andPapa in Spanish, so she'll start
with that word and thattriggers her.
Then it's amazing to watch.
Actually, it's really cool.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
We need to find someone who's big on IP and
language, don't we to come onand have a little bit of a
conversation about this?
That would be absolutelyfascinating.
Unfortunately, we don't wantanyone like that today, but we
have got someone who's reallybig in trademarks, probably as
big in trademarks as is possibleto be.
So we've got up kevin bader,chief executive of the chartered
(03:51):
institute of trademarkattorneys.
Speaker 4 (03:52):
Hey, kevin, how you?
You all right, mate, I'm good.
Thank you, lee, and thank youfor that wonderful introduction
this is.
Speaker 3 (03:56):
This has been a long time ambition of mine to get you
on the podcast, so we'vemanaged it at last yeah, I'm
only slightly disappointed thatI didn't get the pub invite
version of it.
Speaker 4 (04:05):
But I guess, if Willem's in Spain and you're
down near Portsmouth, then it'sa bit difficult.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
So what we're doing?
We'll get another pub carsorted and we'll get perhaps you
and your pres on.
We'll do a sort of sit-martorganisational one rather than a
sit-mart chief exec one, sothat we get you in the pub.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
Sounds good.
You do know our president, sheonly drinks champagne, so just
uh, just to warn you absolutelyfine.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Yeah, you'll be putting the bill anyway, so it
doesn't matter as usual.
So this, for me, this is quiteinteresting because you two are
probably two of the I won't saythe 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'veknown the longest in IP since I
(04:49):
joined SIPA just over 13 yearsago.
So it's lovely to have the twoof you together.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
I hadn't realised I had that accolade lately
actually.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
You dragged me off to Kilburn and Strode within the
first few weeks after I startedto spend some time with you and
look around the office and meetpeople and stuff like that.
So yeah, so on the season, andI think I met Kevin at the only
MOJ what was the review of the?
Alice B used to be called thetriennial review.
Review, yeah, which, which againwas in my first, first few
(05:22):
weeks at SEPA and I didn't havea clue what was going on.
Review, yeah, which, whichagain was in my first, first few
weeks at sepo, and I didn'thave a clue what was going on.
Um, fortunately, another onenever happened, so I didn't have
to worry about um, aboutreviewing the lsb, ever again I
only had the pleasure of doingtwo triennial reviews, so so
let's, let's.
Let's start with longevity.
How long you've been at sitmar?
Speaker 4 (05:40):
now.
So I have been at sitmar for 16years, so I'm now into my 17th
year.
In november, uh, it will reach17 years, so it's been a fair
while and we've seen a lot ofchange that's taken place during
that time.
It's a longish gig, isn't it?
It is, and I know that lots ofchief executives in membership
organizations you know come infor a few years, uh, turn things
(06:03):
around and then disappear.
But, um, yeah, I'm one of thoserare 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 inthat same position I'd always
said to myself that the supergig was like a five to seven
year stint.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Um, and I've just never left because they're not
bad jobs, are they?
Speaker 4 (06:21):
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 thepeople.
You know the profession is awonderful profession.
So I feel very privileged to bein this position.
And, yeah, while you'reenjoying it, why leave?
Speaker 3 (06:38):
I'm exactly the same.
I mean, first of all, they'reprobably.
I think there's no moreexciting world than ip to work
in.
I mean, others would arguedifferently about the areas they
work, but for me it's um, it'sjust just about as good as it
gets.
Speaker 4 (06:52):
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 aboutyou whether you have that
interest into it.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
That was the bit that I wanted to unpack.
I wanted your, your originstory.
Give us your origin story.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
Yeah, and I don't want to just sort of go through
my whole CV or anything likethat, so interrupt and ask
questions.
But yeah, my background is Iwas born in Newport in South
Wales, which you referred to aspreviously, and I came out of
university with a sports sciencedegree.
And as many do when they comeout of university, it's I have
no idea what I really want to donow.
(07:27):
So it happened that in newportthere's a passport office and a
patent office, or which is nowcalled the intellectual property
office.
So my first bit of work, as acivil servant, so to speak, was
at the passport office, whichwas, uh, granting new
applications for passports andrenewals, and and I was going to
ask a little quiz for you,because there was one celebrity
(07:49):
passport that I got to renew a1980s music icon which, having
listened to your podcast withChris McLeod and Jerry Bridge
Butler, I know that both of youare passionate about your music,
and I think you said, lee,there's no good music after 1992
.
So hopefully, in the 80s you'llbe well-versed on pop icons.
But whose passport do youreckon it was that I renewed?
Speaker 1 (08:11):
Howard Jones.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Incorrect.
Did you say Howard Jones?
Where did that come from?
Speaker 1 (08:19):
He's my 80s icon.
What is love anyway?
Speaker 4 (08:22):
That's why I was trying to uncover who is your
icon.
So now I know it's willem ishoward jones, so so we're
looking for an 80s.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
Did you say that we've mentioned him on that
podcast, or?
Uh?
No, you didn't.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
Sorry, okay, oh no, there are so many 80s where,
possibly, but I know it's a bitharsh, but I just thought you
got one guess and then we canmove on.
All right then.
Okay, uh, pull you on.
No, no, rick astley, nevergoing to give you, oh, the
ultimate, yeah, that was theonly one.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
Of course there was anyone it's the first time we've
been rickrolled on the on thethey are.
Speaker 4 (08:58):
You can just put the music in there on that point and
we can go anyway.
Yeah, that was my claim to fameworking at the passport office.
Anyway.
I then joined the intellectualproperty office as, like an
administrator because it was innewport so I didn't really know
anything about ip at the timeand I joined their trademarks
law section.
So it was processing, uh,oppositions filed against
(09:21):
applications, trademarkapplications, and processing
defences filed by applicantswhen an opposition is filed, and
basically I just kind of workedmy way through that department
in various different roles.
So I was also a caseworkofficer, where you're dealing
with the evidence coming in andprocessing it.
I was in charge of the hearingsand appeals section and
(09:42):
scheduling hearings and sendingcases to the appointed person
who considers appeals againstthe registrar, and eventually I
ended up being the head of thetrademark law section, which was
quite unbelievable, having gonein at the administration grade.
But I have another question foryou because, as we're talking
about Hang on the podcast, isnot meant to work like this.
Speaker 3 (10:04):
This is what.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
I thought.
Speaker 4 (10:05):
This is what I thought this is what I thought.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
We need someone to prepare for this podcast.
We're going to have to do itagain.
Speaker 4 (10:11):
Because we were talking about celebrities and
one of the conversations that Ihad with someone about an
opposition case was with a veryfamous person called Simon
Fuller, who you may know as aBritish entrepreneur, music
mogul.
Spice Girls, spice Girls, yeah.
So my question to you is goingto be could you name the act
(10:32):
that he was seeking a trademarkregistration for?
That wasn't the Spice Girls.
Oh damn, and this is hard, thisone is hard because they didn't
become a success.
Give us date range 1996.
And they didn't, um, become asuccess.
Give us date range 1996, andthey didn't become a success.
It depends what you class assuccess, but I'd say in simon
fuller's books it probablywasn't a success.
(10:54):
He told me they were going tobe bigger than the spice girls
biggest band ever, east 17 allsites, girl group, grill them
all sites.
No, it's Still a girl group.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
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 (11:15):
Shall I tell you yeah , 21st century girls.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Never heard of them.
Speaker 4 (11:21):
Me neither, but if you go and look it up and search
for them, there's a deadregistration for 24th century
girls.
Speaker 3 (11:27):
So so why did that fail?
Why did that?
Speaker 4 (11:29):
fall.
I think he let it uh, let itdie because, they?
They changed their name, Ithink, and then disbanded and it
wasn't really worth it for forhim anymore.
Speaker 3 (11:38):
But well, that's quite interesting, isn't it,
that you say that because, ofcourse, uh, we had your chris
mcleod on the podcast to talkabout exactly that sort of brand
and protection and those kindsof things, and I think what we
learned on that podcast with himand jerry bridge butler was
that people just didn't used todo this, so that that was was
that unusual?
Speaker 4 (11:59):
not necessarily.
No.
I think what was more unusualis that simon fuller was taking
the time to call about the uh,you know, the opposition and how
it was ridiculous and how heshould, should be allowed the
application.
Um, you know where you wouldexpect it to be an attorney who
was calling, or, or someone else, so he, he obviously felt it
was worthwhile giving us a callin the office so we've I think
(12:22):
we've sort of come to the end ofyour time at the ipo, have we?
is it sort of yeah, you're gonnamove on, sorry, yes what?
Speaker 3 (12:28):
what did sit mark?
I'm headhunting what happened?
Speaker 4 (12:32):
so basically I went to the uh central government, so
kind of moved to london andwent to what was the department
of trade and industry and I wasparachuted into a policy pool,
as they called it, where youwould go off and do certain
policy projects and I actuallyworked in an employment law area
.
So the first piece of policythat I was working on was a
(12:53):
policy to create moreopportunities for fathers to
care for their children, and Iwas responsible for developing
additional paternity leave andpay and taking the bill through
Parliament.
That then became the Work andFamilies Act 2006, I think it
was, and, as you may be aware,now there is shared parental
leave, which has been kind ofthe fallout from that but is now
(13:16):
in place and is used, I think,by many.
So it's a really good thing tosee come through.
So that was fascinating, toactually take legislation
through Parliament and deal withall the different government
departments to try and get theright policy in place.
And then I went and worked on aproject to enhance the ACAS
helpline.
So ACAS is the Advisory,conciliation and Arbitration
(13:41):
Service which providesemployment law advice to
employees and to employers, andso we made their helpline.
We created three super hubs andit was a multimillion-pound
project investing in technologyand training for them.
So it was completely outside ofIP, nothing to do with that,
but it was really good,interesting projects.
(14:02):
And then in 2008, I gotapproached, was I interested in
this role with ICMA, theInstitute of Trademark Attorneys
, and I'd been aware of theorganization when I was at the
intellectual property office.
I'd attended variousconferences, spoken at
conferences about changes in thetrademark law and practice that
(14:26):
was coming up, many, manymeetings with people from ITMA.
So I knew about theorganization and, as it was
about 10 years in the civilservice, I thought why not?
You know, now's the time to havea look at it.
So I went through the processand, for their sins, they
appointed me as their firstchief executive and started in
November 2008.
The process, and for their sinsthey they appointed me as their
first chief executive andstarted in november 2008 now
(14:50):
I'll let you speak a minute,don't worry.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
So, um, so I I did a little thing with sepa council a
couple of weeks ago now where Itold them we were doing a
little kind of we had a dinnerand we were doing a little bit
of strategy thinking and stufflike that and I told a story
about what I felt when I firstwalked through the doors of sepa
and learned the kind oforganization it was then really
to help me understand how itwent on to become the
(15:13):
organization it is.
Now, what did you find?
What was?
What was the?
itmar of um 17 years ago yeah,it was.
Speaker 4 (15:21):
It was a little bit of a shock, um, because I didn't
really know what to expect.
I knew about the organizationand I had lots of interaction
with the attorneys, some of theattorneys, the presidents but
when I walked in and sort of gotunder the bonnet, it opened up
the whole world of membershipand some of the things that you
need to think about about memberretention, member engagement,
(15:44):
member benefits, and there werethings that I couldn't really
understand why things were beingdone that way.
So there was a lot of thingsthat we could change to further
professionalize the organization.
So it quickly showed that therewere lots and lots of
opportunities to take forwardboth the organization and the
profession, which which wasquite exciting.
(16:04):
But I hadn't really appreciatedthat kind of membership side of
it, which maybe I should havedone.
But when you're a civil servantjust dealing with attorneys who
are, you know, complainingbecause you won't grant them an
extension of time in proceedings, it's slightly different to you
know what they're getting outof their membership of a august.
Speaker 3 (16:24):
It's interesting, isn't it?
Because membership, engagement,is probably one of the toughest
parts of the job our jobs butalso where the real sort of
reward is.
That's what makes it the jobthat it is.
Speaker 4 (16:36):
Absolutely, yeah, yeah, and it's always a
challenge to think of new andinnovative things that you can
do to encourage that engagement,to maintain and to make sure
that members are getting valueout of their, their membership
and, in particular would youlike to cross-examine?
Speaker 1 (16:54):
so I'm not just I'm, I'm letting you roll with this,
don't worry.
Speaker 3 (16:57):
Go, go go you're okay , we carry on for a bit yeah,
yeah, of course what, um, whatthings did you want to change
first?
What were the sort of two orthree things that you thought,
yeah, I got, I got to get togrips with this and that and
that isn't.
And that isn't to say thatthings were kind of wrong
previously, but you know whatwere the, what were the
priorities?
Speaker 4 (17:16):
in fairness, that the council of the organization had
set a couple of big projectsthat they they were keen for
work to be done on.
So one was moving the officefrom Croydon back into central
London, which was it's not a bigoffice but it was still a lot
to think about in terms of doingthat and whether staff would
come with or whether somewouldn't, and all the difficult
(17:38):
things that you've got to thinkabout in that situation.
There's also kind of finishingthe setup of the independent
regulator, ipreg.
So the the legal services acted, was about to come into force
and kind of the foundations ofipreg was there but it was
trying to make sure that thosewere in place and and you know
(17:59):
it's quite a bit of work there.
And the other big project wasseparating out the qualification
route.
So it was decided that usinguniversities, academia, for
qualification was the wayforward.
So there's a little bit of workto kind of set that up,
particularly with Nottingham LawSchool putting in the practical
(18:20):
side of becoming a trademarkattorney, applying the law in a
practical way.
That course we did some work indeveloping that.
So they were pretty bigprojects when you've just just
walked in through the door.
Speaker 3 (18:32):
Yeah, that's, that's quite, that's quite a lot.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
To get your mind straight off I mean, okay, I
will ask something then, whichis this is to both of you, I
don't I'll let lee go first onthat one soon as I've answered
the questions.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
So the if and you could ask this of any chief
executive, any, I'll sayprofessional body rather than
membership association, becausethere is a distinction between
two.
I think if you ask the chiefexecutive, 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 oflike the pinnacle leadership
position for the professionalbody we've.
(19:14):
We've got an eye on governance,we've got an eye on staffing,
we've got an eye on the financeside.
Yeah, we, our bag is the samebag, if you like.
What makes the job different isthe peculiarities of the
profession and the challengesthe profession faces for me.
So so in, in terms of a jobdescription, we've got the same
job.
In terms of a job, we've gotvery different jobs.
(19:35):
I think I would answer it thatway yeah, I would totally agree.
Speaker 4 (19:38):
I think there's, you know, some nuances within it.
You know, in terms of you talkabout governance even if you
just look at SIPA and SIPMA andand the presidential terms and,
uh, tournament council andthings like that, they're
they're all slightly differentand you have to do things in a
potentially slightly differentway.
But, generally speaking, thejob description would be
considered the same.
Do you fancy it, gwilym?
Speaker 1 (20:04):
I'll tell you what the diverse backgrounds people
come from into it.
It's quite attractive.
People come from all over theplace into the job.
It's obviously requires anunusual skill set, um, which I
probably don't know how, becauseI could just do patents and
nothing else.
Basically, um, and now I think,dealing with members.
I'm a member.
Speaker 3 (20:23):
I know I wouldn't want to deal with members you've
seen the, the kind of contextand 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 (20:35):
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 andsometimes it's not.
Always there's not not fullyresearched anger and I think
that must be quite difficult todeal with.
I've seen that.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
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 thatyour, your professional body,
will mean different things toyou at different times and you
want different things from it.
So so I think sometimes it cancome with a sense of frustration
if you don't think it's reallydelivering on the areas that are
important to you at that timein your life, in your profession
(21:09):
, and I think that's that's whatmakes the job hard sometimes,
trying to be all things to allpeople, but it's also what makes
the job interesting, becauseit'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 youshould have been doing
something about something, so so, so sometimes the very best
conversations are the ones wherepeople come at you because they
think that you're notdelivering and then you realize
(21:31):
it's something you should bedelivering 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 allmembers want or a vast majority
of them.
Speaker 4 (21:45):
One of the things interesting I've found about
coming into this and into theprofession of membership is
where some chief execs have thatbackground within the
profession that they're lookingafter.
You know they there might be aqualified, but many aren't, and
it's an interesting dynamicbetween whether you know it's
more beneficial or not to andsomething that I think is
(22:07):
discussed quite a lot in themembership world it's an ongoing
debate, isn't it?
Speaker 3 (22:11):
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 theright thing?
This seems to be an entirelyridiculous thing for me to do to
come to this organization.
I don't know the people, Idon't know the profession, I
don't know.
Speaker 4 (22:26):
I don't know the issues, the problems, the
challenges um, you would havethought after 13 years things
have changed, lee, but yeah 13years and 100 podcasts on the
topic.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
I'm gonna I'm gonna carry on um this edition of one
ip in the pod and interview mytwo guests um the eos membership
organizations.
So do you I know you obviouslycollaborate where you can.
Do you think you collaborate asmuch as you should?
Do you think there's morecollaboration available for you
guys, or do you tend to kind ofget on the phone as soon as you
need to?
Speaker 3 (22:59):
I'll let Kevin go first this time.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Yeah, I think we do.
Over the time that Lee's beenat the organisation, I think
we've built up a really good,strong relationship.
I have his WhatsApp.
I can WhatsApp him withanything and he'll normally
reply, and vice versa.
I think we're quite good atidentifying things where we
(23:22):
could collaborate and wherethere is a different approach
needed potentially.
So for me, the balance feelsabout right.
And so for me, the balancefeels about right.
I always thought, you know,when I came into the profession,
why are the two organizations?
What's the difference betweenthem?
But over the years you kind ofunderstand those differences and
different approaches.
(23:43):
But I think, yeah, lee and I wehave a good relationship?
Speaker 3 (23:47):
Yeah, definitely, and it's on different levels, isn't
it?
So I think we've gotten to knowone another quite well.
We have a good, I think, sortof personal relationship.
Um, I think we've got a greatprofessional relationship.
You're right, we do have thoselittle conversations on whatsapp
when something comes up and weperhaps need to bounce something
, but we also do it formally,don't we?
We meet and I mean, and it'snot just, uh, there are more
(24:09):
than two parties in thismarriage.
Because we've got it break,because we've got Ip Prigg as
well, don't forget and I don'tknow if Ip Prigg is our
recalcitrant I can't even saythe word child or is now just
one of the other partners in therelationship.
So, kevin Fran Gillan and Imeet regularly.
(24:29):
So it's bigger than a sitmarseeper thing, it's um we include
it preg in that.
Speaker 4 (24:38):
Yeah, I mean there's two different relationships as
the the regulatory relationshipthat we have and then the
membership body and relationshipthat seeper and sitmar have.
But yeah, we have a goodpersonal relationship.
I'm still waiting to have thesquash match against lee to just
show how great I am compared tohim.
Speaker 3 (24:52):
Any time I'm off to play squash after the podcast.
So I'll get myself in trainingand we'll do it.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
Trouble is when I play squash.
I can't walk for about threedays afterwards, so I need to do
some training probably.
Speaker 1 (25:06):
IP smackdown.
I can see it coming.
Just carrying on with myinterview, I'm enjoying this.
So yeah, lots of commonalityand obviously Ipwag is this kind
of joint venture in a sense.
How did you find yourselvesactually representing disparate
interests, or competinginterests, should we say?
Speaker 3 (25:27):
Oh, what a great question.
Speaker 4 (25:28):
Have we had many yeah , I'm not sure competing
interests necessarily?
I mean, we always I'll be quitecandid we always look uh
closely at what seepa is doingon its events and sort of look
at, well, are they doing, whyare they doing, uh, you know, an
event on that particular topic?
Where are they going with theirevents?
How many members are theygetting?
You know what's sort ofhappening?
(25:49):
But it's not necessarilybecause we see them as a
competitor.
More that we can learn fromfrom them.
And actually what we've donerecently is I know that many of
the SIPA staff have come toSITMA events and SITMA staff
have gone to SIPA events, so wecan kind of learn from each
other.
You know best practice andthings like that.
So, yeah, I've not really comeacross anything hugely competing
(26:11):
necessarily so.
Speaker 3 (26:12):
So it wasn't competing.
But we did have a bit of a sortof a policy dance around
Itmar's child replication beforeit became Sitmar.
There were kind ofconversations to be had there
around protection of title andhow that would read across and
stuff like that.
But I wouldn't say it wasparticularly.
They weren't competinginterests were they.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
It was just trying to make sure that they were
complementary, yeah, and youcould sort of use that as well
in terms of the new delegationagreement that we put in place
with our regulator you know we.
There were certain things thatsitmar needed to see in there
and super had a slightly morerelaxed view on it.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
So yeah, not not necessarily competing, but just
because the the membershipprofiles are quite, I think,
have drifted away from eachother.
I'd say a little bit.
I don't think this necessarilyis a ground for competition or
conflict, but the membershipprofiles I feel, as a seeper
still really is is a mix ofprivate practice and in-house.
(27:11):
The mix, the percentages change, the mix doesn't change
massively, whereas on thetrademark side I feel like over
the years it used to be more alot of trademark attorneys were
with patent firms or specialisttrademark firms, whereas over
the years there's a lot moresolicitor representation now.
Speaker 4 (27:28):
Is that fair?
Probably not.
No, I think we've still gotkind of the equal distribution
of, uh, you know, trademarkattorneys in private practice,
trademark attorneys in industry,but there are, you know,
solicitors.
We have a specific category ofallied membership for those who
are other lawyers, barristers,solicitors and that has grown
(27:49):
over the years a bit.
So maybe, you know, maybe it'sslightly edged, but not in any
significant numbers okay, maybe,maybe that's just my perception
.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
Okay, there's always this.
Well, we, we have this, we'realways talking on the super side
.
Speaker 4 (28:02):
Even the mix of two basic constituencies means you
always have to be thinking aboutall your members and not just
representing a specific businessinterest, as it were definitely
and I think you know, like you,I think lee was saying in the
day when, with bobby coming inas uh president from industry,
you know, how does that changethe dynamics?
We've had a couple ofpresidents who have been in
industry and we didn't noticeany huge change in the, in the
(28:26):
dynamics or things that we werethinking about.
But it's definitely aconsideration that you have to
give.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Thanks, certainly.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
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 moreoften Ask questions.
It's quite good to watch yourbrain work.
So what's on the future radar,Kevin?
What are SITMAR's challenges ofthe day?
Speaker 4 (28:52):
So one of the big things you're well aware of that
we we've been doing a bit ofwork on uh over the last couple
of years is around rights ofrepresentation before the uk
intellectual property office andthe rules uh that currently in
place on address for service.
Um, there's there's been achange in uh filings,
(29:12):
particularly in trademarks, butalso in designs, where we're
seeing a lot of what's beentermed unusual marks or we like
to call them quirky marks,because it's just random letters
from a keyboard that are beingfiled predominantly from
Chinese-based companies.
Speaker 3 (29:31):
So these look a little bit like those names of
companies that you see on Amazon.
Just a random string of letters.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
Random string of letters and our concern is you
know what is the purpose behindthat?
What is their genuine use ofthe trademark?
Is this causing problems?
We believe it is to the UKtrademark system.
So we've been trying to workwith the Intellectual Property
Office to do a bit moreinvestigations into what is this
(30:00):
?
Do they recognise thephenomenon of pretty unusual
marks and can they uncover thereason why they're being filed
and the effect that it's havingon the UK system?
And so far they've confirmedyes, there are these unusual
marks being filed, but they'restill investigating what's
actually happening.
But I think the interestingthing for me is, if you look at
(30:23):
the statistics on top filers oftrademark applications before
the UK IPO, there's been a hugeshift in your usual firms who
are regulated to the top 10,being swamped by unregulated
representatives of randomcompanies that have an address
(30:46):
in the UK but are notnecessarily based in the UK.
So it know been a big shift andwe need to uncover exactly
what's happening and if it'scausing problems that brings the
other member I was about to saysomething.
Speaker 3 (31:00):
I forgot what I was about to say that's fine, I can
tell.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
I just said anything more than the tenth of a second.
One of us is there.
Um, that brings in the othermember, 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 ofyour surreal marriage.
There you go.
Speaker 3 (31:26):
You're verging on the ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
Oh, here we go.
I think you want to alter whatyou just said.
Speaker 4 (31:33):
Thank you, let's just keep it going I can leave this
podcast if you carry on withjokes like that um, no question,
yeah, no, that's of course.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
That's.
That's another kind of jointventure, kind of partner, as it
were.
It is this this lovely journeyis is the ipo itself.
I guess there, you know, to acertain extent you talk to
different bits of it.
Obviously, kevin, you've got alot of experience there anyway,
but at the top it's the samepeople.
So I guess, again, there'sanother area for collaboration
and working together.
Speaker 4 (32:03):
Yeah, definitely.
I mean we try and work closelywith Adam Williams, the chief
executive at the IPO, and allthe senior management and, you
know, and there's lots of reallygood people at the IPO, so
collaboration is good.
We have a president's groupmeeting where four or five
presidents, director generals orCEOs have a regular meeting
(32:26):
with Adam and senior people, sothere's good opportunities to
engage with them on strategiclevel and also on operational
levels as well.
So, yeah, rights ofrepresentation is a big, big one
for us.
That we're our members havesaid you know it's the number
one priority and so it's.
It's what we're continuing todo.
The knock-on effect of that isobviously for individuals,
(32:49):
encouraging them to use achartered trademark attorney for
advice before filingapplications or if they get into
difficulties and get intooppositions or contentious
proceedings, and so we're doingquite a lot of promotional
outreach work as well, trying towork with the intellectual
property on some of theirinitiatives around supporting
(33:09):
SMEs.
And then the other challenges Isuppose upcoming, I've got to
say it AI and emergingtechnology, you know, keeping an
eye on what's actuallyhappening with that.
So we've just set up a brandnew AI and technology committee.
We met with IPREG yesterdayactually to have an initial
conversation from their kind ofethical, regulatory point of
(33:30):
view, that we want to beupskilling the profession to
make sure they're understandingai and considering how best to
use it in the most appropriatemanner 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
(33:52):
them on the patent side Forthose who can't see Lee, but
he's smacking his head againstthe table at the moment but
they're supposed to go intophase two, which is trademarks
and designs.
There's been a few delays butwe want to be right on top of
what's happening there to makesure that it's fit for purpose
for the profession.
Speaker 3 (34:10):
So they're probably my main challenges so that can,
I, can, I can I do the legacyquestion then is that okay,
forget if we go there.
Have you have you got yourlegacy yet, kevin, or is it yet
to come?
Have you have you got your onebig achievement that would
define your time at sitmar?
Speaker 4 (34:28):
I suspect I have.
Um, it's probably.
I thought you might have.
Yeah, yeah, I was wonderingwhen you'd ask.
It was probably the you know,getting the charter, the royal
charter.
Um, there'd been a project thathad failed a few times, I think
before I was wondering whenyou'd ask, it was probably the
getting the charter, the RoyalCharter.
There'd been a project that hadfailed a few times, I think,
(34:49):
before I came on board forvarious different reasons, not
through want of trying, but itwas clear that this was
something that the professionwanted, and so it was an
unbelievable project to be partof and to kind of lead with a
couple of key people from SITMA.
But to get that and to be ableto allow our members to be
called chartered trademarkattorneys.
(35:10):
It raised the profile of theprofession.
It raised the standards, samefor the organization as well.
We now feel we have a biggerprofile and better status within
the profession.
So it was yeah, it was, it wasreally good, and it was such a
an unusual project as well,because I didn't really know
what to expect when you firsthave conversations with the
(35:31):
privy council and there's allthese processes and procedures
to follow, and when you findyourself on a tube to uh west
london to go and meet thecalligrapher who's in his loft
scribing on vellum which iscalfskin, the uh, the actual
charter, and seeing the goldleaf being placed on it and it's
(35:51):
yeah, just those are thingsthat you not not come across for
for many people in theirlifetime.
Um, so, yeah, when we, when wewere actually fully granted it
and changed from itmar to sitmarin 2016, it was a wonderful
achievement.
And there was one thingactually I was going to say,
because I was thinking aboutthis before the podcast.
I think it's the only timelee's ever told me he he's cried
(36:12):
uh, which was at our ceremonywhere we unveiled the charter,
and he said it was because itwas something I said in a in a
little speech, but I can'tremember what it was.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
But I remember, I do remember the moment.
I remember the moment.
Yeah, I I think in part it wasbecause I just knew how much
work it was for you.
I mean, I then got toexperience it in small part
myself when we did our bylawsreview in 2017, 2018.
It was difficult enough gettinga revised set of bylaws through
the privy council.
You do you're praying to sort ofpeople in tights somewhere that
(36:46):
you never see.
Uh, it's that.
You know, you've got, you'vegot a hope that you'd get the,
the lord privy seal, which I'vealways imagined is some big sea
sea cat creature kind of sat atthe end of a table clapping.
It's it's fins.
If they've got fins together orsome such thing, it's um, no,
it's a tough gig, isn't it?
And I think that's probably whyI got quite emotional at your
um, at your, your event, whenyou um, you effectively launched
(37:08):
, was because, yeah, I knew howmuch work that would have been
yeah, and I don't think untilyou know, you look back and
reflect on on it, of how muchactually was involved and how
difficult it was.
Speaker 4 (37:17):
But it was great because we worked hard with SIPA
and other organisations who hadan interest to kind of align
everyone that this was a goodthing and that was a big
challenge in itself, so to geteveryone agreeing that it would
be of benefit to have charteredtrademark attorneys.
That was the first hurdle thatwe had to overcome and then the
(37:38):
rest was kind of a bit offormalities.
But, like you say, knowing thatthe Privy Council never sit and
there's, like I imagine, acircle of people stood with the
Queen in the middle as it wasthen the King now.
Yeah, it's just bizarre, justbizarre yeah.
So that should be my legacy,but you know, maybe there's
something else in the pipeline.
Speaker 3 (37:59):
Yes, something else might come along, some great
policy challenge or someexistential threat or some such.
Speaker 1 (38:03):
I've never asked Lee that question.
Actually, legacy Lee, what'syours?
Speaker 3 (38:12):
So my SIPA legacy.
Speaker 1 (38:14):
Oh, blimey.
Okay, can we go back to youafter this one?
Your SIPA legacy.
Speaker 3 (38:18):
I've had more than one job.
I've had more than one job, soI hope I get multiple legacies.
I don't know.
I'd like to think there isstill something around the
corner that's going to tax meand challenge me, and that that
might be it.
Cptpp was a biggie for us,obviously, because that I mean
that was.
It wasn't just the fact that itwas a an enormous amount of
(38:39):
campaigning, influencing work totry and deliver the result that
the profession would want interms of the uk joining the cptp
.
But we did it during lockdown.
But, yeah, we did join a timewhen all of the normal avenues
weren't open to you and it wassort of silly, silly o'clock at
night, conversations with umoverseas sister organizations,
(39:00):
and then one of the things I gotwas I met with quite a lot of
peers MPs, not so bad, but peers.
When you meet with them online,invariably you just see the tops
of their heads and a bookcasebehind them, because they'd
they'd no, no idea how to usethis new technology that they
had to to sort of still exist inthe inner world.
That was confined to yourbedroom or wherever it was.
So, yeah, lord so and so wasjust a forehead, and so so I
(39:26):
think.
I mean, I think cptp might beit, or perhaps I'll leave super
in a better position than theway I found it and that might do
it for me.
Speaker 4 (39:35):
Actually, I, I disagree that CPTPP was a big,
big achievement and I know thatyou worked very, very hard on it
, and I heard a lot of positivestories from your members and
others about the way youapproached it and how you got it
into a safe space, so I thinkit shouldn't be underestimated
(39:56):
what you did there.
Speaker 1 (39:57):
Yeah, it was a big gig.
You didn't cry, though, did you?
Speaker 3 (40:00):
No, I did, I did actually cry.
Speaker 1 (40:02):
Not you I guess.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
Oh, kevin no.
Speaker 4 (40:06):
I did, but just in private.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
One of those nights.
Speaker 4 (40:13):
Stop texting me, Lee.
Speaker 3 (40:17):
Yeah, when I got my little notification, because
obviously we knew before itbecame 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 donedo you have a legacy?
Speaker 1 (40:32):
then grillam oh god blimey, when did this start?
Speaker 3 (40:37):
you know what we've accidentally done the closer
question, I know.
Speaker 1 (40:44):
It's funny.
I think I'm really happy withall the things that I've been
involved in over my career, butactually the one I want is
definitely yet to come, Lee, andI definitely want to actually
be involved with both of you onit which is to get that
innovation economy thing goingin the UK the way it should,
with the support from the IPexperts.
That's definitely here.
That's something I'll kind ofwant to spend the next few years
(41:05):
on, basically because I thinkit's a huge challenge for the UK
and we are world-leadingexperts in innovation and
creativity.
So I haven't got one yet, butthat's what I'd love it to be.
Speaker 4 (41:16):
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 (41:26):
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 quiteinteresting because you've
managed to get past 40 minutes.
Okay, grillam, did you have acloser?
Had you thought about anythingelse, we might just close the
show because it feels like we'vesort of done it.
Yeah, you're happy with thatone.
(41:46):
Yeah, because I was going to gosomewhere down the musical
instrument line, because I knowyou, both you guys are
accomplished guitarists and I'mnot, so I was perhaps going to
go down that line, but I sayboth you guys are accomplished
guitarists and I'm not, so I wasperhaps going to go down that
line, but I say both of you guysare accomplished guitarists.
Speaker 1 (42:04):
I think Kevin is.
I have.
No, I have no pretense about mypolicy on the guitar, don't
worry.
Speaker 4 (42:08):
I was trying to look up genius id Cause.
I wanted to know you won't findit.
I couldn't find it.
Speaker 3 (42:12):
You know what?
Some, some somewhere in one ofmy friends who have not seen
since I was a late teenager,early kind of 20 year olds, are
going to have a tape, an oldcassette tape, in a bedroom
somewhere.
Speaker 4 (42:23):
That is the the last sort of relic of the genius id I
managed to find an old tape ofof our band and, uh, my friend
or the, the ex-drummer of theband.
He uh works in um musicproduction and things, so he's
got all the equipment that canconvert it into proper files now
that you can listen to it.
So if you do find a tape andyou need it converted, I'm your
(42:44):
man to get genius it back out inthe public domain.
I didn't find the band members,let alone the tape.
Speaker 3 (42:54):
I know, I know, I know where one of them is, cause
he's also my formerbrother-in-law, so I've not
actually lost him.
I mean, we could have done bandnames, couldn't we?
So yeah, mine was the Genius Id.
You've got an interesting bandname story, haven't you, gwilym?
Speaker 1 (43:07):
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 donebefore, so I just decided that
couldn't have been and, as youknow, it's now become my
Facebook name and I book Uberthrough Facebook, so when I get
in an Uber, I have to say hello,I'm Barry.
Speaker 3 (43:28):
And what was your mob then, Kevin?
Speaker 4 (43:30):
We had the worst name .
Honestly, it's embarrassing,but it was called Strawberry
Blondes.
Speaker 2 (43:35):
Okay, but if you go on Spotify, you can actually
find Strawberry Blondes.
Speaker 4 (43:40):
Okay, but if you go on Spotify, you can actually
find Strawberry Blondes songs.
Speaker 3 (43:43):
Yeah, I've never used Spotify.
Speaker 4 (43:45):
Or any other good music streaming platform.
Okay, I'll see what I can do.
You don't strike me as anatural blonde no, definitely
not, and I have no idea who cameup with the name or why, but
there we go.
That's what it was.
Speaker 3 (43:58):
We're just waffling, aren't we?
I probably should bring this toa close, kevin.
Thank you so much for joiningus.
Been a real, real pleasurehaving you on.
Gwilym, as ever, thank you forco-hosting with me.
If you've listened to this oneand found it remotely
interesting and enjoyable, thenobviously leave us a little
review somewhere and that'llencourage other people to find
us, hopefully.
Uh, kevin, I'll see you shortlysomewhere, I'm sure, and willem
(44:20):
, I'll see you in the next one,mate looking forward to it
(44:50):
thanks both Outro Music.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.