Our policy in relation to the publication of our decisions is set out below:

Any decision of an initial “sift panel” to reject a complaint will not be published.

If the initial sift panel determines that a prima facie case has been made out but proceeds to consider the case summarily the name, the respondent and judgement will be published.

The determination of a Disciplinary Board will be published in full although names and details or other identifying features can be withheld if the Board requires, in its discretion, in the interest of public or private safety or protection.

Concluded cases are as follows:

  • IPReg (The Trade Mark Regulation Board) v Aaron Wood and Wood IP Limited was determined on 25 September 2020.  A copy of the Disciplinary Board's written determination can be found here.  

 

  • Mr Y v Dr. Keith Boden and Fry Heath & Spence LLP was determined by the Complaint Review Committee on 28 January 2020.  A copy of the Committee’s written decison can be found here.

 

  • IPReg (The Trade Mark Regulation Board) v Duncan Welch and Manish Joshi was determined on 17 January 2020.  A copy of the Disciplinary Board's written determination and Order can be found here.

 

  • Complainant v A Patent Attorney and A Licensed Body was determined by the Complaint Review Commitee on 21 December 2017.  Details relating to the matter are no longer being published because the notice issued against A Licensed Body has now expired under IPReg’s Disciplinary Procedure Rules.

 

  • IPReg (The Patent Regulation Board) v A Patent Attorney was determined on 9th September 2013. Details relating to the matter are no longer being published as IPReg considers it would be disproportionate to do so bearing in mind the length of time since the events in question, the nature of the breaches admitted and the severity of the sanction imposed.

 

  • IPReg (The Patent Regulation Board) v A Patent Attorney was determined on 21st January 2013.  Details relating to the matter are no longer being published as IPReg considers it would be disproportionate to do so bearing in mind the length of time since the events in question, the nature of the breaches admitted and the severity of the sanction imposed.