Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
OHIM User Satisfaction Survey 2008
February 2009
ER- 0484/1/00 A50/000021
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
IndexObjectives and Data SheetResults:
User Satisfaction Index (USI)ComplaintsIdentification of STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES
• LEVEL 1: Image, Core Business, Information and Communication• LEVEL 2: Global image• LEVEL 2: Core business
LEVEL 3: Community trade mark LEVEL 3: Community design LEVEL 3: Appeals LEVEL 3: Register
• LEVEL 2: Information and communicatione-business tools
Other issues:CONCLUSIONS AND DIAGNOSTICS
Perception of the development of the OHIMANNEX I: Results by countries ANNEX II: METHODOLOGY
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
Objectives
Data Sheetand
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
4
Objectives
For the third consecutive year, the OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (OHIM) has commissioned GfK to conduct a satisfaction survey of its users, the design and measurement system for which were established in 2005 and whose main objective is to measure the level of satisfaction among users regarding the various services the OHIM provides.
MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY …OBJECTIVES
MEASURE THE LEVEL OF
PERCEIVED QUALITY of the services
that the OHIM offers its
users.
MEASURE AND RANK
THE CONTRIBUTIO
N of each aspect in
overall user satisfaction.
ESTABLISH OBJECTIVES
AND PRIORITIES
FOR IMPROVEMEN
T
EVALUATE THE
EFFICIENCY OF THE
ACTIONS that are
undertaken
11 22 4433
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
5
Data Sheet
Any individual who has been in touch with the OHIM in the context of any proceedings in 2008, whether as an agent or as a proprietor acting on his own behalf (including proprietors’ employees and “type 5” agents).
Sampling unit is the individual.
From 10/1/2008 to 31/1/2009
CAWI (Computer Assisted Web Interview) questionnaire conducted via the web, with two reminders
Languages: the 5 languages of the Office
TARGET PUBLIC
TARGET GROUP
FIELDWORK
QUESTIONNAIRE
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
6
Target Group and Final Sample Distribution
The OHIM drew from its databases those users who met the conditions describing the target public (those having had any professional dealings with the OHIM in 2007). A total of 70,355 (57,390 proprietors / 12,965 agents) possible contacts were identified.
A total of 29,361 email addresses was available, but not all of them were correct, as 4,283 messages sent were returned as ‘undeliverable’.
By the end of the response time a total of 1,598 questionnaires had been received, which gave a net response rate of 7% and an optimum sample size in terms of statistical representation of the results (a sampling margin of error of +/-2.5 % on a level of confidence of 95%).
The following charts show the comparison between the profiles of the users in the target public and the findings of the survey.
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
7
70,355
29,361 4,283
Undeliverable mail
RESPONDENTS
1,598
RESPONSE RATE:7% of net mailing
addresses
TOTAL OHIMUsers
AGENTS
PROPRIETORS (*)
(*) INCLUDING EMPLOYEES (“type 5 “ agents) (in the last
year)
685 913
Target Group and Final Sample Distribution
57,390
12,965
19,118
10,243
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
8
The OHIM has defined and publicised on its website a set of accessibility, timeliness and quality objectives in terms of what users can expect when dealing with the Office. Are you aware of such standards?
Yes 38%
No62%
AGENTSPROPRIETOR
S
TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 685) TOTAL AGENTS (No: 913)
Yes 38%
No62%
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
ResultsUser-Satisfaction -Index
(USI)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
10
AGENTS WHO HAVE NOT COMPLAINED
AGENTS WHO HAVE COMPLAINED
68,6
USI
67,0
USI AGEN
T
59,0
USI
RESULTSUser-Satisfaction -Index (USI) 2005 / 2006 / 2007/2008
PROPRIETORS WHO HAVE NOT COMPLAINED
PROPRIETORS WHO HAVE COMPLAINED
62,5
USI
61,9
USI PROP.
55,0
USI
+3,8
+5,7
2005
68,3
USI
59,5
USI
63,5
USI
57,3
USI
2006
-0,8
+0,9
70,9
USI
64,7
USI
69,9
USI
59,7
USI
2007
66,2
USI AGEN
T
62,8
USI PROP.
70,0
USI AGEN
T
68,5
USI PROP.
+2,5
+1,7
74,8
USI
61,1
USI
71,4
USI
60,5
USI
2008
72,5
USI AGEN
T
70,2
USI PROP.
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
Results
Complaints
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
12
RESULTSCOMPLAINTS
2007
TOTAL AGENTS (No: 913) TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 685)
2008
YES15%
NO 85%
NO 86%
YES14%
Yes, by
telephone
5%
Yes, I submitted it in writing
11%
No 84% 16%
YESYes, by
telephone3%
Yes, I submitted it in writing
8%No 89%
YES11%
Have you filed any complaints with the OHIM over the last year?
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
13
RESULTSCOMPLAINTS
How would you evaluate the way your complaint was dealt with?
PROPRIETORSAGENTS
AGENTS (No:108) PROPRIETORS (No:71)
COMPLAINTS AGENT COMPLAINTS PROPRIETOR
2005 2006 2007 2008
EFFICIENTLY
QUICKLY
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
PROFESSIONALLY
SATISFACTION
STRATEGICWEAKNESSES
STRATEGICSTRENGTHS
STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES
INFLU
EN
CE
EFFICIENTLY
QUICKLY
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
2005 2006 2007 2008
PROFESSIONALLY
STRATEGICWEAKNESSES
STRATEGICSTRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES STRENGTHSSATISFACTION
INFLU
EN
CE55%
+
+
-
-
16% 11%
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
14
RESULTSCOMPLAINTS
Has a satisfactory solution been found to your problem?
2007
PROPRIETORS (No:71)AGENTS (No:108)
41% 46%
16%11%
17% 17%
27% 25%
SOLVEDSATISFACTORILY
SOLVED
UNSAT. SOLVED
PENDING
PARTLY S.
PENDING
PARTLY S.
SATISFACTORILY
UNSAT. SOLVED
SOLVED56%
SOLVED58%
COMPLAINTS AGENT COMPLAINTS PROPRIETOR16% 11%
34% 30%
19% 21%
19%14%
28% 34%
PENDING PENDING
PARTLY S.PARTLY S.
2008
UNSAT. SOLVEDUNSAT. SOLVED
SATISFACTORILY SOLVED
SATISFACTORILY SOLVED
SOLVED53%
SOLVED51%
PROPRIETORS (No:71)AGENTS (No:108)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
LEVEL 1:Image, complaints, core business, information
USI (User Satisfaction Index)
OHIMIMAGE
INFORMAT. & COMMUNIC.
COM-PLAINTS
LEVEL 1
CORE BUSINESS
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
16
RESULTSRESULTSLEVEL1: CORE BUSINESS, IMAGE, INFORMATIONLEVEL1: CORE BUSINESS, IMAGE, INFORMATION
Every user
satisfied
No users
satisfied
62%
53%
67% 65%59% 68%69%68%
71%77%66%
CORE BUSINESS IMAGE INFORMATION
2005200620072008
+ 9 + 3 -2
57%
AGENTS
TOTAL AGENTS (No: 913)
PROPRIETORS
50%
59%
49%
57% 58%
41%
65% 67%
58%
72%66% 64%
CORE BUSINESS IMAGE INFORMATION
+ 7 + 6
-1
55%(minimum)
TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 685)
2005200620072008
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
17
No users satisfied
RESULTSRESULTSLEVEL1: LEVEL1: OHIM EMPLOYEESOHIM EMPLOYEES
65% 65%68%
65%
51%
80%
66%65% 67%71%
61%
44%
80%
67%67% 68%72%
64%
52%
81%
70%73% 73% 77%70%
57%
85%76%
COMPETENT RELIABLEwith
PROFESSIONALISMEFFICIENT
TELPH.
EASY TO CONTACT
POLITE,FRIENDLY
RESPONSIVE TO USERS NEEDS
satisfied
ENQUIRIES
Every user
55%(minimum)
55%(minimum)
2005200620072008
AGENTS
TOTAL AGENTS(No: 913)
+ 5 + 6 + 5 + 6
+ 5
+ 4 + 6
61% 61% 63% 63%
52%
73%
61%65% 64%
69%
61%
47%
75%
64%70% 71%
74%69%
57%
78%
69%
77% 74% 77% 75%
64%
84%76%
COMPETENT RELIABLEwith
PROFESSIONALISMEFFICIENT
TELPH.
EASY TO CONTACT
POLITE,FRIENDLY
RESPONSIVE TO USERS NEEDS
ENQUIRIES
No users satisfied
Every user
55%(minimum)
55%(minimum)
PROPRIETORS
2005200620072008
TOTAL PROPRIETORS
(No: 685)
+ 7 + 3 + 3 + 6
+ 7
+ 6+ 7
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
LEVEL 2:0VERALL IMAGE
USI (Users Satisfaction Index)
OHIMIMAGE
LEVEL 2 OVERALL IMAGE
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
19
RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of Strengths and WeaknessesLEVEL2: OVERALL IMAGELEVEL2: OVERALL IMAGE
STRATEGICWEAKNESSES
STRATEGICSTRENGTHS
STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES
TOTAL AGENTS (No: 913)
Swiftness
Transparency
Modernity
Prestige
Conscientiousness
Professionalism
Quality of service
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
2005 2006 2007 2008
INFLU
EN
CE
SATISFACTION
+
-
+-
AGENTS
TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 685)
STRATEGICWEAKNESSES
STRATEGICSTRENGTHS
STRENGTHSWEAKNESSES
Swiftness
Transparency
Modernity
Prestige
conscientiousness
Professionalism
Quality of service
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
2005 2006 2007 2008
SATISFACTION
-
INFLU
EN
CE - +
+
PROPRIETORS
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
LEVEL 2:CORE BUSINESS
USI (Users Satisfaction Index)
LEVEL 2
USI (Users Satisfaction Index)
CORE BUSINESS
APPEAL REGISTERCTM RCD
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
21
Over the last year, in which of the following areas have you personally had contact with the OHIM?
79%
14%
9%
32%
5%
29%
1%
10%
1%
56%
80%
15%
10%
25%
4%
31%
1%
8%
0%
60%
82%
13%
12%
25%
3%
26%
1%
6%
1%
61%
77%
11%
8%
17%
3%
23%
0%
4%
1%
61%
2005200620072008
93%
27%
24%
70%
20%
52%
4%
31%
1,6%
68%
94%
35%
31%
21%
53%
3%
29%
2,1%
68%
91%
37%
32%
64%
21%
49%
5%
27%
1,7%
62%
91%
34%
29%
65%
21%
45%
5%
26%
2,4%
62%
Application for a CTM
Application for an internationaltrade mark designating the EC
Application for an internationaltrade mark based on a CTM
Opposition
CTM invalidity request
Application to register aCommunity design (RCD)
RCD invalidity request
CTM appeal
RCD appeal
Register
72%
2005200620072008
PROPRIETORSAGENTS
TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 685) TOTAL AGENTS (No: 913)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
22
RESULTSRESULTSLEVEL2: CORE BUSINESS
CTM RCD APPEAL Register
Every user
satisfied
No users
satisfied
2005200620072008
AGENTS
TOTAL AGENTS (No: 913)
50%
59%
44%
68%
46%
70%60%
51%
67%60%
77%71%
79% 79%
58%
75%
+ 8 + 2
+ 14
+ 7
No: 245 No: 839 No: 407 No :562
CTM RCD APPEAL Register
PROPRIETORS
2005200620072008 55%
(minimum)
TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 685)
57% 60%
45%
37%
60%67%
52% 53%
63%
72%
39%
68%
71%78%
70% 70%
+ 8+ 6
+ 31 + 2
(*)
(*) No: 31No :561 No :160 No: 421
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
LEVEL 3:CORE BUSINESS / CTM
USI (Users Satisfaction Index) USI (Users Satisfaction Index)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
24
Every user
satisfied
No users
satisfied
55%(minimum)
RESULTS:RESULTS: CTM
USI (Users Satisfaction Index) USI (Users Satisfaction Index)
50%
26%31%
52%
40%
61%
80%
63% 63%
72% 68%75%
CTM APPLICATIONS OPPOSITIONS CTM INVALIDITY
57%
38%
28%
58%
39%43%
71%
56%60%
80%
63% 63%
CTM APPLICATIONS OPPOSITIONS CTM INVALIDITY
2005200620072008
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
2005200620072008
PROPRIETORS (No: 561)
(No: 839)
(*)
(*) No: 20 (No: 589) (No: 193) (No: 561) (No: 115)
TOTAL AGENTS (No: 839)
+ 9
+ 7 + 3 - 8 + 5
+ 12
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
25
How important is it to you that the OHIM sets time standards for the examination, publication and registration of CTMs?
PROPIETORS: 83%
AGENTS: 86%
IMPORTANT (7-10)IMPORTANT (7-10)
RESULTSRESULTS: CTM APPLICATIONS
1% 0% 0% 1% 2%4% 5%
12% 13% 14%
46%
0% 0% 1% 1% 1%4%
6%
12%9%
15%
46%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
AGENTS
PROPRIETORS
(0) Not important ------------ Very important (10)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
26
RESULTSRESULTS: CTM APPLICATIONS
OHIM is currently finalising the examination of 80% of CTM
applications where no objections are raised within 23
days (as of Q3-2008).
Around 80% of CTMs where no objections are raised and no
national search is requested are being published within 13 weeks of receipt (as of Q3-
2008).
Have you noticed any CHANGE in performance over the past year?
23%
5%
34%
38%
57%
3%
26%
15%
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER
24%
3%
33%
40%
61%
2%23%
14%
CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
27
RESULTSRESULTS: CTM APPLICATIONS
CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER
80% of CTM applications where no objections have been raised and no opposition has been filed are
ready for registration within 27 weeks of receipt (as of Q3-2008).
25%
62%3%
2%
35%
23%38%
13%
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
Have you noticed any CHANGE in performance over the past year?
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
28
Do you think it is important that the OHIM sets quality standards for the classification of CTM applications and the absolute grounds examination?
RESULTSRESULTS: CTM APPLICATIONS
PROPIETORS: 76%
AGENTS: 82%
IMPORTANT (7-10)IMPORTANT (7-10)
(0) Not important ------------ Very important (10)
1% 0% 0% 1% 1%
5% 5%
14% 14%
17%
36%
1% 1% 0% 0% 1%
4%
8%
13%
16%14%
33%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
AGENTS
PROPRIETORS
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
29
RESULTSRESULTS: CTM APPLICATIONSHave you noticed any CHANGE in performance over the past
year?
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
More than 90% of decisions on classification comply with
OHIM’s defined quality standards.
Well over 90% of OHIM decisions on absolute grounds comply with the pre-set quality
standards.
32%
67%5%
1%44%
23%19% 9%
36%
67%4%
1%45%
23%15% 9%
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
30
… that the OHIM sets time standards for the examination, publication and registration of CTMs?… that the OHIM sets quality standards for the classification of CTM applications and the absolute grounds examination?
IMPORTANT (7-10)IMPORTANT (7-10)
86%
POSITIVE CHANGEPOSITIVE CHANGE
38%
40%
38%
19%
15%
How important is it to you…
SUMMARYSUMMARY: CTM APPLICATIONS
OHIM is currently finalising the examination of 80% of CTM applications where no objections are raised within 23 days (as of Q3-2008).
Around 80% of CTMs where no objections are raised and no national search is requested are being published within 13 weeks of receipt (as of Q3-2008)
80% of CTM applications where no objections have been raised and no opposition has been filed are ready for registration within 27 weeks of receipt (as of Q3-2008)
More than 90% of decisions on classification comply with OHIM’s defined quality standards.
Well over 90% of OHIM decisions on absolute grounds comply with the pre-set quality standards.
15%
14%
13%
9%
9%
83%
82% 76%
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
31
How important is it to you that the OHIM sets time standards for the admissibility phase of proceedings and for the notification of the decisions?
RESULTSRESULTS: CTM OPPOSITION
PROPIETORS: 87%
AGENTS: 81%
IMPORTANT (7-10)IMPORTANT (7-10)
(0) Not important ------------ Very important (10)
AGENTS
PROPRIETORS
1% 0% 0% 1% 1%
5%
8%
14% 16% 15%
36%
1% 0% 0% 0% 0%2%
6%
13%15%
19%
40%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
32
RESULTSRESULTS: CTM OPPOSITION
Have you noticed any CHANGE in performance over the past year?
For around 80 % of opposition files, the admissibility phase is
finalized within 54 days of receiving the opposition (as of
Q3-2008, if no suspension occurred).
For around 80% of opposition files, the decision is notified within 55 weeks of finalizing the adversarial part of the
proceedings (as of Q3-2008, if no suspension occurred).
23%
42%6%
3%
49%
41%
22%14%
35%45%
5%
6%
42%34%
17% 15%
PROPRIETORS
CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER
AGENTS PROPRIETORSAGENTS
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
33
For CTM oppositions, how important is it to you that OHIM sets quality standards for its decisions?
RESULTSRESULTS: CTM OPPOSITION
PROPIETORS: 80%
AGENTS: 77%
IMPORTANT (7-10)IMPORTANT (7-10)
(0) Not important ------------ Very important (10)
AGENTS
PROPRIETORS
1% 0% 0% 0%2%
4%5%
11%13% 13%
39%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
3%
6%
10%
15%17%
38%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
34
RESULTSRESULTS: CTM OPPOSITION
Over 85% of opposition decisions comply with the OHIM’s quality standards.
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
Have you noticed any CHANGE in performance over the past year?
CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER
34% 43%
5%4%
49% 35%
12% 18%
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
35
SUMMARYSUMMARY: CTM OPPOSITION
… that the OHIM sets time standards for the admissibility phase of proceedings and for the notification of the decisions?
…for CTM oppositions, that OHIM sets quality standards for its decisions?
IMPORTANT (7-10)IMPORTANT (7-10)
81%
POSITIVE CHANGEPOSITIVE CHANGE
22%
17%
12%
How important is it to you…
For around 80 % of opposition files, the admissibility phase is finalized within 54 days of receiving the opposition (as of Q3-2008, if no suspension occurred)
For around 80% of opposition files, the decision is notified within 55 weeks of finalizing the adversarial part of the proceedings (as of Q3-2008, if no suspension occurred)
Over 85% of opposition decisions comply with the OHIM’s quality standards.
14%
15%
18%
87%
77% 80%
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
LEVEL 3:CORE BUSINESS / RCD
USI (Users Satisfaction Index) USI (Users Satisfaction Index)
CORE BUSINESS
RCD
INVALI-DITY
EMPLO-YEES
APPLICA-TIONS
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
37
RESULTS:RESULTS: RCDUSI (Users Satisfaction Index)
CORE BUSINESS
RCD
INVALI-DITY
EMPLO-YEES
APPLICA-TIONS
Every user
satisfied
No users
satisfied
55%(minimum)
2005200620072008
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
2005200620072008
PROPRIETORS (No: 160) TOTAL AGENTS (No: 407)
-2
-5071%
62%70% 67%
84%
52%
82%
58%
RCD APPLICATIONS(No:407)
RCD INVALIDITY(No:42)
67%
44%
67% 67%
77%
100%
78%
RCD APPLICATIONS(No:160)
50%
+ 6
+ 1
No minimum
sample
RCD INVALIDITY(No:2*)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
38
How important is it to you that the OHIM sets time standards for acknowledgement of receipt and publication of RCDs?
RESULTSRESULTS: RCD
PROPIETORS: 80%
AGENTS: 83%
IMPORTANT (7-10)IMPORTANT (7-10)
(0) Not important ------------ Very important (10)
AGENTS
PROPRIETORS
1% 1% 0% 1% 1%
4%
8%
15%17%
13%
37%
0% 1% 1% 1%0%
4%
8% 8%
21%
11%
41%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
39
RESULTSRESULTS: RCD
For 80% of design applications, registration of the RCD is published
within 55 days (as of Q3-2008)
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
Have you noticed any CHANGE in performance over the past year?
CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER
22%
58%3%
3%
41%
22%
33%18%
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
40
How important is it to you that the OHIM sets quality standards for the registration of RCD applications?
(0) Not important ------------ Very important (10)
RESULTSRESULTS: RCD
PROPIETORS: 84%
AGENTS: 84%
IMPORTANT (7-10)IMPORTANT (7-10)AGENTS
PROPRIETORS
0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
5% 6%
16%
19%
14%
36%
0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
3%
8%
16% 15% 14%
39%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
41
RESULTSRESULTS: RCD
Over 95% of RCD publications comply with the OHIM quality standards
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER
Have you noticed any CHANGE in performance over the past year?
24%
60%2%
1%
45%
26%
29%13%
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
42
SUMMARYSUMMARY: RCD
… that the OHIM sets time standards for acknowledgement of receipt and publication of RCDs?
…that the OHIM sets quality standards for the registration of RCD applications?
IMPORTANT (7-10)IMPORTANT (7-10)
83%
POSITIVE CHANGEPOSITIVE CHANGE
33%
29%
How important is it to you…
For 80% of design applications, registration of the RCD is published within 55 days (as of Q3-2008).
Over 95% of RCD publications comply with the OHIM quality standards.
18%
13%
80%
84% 84%
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
LEVEL 3:CORE BUSINESS / APPEAL
USI (Users Satisfaction Index) USI (Users Satisfaction Index)
CORE BUSINESS
APPEAL
EMPLO-YEES
APPLICA-TIONS
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
44
RESULTS : APPEAL APPLICATIONSRESULTS : APPEAL APPLICATIONS
How do you rate the quality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal?
2% 1% 0%
4%6%
9%
20%18%
13%
7%
4%
14%
0% 0% 0%
3%
6%
3%
6%
10%
23%
3% 3%
42%
0 = “verypoor”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“excellent”
DONTKNOW
AGENTS
PROPRIETORS
PROPIETORS: 45%
AGENTS: 60%
SATISFIED (7-10)SATISFIED (7-10)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
45
RESULTS : APPEAL APPLICATIONSRESULTS : APPEAL APPLICATIONS
In ex parte cases, 70% of the decisions are notified within less than 26 weeks from remittal to the Board
How do you rate this performance?
1% 1% 0%
4%5%
11%
16%19%
17%
7%4%
16%
0% 0%
3%
0%
6%
3% 3%
19%
13%
10%
3%
39%
0 = “verypoor”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“excellent”
DONTKNOW
AGENTS
PROPRIETORS
PROPIETORS: 45%
AGENTS: 47%
SATISFIED (7-10)SATISFIED (7-10)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
46
RESULTS : APPEAL APPLICATIONSRESULTS : APPEAL APPLICATIONS
In inter partes cases, 87% of the decisions are notified within less than 26 weeks from remittal to the Board
How do you rate this performance?
2% 1% 0%
4%6%
9%
20%18%
13%
7%
4%
14%
0% 0% 0%
3%
6%
3%
6%
10%
23%
3% 3%
42%
0 = “verypoor”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“excellent”
DONTKNOW
AGENTS
PROPRIETORS
PROPIETORS: 39%
AGENTS: 42%
SATISFIED (7-10)SATISFIED (7-10)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
47
SUMMARYSUMMARY: APPEAL (1)
In ex parte cases, 70% of the decisions are notified within less than 26 weeks from remittal to the Board
In inter partes cases, 87% of the decisions are notified within less than 26 weeks from remittal to the Board
SATISFIED (7-10)SATISFIED (7-10)
47%
How do you rate …
45%
42% 39%
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
the quality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal? 60% 45%
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
LEVEL 3:CORE BUSINESS/ Register
CORE BUSINESS
REGISTER
USI (Users Satisfaction Index)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
49
RESULTSRESULTSIdentification of needs for action: REGISTER
USI (Users Satisfaction Index) USI (Users Satisfaction Index)
CORE BUSINESS
REGISTER
51%
63% 62%63%
71% 70%70%77% 78%
0%
55%
Swiftness Accuracy Quality
Every user
satisfied
No users
satisfied
AGENTS200620072008
+ 7 + 6 + 8
45%
59%
54%
61%
71% 71%62%
74% 74%
Swiftness Accuracy Quality
55%(minimum)
PROPRIETORS200620072008
+ 1
+ 3 + 3
PROPRIETORS (No: 421) AGENTS (No: 562)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
50
How important is it to you that the OHIM sets time standards to register recordals or to produce documents requested?
RESULTS : REGISTERRESULTS : REGISTER
(0) Not important ------------ Very important (10)
PROPIETORS: 81%
AGENTS: 85%
IMPORTANT (7-10)IMPORTANT (7-10)AGENTS
PROPRIETORS
0% 0% 0% 0%2%
4% 5%
12%14%
17%
41%
0% 0% 1% 0% 1%4%
7%
15%14% 15%
38%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
51
RESULTS : REGISTERRESULTS : REGISTER
Have you noticed any CHANGE in performance over the past year?
More than 90% of CTM and RCD certified copies and certificates are issued within 14 days of receiving
the request
More than 95% of CTM and RCD transfers are recorded within 14
days of the request
PROPRIETORS
CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER CANNOT COMPARE WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER
AGENTS PROPRIETORSAGENTS
31%
68%4%
1%
38%
21%26%
10%
32%
69%3%
0%
37%
20%28%
11%
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
52
SUMMARYSUMMARY: REGISTER
How important is it to you that the OHIM sets time standards to register recordals or to produce documents requested?
IMPORTANT (7-10)IMPORTANT (7-10)
85%
POSITIVE CHANGEPOSITIVE CHANGE
26%
28%
How important is it to you…
More than 90% of CTM and RCD certified copies and certificates are issued within 14 days of receiving the request
More than 95% of CTM and RCD transfers are recorded within 14 days of the request
10%
11%
81%
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
LEVEL 2:INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION
USI (Users Satisfaction Index)
INFORMAT. & COMMUNIC.
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
54
USI (Users Satisfaction Index)
INFORMAT. & COMMUNIC.
RESULTS_RESULTS_INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONHow satisfied are you with the following aspects related to obtaining information?
2005200620072008
AGENTS
43%
48%
57%
61%
49%
59%
71%
60%
40%
45%
53%
62%
47%
57%
72%
62%
55%
53%
57%
66%
52%
60%
74%
65%
60%
60%
64%
72%
63%
68%
79%
72%
Ease of identifying the rightperson to speak to
Ease of obtaining the rightinformation
Clarity of informationprovided by the OHIM
The tendency to replacepaper by e-communications
(e-business)
Speed of response to enquiries
Accuracy of responses
Mastery of the languagesused in OHIM
communications
Completeness of information
provided by the OHIM
Minimum
+ 11
+ 7
+ 8
+ 5
+ 6
+ 7
+ 7
+ 5
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
55
USI (Users Satisfaction Index)
INFORMAT. & COMMUNIC.
How satisfied are you with the following aspects related to obtaining information?
RESULTS_RESULTS_INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION
Ease of identifying the rightperson to speak to
Ease of obtaining the rightinformation
Clarity of informationprovided by the OHIM
The tendency to replacepaper by e-communications
(e-business)
Speed of response to enquiries
Accuracy of responses
Mastery of the languagesused in OHIM
communications
Completeness of information
provided by the OHIM
Minimum
40%
40%
46%
62%
47%
53%
68%
59%
37%
39%
45%
64%
46%
60%
71%
62%
49%
50%
51%
64%
55%
62%
75%
64%
55%
57%
58%
68%
62%
69%
81%
69%
+ 6
+ 7
+ 7
+ 7
+ 7
+ 6
+ 5
2005200620072008
+ 4
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
Results
toolse-business
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
57
Are you aware of/have you ever visited the OHIM’s website?
YES 2005 97%
RESULTSRESULTSLEVEL2: OHIM´s website
YES 200588%
YES 200699%
YES 200694%
PROPRIETORS
AGENTS
YES 200799%
YES 200796%
YES 200899%
YES 200894%
Please rate OHIM’s website with regard to the following aspects
53%
62%
74%
64%
58%
66%
73%
66%
56%
65%
71%
65%
57%
69%
75%
71%
Clarity of the structure
Completeness ofthe contents
Usefulness ofcontents
Speed at whichthe information
is updated
2005 2006 2007 2008
52%
56%
64%
60%
44%
53%
60%
57%
49%
58%
63%
58%
63%
66%
60%
2005 2006 2007 2008
Minimum
Minimum
PROPRIETORS (Nº: 497) AGENTS (Nº: 703)
52%
+ 3
+ 2
+ 5
+ 3
+ 4
+ 4
+ 6
+ 1
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
58
RESULTS: RESULTS: CTMCTM ONLINE ONLINE
AGENTS
82%
12% 8% 9% 9%5% 7% 4% 4%5% 3% 3% 5%
78%
84%
82%
2005 2006 2007 2008
Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not aware
Always personally83%
Always through athird party 2%
Sometimes personally 15%
How often do you use the service/ database….?
Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate CTM Online with regard to …?
77% 78% 74%80%78% 76% 75%
82%76%
64% 66%73%
83%
70% 74% 78%
Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses
2005200620072008
55%(minimum
)
Every user satisfied
No users satisfied
+ 5+ 8+ 6+ 7
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
59
68% 71% 69%75%
65% 68%63%
70%64%
58% 59%
67%
75%66% 70%
74%
Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses
RESULTS: RESULTS: RCDRCD ONLINE ONLINE
AGENTSHow often do you use the service/
database….?
Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate CTM Online with regard to …?
2005200620072008
55%(minimum
)
Every user satisfied
28%
34%
21%28%
24%
17%
29%23%
21%
10%20% 18% 27%
30% 31%39%
2005 2006 2007 2008
Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not aware
Always through a third party
5%
Sometimes personally
25%
Always personally
70%
No users satisfied
+ 11 + 8 +
11
+ 7
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
60
RESULTS: RESULTS: E-FILING CTME-FILING CTM
AGENTS
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate E-Filing CTM with regard to …?
How often do you use the service/ database….? Do you deal with these services personally or
through a third party?Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not aware
51%
20%
17% 19% 21%
36%25% 22% 23%
7% 5% 5% 6%
37%
55%
53%
2005 2006 2007 2008
Always personally
70%
Always through a third party
11%
Sometimes personally
19%
60%64%
59%
73%
64% 62%
54%
71%
59%
51% 53%
70%71%
56% 59%
75%
Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses
2005200620072008
55%(minimum
)
Every user satisfied
No users satisfied
+ 12
+ 5+ 6
+ 5
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
61
RESULTS: RESULTS: E-FILING RCDE-FILING RCD
AGENTS
How often do you use the service/ database….?
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate E-Filing RCD with regard to …?
Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?
Always through a third party
14%
Sometimes personally 21%
Always personally
65%
15%15% 18%
47%46% 41%
18% 12% 18%
27% 23%20%
2006 2007 2008
Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not aware
58% 57%
53%
65%
57%
47% 52%
65%59%
48% 51%
69%
Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses
200620072008
55%(minimum)
Every user
satisfied
No users satisfied
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
62
RESULTS: RESULTS: MY PAGEMY PAGE
How often do you use the service/ database….?
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate My Page with regard to …?
Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?
Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not aware
30%9%9% 10% 13%34%31% 38% 29%
44% 32% 25% 27%
14%27%28%
2005 2006 2007 2008
AGENTS
Always through a third party
7%
Always personally73%
Sometimes personally 20%
57%
50%
58%
66%62%
67% 64%68%
60%
49%
55%
67%68%60%
66%74%
Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses
55%(minimum)
Every user
satisfied
No users satisfied
2005200620072008
+ 11
+ 8+ 11
+ 7
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
63
RESULTS: RESULTS: E-OPPOSITIONE-OPPOSITION
How often do you use the service/ database….?
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate E-Opposition with regard to …?
Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?
AGENTS
15% 14%
49% 49%
20% 21%
16% 15%
2007 2008
Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not awareAlways through
a third party9%
Always personally73%
Sometimes personally
18%
64%
53%61%
70%67%58% 60%
70%
Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses
55%(minimum)
Every user
satisfied
No users satisfied
2007
2008
+ 3 + 5
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
64
RESULTS: RESULTS: E-RenewalE-Renewal
How often do you use the service/ database….?
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate E-Renewal with regard to …?
Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?
AGENTS
Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses
55%(minimum)
Every user
satisfied
No users satisfied
13%
41%
19%
27%
2008
not aware
aware but donot use
sometimes
regularly
58%20%
Always through a third party
Always personallySometimes personally
22%
83%78% 78% 82%
2008
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
65
RESULTS: RESULTS: CTM ONLINECTM ONLINE
PROPRIETORS
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate CTM Online with regard to …?
Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?
Every user
satisfied
No users satisfied
29%
22%19%
25%27%
17%14%
9%12%
21%32% 24% 32%
40% 42%36%
2005 2006 2007 2008
Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not aware Always through a third party
3%
Always personally82%
Sometimes personally 16%
63% 64% 64%71%
65% 68% 67% 71%65% 63% 64%
68%70% 68%73% 75%
Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses
55%(minimum)
2005200620072008
How often do you use the service/ database….?
+ 5 + 5 + 9+ 7
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
66
RESULTS: RESULTS: RCD ONLINERCD ONLINE
How often do you use the service/ database….?
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate RCD Online with regard to …?
Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?
PROPRIETORS
5%
34%
9% 18% 15%
15%
21%23%
21%
28%
59% 51% 59%
23%8%11%
2005 2006 2007 2008
Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not awareAlways through
a third party12%
Always personally67%
Sometimes personally 21%
54% 53% 55%59%
64% 63% 61% 63%62% 62% 64% 65%70% 69%
76%82%
Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses
Every user
satisfied
No users satisfied
55%(minimum)
2005200620072008
+ 8 + 7 + 12
+ 17
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
67
RESULTS: RESULTS: E-FILING CTME-FILING CTM
How often do you use the service/ database….?
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate E-Filing CTM with regard to …?
Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?
15%
29% 25%36%
33%
31%25%
19%
20%
21% 29% 21%32%
19%24%22%
2005 2006 2007 2008
Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not aware
PROPRIETORS
Always through a third party
4%
Always personally81%
Sometimes personally 14%
65% 65% 63%68%
63% 62% 60%
69%
60% 59% 58%
68%68% 67% 70%79%
Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses
Every user
satisfied
No users satisfied
55%(minimum)
2005200620072008
+ 8 + 8 + 12
+ 11
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
68
RESULTS: RESULTS: E-FILING RCDE-FILING RCD
PROPRIETORS
How often do you use the service/ database….?
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate E-Filing RCD with regard to …?
Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?
8%17%
13%
31%31%
29%
53%43%
54%
8% 4%9%
2006 2007 2008
Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not aware
Always through a third party
8%
Always personally72%
Sometimes personally 20%
Every user
satisfied
No users satisfied
55%(minimum)
200620072008
58% 57%53%
67%61%
56% 56%
69%67%63%
68%
78%
Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses
+ 6 + 7 + 12
+ 9
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
69
RESULTS: RESULTS: MY PAGEMY PAGE
How often do you use the service/ database….?
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate My Page with regard to …?
Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?
Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not aware
8%10% 9% 11% 10%24% 19%
26%24%
61% 64%50% 58%
5% 13%7%2005 2006 2007 2008
Always through a third party
4%
Always personally
82%
Sometimes personally 15%
Every user
satisfied
No users satisfied
55%(minimum)
2005200620072008
63% 68%60%
74%64% 63% 66%
76%
54% 55%
54%
61%63% 62% 66%
74%
Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses
PROPRIETORS
+ 9 + 7 + 12
+ 13
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
70
RESULTS RESULTS E-OPPOSITIONE-OPPOSITION
How often do you use the service/ database….?
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate E-Opposition with regard to …?
Do you deal with these services personally or through a third party?
PROPRIETORS
9% 5%
35%33%
52% 59%
5% 3%2007 2008
Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not awareAlways through
a third party8%
Always personally
70%
Sometimes personally 22%
67%58% 57%
76%73% 68% 73%
86%
Ease of use of the system Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security and confidentiality ofprocesses
Every user
satisfied
No users satisfied
55%(minimum)
2007
2008
+ 6 + 10
+ 6+ 10
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
71
RESULTS RESULTS E-RenewalE-Renewal
How often do you use the service/ database….?
For Users regularly + sometimes: How would you evaluate e-Renewal service with regard to the following?
Do you use e-Renewal ....?
PROPRIETORS
Use it regularly Use it sometimes Aware but do not use Not aware
Every user
satisfied
No users satisfied
55%(minimum)
2008
6%
33%
57%
4%
20084%
Always through a third party
8%
Always personally64%
Sometimes personally 28%
84%76% 76%
81%
Ease of use of thesystem
Speed of the system Reliability of the system Security andconfidentiality of
processes
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
72
SUMMARY: E – BUSINESSSUMMARY: E – BUSINESS
% USE (REGULARLY
+ SOMETIMES
AGENTS
E-OPPOSITION 29% 67 ( 3) 58 ( 5) 60 ( 1) 70 (=)
SATISFIED (%)SATISFIED (%)
SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROCESSES
RELIABILITY OF SYSTEM
SPEED OF THE SYSTEM
EASE OF USE OF THE SYSTEM
RCD-ONLINE 53% 75 ( 11) 66 ( 8) 70 ( 11) 74 ( 7)
CTM-ONLINE 91% 83 ( 7) 70 ( 6) 74 ( 8) 78 ( 5)
E-FILING CTM 71% 71 ( 12) 56 ( 5) 59 ( 6) 75 ( 5)
E-FILING RCD 41% 59 ( 2) 48 ( 1) 51 ( 1) 69 ( 4)
MYPAGE 44% 68 ( 8) 60 ( 11) 66 ( 11) 74 ( 7)
E-RENEWAL 40% 83 78 78 82
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
73
SUMMARY: E – BUSINESSSUMMARY: E – BUSINESS
E-OPPOSITION 8% 73 ( 6) 68 ( 10) 73 ( 16) 86 ( 10)
SATISFIED (%)SATISFIED (%)
SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROCESSES
RELIABILITY OF SYSTEM
SPEED OF THE SYSTEM
EASE OF USE OF THE SYSTEM
RCD-ONLINE 20% 70 ( 8) 69 ( 7) 76 ( 12) 82 ( 17)
CTM-ONLINE 56% 70 ( 5) 68 ( 5) 73 ( 9) 75 ( 7)
E-FILING CTM 48% 68 ( 8) 67 ( 8) 70 ( 12) 79 ( 11)
E-FILING RCD 17% 67 ( 6) 63 ( 7) 68 ( 12) 78 ( 9)
MYPAGE 18% 63 ( 9) 62 ( 7) 66 ( 12) 74 ( 13)
E-RENEWAL 10% 83 78 78 82
PROPIETORS
% USE (REGULARLY
+ SOMETIMES)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
74
How does the CTM Online
system performance compare with
the 2007 version?
How does the RCD-ONLINE
system performance compare with
2007?
AGENTS
PROPRIETORSRESULTSRESULTS: e-business
28%
1% 0% 1% 1% 3%
11% 11%16%
12%8% 8%
59%
0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3%8% 8% 6% 7% 6%
Don’tknow
0 = “a lotworse”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“much
better”
47%
1% 0% 0% 1% 1%
7%9% 8% 6% 5% 4%
74%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3%
Don’tknow
0 = “a lotworse”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“muchbetter”
PROPIETORS: 27%
AGENTS: 44%
BETTER (7-10)BETTER (7-10)
PROPIETORS: 11%
AGENTS: 23%
BETTER (7-10)BETTER (7-10)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
75How does RCD e-filing perform compared with
2007?
In 2008, the OHIM made improvements to and/or launched new releases of CTM e-filing RCD e-filing and e-
opposition
How does CTM e-filing perform compared with 2007?
AGENTS
PROPRIETORS
RESULTSRESULTS: e-business
How does e-opposition perform compared with 2007?
Have you noticed worse/better performance for searches/e-filing through MYPAGE?
44%
1% 0% 1% 1% 2%
9% 8%11% 11%
7% 6%
72%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%3% 5% 5% 6%
3% 5%
Don’tknow
0 = “a lotworse”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“muchbetter”
60%
1% 0% 0% 1% 1%7% 5% 6% 6% 4% 4%
78%
0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 3% 1% 4%
Don’tknow
0 = “a lotworse”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“muchbetter”
67%
1% 0% 0% 0% 0%4% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3%
83%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
Don’tknow
0 = “a lotworse”
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 =“muchbetter”
PROPIETORS: 20%
AGENTS: 34%
BETTER (7-10)BETTER (7-10)
PROPIETORS: 11%
AGENTS: 19%
BETTER (7-10)BETTER (7-10)
PROPIETORS: 8%
AGENTS: 16%
BETTER (7-10)BETTER (7-10)
57%74%
34%16%
8% 9%
1%2%
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
Don’t know WORSE NO CHANGE BETTER
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
Results questions
Other
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
77
RESULTS: RESULTS: Simplicity of the fees system, Handling of fees and Simplicity of the fees system, Handling of fees and Handling of OHIM current accountsHandling of OHIM current accounts
Every user satisfied
No users satisfied
67% 67% 68%68% 69%74%
69%68%67%65%65%
70%
0%Simplicity of the fees
systemHandling of fees in
generalHandling of OHIM current
accounts
51% 50%55%
42%
49%52%
48%
53%
56%
48%
57% 57%
Simplicity of the feessystem
Handling of fees ingeneral
Handling of OHIM currentaccounts
55%(minimum)
+ 6
2005200620072008
AGENTS PROPRIETORS
2005200620072008
PROPRIETORS (No:) TOTAL AGENTS (No:)
+ 1 + 4
+ 2 + 1
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
78
RESULTSRESULTSPERCEIVED EVOLUTION OF THE OHIM
Generally speaking, do you feel that the OHIM has performed better than, the same as or worse than last year?
AGENTS
PROPRIETORS
2007
36%
43%
18%
4%
34%
24%
41%
1%
The same
Better
Don’t know
Worse
The same
Better
Don’t know Worse
TOTAL AGENTS (No: 913)
TOTAL PROPRIETORS (No: 685)
2007
The same
40%
20%
Don’t know
4%
Worse
35%
Better
18%The same
18%Better2%
Worse
62%
Don’t know
2008
2008
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
Conclusions
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
80
CONCLUSIONSIDENTIFICATION OF THE NEEDS FOR ACTION
As a summary of everything presented here, main conclusions drawn from the research are:
A significant increase in the overall satisfaction of both types of users (agents and proprietors)
A decrease in the distance between the Propietors’ evaluacions and the Agents’ evaluations.
Significant improvements in satisfaction in all the areas of the core business, in both groups of users.
Improvement in the more negative perception of last year: accessibility of Office employees.
A general increase in the satisfaction with e-business tools, in both groups of users.
An overall perception of improvement in the functioning of the OHIM compared to one year ago.
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
Results by countryANNEX I
82
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
RESULTS BY COUNTRY RESULTS BY COUNTRY
Generally, and Taking into account all the aspects covered by the questionnaire, what is your overall level of satisfaction with the OHIM
as a whole?55%
(minimum)
Every user satisfied
No users satisfied
nº = 290
nº = 95 nº = 80 nº = 87 nº = 92AGENTS
nº = 107
nº = 56 nº = 116
nº = 83 nº = 70PROPRIETORS
On the whole, how would you evaluate ‘THE OHIM’S OVERALL IMAGE’?
55%(minimum
)
83% 79% 79%
63%
86%78%
73% 70% 69%83%
DE ES FR GB IT
Every user satisfied
No users satisfied
73% 70%78%
40%
87%
69% 69% 65% 61%70%
DE ES FR GB IT
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
83
Overall, how would you evaluate the OHIM’S MEANS OF COMMUNICATION WITH AND PROVIDING INFORMATION for its users?
55%(minimum)
Taking into account all aspects, what is your overall level of satisfaction with the OHIM's performance in dealing with COMMUNITY TRADE MARKS?
RESULTS BY COUNTRY RESULTS BY COUNTRY
66%74% 72%
45%
77%69% 67% 65% 63%
72%
DE ES FR GB IT
78% 76% 80%
62%
85%
71% 71%64% 66%
79%
DE ES FR GB ITNo users satisfied
Every user satisfied
No users satisfied
Every user satisfied
nº = 290 nº = 95 nº = 80 nº = 87 nº = 92AGENTSnº = 107 nº = 56 nº = 116 nº = 83 nº = 70PROPRIETORS
nº = 283 nº = 92 nº = 77 nº = 77 nº = 86AGENTS
nº = 96 nº = 51 nº = 97 nº = 62 nº = 65PROPRIETORS
55%(minimum)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
84
How would you evaluate the OHIM’s …. in the issue of documents such as licences, transfers, copies and
certificates?
No users satisfied
Every user satisfied
No users satisfied
Every user satisfied
Every user
satisfied
No users satisfied
swiftness
accuracy
quality
RESULTS BY COUNTRY RESULTS BY COUNTRY
72% 70%62% 62%
85%72%
64%54%
60%67%
DE ES FR GB IT
77% 80%67% 67%
87%85%74%
67%78% 78%
DE ES FR GB IT
78% 77% 74%62%
87%85% 84%
67%75% 78%
DE ES FR GB IT
55%(minimum)
55%(minimum)
55%(minimum)
nº = 133 nº = 69 nº = 51 nº = 65 nº = 62AGENTS
nº = 51 nº = 36 nº = 72 nº = 57 nº = 38PROPRIETOR
S
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
MethodologyANNEX II
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
86As explained in the “Preliminary report for implementing the survey 2005”, the methodology applied was directed at the construction of two different types of information:
The User Satisfaction Index: USI
METHODOLOGYBASIC INDICATORS
between different types of user
Over time
Identification of STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES
Purpose: COMPARISON
Purpose: DIAGNOSIS To establish priorities for the ACTION NEEDS in each
of the various areas of service.
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
87
The User Satisfaction Index (USI) is a synthetic indicator of satisfaction built from the evaluations obtained in the various areas of action making up the service offered by the OHIM to its users.
The USI takes into account:the evaluation obtained for each attribute. the influence (importance) of each attribute in the satisfaction. the percentage of users affected by that attribute.
using statistical correlation analysis
since not all users access the same OHIM services (for example, Trade Mark Applications and Appeals)
METHODOLOGYBasic indicators: USI
The analysis was conducted in “ladder” form, constructing each higher step from the lower steps and following the scheme set out in the following diagram:
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
88
METHODOLOGY CONSTRUCTION OF THE USERS SATISFACTION MODEL
USI (Users Satisfaction Index)
OHIMIMAGE
INFO. & COMMUNIC.COMPLAINTS
LEVEL 1
CORE BUSINESS
LEVEL 2 APPEAL REGISTERCTM RCDOVERALL IMAGE
FILED COMPLAINTS
LEVEL 3OPPOSI-TIONS
INVALI-DITY
STAFF
INVALI-DITY
STAFF
STAFF
APPLICA-TIONS
APPLICA-TIONS
APPLICA-TIONS
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
89
The model is based on the construction of a strategic matrix where it is related the satisfaction with each aspect (TOP BOX) with the influence over the overall evaluation.
Don’t know
010
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
TOP BOX% SATISFIED
USERS
WHY THE TOP BOX AND NOT THE AVERAGE? The average is seen as highly influenced by the high and low points, and experience shows that, consequently, it hides the reality.
20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0% 90,0%
INFLUENCE
SATISFACTION (TOP BOX)
METHODOLOGYIdentification of Strengths and Weaknesses (I)
WHAT IS THE TOP BOX? It is the percentage of SATISFIED USERS, understood as those who give an evaluation (of the aspect in question) situated in any of the four top positions on the scale.
Correlation with global
satisfaction
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
90
IMAGE
20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0% 90,0%
To improve(priority
)
To improve(priority
)
Quadrant A:Strategic
disadvantages
Quadrant A:Strategic
disadvantages
To maintai
n
To maintai
n
Quadrant B:Strategic
advantages
Quadrant B:Strategic
advantages
To watch
To watch
Quadrant C:Advantages with lower strategic
utility
Quadrant C:Advantages with lower strategic
utility
To consider
(secondary)
To consider
(secondary)
Quadrant D:Acceptable
disadvantages
Quadrant D:Acceptable
disadvantages
INFLUENCE
SATISFACTION
METHODOLOGYIdentification of Strengths and Weaknesses (II)
HOW TO READ STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES GRAPHS
Very important and poorly
valued aspects
Very important and highly
valued aspects
Less important and poorly valued
aspects
Less important and highly valued
aspects
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
91
DESIRABLE: 65% o más
METHODOLOGYIdentification of Strengths and Weaknesses (III)
Another important aspect to be defined is the point at which the axis should be cut and, as a result, where the STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES quadrants should be set.
• AXIS OF INFLUENCE (vertical): by definition, and given that this is a relative measurement which is only intended to be arranged hierarchically, this was cut at the mid-point.
•AXIS OF SATISFACTION (horizontal): the question to be answered is “Above what percentage of users satisfied with one aspect can this be regarded as a STRENGTH? As there were no previous comparable experiences, in this study the acceptable minimum was applied as 55% of users, although we recommend trying to improve this figure in future exercises.
20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
INFLUENCE
0% 10%
55% SATISFACTION
EXCELENCE: 85% o más
70% 80% 90% 100%
MINIMUM: 55% users satisfied
OHIM USER SATISFACTION
STUDY
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
92
METHODOLOGYIdentification of Strengths and Weaknesses (IV)
Finally, when interpreting the STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES diagrams, the following must be taken into account:
SIZE OF THE POINTS REPRESENTED:
Point size reflects the VOLUME of users
affected by each aspect
INFLUENCE
SATISFACTION
+
+
-
- 55%
STRATEGIC DISADVANTAGES
ACCEPTABLE
DISADVANTAGES
STRATEGICADVANTAGES
ADVANTAGES WITH LOWER STRATEGIC
UTILITY
APPEAL
RCD
REGISTER
CTM
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 80% 90%In those diagrams were all points are de same size, this
will mean that the aspects measured affect the same
number of users.
THE NUMBER “No: “ : represents the sample (No. of responses) from which information was obtained.
TOTAL AGENTS (No: 714)
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
93
Survey results show that both evaluation criteria and satisfaction levels with OHIM differ when evaluated by
proprietors or by agents. Therefore, their opinions have been analysed separately: the summary analysis of “TOTAL
USERS” would only lead to confusion as it does not represent any of them.
The first conclusion of the 2005 analysis was that it makes no sense to talk about the TOTAL NUMBER OF USERS:
For this reason, all the results of the report are presented separately for each group.
METHODOLOGY¿TOTAL USUERS?
Febrero 2009 OHIM USER SATISFACTION SURVEY 2008 GfK Emer Ad Hoc Research
Responsable del Proyecto e Informe en GfK Emer Ad-Hoc Research:
Ángeles Bacete; e-mail: [email protected]