The name of the International Psychoanalytical Association (“IPA”) has become familiar through long use and application to our work; the values people associate with us are embedded in this name. It is therefore an important part of our reputation which helps us to do our work more effectively. It is important that we do not damage this reputation or allow others to damage it by misusing our name. 


The IPA has long recognised the importance of controlling access to our name: for example, through our policy on its use to endorse conferences. But in the electronically connected modern world it now seems sensible to develop a broader policy. This policy will need to be flexible and judged on a “case by case” basis, since the sheer range of different circumstances do not permit the development of a simple policy which fits every situation. 



The IPA’s name is our signature – it is used on all the activities that we develop and carry out. Anything approved by the Board, ExCom, the officers, or an IPA Committee acting under delegated authority, may carry the IPA’s name. In addition, staff write in the IPA’s name when carrying out administrative business: eg, with taxation authorities, bankers, lawyers, etc. These uses are routine in any similar organisation. 



The IPA sometimes grants the power to other organisations to use the IPA’s name in limited circumstances: eg, our contract with the publishers, Karnac, requires them to use the IPA name and logo on all books they publish as part of our agreement, and in publicity materials associated with them. 


In addition, many organisations seek to use the IPA’s name as an “endorsement” of their own activities. Our policy for conferences recognises several different classes of activity where this endorsement is sought. Our procedural code includes this entry: 


5. Approaches from other individuals or organisations ... [for] conferences that are IPA branded, but with no IPA risk. It will require a written agreement confirming that the IPA bears no liability and details of how the logo can be used and where the logo should be displayed. 

[Source: http://www.ipa.org.uk/en/IPA/Procedural_Code/Policy_on_Conferences.aspx]  


Each conference application is judged on its merits. 



The IPA is sometimes asked to endorse a university course – usually one leading to a Masters degree. While these requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis, the IPA will generally favour requests which: 

·        come from more than one university (eg, a consortium, particular preference being given to a consortium which is inter-regional in nature); or 

·        have been endorsed by one of the relevant local societies. 


The course should be an official university course, not one which happens to be held on university premises or taught by some university staff. 



Sometimes individual IPA Members, or groups of Members, use the IPA name for their own activities. While this may seem reasonable, in fact they are using the organisation’s name without permission and in ways which may put the IPA’s reputation at risk – for example, by organising an advocacy event on a topic which within psychoanalysis or the wider world is controversial. It is not fair for one group of Members to do this without prior approval. 



ExCom will decide on behalf of the Board whether or not to agree an application for IPA endorsement by a Member, group of Members or another organisation. 


In reaching its decision, ExCom will take into account: 

1)          Will it help the IPA to achieve its strategic and charitable objectives (the reason we exist)? 

2)        Will it provide financial gain to an individual, a group, or to other organisations (eg, through increased sales)? If yes, will a share of that gain be given to the IPA? In general, ExCom will look more favourably on requests which will benefit not-for-profit organisations, and less favourably on requests which will benefit for-profit organisations. 

3)        Will it compete with any IPA activity or make it more difficult for the IPA to achieve anything it wishes to do (eg, through creating political difficulties)? 

4)        Will it involve any reputational risk to the IPA – and is the risk properly mitigated, and properly balanced against the possible benefits? 


Change Log 

Approved by the Board July 2015 


*This change record is for background information only and does not form part of the Procedural Code. If there is any conflict between a statement in the Procedural Code and a statement in this change record, the change record will be disregarded.